-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 104 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Another Perspective
A Sacred Effort
Lincoln is not perfect. But it ascribes majesty where it belongs and cites American democracy as a noble experiment.
The new movie Lincoln was appropriately timed for release in time for Thanksgiving, which President Lincoln declared a national holiday. And this week is the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. There’s much to thank God for in the accomplishments of Abraham Lincoln, including his aggressive push for the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, on which the movie focuses. Daniel Day-Lewis is superb as Lincoln, possibly the best Lincoln portrayal ever, or at least since Raymond Massey.
Unlike Robert Redford’s somewhat ridiculous movie The Conspirator last year, which tried to exonerate Lincoln assassination conspirator Mary Surratt, Steven Spielberg’s recreation of Civil War era Washington is good. The movie actually filmed in Richmond and Petersburg. The very dome-less Virginia Capitol was electronically morphed into the U.S. Capitol. One scene ostensibly showing incendiary radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens inside the U.S. Capitol actually shows the famous 1788 statue of George Washington inside the Virginia Capitol. Otherwise, most of the Victorian interiors, especially in the White House, seem right. I’m not sure, but the purported U.S. House of Representatives chamber may actually be the restored old Illinois statehouse. I don’t think the current U.S. House chamber, built in the 1850s, ever had windows, and in the movie, sunshine flows in during key debates.
All the performances are competent. But members of Lincoln’s cabinet, except for Secretary of State William Seward, get short shrift, despite the movie’s sourcing from Doris Godwin’s cabinet-focused Team of Rivals. Although now too old, Gene Hackman at some point in his career should have portrayed the impatient, severe, and indispensable War Secretary Edwin Stanton, whose petulant appearance here is too short. Aged Hal Holbrook is suitable as political patriarch Francis Preston Blair, ensconced in his still today famous house across the street from the White House. Sally Field as First Lady Mary Todd captures Mrs. Lincoln’s intelligent humanity and impending derangement.
Tommy Lee Jones purportedly steals the show as surly Thaddeus Stevens — though Daniel Day-Lewis needn’t worry. The final scene of the club footed and bewigged abolitionist from Pennsylvania sees Stevens in bed with his black housekeeper and mistress, to whom he proudly exhibits the just passed anti-slavery amendment. History is not certain of the bachelor’s intimacy with his mixed race, longtime maid to whom he bequeathed a small fortune. But the evidence for it is greater than for the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings myth. Here the affair commends his racial virtue. In the racist “Birth of a Nation” film a century ago, the character based on Stevens is villainized through his black mistress.
Although the movie is about liberating enslaved blacks, the only major black character is Elizabeth Keckley, a former slave who bought her own freedom as a renowned Washington seamstress, and who later becomes a companion to Mrs. Lincoln. Ironically, she previously worked for Mrs. Jefferson Davis when the future Confederate president was still a U.S. senator. Too bad the movie had no room for Frederick Douglass, who famously fought his way into a White House reception after Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, whose delivery is the closing scene. Lincoln had beckoned him in through the crowd when blacks at such events were still unusual, so as to as solicit his view of the speech. “A sacred effort,” Douglass pronounced, eliciting Lincoln’s grateful smile.
Also sad is that Lincoln’s most triumphal moment is omitted, though it would have fit perfectly with Spielberg’s theme. Lincoln’s entrance into captured Richmond, where he was greeted by ecstatic crowds of then freed blacks in the streets, as wary whites quietly observed from their windows, culminated with his visiting the Confederate White House and sitting in Jeff Davis’s chair. To one former slave who knelt before him, Lincoln reputedly implored to kneel only before God.
Instead Lincoln is shown with General Ulysses Grant shortly before at Petersburg, deeply introspective over the carnage. For a brief moment General Robert Lee is shown silently leaving his surrender to Grant at Appomattox. The actor portraying Lee seems portlier than Lee is known to have been at the time, from the iconic Mathew Brady photo just days later at Lee’s Richmond house. (Lee wasn’t always slim and did enlarge during earlier, sedentary parts of the war.) Grant is portrayed adequately as taciturn, though he tells Lincoln how much he has aged, which seems a little unlike him.
Lincoln himself is shown as even tempered, except when arguing with his wife, or for dramatic effect with his cabinet. In one unlikely scene he slaps his adult son for whining over his father’s refusal to allow him into the army. But Lincoln was lax with his children, whom others saw as undisciplined, and he didn’t likely hit any of them at any age. He was distant with his eldest, who later recalled that his total time with his father during the presidency could be numbered in minutes.
With his son, Lincoln is seen approaching a church, which turns out to be a hospital. Too bad there is not even fleeting admittance of Lincoln’s growing spirituality during the war, amplified by the death of one young son. He spent a lot of time at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, to whose pastor he was close, as well as attending many other churches, sometimes with cabinet members.
This movie is not perfect. But it ascribes majesty where it belongs, to Lincoln and the battle against slavery. It contrasts with the cynical nihilism characterizing much of Hollywood, and cites American democracy as a noble experiment. Lincoln the movie, as Frederick Douglass said to its subject, is a sacred effort.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (149) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/21/a-sacred-effort
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 11.21.12 @ 7:07AM
Lincoln was not zeroed in on freeing the slaves. Indeed, he said that if he could preserve the union and not free a single slave, he would do so. Lincoln was a socialist and quite different from the usual portrayals of him in the movies. A good, accurate fictional depiction of Lincoln is found in Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South."
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:17AM
Guns of the South, that's the one where the South Africans arm the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47s at Chancellorsville, right? Yeah, that's got to be the authoritative source for info on Lincoln, all right.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:49AM
Just one other plot twist in Guns of the South that seems worth mentioning: the South Africans are late 20th Century South Africans who have found a way to travel back in time to the 19th-Century U.S. Civil War in order to distribute the Kalashnikovs and the ammo for them.
Edward White| 11.21.12 @ 10:10AM
Sally Field, playing Abraham Lincoln's emotionally tormented wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, turns in a commanding performance.
Field lobbied hard for the role and did extensive research to capture the complex first lady, who modern observers believe may have suffered from bipolar disorder. Field immersed herself in biographies and books about the era, and visited Mary's home and collections of Lincoln memorabilia.
Edward White| 11.21.12 @ 10:17AM
The F word appears frequently in the movie, and is spoken at least twice in Lincoln's presence.
At one point I thought I heard Lincoln say f***ing. My wife wasn't sure, but she thought he said it also.
Attention to detail is what I demand of period movies. I believe in the 19th century the F word would have been used only by the lowest classes, and only in constrained situations.
I don't know why it has to appear in this epic film. Lincoln does have the medicine of the schoolroom about it, so maybe Tony Kushner, the screenwriter, wanted to spice things up a bit.
The F word does not belong in the film.
Grizzley| 11.21.12 @ 10:22AM
The movie is too long, and the starring role belongs to the 13th Amendment. At times the movie is almost insufferable in its tedium.
Mr. White is correct in saying Linoln has the "medicine of the schoolroom about it." But this is a school teacher's lesson about the 13th amendmend aimed at adults. Children--teenagers--will hate it.
Grizzley| 11.21.12 @ 10:24AM
But the production values are superb--the kind Speilberg always delivers.
Gr0w1er601| 11.22.12 @ 12:50PM
With respect to "Saving Private Ryan", production values excellent; screenplay bordering on the absurd.
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.12 @ 11:17AM
I've read that the F word was not used during that age except to describe the act. "The Story American Civil War Soldiers Wouldn't Tell" is a source, although it has been a long time since I read the volume.
Edward White| 11.21.12 @ 12:09PM
Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
I found the casual use of the word in the film a little jarring.
If any other readers know anything about the F word's use during the 19th century, please let us know. I agree with Mr. Jenkins that it was not used casually, and was only used to describe the sexual act.
I am surprised that Speilberg would allow the word to lower the tone of the otherwise fine, but didactive movie.
And Grizzley is correct that the starring role belongs to the 13th Amendment and is as earnest and instructive as "a school teacher's lesson."
Gr0w1er601| 11.22.12 @ 12:44PM
All too often Hollyweird screen writer types working on period pieces give in to the temptation of writing dialogue in whatever current vernacular they themselves converse in. It reveals them to be exactly what they are: lazy and shallow.
Aristocat| 11.21.12 @ 11:39PM
Both sides were wrong: Lincoln for invading the South and killing American citizens and shredding the Constitution, and the South for slavery and invading northern states.
But the greater guilt is on Lincoln, because we still have the monstrous central government crushing the states and their citizens, while slavery would have faded away pretty quickly..
Not worth the lives lost, in today's terms, about 10 million.
Quartermaster| 11.21.12 @ 11:39PM
So? Your point is that a depiction of someone in fiction can not possibly be accurate? The you try to poison the well against Appleby by referring to a device by Turtledove in an effort to make out that he is some racist monster simply because he pointed to what he thought was an accurate depiction of Lincoln?
Just another faux conservative you are Mr. Bill.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:15PM
That's me, authentically faux.
Aristocat| 11.21.12 @ 11:39PM
Both sides were wrong: Lincoln for invading the South and killing American citizens and shredding the Constitution, and the South for slavery and invading northern states.
But the greater guilt is on Lincoln, because we still have the monstrous central government crushing the states and their citizens, while slavery would have faded away pretty quickly..
Not worth the lives lost, in today's terms, about 10 million.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:12AM
Lincoln believed that slavery would wither away and die of its own if it could be restricted to the slave states. He believed the Union (i.e., the Constitution) was the only long-term answer on the slavery question. He was not a socialist.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:54AM
"Lincoln believed that slavery would wither away and die of its own if it could be restricted to the slave states."
Uh, Vern, this is what the Confederates thought. Your idea that Lincoln believed the Union was the long term answer to slavery? What's your source for this? Is this source a Yankee source which would obviuosly be biased and therefore untrustworthy? Inquiring minds want to know.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 12:01PM
JimP, the Confederates insisted on slavery in the western territories.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 5:14PM
Ver, Vern, Vern. You poor confused sod. What's your source please. Name your source.
Yeah the Rebs wanted slavery in the western territories according to the Missouri Compromise. So what? The Rebs thuoght slavery would eventually die out whether they stayed in theUnion or not. You have many opinions, Vern, but so little actual knowledge.
Now please show some gonads and give me your source that said the Union/Constitution was the long term answer to slavery. I've never heard or run across this 'fact' in 50+ years of reading and researching the history of this era.
Quartermaster| 11.21.12 @ 11:45PM
He has no source. Period. He is a victim of the conformist hackery that passes as history on the war of northern aggression. It's too easy to buy off on appeals to authority, and seductive, I might add. It is a shame that so many historians write what they want the facts to be rather than what the facts actually were.
Lincoln just wanted to force the Confederates back into the raw deal Lincoln's handlers had been handing them for years. Slavery was not even an issue until it seemed he could use ti as a political ploy.
The evidence of Lincoln ever reaching the point he became a Christian is nonexistent. Those closest to him, John Hay, and his former law partner Herndon said he never changed his religious opinions, and that he lived and died an infidel. Had he been a christian he would never have prosecuted a war for which he had no lawful authority to prosecute, and if he had come to Christ during the war he would have been compelled to end his war. Instead, he destroyed a people that had the legal right to leave, and nearly destroyed the north as well. Lawlessness has a tendency to do that, as this country is about to have demonstrated to it in the near future.
RCV| 11.22.12 @ 11:19AM
The reality is that slavery was an unmitigated moral evil, the brutal treatment of three million human beings as someone else's property. Whether it would have "died out" eventually is beside the point. Lincoln is and will remain a giant in American history both for ending that abomination, and for preserving the American Union and for help forging us into a nation. Secession was flatly unconstitutional from a legal standpoint.
Aristocat| 11.21.12 @ 11:37PM
Both sides were wrong: Lincoln for invading the South and killing American citizens and shredding the Constitution, and the South for slavery and invading northern states.
But the greater guilt is on Lincoln, because we still have the monstrous central government crushing the states and their citizens, while slavery would have faded away pretty quickly..
Not worth the lives lost, in today's terms, about 10 million.
Quartermaster| 11.21.12 @ 11:48PM
The south did not "invade" until after Lincoln started his illegal war. After that, the south had the right to prosecute the war in self defense and if that meant invading the north, they the right to do so.
It should be pointed out that Lincoln illegally kept the Maryland legislature from voting secession. IT was one in a long line of illegal acts for which norther apologists try to use military necessity to defend. The war was illegal, therefore, there is no defense of any form that will succeed in defending Lincoln and the northern people he duped into fighting a legally independent country.
RCV| 11.22.12 @ 11:21AM
Not worth it to you, of course, but then you weren't someone else's property.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 8:01AM
Why is Mr. Tooley, whom we presume to be a "conservative" since he's writing here, first talking about the "American democracy". Again the Founders universally detested that form of government. Franklin outside Independence Hall supposedly said "A republic if you can keep it." (Apparently we couldn't.) John Adams said no democracy ever survived. Jefferson said it was a way for 51 % of the people to rip off the other 49 %. But we leave it to Madison, the father of the Constitution to have the final word: "Democracy is the most vile form of government." So why do conservatives talk about "democracy" in any positive sense? Why isn't his institute named "Religion and Republic"?
But to the subject at hand. Lincoln of course never freed a single slave and cared nothing about them. He like most of his contemporaries was horribly racist and he was a firm supporter of the back to Africa movement which established what ultimately was the country of Liberia. The much praised "Emancipation Proclimation" freed not a single slave. Slavery continued in states like Delaware and KY until the end of war.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:21AM
We talk about the American experiment as being a "democracy" because it's handy shorthand for the more awkward term "government by consent of the governed," which just doesn't have that same pithiness about it.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:46AM
Using the term "republic," which some people used to do commonly three or four generations ago, for some reason seems to have fallen in disuse. To my ear (and tongue) it seems more awkward than "democracy," although it's a more precisely descriptive term.
Quartermaster| 11.21.12 @ 11:50PM
A constitutional republic is not a democracy. Democracy is simply a form of mob rule, with no limitation. That's why the left like the word democracy. It is lawlessness enshrined, and the Dimocrats and GOP establishment prove it regularly.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:16PM
Yeah, but the discussion was about the shorthand term, not about the reality, just about how people term it.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:15AM
Lincoln of course cared deeply about the slaves, and he was no more or less racist than anyone else of that time, even up until the 1960s. He like Madison supported repatriation to Liberia. That was the "liberal" alternative to slavery. The EP did not free slaves who were part of the Union simply because Lincoln believed a Constitutional amendment was required to do that. He freed slaves in the rebel states out of military necessity. Lincoln cared about the Constitution, unlike Confederates.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:24AM
Nice hagiogrpahic spin there Vern. You should be working in D.C. for the statists who 'toil' there for our 'benefit'.
Quartermaster| 11.21.12 @ 11:55PM
If Lincoln had cared for the Constitution, he would not have prosecuted an illegal war against the south. To say he cared for slaves, or the law of this country requires one to ignore the facts on the ground. Lincoln was deeply racist and could not have cared less about freeing slaves. He opposed the 13th amendment.
The bidness about "military necessity" does not excuse Lincoln either. Since the war was illegal, everything he did to prosecute the war was illegal. As a result of his attitudes and what he forced down the country's throat resulted in an overly empowered FedGov that has now utterly escaped its constitutional cage. Obama is simply the latest incarnation of Lincoln. Until you bring yourself to realize that, you will never win the battle against the Dimocrats, and you deserve to lose when you won't admit to basic problems in teh country.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:18PM
Well, Lincoln was kind of backed into a corner when Charlestonians fired on Fort Sumter, reducing it to rubble and forcing the surrended of the Federal force manning it. He had to do something.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:18PM
"Surrender," that is.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 8:06AM
But Lincoln's approach to the dealing with war was questionable too. He like many of his successors routinely violated civil liberties, mostly for nothing. The Supreme Court of 1866 dealt with this and here in part is what they said:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, EQUALLY IN WAR AND PEACE, [emphasis mine] and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times under all circumstaces." They continued: "No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that of any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism . . . "
They were right then and they are right now. The Founders would totally agree with that. Madison stated "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."
We of course see that today in the NDAA language. So no, I'm not a huge fan of old Abe for a lot of reasons.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 8:33AM
I haven’t seen the movie and therefore only have this review to go by, but it sounds like just another example of hagiographic horse manure about Lincoln and the “Civil” War. Here’s why: 1) In March 1861 Lincoln wrote a letter imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln sent the same request to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that would have made Southern slavery constitutionally "irrevocable." The amendment passed after the lower South had seceded, suggesting that it was passed with almost exclusively Northern votes. Lincoln, who said he would sign the amendment, and the entire North were perfectly willing to enshrine slavery, in all the states where slave holding still existed, forever in the Constitution if the Southern states would not secede; 2) The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure intended to undermine the Confederate war effort. It only ‘freed’ slaves in areas of the Confederacy NOT controlled by Union forces. Yes you read that correctly;
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 8:33AM
3) At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of February 1865- only three months before Appamattox-, which was initiated by Lincoln, he stated that the Proclamation was only a war measure and as soon as (if) the war ceased, it would have no operation for the future. Thereby leaving those slaves still in bondage, in bondage.
These are just three facts, and there are many more, that prove that Lincoln and the North were not fighting to end slavery and in fact were pretty indifferent about it in the majority. The movie it would seem is just more propaganda to advance the myth that the “Civil” War was fought by the North to free the slaves. To paraphrase Henry Ford, this idea is bunk.
ncatty| 11.21.12 @ 9:45AM
Who claims that the North fought the Civil War in order to free the slaves? You have set up a straw man and then knocked him down.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:00AM
The idea that the North fought the war for the purpose of freeing slaves is so commonplace I didn't think anyone disputed it. I had no particular individual in mind. It's no straw man, it's based on my actual life long strong experience. When confronted with these facts about the North's motives, people typically then resort to claiming it was about saving the Union because secession is illegal, etc. This is another myth. Lincoln himself stated it was a right to secede in his statement before Congress in 1848.
ncatty| 11.21.12 @ 10:12AM
So if the North didn't fight to end slavery, and didn't fight because secession was illegal, why did they fight?
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:26AM
It was fought because the South fired on Fort Sumter. They seceded because Lincoln was elected President. All Lincoln had wanted to do was keep slavery out of the western territories, but that was not good enough for the slavocrats. Slavery had to go everywhere in their twisted politics.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:59AM
Not true, Vern. Shame, sahme. You are trying to influence people by lying again. The South wanted slavery to spread west according to The Missouri Compromise only. Say, Vern, you being such an enlightened, anti- slavery type guy, tell us why the Northern abolisitionists never said one word about the Northern slave trade to and from Africa, which was outlawed by Congress in 1809 and which continued right up to the "Civil" War. How come the North had NO PROBLEM with the middle passage? Huh, Vern? Huh?
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 11:05AM
There you go again, Vern. Lincoln favored the "Morrill Tax. This tax would have tripled taxes on guess who? The South which was already paying 70+% of the taxes. Had been doing so for decades and seeing 80% of the taxes collected being spent in the North. Lincoln wanted to violate the Missouri Compromise. Of course slave holding states would not tend to agree with violating a contract. Poor old Abe. All he wanted to do was stick it to one region of the country for the sole benefit of his own region of the country. Abe was a victim./sarc
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:29AM
Read your history, 'ncatty', and you will find that the North predominantly wanted to let the South go until they remembered that the South was paying 70+% of ALL federal taxes. These taxes were, and had been for decades, used to pay for Northern public works projects (that's "shovel ready" for your level of understanding). Eighty percent of All federal taxes were spent on Northern projects, and had been for decades prior to the South seceding. Read the editorials of the time and Lincoln and his own cabinets' papers. They admit that if they let the South go, there goes their funding. Then the cry became 'War on those damn Rebel traitors'. Again, start reading. You are ignorant of your own country's history.
ncatty| 11.21.12 @ 10:37AM
So the North spent a fortune to defeat the South in order to fund their Northern public works? Yes, I missed that part of US history.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:44AM
Yes. Now you are starting to get it, ncatty. You HAVE missed that part of US History. The amount spent to force the South to remain in the Union was a pittance compared to the long term taxes that would be collected, not to mention the other economic benefits to keeping the South in the Union. We all now that you don't know squat about economics either. Do the research wise guy. Like Vern, I'm sure you will not.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:37AM
Could you supply a non-Confederate source for the idea that Lincoln said he couldn't let the south go because there goes the funding? I don't mean quotations from Di Lorenzo.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:41AM
Hey Vern. Research the NY newspapers of the day. ANY source that I would give you would be tainted, no? So do the research yourself. Of course you will not because then it would be revealed that I'm not a Neo-Confederate seeking to "put y'all back in chains", yada, yada. Really Vern, you need to do better than try and use the race card to argue against facts. C'mon man. Is that all the game you have?
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 12:04PM
JimP, I have searched for the source. Neo-confederates quote Lincoln to that effect, but I cannot find the source. I don't regard Confederates or Di Lorenzo as credible sources.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 12:41PM
You haven't searched hard enough, Vern. If you have actually searched, which I do not really believe. Maybe you just don't know how to search. I don't know what Confederates you are searching on this, but DiLorenzo is not a Confederate. He got all his facts straight and they are accurately footnoted. Regardless, he's far from the only source. If you knew how to research history you could START by using his footnotes to research. You don't accept him because what he wrote contradicts the myth that you believe. Ultimately it's irrelevant what you believe. The truth is out there, so to speak, all one needs is to have an open mind and do a little bit of historical detective work and it can be found rather easily.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 2:22PM
JimP, I have looked at DL's book. He did not provide a credible source either. Why aren't you able to?
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.22.12 @ 10:44AM
Instead of threats JimP (which I will report to the FBI), how about the source? I have read Di Lorenzo pretty thoroughly.
Occam's Tool| 11.23.12 @ 10:28PM
I don't see a threat there, Vern, even though I agree with you and not Jim.
Really. Cheesehead Jack doesn't report on me (of course, the worst I do is wish that he develops Cancer and warn him away from my children. He otherwise is worthless and immaterial.) Let us be civilly uncivil here.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.27.12 @ 7:33PM
Note, the comment that contained the implied threat was removed.
Occam's Tool| 11.23.12 @ 10:28PM
Jim: Duelling is illegal. Pity, but it is.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:46PM
Winchester Model 70s at 1000 yards. Iron sights.
Your choice, .30-06, .308, or .270.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:06AM
One thing I have noticed about your ilk - there is *NEVER* a credible source for anything you don't want to believe. It took me nearly 20 years to piece things together, but I reached the same conclusions as DiLorenzo did long before he wrote his books.
The really bad thing for you is I was living in Ohio and had almost exclusively northern sources that verified what the Confederates said. The north not on some holy crusade as you would like them to be, but were more like the Soviet Army crossing Europe with nothing safe from their depredations. That included rape, pillage and rapine. Diaries of Union Officers tell of the shame committed by a supposedly compassionate Army.
Your ilk, however, will never accept anything that doesn't fit the narrative you want. That's why conservative keep losing because so many supposed conservatives are nothing more than phonies like yourself. As a result, I quit giving out sources because snot nosed brats like you don't want your nose wiped, and I refuse to even try anymore.
So, wallow in your intentional ignorance.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.22.12 @ 10:47AM
How about a little less ranting Quartermaster and a little more effort in providing accurate sources.
Miles Glorious| 11.21.12 @ 1:54PM
Vern I suggest the book Emancipating slaves,enslaving free men by Jeffrey Hunter
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.12 @ 11:21AM
JimP:
Your history is correct.
ncatty| 11.21.12 @ 11:51AM
Emphasis on "your".
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 12:42PM
Well please cite "your" history, 'ncatty'. Not your opinion or what you heard in publik skrool, but actually historical records. Thanks in advance.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 12:43PM
Correction: it should read 'actual' not actually.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:20PM
Yeah, firing on the Star of the West and destroying the Federal coastal defense facility at Fort Sumter, they were just little peccadilloes that the North would have let go by.
Got it.
Von Mises Jr| 11.21.12 @ 10:15AM
I believe in one of the Pat Buchanan books I read he theorized that the Civil War had more of an economic agitation as its bedrock than simply the slavery issue. The South did not have the commerce of NY, Philly and Boston nor the access of the Great Lakes to Chicago and other inner-continental cities. So the North effectively became the merchant and the South the raw materials provider in international trade.
Of course this was one of the driving forces of the Revolutionary War. England only allowed the colonies to trade through her, and they were not allowed to produce many goods. Instead, they were commanded to ship the raw materials such as leather to London where it would be turned into shoes and other goods to be sold back to the colonies at obscene profits.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 10:16AM
Yes, those 175,000 black Americans who died fighting for the Union were fighting for the power of the federal government to impose protective tariffs that protected Northern industry but harmed Southern agricultural interests.
Right.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:34AM
Hey, Bill. Wise @$$. You've been brainwashed by movies like "Glory", apparently. ALL the Billy Yanks were fighting for various reasons that they THOUGHT the war was about, but actually was not. You too need to read more history and can/put a lid on the sarcasm. Thanks for the laugh though, nevertheless. I always enjoy smart @$$ remarks.
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.12 @ 11:23AM
JimP:
And don't forget the Irish, the Germans, and so forth, who when they got off the boat were herded into the enlistment office. At least 30% of the Northern Army were immigrants. One battalion had to have the General's orders repeated in several different languages to get the men to even move.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 4:57PM
Thanks Louis. I didn't mention any other groups deliberately. I'm glad you brought them into this though. I didn't think Vern and the others have the mental capacity to process more than one or one and one half ideas at a time.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:07AM
They don't, but the problem is intentional, and that's the worst part of it.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:21PM
That's me, no mental capacity.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:43PM
What's "Glory?" Is that some kinda movie?
PCC| 11.21.12 @ 8:37AM
I look forward to watching the movie.
It is disappointing to read the acerbic comments above.
President Lincoln is such a grand part of history that it is no disparagement to refer to him simply as "Lincoln", a man and a name that is known throughout the entire benighted world. Why?
"He saved the Union."
"He freed the slaves."
Anyone who disputes these facts, or seeks to belittle the accomplishment, is a very small man indeed.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 8:51AM
That's bunk (nonsense), PCC. That you resort to name calling instead of presenting historical evidence/facts as counter argument to our "accerbic" statements of fact is all the proof anyone needs to understand you don't know American history and apparently consciously choose to believe in fairly tales.
PCC| 11.24.12 @ 4:25PM
Let me get this straight. You are disputing the fact that Lincoln saved the Union, and you are disputing the fact that he freed the slaves?
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:28AM
The acerbic comments are primarily from the anarchists who frequent this site, usually of the Paulista variety.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:38AM
Vern, you are zero for two, at least. Anarchists? Paulistas? Start reading Vern. Don't be afraid to learn. We were all taught the same bunk about the war and Lincoln. Many of us kept reading history because we found it interesting. Along the way the pieces of the puzzle fell into place and we realized we'd been told a lot of BS. Here's a real good 'one stop shop' source for you: Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Licoln:" Any of his books are excellent summaries of the reality of that era and they are footnoted up the wazoo so you can check his sources.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 12:06PM
Di Lorenzo? That's your source? I'd recommend widening your reading.
Miles Glorious| 11.21.12 @ 2:01PM
Mr Crisler Emancipating slaves enslaving free men by Jeffrey Hummel, When in the course of human events by Charles Adams,The Real Lincoln by Charles Minor,Lincoln by Herndon whos father Lincoln represented in a court case. I suggest that you start with the first because of its excellent bibliography
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 4:57PM
Hummel is arm-chair quarterbacking the Civil War from his anarchist-libertarian perspective. Adams think economics explains everything. Minor was a Confederate, which is like asking John Kerry to write a balanced book about George Bush. As far as Herndon's bio, read Donald Davidson's critique of that book.
If you want a well-rounded view of the Civil War and Lincoln, try not to spend all your time reading only pro-South, Confederate, Lost Cause literature. IOW, don't put all your eggs in a Di Lorenzo book.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 4:56PM
Thank you Miles.
Vern, you are dissembling. I did not say DiLorenzo was my only source, but you know that.
Dodd2| 11.21.12 @ 9:04AM
The movie sounds like crap.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:13AM
It's fascinating to see that a film about Lincoln can inspire such ongoing and spirited debate.
Truly, Lincoln was a leader for the ages.
I find it very difficult to believe that Lincoln was a socialist in any meaningful sense. But what do I know, I'm not a Lincoln scholar.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 9:47AM
To those above. my southern roots go back five generations. Jefferson himself said secession was acceptable.
But we cannot and I do not support what the south did. They seceded for one reason only, to continue to hold American citizens in bondage, something that, had they won would have continued deep into the 1900's. Both the "unalienable rights" of the slaves were being violated not to mention their Fifth Amendment rights. Southern or not we cannot defend the actions of these people. Lee may have been a great general, but the ultimate goal of his actions was to keep American citizens in bondage. We have to be delighted he lost.
However, we cannot approve of the methods Lincoln used to defend the Union. His blatant disregard for the Constitution, his wholesale violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of so many people can't be defended. It wasn't necessary anyway. Look at the quote from the 1866 Supreme Court ruling on those actions and tell us where they're wrong. Madison again: "The means of defense against foreign danger have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
Well that applied here and to presidents like Bush II. Defend the country yes. But you must play by the rules. He didn't. I'm not going applaud him for that. Or Bush or anyone else.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:53AM
Many Southerners referred to the Civil War as the "Second American Revolution." Given that insurrection may to some extent be in the eye of the beholder, it still seems as if the formation of the Confederate States of America and the secession from the Union could fairly be called an "insurrection."
After all, don't people here almost universally claim that history is written by the victors (just for the record, I don't claim that, knowing who has written the history of the Vietnam War)? Remember who was the victor in the U.S. Civil War. They write the history.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:54AM
Well, except for people like Shelby Foote and what's-his-name Freeman, who wrote Lee's Lieutenants.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:54AM
Douglas Southall Freeman.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:05AM
Sorry Nathan but the South seceded for more reasons than just slavery. My Southern root bona fides are at least as lengthy as yours so I admonish you to become better educated about the all the reasons the South seceded. At the same time educate yourself about the North's hypocrisy regarding slavery. They were the African slave merchants, not Southerners. You can begin your education at Slave North dot com. This is a good source with citations you can check and verify the facts.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:07AM
Correction: my Southern root bona fides are much longer than Nathan's. I misread his comment regarding this matter originally.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 10:38AM
Sir: Look at the every and I mean every secession convention. Tell me what those documents say. You will find no references, none, to anything other than slavery. I'll pose this question to you and any other southerner, if the south had freed all their slaves by 1859, (Virginia's vote to do so failed by one) would the south have seceded in 1860? Simple question. Yes or no. Be honest with me here.
NO The south doesn't walk. You know that's the truth. Charles Roland from UK has "new" book and he makes much the same argument.
As for northern hypocrisy, you get no argument from me. The north freed their slaves, free to go elsewhere. My major was southern history, I have shelves full of books on this subject, I'll match you and anyone else here regarding the south. I had the late T. Harry Williams for two courses and other really good instructors.
Remember by the way that in 1848(?) the tariff fight, the south (specifically SC) talked about seceding but didn't. (New England talked about it too.) Only the "supposed" (as opposed to real) threat to slavery was enough to make them go. And morally you can't defend their actions. You can't. There is no lost cause here. But you can't defend Lincoln's methods either.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 10:48AM
I have looked at them and slavery was NOT the only issue. You need to get off your high horse about it being the only issue. Again, it was not. But either way, so what at this point? That's not what the gist of the movie or the comment thread is about.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 12:07PM
It was the foremost primary issue. Kindly answer my question if you will sir. If the south had freed its slaves by 1859, and there were votes in every state to do so, do any of them secede for the reasons you give? Very simple question for southern apologists. This is a straight yes/no answer.
And we all know the answer. No they don't. They had considered it for the tariff in 1848 and didn't go. New England thought about it in connection with the war of 1812 and also didn't go.
They went for one reason and one reason only, based on the Constitution, what really was the "imagined" threat to slavery. (Given the need for what was probably a constitutional amendment which wasn't going to happen, they really weren't very bright were they?)
As a southerner myself, I'm sick to death of the noble "lost cause". Look at the meeting that took place in 1864 among the western generals regarding "free the slaves if they'll fight for us." One of those generals said, "do that and my men will mutiny." The men in the trenches knew EXACTLY what they were fighting for and it wasn't economics.
But again, the SC of 1866 properly sanctioned AL for his actions during the war. (See quote above.) The lessons we take from him is you can't justify presidential misbehavior to "save the country". As the SC told us, and they're right, war or no war, you still have to play by the rules.
JimP| 11.21.12 @ 12:48PM
I say yes. But discussions about hypotheticals are irrelevant and again, who cares at this point, Nathan. You have your opinion about this and that is fine. Once again, for the record, I did not say that slavery was not an issue or even not the main issue. It was NOT the only issue. That you continue to belabor this idea suggests to me that you are a self loathing Southerner of something akin to it. We all already know about all this. We grew up hearing it and we still do. The point of the thread is the North's version of history is untrue, self serving and hypocritical. Now please, drop it.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 7:13PM
Sir: Fact. Pickett's Charge took place on July 3 1863. No one simply no one argues that. But we write books, we write VOLUMES we do TV series on what that means. And most all of what is said is "hypotheticals". That is the nature of most of what we call "history". We do "lessons learned" if you will.
Who cares? Obviously a great deal of the south still cares. After the war they manufactured the "noble lost cause" in part I think to justify the actions of people like Lee and others. Generations of southern children were told stories of JEB Stuart, the great cavalier, Lee white haired, the last great southern nobility if you will. Southerners moved further and further away from defining the war in terms of slavery and more in terms of economics and "freedom" acting in the spirit of Founders in part so they, not the freed slaves could take on the mantle of "victims", victims of hypocritical northerners who were as racist as they were. The "myth" they created/taught their children made their actions against those freed slaves and their descendents easier to justify.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 7:22PM
They flew the stars and bars, horribly offensive to blacks, something that on the basis of good manners alone shouldn't be done, but they justified that on the basis of again the "noble lost cause", no my ancestors fought for freedom, for honor, not for anything so horrible as "slavery". And they still do.
That's why it's still important. Because southerners, far too many still frame the issue that way, far too many display a flag that means only one thing, certainly to the ancestors of those slaves, that the ancestors of those displaying that flag fighting under that flag tried to keep THEIR ancestors, as American as they were, under bondage that simply no longer could be justified. That's why we finally need to tell our children and grandkids on the 150th anniversary of the conflict the truth about THEIR ancestors. We need to quit lying about them. They knew what they were doing. I'm fine with what my ancestors were about, are you?
We need to quit flying that flag, to stop displaying it. We need to stop the nonsense that the south were the victims in that conflict.
I agree as I pointed out earlier, Lincoln was ghastly. I'm no fan of his. But I'm no fan of Lee who, retreating from Gettysburg dragged hundreds of free blacks with him too.
Safe holiday to you sir.
Butch| 11.25.12 @ 4:20PM
The "Stars and Bars" is the official flag of the CSA. What the descendents of the Confederate army (and many, like me, also descendents of the American Revolutionary army) flew was the Battle Flag. A "student of Southern history" would know this, and would never make the mistake of referring to the Battle Flag as the Stars and Bars.
And I take "horrible offense" at being told NOT to fly it.
nathan| 11.26.12 @ 9:17AM
You're not going to read this but I'll write it anyway. That "battle flag" means one thing and one thing only to American citizens who just happened to be "black" at the time. It meant that as long that flag flew they were going to remain enslaved by those "noble" southerners.
Make no mistake, I'm a First Amendment more or less absolutist. Southerners are welcome to display the trappings of the "NOBLE LOST CAUSE" IF THEY MUST. But there was nothing noble, then or now about trying to keep their fellow Americans in a state of bondage. NOTHING. And as a question of good manners, which I as well raised southerner pride MYSELF on, no, I'm not going offend the descendants of the those slaves that way. I'm simply not. It's like this, should people display Swastikas? Why? What was noble about the German army during WWII? You see the "myth" similar to this one is that the "regular" army was innocent regarding the Holocaust. No it wasn't. Army units routinely took part in Holocaust related activities. Read "Ordinary Men" sometime. Again, do we risk offending Jews by displaying this stuff? Not if we're well mannered people we don't. Same thing here.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:29AM
No Jefferson warned against secession, and counseled that the reign of witches would be over soon enough.
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 10:44AM
He warned against it but he said in principle since he thought the country had been constructed by the states as opposed to the people as whole that secession was "legal". That arguably is consistent with the notion of "confronted with despotism, you have the right and obligation to deal with the despot."
We forget he wasn't at the Constitutional convention. He was in Paris with Sally. She never came home from these trips pregnant which means HE probably never touched her. That said, while not at the convention, he supported the Constitution. It was Patrick Henry in Virginia who opposed it and forced the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 12:08PM
Jefferson also supported a bill of rights. He was in close contact with Madison.
Sean| 11.21.12 @ 9:48AM
The movie isn't that good.
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 9:56AM
I had that feeling. That's the main reason why I'll wait until it's on TV.
Ned the Red| 11.21.12 @ 10:04AM
The slaves were freed, then again from segregation, now they are in bondage again; dependent and beholding to the largesse of the government.
Von Mises Jr| 11.21.12 @ 10:19AM
Not only do I agree with you Ned, but Obama is the anti-Lincoln. Lincoln held the nation together and freed the slaves.
Not only has Obama and the progressive/liberals enslaved the inner-cities, but now they aim to enslave the conservative Red States to pay for this socialism.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:30AM
Dittos....blacks have enslaved themselves to a new master.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:23PM
Along with a boatload of white folks, too.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:24PM
As Aristotle, some men were born to be slaves.
I used to say that was one of Aristotle's errors, now I'm not so sure.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:25PM
"As Aristotle said," sorry.
CJW| 11.21.12 @ 11:34AM
The Dems were the party of slavery. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, and others all did nothing about slavery. The kicked the can down the road to avoid the problem and win elections, as they do today with the deficit .
Today they practice the soft bigotry of low expectations by offering government "help" to get votes, instead of simply enforcing the equal application of the laws for equal opportunity and not equal results.
We can argue all day long about the causes of the Civil War, but the one undisputed fact is that the first Rep president, Lincoln, took the necessary steps to end slavery. It does not matter what he said years before or his motives, the plain fact is his administration started the process that ended slavery, not the Dems.
The Dems imposed segregation after the Civil War. The KKK was an integral part of the Dem party. Look at Sen Byrd, Sen Hugo Black who was appointed by FDR to the Supreme Court. Woodrow Wilson was a racist segregationist.
Most blacks voted Republican until FDR. JFK made a smart politcal move to beat Nixon in 1960 by "reaching out" to Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail. LBJ, with his Great Society welfare, created a dependent class of whites and blacks who will vote for the Dems.
If the Dems really believed in equality they would treat all equally instead of dividing us into groups and favoring groups with affirmative action and quotas after 45 years of the same.
Ned the Red| 11.22.12 @ 10:17AM
Well said.
Miles Glorious| 11.21.12 @ 2:05PM
Held the country together by the sword and the cost of at least 750,000 men
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:13AM
Obama is the spiritual descendant of Lincoln. Without Lincoln, there is no overpowered FedGov that wallows in its lawlessness, and no foundation for Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and Obama to build on. Obama and Lincoln are very much alike. Lincoln was a progressive and the GOP was a progressive party from its foundation.
RCV| 11.22.12 @ 3:05PM
... And you guys wonder why the American people soundly reject you?
Ned the Red| 11.22.12 @ 10:15AM
It ain't hard to picture the Democrats saying: They hung this civil rights crap around our necks, well, will just have to put the colored folks back in their place, and buy them, using the money of the same dumb white folks who think they can handle freedom. We'll call it "The War on Poverty" and “Affirmative Action.”
nathan| 11.21.12 @ 10:53AM
One of the many problems when they were "freed" is that the north didn't properly protect them against the night riders who, having lost on the battle field now tried to win through terror. (Home grown terrorists indeed.) Those blacks had a right to that protection which they didn't get and you had southerners burning crosses on Saturday and in church on Sunday morning. Sometimes the pastor was one of the leaders. For those of you constantly complaining about why "law abiding" muslims don't speak out, well how many "good" southerners at the time spoke out and challenged those consummately evil men? Not a lot. You risked your life to do so and not a lot of white southerners were willing to take that risk. Not unlike law abiding people everywhere who are unwilling to go up against armed bad guys who threaten to kill families if you challenge them. We need based on what we saw in the south, to be more understanding.
That aside, what we needed to do also, is take the plantations of those who supported the rebellion (virtually all of them) and give them over to the freed slaves. (Abiding of course by the Fifth Amendment.) What the freed blacks found is that they were re-enslaved by the share cropper system which meant that many of them never got out of debt or off the land.
Cool Hand Luke| 11.21.12 @ 10:10AM
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
H.L. Mencken
Bill8472| 11.21.12 @ 10:19AM
And of course, the cause of self-determination has absolutely nothing whatever to do with slavery - that connection is just an accident.
And of course self-determination as a justification for the collective act of secession, we're just going to ignore that, right?
Cool Hand Luke| 11.21.12 @ 10:28AM
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
Abraham Lincoln -- Lincoln Douglas Debates
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:32AM
Lincoln was not an abolitionist nor anything like an integrationist 1960s liberal. Douglas was trying to paint Lincoln into that corner, which would have been political suicide during those days.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 10:33AM
We of course now know that Mencken was a racist twit. Even RET acknowledges that.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:17AM
So? Why not try to deal with what Mencken said instead of simply resorting to poisoning the well. I realize you do poison the well very well since you've had so much practice of doing so, but why not try growing up intellectually instead of trying to dupe the world into thinking you have something you don't?
The problem is, it's just too much for some one as intellectually lazy as you are.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.22.12 @ 10:53AM
"it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
One does not need to "deal with Mencken" when he makes such absurd comments. Mencken conveniently forgot about all those slaves who had no right of self-determination in the South. Apparently, only white self-determination counts in your and Mencken's political philosophy.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:29PM
Well, it's good to see that SOMEBODY has finally put his finger on the core of the matter.
The Southern fight for self-determination, so articulately set forth in this forum, was a fight on the part of Southern whites to keep a society that was dependent on slavery, and in that sense was no more nor less than most critically a fight to maintain slavery as an American institution. Other Americans, Northerners, Westerners, and some Southerners, couldn't abide that and also couldn't abide the secession of the slaveholding states. To that extent, their resistance to secession was -arguably- against state sovereignty and -again arguably- the Constitution.
But pay no attention to a mindless casuist like me.
Cool Hand Luke| 11.21.12 @ 10:46AM
You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
August 14, 1862. Lincoln met with five black ministers at the White House.
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.12 @ 11:31AM
Well Cool, you are right. Lincoln did say that to the five black ministers. Lincoln did not love the black race. Unfortuantely Lincoln's victory has left us to suffer the unintended consequences.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 12:12PM
Lincoln, of course, believed that blacks were at a disadvantage in living in a white society, so believed they would be better off in Liberia. It was a pipe-dream held by many liberals, including Madison, but Lincoln was faced with the problem of slavery, not with the problems of 1960s segregation policies. Keep historical context in mind.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:18AM
Not even the historical context absolves the man of his lawlessness.
loulou| 11.21.12 @ 2:08PM
Why would I want to spend money to see uber leftist Daniel Day-Lewis?
Lincoln trashed our Constitition. I have no interest in him.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 2:24PM
Still pining for the plantation loulou?
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:19AM
Why would he want to be a neighbor in the same leftist slum in which you live?
Derek Leaberry| 11.21.12 @ 2:48PM
Inevitably, Lincoln must be judged on the 650,000 men who need not have died and the South being economically ruined for generations. Otherwise, he's a sweetheart of a railroad lawyer.
Just to muse but I wonder if Lincoln would be so sanguine about his accomplishments if he knew how Detroit, Newark, Gary, East St. Louis, Birmingham, Memphis, Harlem, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Cleveland turned out. Incidentally, these are all towns which vote 99 % Democratic and almost all its people are takers rather than makers.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.21.12 @ 5:00PM
There need not have been a war if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter. You Lincoln-bashers always manage to forget who did the seceding and who fired the first shot.
Jane Chingo| 11.21.12 @ 5:05PM
Yes, and remember why -- state's rights. What part of that is bad?
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:33PM
Fort Sumter had nothing to do with Federal objections to states' rights or the Secession declaration they published in South Carolina. The federal forces in Fort Sumter kept their silence and did not attempt to establish any Federal presence in Charleston or anywhere else.
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:36PM
Other than the tiny little man-made island their fort occupied.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:23AM
Yes, and Lincoln had said he would remove the troops from Sumter as he did with forts to the south. But Abraham "what about my tariff" Lincoln needed to keep the south in the raw deal the New England crony capitalists had forced on them. Those same crony capitalists also subscribed loans to FedGov to allow it to operate because when SC left that took close to one third of the FEderal revenue with them, and after he called for troops to force the lower south back in, the upper south seceded as they wanted no part of the district of corruption coercing the states.
But, that's something you can't accept because it doesn't fit you narrative.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.22.12 @ 10:57AM
"What about my tariff?" Another bogus q.uotation from Lincoln. You neo-confederates need to go back to school. Lincoln did not call for troops to "force the lower south back." The Southern rebels fired on Fort Sumter. Get that straight
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:35PM
Evidently, Lincoln said he would remove Federal troops from Fort Sumter some time after the Star of the West was fired on by Charlestonians, since the Star of the West was sailing to Fort Sumter to deliver provisions to the garrison.
Jane Chingo| 11.21.12 @ 5:04PM
Gag me -- yet another piece of Lincoln magical unrealism. He may have saved the Federal government. He killed the United States. Why is that so hard to keep sight of?
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:28AM
Because the anti-Americans here don't want to keep sight of it. If they did, they would have to admit their complicity in the bringing about the mess we have now, and they can't stand that much cognitive dissonance.
FedGov is about all he did save. The liberty of the country was dying, but the anti-Americans don't care about that.
Hardcard| 11.21.12 @ 5:26PM
I thought this was a movie review, it's a theatrical portrayal of a man and events, not an historical record.
Quartermaster| 11.22.12 @ 12:26AM
The anti-American apologists can't stand to see the truth about Lincoln's predatory ways published. And, those of us who have grown enough to learn and accept the truth, no matter what the facts are and where they lead, can't stand to see the truth trashed. If the movie were simply a theatrical portrayal, with a disclosure that much of it is fiction (and it is pretty much fictional garbage), then that would be acceptable. The leftists in charge of both parties, and Hollywood, however, can't do something that simple.
sdfhlk | 11.22.12 @ 4:57AM
Here the affair commends his racial virtue.
derfel cadarn| 11.22.12 @ 1:59PM
Lincoln continues to tell the fable of Mr. Lincoln. It is high time Americans learned the truth. This story has allowed the American agenda to be based upon a falsehood,it has allowed the expansion of government to unprecedented levels through lies. Lincoln was a great orator,but his regime was the first raper of the Constitution and the first enabler of crony capitalism. The man Lincoln was many things none of which you were taught in school. Lincoln sainthood is as tarnished as an old spittoon and in real life hardly worthy of our admiration.
yoder| 11.23.12 @ 8:53PM
I loved the movie yet I could tell it was made by Democrtats. The villains in the movie as it was stated many times were the "conservative Republicans" not the vicious Democrats who supported and sustained slavery. You rarely heard the word Democrat in the movie.
Occam's Tool| 11.23.12 @ 10:24PM
Linoln saved American free self rule by keeping the Union together. Uncoupled, the United States would be individually weak. It should also be noted that some Southern States had areas that seceeded from the South, Winston County, Alabama where my wife's family is from being an example. Indeed. the family legend has my wife's great-great whatever grandmother getting her horses back from Sherman after pointing out that she was a UNION War Widow.
All this being said, Obama is a socialist asshole. No relationship to Lincoln, who was a great man and a great intellect.
axbucxdu| 11.23.12 @ 11:03PM
The existence of the Fed, in essence the enabler of prog government, is directly traceable to the policies of monetary expedience taken by Lincoln. Whatever spurious claims are made for his intellect, he was a demonstrable thief.
Butch| 11.25.12 @ 4:28PM
What did Abe Lincoln say when he woke up from his four-year-drunk?
Bill8472| 11.26.12 @ 4:37PM
"What caliber was that Derringer?"