Just saw Lincoln. Amazing film.

[bigrebnc1775]

i think its pretty funny that asshats like warbler, bigrube et al are afraid they'll catch liberal cooties from a movie.

I think I explained it earlier. porcupine I don't get into fiction.

you misspelled *i don't understand movies that aren't animated*

try again

I never posted that try again.

 

[rightwinger]

If this film nailed it as you said they would have used the exact words that would have been used at the time. Because words from the 19th century have a different meaning than they do today.

Best way to determine that..is to view it yourself.

No I don't get into fiction.

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Best way to determine that..is to view it yourself.

No I don't get into fiction.

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

No I don't get into fiction.

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

 

[zakdavis]

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Nu-uh!

 

[Political Junky]

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

Yes, it was very obvious that the roles were reversed. My friend and I commented on that right away. She and I have discussed the film often since we saw it.

 

[bodecea]

Secessionist Apologists aren't going to go to this movie.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're right let the lies and winner re written history stay as is.

Let me guess..

Hitler and Lincoln were both socialists and comparable in their evil.

Cracks me up when some rw insists that today's GObP is the same as Lincoln's Republican party.

Clueless.

El.....are you a "Right Winger" today?....oh wait sorry....everyone who disagrees with this meatball is a "rw's".....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Best part was Lincoln meeting with Confederate Vice President Stephens and telling him to fuck off

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

 

[zakdavis]

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

Here- the Republican party of the time had members that were socially liberal for the time period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

Here- the Republican party of the time had members that were socially liberal for the time period.

modern day liberals do not equate liberals from our past.

 

[Sallow]

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

Here- the Republican party of the time had members that were socially liberal for the time period.

modern day liberals do not equate liberals from our past.

True.

Many liberals from the past thought that black folks were inferior and women shouldn't vote.

Today's conservatives still hold those values.

 

[there4eyeM]

Those honoring and defending slavery in our time have no credibility.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social/Special Interest group LOLberals.

 

[rightwinger]

As I said the movie is fiction playing to the liberals.

Not fiction at all.....the South still got their butts kicked

Believe it or not, the Liberals were Republicans

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

Which part was fiction?

That the thirteenth amendment passed by a narrow margin?
That Republicans supported it nearly 100% while democrats mostly tried to block it?
That the South was attempting peace and tried to preserve slavery?

Which part didn't you find to be true?
Just that you hate Abe Lincoln?

 

[rightwinger]

OH like the founders were equal to modern day liberals?
as I said fiction

Here- the Republican party of the time had members that were socially liberal for the time period.

modern day liberals do not equate liberals from our past.

Why should they?

Each generation faces a new set of challenges. Liberals of each era propose a unique way to face those challenges and Conservatives block them. That is the way it works. To think that Liberals should have the same views they had 150-200 years ago is ridiculous

 

[bodecea]

Here- the Republican party of the time had members that were socially liberal for the time period.

modern day liberals do not equate liberals from our past.

Why should they?

Each generation faces a new set of challenges. Liberals of each era propose a unique way to face those challenges and Conservatives block them. That is the way it works. To think that Liberals should have the same views they had 150-200 years ago is ridiculous

Some people are stuck in the past. Many of them appear to be from the South.

 

[NLT]

There's probably going to be Oscars all over this film.

Lincoln

Highly recommend it.

Pretty good for a fairy tale

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Historians Respond to Spielberg's Lincoln - Harvard University Press Blog

Historians Respond to Spielberg's Lincoln


Most interestingly, Holzer takes aim at the veracity of the film’s very first moments:

As for the Spielberg movie’s opening scene, in which a couple of Union soldiers—one white, one black—recite the words of the Gettysburg Address to the appreciative Lincoln, who is visiting the front toward the end of the war—it is almost inconceivable that any uniformed soldier of the day (or civilians, for that matter) would have memorized a speech that, however ingrained in modern memory, did not achieve any semblance of a national reputation until the 20th century.

Elsewhere, historian Kate Masur joins many in taking issue with the film’s passive black characters, reminding us that those historiographic trends that Louis Masur sees the film as countering have actually taken hold for good reason:

[It’s] disappointing that in a movie devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States, African-American characters do almost nothing but passively wait for white men to liberate them. For some 30 years, historians have been demonstrating that slaves were crucial agents in their emancipation; however imperfectly, Ken Burns’s 1990 documentary “The Civil War” brought aspects of that interpretation to the American public. Yet Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” gives us only faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee.

This is not mere nit-picking. Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” helps perpetuate the notion that African Americans have offered little of substance to their own liberation. While the film largely avoids the noxious stereotypes of subservient African-Americans for which movies like “Gone With the Wind” have become notorious, it reinforces, even if inadvertently, the outdated assumption that white men are the primary movers of history and the main sources of social progress.

Eric Foner, winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for his book on Lincoln and slavery, responded to a David Brooks column on Lincoln with a critique of the film’s “severely truncated view”:

Emancipation—like all far-reaching political change—resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.

[…]

The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.

Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.

Some of these very debates were anticipated by American Historical Association Executive Director James Grossman in the November issue of Perspectives on History:

Historians will disagree over whether this was Lincoln indeed. My friend and colleague Lerone Bennett will wonder what happened to the evidence that Lincoln never believed in racial equality. David Blight will no doubt scratch his head over the absence of Frederick Douglass. Others will question the accuracy of this Lincoln’s approach to the presidency and presidential power, or the portrayal of family dynamics in the White House; or the implications of a film about emancipation that elides the agency of slaves and ex-slaves (except for the role of black soldiers). Others will note that Spielberg seems to get the importance of manhood, but doesn’t really know how to use gender as a category of political analysis. This is what a film like this should do: stimulate discussion about history. I encourage colleagues to engage the film in the public realm—in newspapers and blogs and on the radio—in language that is accessible, and in a voice that speaks especially to people who might not readily accept concepts and perspectives taken for granted within the academy.



Yep, sound slike one giant pile of Hollyweird perspective cultivating, rather than a historical account of the facts. All too often, historians make the mistake of backseating historical fact, in order to create work that fits their own fantasy/perspective. It was done over and over again with Lincoln.
His goal was securing seceding states in the union and collecting "dues" of the states. Slavery was an issue that he tied to it, much like politicians tie social issues to the countries problems today to forward an agenda. If Lincoln had his way, he would have sent them all back to Africa.

 

[rightwinger]

Historians Respond to Spielberg's Lincoln - Harvard University Press Blog

Historians Respond to Spielberg's Lincoln


Most interestingly, Holzer takes aim at the veracity of the film’s very first moments:

As for the Spielberg movie’s opening scene, in which a couple of Union soldiers—one white, one black—recite the words of the Gettysburg Address to the appreciative Lincoln, who is visiting the front toward the end of the war—it is almost inconceivable that any uniformed soldier of the day (or civilians, for that matter) would have memorized a speech that, however ingrained in modern memory, did not achieve any semblance of a national reputation until the 20th century.

Elsewhere, historian Kate Masur joins many in taking issue with the film’s passive black characters, reminding us that those historiographic trends that Louis Masur sees the film as countering have actually taken hold for good reason:

[It’s] disappointing that in a movie devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States, African-American characters do almost nothing but passively wait for white men to liberate them. For some 30 years, historians have been demonstrating that slaves were crucial agents in their emancipation; however imperfectly, Ken Burns’s 1990 documentary “The Civil War” brought aspects of that interpretation to the American public. Yet Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” gives us only faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee.

This is not mere nit-picking. Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln” helps perpetuate the notion that African Americans have offered little of substance to their own liberation. While the film largely avoids the noxious stereotypes of subservient African-Americans for which movies like “Gone With the Wind” have become notorious, it reinforces, even if inadvertently, the outdated assumption that white men are the primary movers of history and the main sources of social progress.

Eric Foner, winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for his book on Lincoln and slavery, responded to a David Brooks column on Lincoln with a critique of the film’s “severely truncated view”:

Emancipation—like all far-reaching political change—resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.

[…]

The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.

Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.

Some of these very debates were anticipated by American Historical Association Executive Director James Grossman in the November issue of Perspectives on History:

Historians will disagree over whether this was Lincoln indeed. My friend and colleague Lerone Bennett will wonder what happened to the evidence that Lincoln never believed in racial equality. David Blight will no doubt scratch his head over the absence of Frederick Douglass. Others will question the accuracy of this Lincoln’s approach to the presidency and presidential power, or the portrayal of family dynamics in the White House; or the implications of a film about emancipation that elides the agency of slaves and ex-slaves (except for the role of black soldiers). Others will note that Spielberg seems to get the importance of manhood, but doesn’t really know how to use gender as a category of political analysis. This is what a film like this should do: stimulate discussion about history. I encourage colleagues to engage the film in the public realm—in newspapers and blogs and on the radio—in language that is accessible, and in a voice that speaks especially to people who might not readily accept concepts and perspectives taken for granted within the academy.



Yep, sound slike one giant pile of Hollyweird perspective cultivating, rather than a historical account of the facts. All too often, historians make the mistake of backseating historical fact, in order to create work that fits their own fantasy/perspective. It was done over and over again with Lincoln.
His goal was securing seceding states in the union and collecting "dues" of the states. Slavery was an issue that he tied to it, much like politicians tie social issues to the countries problems today to forward an agenda. If Lincoln had his way, he would have sent them all back to Africa.

In no way does the film "Lincoln" attempt to tell the whole story of emancipation. It centers on the political maneuvers needed to pass the 13th Amendment. A key point is that the relative fairness and justice of freeing the slaves was not at the forefront but it was a political process based on buying votes, twisting arms and calling in favors. Timing was critical in trying to pass the amendment during a lame duck session of Congress