Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!

[oldfart]

Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.

OK I haven't seen the movie yet so I'll withhold judgment on it until I see it. I am pretty well read on Lincoln however. In the 60's and 70's there was a boom in Lincoln books that started out notiing (correctly) that Lincoln held views most of his life that reflected his era in regard to race relations. Thankfully we got throught that. The new rage is to claim Lincoln was gay. Both require a profound misunderstanding of both Lincoln and his times.

It comes as no news to every serious Lincoln scholar that in the 1858 Lincoln--Douglas debates Lincoln vigorously defended himself against Douglas' charges that he was an extreme abolitioist and favored social equality of the races. Nor is it novel that in a public letter to Horace Greeley on August 22,1862 he stated

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I ``seem to be pursuing'' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be ``the Union as it was.'' If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN

I include the entire letter here because it s often quoted in part in such a wa as to alter the meaning. Remember that at this point Lincoln had already read the Emancipation Proclimation to his Cabinet, and on the advice of Seward delayed issuing it to avoid an appearance of desperation if it appeared after Union military reverses.

Lincoln's efforts to convince the border states into emancipation also reveal much.

But his efforts to support colonization projects and his meetings with black leaders clearly show that while his views on emancipation and of using black troops had evolved during the War, his views on political and social equality still had a way to go.

Clearly to label this as "racism" is to commit the major historiogaphic fallacy of judging a historical figure by standards that did not exist in his day. Racism must be identified as something more than mere ethnocentrism to be effectively identified and combated. To say that all whites in the nineteenth century were racists is to make reacism far more benign than it was and to lump together people like Lincoln who had a lifelong record of campaigning for economic equality and against slavery with those who defended and sought to extend slavery.

 

[oldfart]

One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves. How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when General US Grant was a slave owner during the war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?

You're right, it was not fought to free anyone. It was fought over the existance of slavery as an integral part of the southern economy. Northern industrialist were jealous and afraid of the pool of free labor and the growing wealth/power of the southern elite.

I would agree that the Civil War was not fought by the North to free anyone. And I agree that many in the North, including Lincoln feared the "Slave Power" and its drive to extend slavery. But the South actually entered the War desperately poor in everything needed to fight a war or trigger and industrial revolution. The wealth of the planter class turned out to be a sham.

 

[oldfart]

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution

Yep. Forget about the Homestead Act that settled the West, the transcontinental raiload, land grant colleges, tariff reform, and transforming anagrarian economy into an industrial one.

If you want to debate habeus corpus, make your case and let's get it on.

 

[Synthaholic]

Steven Spielberg's movie about Lincoln is pure bullshit !!!!!!!



Pure?

 

[oldfart]

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution

I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.

.

Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??

Yes. That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow. That link is one of the most twisted gyrations of historical revisionism and logical fallacies I have seen in some time.

As if the South was ever going to end slavery peacefully. Yeah, right. I want what that dumb shit is smoking.



.

Slavery would have collapsed years before if it hadn't been propped up by the northern manufacturers and the invention of the cotton gin.

The first half of what you said makes since, the second half not so much. The Cotton Gin actually seriously reduced the need for Slave Labor to Process Cotton.

Umm, no, what it did was enable plantation owners to grow more cotton. 10 years after the introduction of the cotton gin the value of the US cotton crop went from $150,000 to $8 million. That would not have happened if they were forced to card the wool by hand.

 

[oldfart]

Linclon, like most White Americans at the time, were pure racist.

AS WAS THE ENTIRE WORLD! As a mater of fact all the tribes in Africa were also racist.
So your point is what, racism is a only an American phenomenon?

One must respect the man for his accomplishments during the period of time he lived, this historical revisionist bull shit needs to be laid to rest.

The enslavement of an entire race in perpetuity(meaning that their children were born into slavery) required the demonization of that race in America, IMHO that level of demonization was not seen in other places.

Add a fear of slave revolts like those in the Caribbean and you have enough paranoia to fuel quite a bit of repression.

 

[oldfart]

Don't forget his other constitutional violations *cough* Clement Vallandigham *cough*... government confiscation of property.. the list goes on...

Oh please! We're supposed to bleed for the Copperheads now?

 

[Contumacious]

One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves. How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when General US Grant was a slave owner during the war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?

Revisionist Bull

The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration of secession:

Lincoln's words from the famous Lincoln vs. Douglas debate on Sept. 18, 1858:


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty clearly does not comprehend Lincoln, the times, or the Civil War.

That's OK, because his agenda has nothing to do with history but rather his desired future.

 

[bripat9643]

Does Ron Paul feel the same way about the American Revolution??

You mean does he have contempt for lies and propaganda about the American Revolution?

I'm sure he does.

 

[bripat9643]

Conty clearly does not comprehend Lincoln, the times, or the Civil War.

That's OK, because his agenda has nothing to do with history but rather his desired future.

You've already established your thorough ignorance on those subjects.

 

[bripat9643]

I have found people who parrot things like this generally know very little of the man.

.

Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??

Yes. That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.

Actually, not. Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.

 

[oldfart]

Are you saying he did not brutally violate the constitution? Suspend the constitution to fit his needs??

Yes. That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.

Actually, not. Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.

I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument. Who have you been reading?

 

[bripat9643]

$10 says that the movie has nothing about him being one of the worst Presidents who butchered the constitution

Yep. Forget about the Homestead Act that settled the West, the transcontinental raiload, land grant colleges, tariff reform, and transforming anagrarian economy into an industrial one.

If you want to debate habeus corpus, make your case and let's get it on.

The Transcontinental railroads were cesspools of fraud and corruption that all went bankrupt. Tariff "reform?" Are you joking? Doubling tariffs is "reform?" The government run colleges are the reason this nation is swirling down the toilet bowl of socialism. The nation was already industrialized before Lincoln was elected. That's the only reason the North won.

 

[bripat9643]

Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of the south going.
The North fought initially to keep the Union together. With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about slavery for the North.

This is 5th grade stuff, people.

Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff. It was a war fought purely so Northern Republicans could impose mercantilism on the nation and fleece the South for revenue to pay for Republican boondoggles like the transcontinental railroads. The emancipation proclamation was purely a cynical political maneuver that didn't free a single slave.

 

[bripat9643]

Suspended habeas corpus, jailed political dissidents. Dude was a tyrant.

The Constitution grants a president those powers.

No it doesn't. It grants Congress those powers.

Lincoln was a dictator. He's right up there with Stalin and Hitler. In fact, both men learned a lot from Lincoln.

 

[paperview]

...

Lincoln started the war to force the Southern States to collect the Morrill tariff.

Pile 'O bull crap. The first shots were fired before Lincoln even stepped into the office.

 

[paperview]

Yes. That is exactly what people who got their history credentials from a university rather than a crackerjack box say.

Actually, not. Historians all admit that Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. They just make excuses for it and canonize him as some kind of saint.

I've never seen a reputable historian make that argument. Who have you been reading?

Neo Confederate / white supremacist rags, of course.

 

[paperview]

One of the biggest lies in history is the idea that the CW was fought to free the slaves. How can that possibly be true when there were 4 northern states that allowed slavery during the entire war and when General US Grant was a slave owner during the war and so to Lincoln's second vice president Andrew Johnson.?

Revisionist Bull

The Civil War WAS fought over the issue of slavery. Refer to the South Carolina declaration of secession:

Lincoln's words from the famous Lincoln vs. Douglas debate on Sept. 18, 1858:


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."


.

There you go again...Like Thomas Jefferson, I could show you quotes that would convince you he was a deeply religious man.

I could also show you just as many quotes that would convince he was an atheist. (as many deemed him at the time)

Lincoln was complex, but anyone who has studied his history knows his dedication to the cause; Union first, anti-slavery as a backdrop. Pragmatism.

All you do is cherrypick quotes - no depth to your analysis. It's why most people dismiss you,