Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spielberg's Lincoln Movie
Personal writing | November 16, 2012 | Garland Favorito

Posted on 11/16/2012 7:27:33 AM PST by BobNative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: LS

I saw that one too. It is probably better than this movie.


61 posted on 11/16/2012 9:55:16 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Actually, the author did a heckuva lot of historical work to tie in the real history with the vampire story.


62 posted on 11/16/2012 9:59:17 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bagman
Fort Sumter is fired upon on April 12.

Right.

63 posted on 11/16/2012 10:01:06 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Why would ANY conservative give money to liberal Hollywood? It’s nuts. Let’s show more pride than paying the kapo to beat us.


64 posted on 11/16/2012 10:10:01 AM PST by GOPJ (The economy is so bad MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen - Leno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan

Reagan was OK. I don’t like that he gave us amnesty for millions of illegals and the machine gun ban of 1986. His pressidential library is in California, not Illinos. Perhaps he considered himself a Californian?


65 posted on 11/16/2012 10:12:09 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
I'm sorry, but anyone that cannot recognize that slavery was the only reason for the civil war is simply deluding themselves.

Yes, yes, state's rights, industrial tarriffs, property rights, the 10th amendment, etc etc; but every single argument resolved down to slavery and the economics built upon it.

I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... It was only the war that ended the evil of slavery and it was Lincoln that made certain that slavery was ended.

Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.

66 posted on 11/16/2012 10:13:56 AM PST by GOPJ (The economy is so bad MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen - Leno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bagman

McClellan was a coward and traitor pure and simple. Furthermore, he ran against Lincoln as...a Democrat!


67 posted on 11/16/2012 10:14:02 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
I'm sorry, but anyone that cannot recognize that slavery was the only reason for the civil war is simply deluding themselves. Yes, yes, state's rights, industrial tarriffs, property rights, the 10th amendment, etc etc; but every single argument resolved down to slavery and the economics built upon it.

I'm with you on this - anyone who thinks it wasn't 'slavery' needs to read the Lincoln/Douglas debates... You're right - Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.

68 posted on 11/16/2012 10:15:37 AM PST by GOPJ (The economy is so bad MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen - Leno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BobNative

Another producer, writer faux historian making a buck off of reconstructed history, the Lincoln Fairy Tale™. Sic semper tyrannis.


69 posted on 11/16/2012 10:18:38 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bagman
I think that the matter is a little more complicated...No, you over-simplify the matter

And I think you're blowing smoke. All the nuancing in the world will not cause me to ignore the obvious.

70 posted on 11/16/2012 10:25:35 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: yadent

You cannot separate the tariff issue from the slavery issue, they are connected


71 posted on 11/16/2012 10:30:52 AM PST by PaulZe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Thank you


72 posted on 11/16/2012 10:33:57 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BobNative
I think that you have embraced some facts that are true but have drawn incorrect conclusions from them. There are some larger aspects that you may want to reflect on.

Why did a South in which only a relative minority owned slaves go to war to keep slavery as an expression of its supposed state sovereignty? For the South, freeing the slaves was recognized to be the end of one set of familiar problems and the beginning of other problems with no clear solutions -- problems that would affect every white Southerner, not just the slave holders.

First, once the slaves were freed, how would they house, clothe, and feed themselves, and how would the South's rural plantation economy function without their labor? How would slaveholders be compensated?

Second, if empowered with the vote and civil liberties equal to whites, impoverished and ignorant freed slaves could be expected to make their influence felt, resulting in corruption, the election of unsuitable officials, and high spending and taxes. There would be much detriment to whites in general and to the property owning class in particular.

Third, the presence of a large, poor, uneducated, restive and resentful mass of freed Black slaves would give rise to an enduring race problem. Notably, the Northern states were unwilling to accept freed slaves into their own states. That was too much trouble, and trouble of a kind that the South was better equipped to deal with and deserving the burdens of as punishment of a sort of rough justice.

As it was, after the failure of Reconstruction and much turmoil and hardship, the eventual resolution for the Southern agrarian economy was a combination of sharecropping , Black farmers on small free holdings, and a large pool of menial Black servants and laborers useful to Southern whites.

Copying laws from the North, virtually all the South adopted a rigid system of Jim Crow laws and a social code that marginalized Blacks for generations. Literacy and property requirements, poll taxes, and other manipulations that severely restricted the right to vote and ended the brief era of relative Black political power in the South.

Might events have taken a better course if Lincoln had lived? Maybe, maybe not. The profound discontinuity of the Civil War changed the country and changed Lincoln, moving both toward advocating greater equality between the races, while remaining uncomfortable with the many problems of applying the principle in practice.

Thus the Civil War led Lincoln far beyond his previous views as to race, and the failure of his African colonization efforts made clear that country would have to find a new path forward that accepted the permanence of a a massive population of former Black slaves.

Yet the contours of history are not as malleable as they may seem, and it is quite possible -- even likely -- that Reconstruction under Lincoln would have failed like it did under Johnson and Grant.

73 posted on 11/16/2012 10:39:26 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
"thank God for.. Lincoln"

ditto.

74 posted on 11/16/2012 10:42:21 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lone star annie

What was the bunch of Yankees telling the residents of SC to do?


75 posted on 11/16/2012 10:46:09 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PaulZe

They were connected in the fact that the North attempted to use the slavery issue to coerce the South into paying the tariffs/taxes and the South used the slavery issue to ‘fire the Southern heart’ when it was thought that the South could not be brought into unanimity about the tariffs. Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address showed his hand. If the South paid the tariffs/taxes they could keep their slaves. According to Lincoln’s own words the horrid institution of slavery was acceptable but not paying ‘taxes’ meant war.


76 posted on 11/16/2012 10:52:40 AM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner
Having said that I think true history points to Lincoln as being the greatest president in our history...

No, Washington was the greatest. He was "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen"

77 posted on 11/16/2012 1:36:35 PM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gotribe
Slavery was made legal again in the 1960s.

Absolutely. Sexual slavery, economic slavery, cultural slavery, ideological slavery, etc... It all came with the false flag of freedom.

78 posted on 11/16/2012 1:41:01 PM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost; LS; rockrr
And yet you are apparently totally at a loss to point out any of the imagined fallacies.

Maybe he's just tired of this ignorant neoconfederate s___t excreted month after month, year after year.

Just about everybody is at this point.

Fortunately, there are always new people coming in who still have the energy and the interest to dissect this garbage.

Whoever wrote the article has a simplistic view of politics and 19th century American history. Just about everybody who entered major party electoral politics when Lincoln did would have to live with slavery in ways that no one today has to. No one who was elected to major offices could have been a passionate and uncompromising self-professed abolitionist.

It's surprising that Illinois's (not very vigorously enforced) constitutional provision is used to attack Lincoln. Should we then assume that every politician, soldier, or citizen from a slave state was likewise tainted by the policy of his state?

Lincoln's letter to Greeley refers to preserving the union as his "paramount object" not his only intent. It was an expression of his government's policy, not of his private feelings. Obviously, Lincoln's refusal to compromise on the expansion of slavery to the territories indicates that he did have a firm position that he wouldn't compromise on, and the speculation at the time was that slavery couldn't survive without expansion.

Nor was it clear that Lincoln ever intended to "colonize all African Americans." The idea was voluntary colonization. Lincoln's expressed intention in 1865 to extend the right to vote to Black veterans indicates that there was no plan or intention to deport or expel all African-Americans.

Tariffs weren't the cause of secession or of the war. The North wasn't notably less free than the South during the war years. Hostile editors and agitators weren't treated better in the South than in the North. Lincoln didn't start the war, and he certainly didn't "personally directed key activities of the Union Army."

George Armistead's nephew Lewis took up arms against the United States. If his grandson was of the same opinion, was it scandalous or surprising if he was imprisoned? Would he have fared any better if he'd been a self-professed and active unionist in rebel territory?

79 posted on 11/16/2012 2:02:55 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Lost causers annoy me to no end.


80 posted on 11/16/2012 3:33:21 PM PST by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson