Does the film ever mention that Lincoln was a Republican?
hmmm....this must be what “they” refer to as “dumbing-down” “the folks”.....
Semper Watching!
*****
Going by what we can hear from the movie previews, I think they might be the first film makers to accurately portray Lincoln’s voice. By all of the accounts that I’ve read, Lincoln had a higher pitched voice. Most all of the documentaries, TV shows, and movies I’ve seen have Lincoln with a deep ‘grandfatherly’ voice, which is actually quite the opposite.
I also don’t like how he has always been portrayed as being some sort of saintly figure, while he was a tyrant, IMHO. However, as we all know, the victors(and liberals) write the history of events.
My family will never pay for any Spielberg-Tom Hanks product;
Why?
They make movies about feats of courage and bravery—Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, The Pacific—then turn around and donate the maximum to Obama’s campaign, who is on a jihad to destroy the United States and its military
Lincoln’s unwillingness to compromise on principles likely led to more deaths of prisoners of war, on both sides; after he quit agreeing to anymore exchanges of prisoners as long as the Confederate government continued to insist on separate and unequal terms for black prisoners.
During that period conditions at the notorious Andersonville prison camp in Georgia continued to deteriorate - while northern ministers pleaded with Lincoln to agree with the south’s terms on prisoner exchanges - and it was during that time that an uncle of my mom’s grandfather died - from starvation followed by suicide - at Andersonville.
Conditions at prisoner of war camps were horrible, on both sides of the war. Disease and illness was rampant in the northern camps and food was scarce in the south. Andersonville just happened to be one of the worst, in part because of its very large size. And as much as the suffering moved Lincoln personally, he would not agree to separate terms for black prisoners. He argued that doing so made a mockery of the war effort itself.
It was as unpopular of a decision in the north as it was in the south. I think Lincoln carried within himself his own suffering for some decisions he felt he had to make, unpopular as they sometimes were, and knowing they did not relieve suffering he knew would continue. It is the suffering Lincoln that I see in the late photos of him.
There is one major point that many are missing.
Even after a civil war, the President, the congress nor the Supreme Court could end slavery in this nation. It took a constitutional amendment to do that.
How things have changed. Now all three branches of government go willy nilly making fundamental changes in our society, many illegal, many against the will of the people and many unconstitutional.
We are now at the point where our constitutional means whatever those in power says it means.
The last defense of our freedom from a powerful government was the Supreme Court to keep the other two branches in line.
We no longer have that protection. The importance of the last election was about who would be nominated to the next seat on the supreme court. That selection will most likely be made by Obama and get rubber stamped by the Democrat controlled Senate.
All is not lost. There is one last thing that can be done. The states must begin writing constitutional amendments to get the federal government back under control.
One of the first I would suggest would be to return the choice for Senators back to the states.
The second things would be to limit the commerce clause to what the founders intended, a way to control trade between states not as a hammer to beat the citizens into submission.
The third would be to limit a President to engage in military action without a full declaration of war. Allow 30 days if this nation is attacked but no longer without a declaration of war.
The fourth would be to restrict the payment of public money. Welfare should not be a federal government’s responsibility.
Fifth, raise voting age back to 21. Face it, 18 year old do not have the maturity to make some decisions. And don’t give me the old “if they are old enough to fight for the country they are old enough to vote” crap. As an 18 year infantryman in Viet Nam I still was not allowed to vote until I was 21 -
I can think of a few more. But these are just a start.
Is this what the writer (and Speilberg) is saying?
“But unlike many politicians, OBAMA was at considerable risk to both his political fortunes and his legacy, willing to fight for the unpopular position on AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE simply because, above everything else, he knew it was right.”
And
“But in deciding to tell the story on a small scale, the director has brought attention to OBAMA the man - rather than OBAMA the legend - and made this great leader into a relatable figure who achieved greatness by never backing down from the principle that all men should have HEALTH INSURANCE.
Everything out of Hollywood should be considered suspect. I’ll never feed the beast again.
IMHO Lincoln is vastly over rated.
I do not see him as a “great” president.
He presided over the deaths of 625,000 Americans who killed each other in the 1861–1865 war (Civil War, War of Northern Aggression - take your pick). Not to mention the more than 300,000 wounded.
A great president would have found a less bloody way to resolve the conflict.
At the very least, a great president would have reigned in the northern forces when the ultimate outcome became clear.
But Lincoln allowed his generals to pursue a scorched earth policy out of pure vengeance and vindictiveness. They needlessly terrorized and plundered the civilian population of the south.
Even after 150 years, the rancor. distrust, and resentment resulting from his poor judgement, weak leadership and these destructive actions plague the nation to this day,
I walked by the television (I don’t watch, my wife does) last night, and saw some clips from the movie, and they had this woman talking and offering commentary. I had seen her somewhere before, and then it occurred to me:
It was Doris Kearns-Goodwin.
I know I shouldn’t be, but I was shocked, and blurted out to my unappreciative wife in a loud voice: “I think that is Doris Kearns-Goodwin! What is that old plagarizing hag doing on national television offering commentary on anything?”
But, with even more anger, I remembered that if you are a liberal, that revolving door for soldierly liberals is always open, because they know the vast majority of idiots who watch their programming will forget a murder by a liberal a minute after it happens.
Just a plagarizing historian on national television offering her commentary. No harm, no foul.
There are reports elsewhere that the book the movie is based on is not telling the truth. There are no historical records showing Lincoln spent those months shown in the film pushing through what became the 13th Amendment (Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865). He and Grant were busy fighting the war. The Republican abolitionists got the amendment moving after Lincoln’s death as one the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War.
The movie is a feel good story, but just that a story.
I wonder if it shows The Noble President working to deport all of America’s blacks to Central America, the Caribbean and Africa once he had freed them?
or is that non-modern part of Saint Abe too inconvenient to be allowed to intrude upon the modern myth?