HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » I Saw "Lincoln"...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:41 PM

I Saw "Lincoln" Today

What a great movie. I came away from that movie thinking he was almost "God" personified. I also thought how large he was and how small some of the people who have aspired to that office in my lifetime are. Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Willard Romney...Really...

When I did a paper on Lincoln as a college freshman I thought I was smart because I learned that Lincoln's views on race were complex. I know now that while certain ideals are timeless it's unfair to impose a late twentieth century or early twenty first century sensibility on someone from the mid nineteenth century. At the end Lincoln hated slavery and saw the humanity of the freedman.

I am sure when he looks down from the heavens and sees our current president he is smiling.

150 replies, 12305 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 150 replies Author Time Post
Reply I Saw "Lincoln" Today (Original post)
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 OP
jenw2 Nov 2012 #1
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #2
jberryhill Nov 2012 #52
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #57
cui bono Nov 2012 #81
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #109
cui bono Nov 2012 #121
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #3
boingboinh Nov 2012 #16
Ztolkins Nov 2012 #14
hedda_foil Nov 2012 #4
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #5
Kablooie Nov 2012 #21
CTyankee Dec 2012 #135
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #36
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #53
murielm99 Nov 2012 #6
InsultComicDog Nov 2012 #7
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #100
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #8
Aristus Nov 2012 #11
alphafemale Nov 2012 #25
LVZ Nov 2012 #89
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #101
intaglio Nov 2012 #108
ieoeja Dec 2012 #141
MrModerate Nov 2012 #19
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #20
Paladin Nov 2012 #24
MrModerate Nov 2012 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #44
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #34
Gidney N Cloyd Nov 2012 #51
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #56
Kablooie Nov 2012 #22
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #27
lalalu Nov 2012 #29
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #38
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #40
lalalu Nov 2012 #42
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #48
lalalu Nov 2012 #49
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #50
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #39
lalalu Nov 2012 #46
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #102
Wraith20878 Nov 2012 #78
lalalu Nov 2012 #111
Wraith20878 Nov 2012 #122
whistler162 Nov 2012 #96
lalalu Nov 2012 #97
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #116
morningfog Nov 2012 #35
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #37
lalalu Nov 2012 #47
EmeraldCityGrl Nov 2012 #110
WeekendWarrior Dec 2012 #138
Myrina Nov 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #126
CTyankee Dec 2012 #136
WeekendWarrior Dec 2012 #137
CTyankee Dec 2012 #140
cilla4progress Nov 2012 #9
MrSlayer Nov 2012 #10
ailsagirl Nov 2012 #18
Wraith20878 Nov 2012 #79
demmis19566ie Nov 2012 #12
ReRe Nov 2012 #13
ailsagirl Nov 2012 #15
silverweb Nov 2012 #17
NoPasaran Nov 2012 #23
Anthony McCarthy Nov 2012 #26
MuseRider Nov 2012 #30
dhill926 Dec 2012 #130
lalalu Nov 2012 #28
Progressive dog Nov 2012 #32
Patiod Nov 2012 #33
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #41
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #55
and-justice-for-all Nov 2012 #43
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #45
47of74 Dec 2012 #124
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #54
Polldancer2012 Nov 2012 #59
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #60
Polldancer2012 Nov 2012 #61
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #62
Polldancer2012 Nov 2012 #64
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #103
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #115
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #73
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #74
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #83
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #63
Polldancer2012 Nov 2012 #65
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #68
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #70
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #67
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #69
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #71
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #72
Hippo_Tron Nov 2012 #75
abetterkid Nov 2012 #114
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #104
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #84
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #82
backscatter712 Nov 2012 #66
davidpdx Nov 2012 #76
UCmeNdc Nov 2012 #77
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #85
UCmeNdc Nov 2012 #88
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #105
Wraith20878 Nov 2012 #80
Iggy Dec 2012 #149
Ter Nov 2012 #86
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #87
LVZ Nov 2012 #90
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #92
LVZ Nov 2012 #93
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #94
LVZ Nov 2012 #95
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #107
abetterkid Nov 2012 #113
47of74 Dec 2012 #125
Ter Nov 2012 #98
Paladin Nov 2012 #91
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #106
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #117
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #119
Maplegrass Nov 2012 #99
abetterkid Nov 2012 #112
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #118
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #120
Kablooie Dec 2012 #134
47of74 Dec 2012 #123
Bonobo Dec 2012 #127
Third Doctor Dec 2012 #128
dhill926 Dec 2012 #129
CTyankee Dec 2012 #132
dhill926 Dec 2012 #133
Adenoid_Hynkel Dec 2012 #144
CTyankee Dec 2012 #145
Adenoid_Hynkel Dec 2012 #146
CTyankee Dec 2012 #147
Sugarcoated Dec 2012 #148
Beacool Dec 2012 #150
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2012 #131
Beacool Dec 2012 #139
BlueDemKev Dec 2012 #142
Filibuster Harry Dec 2012 #143

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:44 PM

1. How realistic were the vampires?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:44 PM

2. That's A Moronic Theme/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:26 PM

52. Really... besides, they were zombies

With important historical subjects, I disagreed with the artistic license they took in changing the zombies to vampires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 03:12 PM

57. Maybe There Will Be A Sequel, Franklin Roosevelt, Ghost Buster/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:52 AM

81. Frankenstein Roosevelt?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #81)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:27 AM

109. Franklinstein. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #109)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:46 PM

121. Of course! How did I miss that???



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:48 PM

3. Wrong movie, but thanks for asking. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:52 AM

16. LOL! He was making Funny

 

He knew which film u were talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:57 PM

14. lol, great post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:57 PM

4. Lucky you!

I'm dying to see it but it doesn't open here til the end of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:11 PM

5. I saw it today, too.

Were you at the Directors Guild? My daughter is a lawyer for the DGA, and she took me to a screening today at their theater in LA. Afterwards there was a live Q&A of Steven Spielberg moderated by JJ Abrams. It was awesome. Afterwards we passed within 10 feet of the two of them in the parking garage, shaking hands after the show. My brush with greatness. my daughter and I literally got the last two seats in the 500-seat theater after waiting in line for almost two hours. At least that many were turned away.

It was a wonderful movie. I'm looking forward to taking my husband to see it when I get back to Anchorage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:12 AM

21. I saw the producer and production designer talk about the film today.

I saw the film a few weeks ago.
Quite an impressive film and historically accurate.
I wish I could have seen the Spielberg talk but I already had a reservation at the other event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:00 AM

135. I'd love to hear about what they said.That film was beautifully designed. The set decoration

was perfect. Some scenes looked like they were desiigned around art on canvas that was done around that era...one scene in particular had a beautiful "still life" quality that was stunning...my experience with art has given me a new "eye" with which to detect this artistry in filmmaking and I was duly impressed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:01 PM

36. Wife and I tried to see it at the Landmark yesterday. All remaining shows were sold out when

 

we arrived (3 hours before the 7 p.m. showing

I guess these young-uns buy their tickets to movies ahead of time on the internet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:21 PM

53. Keep trying. It's really worth it.

The focus of the film is the last four months of Lincoln's life and the extraordinary efforts to get legislative passage of the 13th Amendment. The legislative arm-twisting was monumental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:17 PM

6. I hope that you get an opportunity to visit the Lincoln museum

in Springfield, IL. It is a wonderful place. I learned a lot there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:21 PM

7. yeah

I did a paper on the Lincoln Douglas debates in high school. I read a lot of the transcripts and I remember Lincoln said a lot of things that today we would think of as "weasel" language regarding his position on race. But you're correct, that came from applying a 1970s standard to things thought and said in the 1850s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InsultComicDog (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:04 AM

100. Yes, he was a man of his time.

 

He was a racist, as was everyone. But the difference is that he didn't let it stop him from recognizing that human beings need freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:24 PM

8. You're basing your view of Lincoln on a MOVIE?

You do know that Hollywood tends to just make shit up, right?

Lincoln once said that if it took keeping slavery in the south to save the Union, he'd do it. If it took freeing the slaves, he'd do it. If the status quo would keep the Union intact, he'd stick with the status quo.

Yes, he was morally opposed to it, but his concern was the Union, not slavery. Success at any cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:35 PM

11. He was a pragmatist.

If he could keep the Union intact, he had options regarding slavery. If the South became a sovereign nation, he had no options. In the end, he took sort of a middle ground. The South broke away, but Lincoln always considered them states of the Republic in rebellion against the Union. This way, Federal law would apply to the Emancipation Proclamation in theory, if not actual fact.

It was a simple equation. First; win the war. Then, enforce the Proclamation and abolish slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:44 AM

25. The Union absolutely Had To hold.

It's unfathomable to imagine what direction World history would have gone had it not.

My favorite quote about that period is from Shelby Foote. He said that before the Civil War people would say the United States ARE after the Civil War people said the United States IS.

I think if Lincoln had lived some of the horrid civil rights violations may not have happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:51 AM

89. Predicting history is tricky - what if the Civil War prolonged the suffering of Southern blacks ???

Polldancer2012 said:

Was there NO OTHER WAY to free black Americans in 1861 OTHER than a war that killed nearly 700k Americans with possibly another 200k deaths from injury and disease in the following decade?


Ter said:

600,000 Americans dead and 1 million amputations with no medication - I'm no fan of Lincoln's, sorry.


I agree ... and this is only the obvious physical cost of Lincoln's war of choice - not the economic and psychological.

Just 20 years ago, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and both have been better off.

For decades we have supported and encouraged secession movements throughout the world:

Germany-Austria | Norway-Sweden | Russia-{Finland}-Ukraine-Latvia-Uzbekistan etc. | Yugoslavia-Croatia-Bosnia-etc.
Pakistan-Bangladesh | China-Taiwan | Vietnam | East Timor - West Timor ... and more

Yet so many Americans fail to realize how hypocritical and undemocratic it is to deny US citizens the right to peaceful separation.

Predicting History is Tricky

How many would have predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, dissolution of the USSR starting in 1990, the end of virtual black slavery known as "Apartheid" in South Africa in the early 1990s?

Here is a possible alternate scenario:

Lincoln negotiates with Robert E. Lee to allow partial secession of the South while maintaining loose confederation with the rest of the United States. The USA is allowed by agreement to gradually purchase the freedom and relocation of slaves on the condition that no trade barriers are introduced by the USA and minimum price supports are introduced for Southern agricultural products. Minimum Southern slave "rights and conditions" must be adopted by Southern states.

The Northern states, unencumbered by war debts and proud of its "fight for freedom" status, encourages early black integration and prospers far more than the already backwards Southern states. There is a "brain drain" of more progressive Southerners and those seeking Northern prosperity. This northward flight encourages moderation in Southern politics and more rights for "slaves". That cycle accelerates as the economic gulf between North and South continues.

Later, many Northerners no longer want to continue agricultural price supports to the "slave owning" South. They want to dissolve the confederation between the USA and the breakaway South. There are further negotiations between North and South with the end result that the South agrees to gradually end slavery to maintain its "most favored trading" status.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LVZ (Reply #89)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:06 AM

101. Yes, you're right. It's tricky, and no one knows what the right choice is.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. But even if Lincoln did not make all the right decisions (and who could), he had the right character. That is what history remembers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LVZ (Reply #89)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:19 AM

108. You really have not read the OP, have you?

"War of choice," "supported and encouraged secession movements," well these are 21st century views imposed upon politicians of previous centuries, which the OP specifically says NOT to do.

You ask whether the suffering of the slaves was prolonged and the answer is "No!" In this modern world, despite the general agreement of all powers that slavery is not desirable, it still persists. Now imagine the 150 years since the US civil war without a massively powerful USA assisting the anti-slavery sentiment world wide. Do you honestly believe that slavery would have atrophied and vanished from any state that encouraged it? Do you honestly think that such a state would have permitted the oppressed population to be any more than serfs, similar to the peasantry of pre-revolutionary Russia?

If you truly believe this then there is a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.

Now look at some other possible consequences of a balkanised USA.

At the time of Lincoln the USA was only one wanna-be world power and it had started to challenge the decaying might of the older empires of Europe and had begun imposing itself on the world stage. Now subtract the economic might of the South from the nascent US empire, with the accompanying bickering and border conflicts that would have ensued within the formerly United States. The old empires of Europe would have made hay in the power vacuum that remained. The UK, Spain, Mexico and the Confederacy (assuming Texas did not secede) would have been skirmishing across the Caribbean. Mexico would probably control New Mexico and large parts of California, I suspect that Washington state and large parts of the Dakotas would be back with the dominion of Canada. The Alaska purchase would have not have happened.

You seem to regard balkanisation as a good idea, in general, and this is true but only if you run a large empire or a multi-national business. A fragmentation of opposing power to large vested interests is to the profit of the vested interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LVZ (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

141. A few disagreements.


Minor quibble "negotiate with Robert E. Lee" makes no sense as he was a military general. And if your presumed negotiation took place before the Union first chose to engage Confederate forces, not even a very important general. Lee would have still been running around West Virginia getting his ass kicked by the local hillbillies. Or running logistics after getting his ass kicked and before the USA Army entered the war.

What about Kentucky and Tennessee neither of which had a consensus?

What about New Mexico? The CSA considered that rightfully theirs, but the residents overwhelmingly supported the USA.

Add Maryland and Rhode Island into the "what about" mix as well.

Even Missouri. The overwhelming majority supported the USA, but were outgunned by a minority who established a pro-CSA state government.

If you solve all those problems, there is plenty of evidence that the CSA was after MORE slaves. The entire stated purpose for two invasions of Cuba was to capture the island's slaves. The south was dominated by Norman aristocrats who setup the plantation/slave economic model as a modern adaptation of their feudal model back in the old world. They opposed manufacturing and anything that eased commerce, like canals, railroads and public schools, to maintain this system. No way in hell they were going to sell their slaves.

And what about that military aggressiveness? Southern Norman freebooters conquered Tejas. They conquered Baja California then invaded Sonoma causing them to lose Baja. They conquered Guatemala then lost it when they enslaved all the free Blacks there. With no northern Anglo-Saxon restraint, the Norman/Celtic CSA would never have gotten along peaceably with their neighbors.

There were also a couple of proposals for replacing African slaves with Anglo-Saxons from the north. Though that seems to have been a fairly fringe effort.

For that matter southern states did not spend the pre-war years defending slavery in the south, they spent it trying to spread slavery to the north.


The question of "let them go peacefully" points both ways. The assumption with that question is that the south wanted independance. There is some evidence that the south only wanted independance long enough to build an army to conquer the north. So you have to posit that question to both sides.

Wrote a Richmond newspaper at news of Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, "it was never a quest for independance, but one of conquest!"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:57 AM

19. I believe the poster specifically pointed out . . .

That Lincoln's view on race were "complex." And the movie (which I haven't seen yet) is getting positive reviews precisely because that's one of the things it's done successfully -- represent complexity and nuance.

I'm not sure what you're criticizing the OP about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:53 AM

20. "I know now that while certain ideals are timeless"

"I know now that while certain ideals are timeless it's unfair to impose a late twentieth century or early twenty first century sensibility on someone from the mid nineteenth century."

I'm just amazed that it took a MOVIE to make him (or her) realize this and am surprised that he/she would rely on a dramatized account of history to teach him/her anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:18 AM

24. That Movie You're Trashing.....


.....is based on a book by respected historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. If you want to shit-can the movie without seeing it, go right ahead. But think of the thousands of kids who will learn about Lincoln by seeing the flick, kids who may end up reading Sandburg's Lincoln biography as a result, kids who may use their newly-acquired knowledge of Lincoln to improve their lives and the lives of others. That's not liberal fantasizing, that's what happens with a worthwhile historical movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:11 AM

31. Your threshold for amazement . . .

Strikes me as pretty low.

Realizing the error of the ahistorical paradox is something many people (most, I'd say) never get. How you get wisdom is far less important than that it be gotten at all.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with dramatized historical accounts as long as you take them with a grain of salt. In fact, art is often used to highlight elements of reality that the artist wants to emphasize.

For that matter, if you look at most high school history textbooks published in the US, you'd probably find that Steven Spielberg is a much more credible historian. So I say bravo! to Spielberg and bravo to the OP, because they've both advanced the state of humankind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:27 PM

44. Maybe The Movie Will Inspire People To Learn About The Real Lincoln

If he wasn't a civic saint he was damn near close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:53 AM

34. I'm curious where American kids are supposed to be getting all of this in-depth information...

...about Lincoln or any other important US historical figure from the watered-down crap taught in public schools today. When I'm helping my daughter with her Social Studies homework (they no longer call it US History), I'm constantly having to fill in information to help her understand what was going on behind the scenes that influenced the macro events of US History. For most American kids today, programs like those found on The History Channel, The Military Channel, Discovery, and National Geographic are their best bet to learn something factual about the actual events that shaped this country.

If kids and/or adults can learn something about US history from this movie, I'm not only for it, I highly encourage it.

I don't get your problem with this movie, I really don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:07 PM

51. Storytelling has been used to teach history since, like, *forever*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:26 PM

56. The movie was extremely well researched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:14 AM

22. This film doesn't make a lot up.

Historians that have seen it have reported that it is surprisingly accurate.
He says that very line you quote in the movie too but you get to see where it comes from and what it really means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:52 AM

27. It Didn't Think Me Thirty Five Years From The First Time I Studied Lincoln To Know His Views On Race

It didn't take me thirty five years from the first time I did a college freshman paper on Lincoln to know his views on race were layered and if you believe it did there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Lincoln made racist remarks, wanted to send the freedman back to Liberia. That's what I initially learned. I thought I now saw further than other men. How wrong was I. How stupid was I to rip someone out of their times and put him or her in my times.

The bottom line is Lincoln came to abhor slavery and made it his raison d'etre to end it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:03 AM

29. Lincoln was smart.

 

He hated slavery but knew he could not come out and say it. Yet there are indications in his early years he hated it as much as John Brown and we know what happened to Brown. Lincoln knew he had to get support from people who disliked or even hated black people.

A perfect example was William Tecumseh Sherman. He was pure soldier, did not like black people, but was loyal to the union. There is no doubt Sherman was instrumental in helping to win the war and put fear in southerners. Sherman's priority was serving the president and saving the union. Slavery to him was a side issue he really didn't care about. If Lincoln had openly stated ending slavery was one of his primary goals I doubt he would have been able to retain people like Sherman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:10 PM

38. LOL - I think you win the award for Understatement of the Millennium with

 

"Sherman was instrumental in helping to win the war and put fear in southerners." They're still pissed off at him 150 years later



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:15 PM

40. Made Me Want To Listen To A Certain Song

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:19 PM

42. Oh so true.

 

I just love saying his name to get them riled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:34 PM

48. Sherman Is The First "Modern" General To Employ The "Total War" Concept/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:44 PM

49. He was one bad dude.

 

Grant was smart in unleashing him. Glad Sherman was on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:54 PM

50. As Long As You Weren't In His Path

But it's hard to have sympathy for folks who thought it was o k to own other folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:10 PM

39. Sherman Was Unlike Grant Who Hated Slavery

I'm not a presidential historian, I want to educate myself some more. But I know historians are taking another look at Grant's presidency and looking at it in a kinder light.

It's amazing how the parties have traded their historical roles.

I think in his own way Lyndon Johnson was a visionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:32 PM

46. Lyndon Johnson's greatness was tarnished by Vietnam.

 

It is sad because on domestic issues he was great.

Presidents can be complicated and President Truman is a good example. He was known to use racial slurs and his mother was a true racist. Yet when he became president he was reportedly truly offended by the attacks on black soldiers. His fight for and executive order to desegregate the military was a huge win in the civil rights movement. It cost him a lot of southern democratic allies.

BTW, Grant was a great general but i think a little over his head as president. He is still one of the great heroes in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:11 AM

102. Johnson was a bigger-than-life Texan with a bad attitude

 

And a macho-man complex. Vietnam was his downfall, but he also gave us the Great Society.

Human beings are complex, and cannot be cast in simple terms of "angel" or "devil."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:35 AM

78. Grant's main problem was that he was too trusting

While he himself was not corrupt, there were a lot of corrupt individuals in his administration for this reason. This is where the scandals come from.

He also in rather unfairly compared to Lee. Most people say Lee was a great strategist, and that Grant was just a butcher with more men. Yes, Grant's army suffered heavy casualties, but so did Lee's. Grant was also better able to see the entire strategic picture, while Lee never really saw anything past Virginia. Grant would see how securing an objective would aid him in his sector, and also how it would affect the south in other sectors. When he was made General of all Union Armies, he was finally able to get all those armies to coordinate attacks on different parts of the Confederacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wraith20878 (Reply #78)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:54 AM

111. Great points about Grant.

 

I do believe he was too trusting as a president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #111)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:23 AM

122. It was his fatal flaw

He just couldn't fathom one of his "friends" taking advantage of him. He gave a lot of these friends government positions, who then turned around and tried to embezzle as much money as possible. He had the same problem after his presidency. He got into a business deal with his "friend" Ferdinand Ward. Ward swindled Grant, and others Grant had encouraged to invest in the project and fled the country. Grant insisted on paying these people back, selling his Civil War mementos to pay back $150,000 of the stolen money. He was left destitute, and was only able to save his family from this destitution by writing and publishing his memoirs while dying of throat cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:56 PM

96. If Sherman had thought it was primarily a issue of Slavery

and not of maintaining the Union he would have accepted the offer to join the Confederacy/Lousiiana Militia. A complex man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_State_Seminary_of_Learning_%26_Military_Academy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:59 PM

97. Thanks for the information.

 

Lincoln knew who he was dealing with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #96)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:09 AM

116. But Grant Was A True Believer

The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878.

"You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard."

"But it had to be done." said the General.

"Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany."

"Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General.

"I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince.

"In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

...

There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible only destruction."



http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:01 PM

35. " ...his concern was the Union, not slavery. Success at any cost."

Which is one of the greatest things about him. He saved the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:04 PM

37. The movie is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography\history, btw. Lincoln's

 

views on slavery and race were complex and nuanced and evolved over time. The Lincoln of 1863 (post Emancipation Proclamation) was far different and far more evolved than the Lincoln of 1860-61.

You should also ask yourself why Lincoln thought the Union was worth preserving at any cost, before dismissing him as some sort of morally vacuous cynic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:34 PM

47. Gore Vidal

 

also wrote a great biography of Lincoln. An excellent book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:36 AM

110. Goodwin's book is Obama's favorite book on Lincoln. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:18 PM

138. A lot of movies are based on books

Doesn't mean they follow them.

Hollywood goes for what is dramatically expedient. Truth is far less important than entertainment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:36 PM

58. So tell us where we can see him in person & ask him his views ...

Since a movie based on historical research seems useless in your mind ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:30 AM

136. the movie was based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's acclaimed book "Team of Rivals" so it has

some scholarship behind it. Tony Kushner ain't no slouch either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:17 PM

137. And you're assuming

that Hollywood actually follows a book when they adapt it and doesn't make anything up.

Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #137)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:36 PM

140. Oh, I wasn't talking about all of Hollywood.Nor all of picture making.

"Argo" for instance takes some artistic license with the actual story (the Iranian police didn't chase the plane on the runway and shoot at it) and of course I doubt if the lead character looks much like Ben Affleck in real life.

I just think Spielberg followed the Kearns Goodwin book pretty faithfully. And I don't mean about "stage business" like the little vignette about the gloves. And certain scenes would probably have to be "reconstructed" since they took place in Lincoln's bedroom (important scene with Mary Lincoln). But overall the historical integrity of this film seems very good to me...

Ask Doris Kearns Goodwin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:26 PM

9. Dying to see it!6?

Thought it wasn't out until 11/16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:33 PM

10. When I read "Team of Rivals" I cried my eyes out at the end.

 

Even though I knew how it ended and I'm not the sort of guy that cries over anything.

What a tragedy, what a missed opportunity, what an incredible loss for the country. Lincoln was such a good person, such an icon. We all lost when he was assassinated by that fucking asshole Boothe.

How different things would have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:55 AM

18. Isn't it strange how that happens?

It's like watching the Zapruder film and wishing somehow it would end differently.

I guess that happens when the mind cannot accept the reality.

And how different things would have been had President Kennedy been able to at least finish even one term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:38 AM

79. But now he belongs to the ages

To quote Seward

I agree with you though, a terrible loss, for the north and the south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:37 PM

12. I can't wait to see that film

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:44 PM

13. I can't wait to see it

but it reminds me of something from around 4 years ago... Something that Malia said on their
tour of the White House. She said she was looking forward to writing school papers at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:54 AM

17. Greatly looking forward to seeing it.

My daughter and I discussed it today and can't wait.

Thanks for the review!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:17 AM

23. The Fiery Trial

If you're interested in reading about the evolution of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation and equality you might be interested in The Fiery Trial:Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by the historian Eric Foner.

Looking forward to the movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:50 AM

26. I expect I'll watch it, if nothing else for Tony Kushner

 

writing the screen play.

But I really can't stand John William's music. From what I've heard already, it's imitation Aaron Copland, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:06 AM

30. Thanks for that warning.

I can't stand his music either except when the movie is so terrible I can at least spend the time counting his "quotes".

I was excited when I saw Kushner was doing the screen play as well. These things and what looks to be an amazing cast has put this on my must see list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:43 PM

130. the score was rather understated....

Americana yes. But I think, better than the other guys do it (Carter Burwell, etc.). Bonus, is that it was recorded by the Chicago Symphony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:53 AM

28. As a Daniel Day Lewis fan

 

I expected it to be great. Combined with Spielberg the odds were high. I look forward to seeing it.

I want to see Skyfall too. A little Daniel Craig eyecandy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:28 AM

32. Looking forward to seeing it

I read the book after our recently elected President said that he was reading it. Great narrative history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:52 AM

33. I notice they flooded election night with "Lincoln" ads

And the theme was "US" - whoever put the ads together probably realized that people would be looking for something uplifting after a hard-fought election.l

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:18 PM

41. I Think Spielberg Released It After The Election Because He Didn't Want To Be Seen

I think Spelberg released it after the election because he didn't want be seen as partisan and giving a gift to Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:24 PM

55. Of course, interestingly at that point in time

it was the republicans who were the good guys while the democrats were the obstructionists when it came to abolishing slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:20 PM

43. Lincoln Republicans do not exist anymore...

and have not for some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to and-justice-for-all (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:29 PM

45. Lincoln Is In The Pantheon Of Great Presidents

IMHO, only FDR, Washington, and Jefferson can touch him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to and-justice-for-all (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:16 PM

124. Lincoln would get teabagged right out of the party today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:22 PM

54. My dining table was bequeathed to my grandfather and grandmother by the granddaughter

of Lincoln's friend and law colleague in Springfield, IL.

James Conkling: http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/americas_new_birth_of_freedom_3.html

James Conkling's granddaughter hired my grandfather as a teen to be her handyman and later chauffeur. She and her father (I forget his name) were quite fond of him - Alice (the granddaughter) hosted my grandparents' wedding and reception during the Great Depression. My grandfather drove them up from their home in NE to their summer place in MN and went fishing and such with them. Alice's father worked in Lincoln's law office running errands as a boy.

So - my dining table was sat at by (and my grandfather personally knew) a man who personally knew Lincoln. I just think that's awesome. Only 3 degrees of separation between me and that great man. Sigh.

All of which has nothing to do with the movie unless it has Conkling in it, lol.

ETA: Oh and I also have photographs of my grandfather with old Mr. Conkling and Alice. He was quite elderly even in the 1920s when the photos were taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:48 PM

59. I have trouble thinking of Lincoln as a hero

 

Was there NO OTHER WAY to free black Americans in 1861 OTHER than a war that killed nearly 700k Americans with possibly another 200k deaths from injury and disease in the following decade?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:53 PM

60. "...of blood drawn with the lash, shall be repaid by another drawn by the sword."

That would have been a good question for Jeff Davis and Bob Lee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:59 PM

61. was any form of negotiation attempted?

 

Lincoln said he'd keep every slave imprisoned if it'd preserve the union. (paraphrase)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 05:09 PM

62. Yeah ,But The South Wanted To Keep Their Slaves

That would be akin to letting the NAZIs surrender and keeping all of occupied Europe and their concentration camps.

I think Ulysses Grant had it right when he said "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:04 PM

64. thats not quite correct...

 

and I will respectfully correct you.

1861 would be akin to 1938 in your example and in 1938 there were no concentration camps ( in the WW2 sense of the word) and no occupied Europe.

I'm talking about 1861 negotiations. At that time Europe was already anti-slavery. Even the South could see the writing on the wall.

Here's the real problem. And I'm confident of this. Lincoln HAD NO IDEA that the Civil War would erupt into what it did. He anticipated sending some called up troops down south for a little saber rattling and all would be good. Once the war got bad and the Union was getting pummeled, Lincoln HAD NO CHOICE but escalation. Circumstances moved Lincoln, not the other way around.

At that point he became desperate to save the Union and fought the war decisively.

Let's be graphic... Lincoln's war cost 140x the deaths as Shrub's Iraq in 1/3 the time. There's NOTHING heroic or awe inspiring about the USCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:16 AM

103. It was certainly an ugly war.

 

I doubt anyone disputes that - but it was not Lincoln's doing. As you point out, the war was brought to him, and when it all went to hell, he did what had to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maplegrass (Reply #103)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:46 AM

115. Exactly/nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:10 PM

73. I think you just answered your own question

Lincoln was willing to let the south keep their slaves. The deep south wouldn't return to the union even though Lincoln was basically giving them what they wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

74. The Way I See It

Lincoln wanted to end slavery and preserve the Union, by necessity spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and in the end accomplished both.

Well played...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #61)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:23 AM

83. You're kidding, right?!

Since BEFORE the US was even the US. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a huge part of this, and the next 80+ years was compromise after compromise, as humans kept on being treated as livestock.

As Jefferson said, "We have a tiger by the tail."

The rich Teabaggers in the South caused the war, and enablers like Robert Lee didn't try to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 05:40 PM

63. I believe there was more involved with the civil war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:05 PM

65. of course

 

Anyone who thinks the USCW was fought "to free the slaves" got trapped in 5th grade History class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:33 PM

68. No It Was Primarily Fought Because Traitorous Southerners Seceded./nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:48 PM

70. For The Traitorous Southerners It Was A War To Save Slavery

For Lincoln it was a war to preserve the Union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:52 PM

67. In the lower south, there was absolutely no other way whatsoever

South Carolina and six other states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Much like our current President, he was handed an absolute mess by his predecessor who had failed to take the appropriate actions to isolate and defeat the pro-slavery lunatics in South Carolina like Andrew Jackson had done three decades earlier. Even Jackson, who I'm fairly certain owned more slaves than any other US President, knew that these people were fucking crazy and had to be stopped. Buchanan, on the other hand, was too chickenshit to do anything about it.

The deep south pretty clearly saw that the Federal government wasn't going to take any serious action to stop them and so they threw in their lot with the crazies in South Carolina.

Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland) it's a little more murky. These states had the most to lose from a war and were ambivalent about fighting one. But after Fort Sumpter Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the rebellion and it was clear they would be involved in the war one way or another, so they picked the pro-slavery side.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:44 PM

69. Exactly

This has all been litigated. History is written by the victors. Traitorous southerners seceded from the United States Of America because it was more important to own other human beings than to be American citizens.

They were put down at great cost but a scourge was removed from the land and the union was preserved.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:44 PM

71. It wasn't really removed...

The union forces should've occupied that place for decades until the people accepted that their actions in the antebellum years were wrong and evil. That's what we did in Germany after World War II and that's why it's illegal to deny the holocaust there today.

The only things that the Civil War settled were the fact that you can't own other human beings, and you can't secede. But other than that we told the south that they could go back to their horrendously racist ass-backward system of government, and we've been paying for it ever since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:52 PM

72. As You Know That Was Because Of The Disputed Election Of 1876

But if the Republicans allow the Democrat, Tilden, to become president he presumably removes troops from the south and ends Reconstruction anyway.

I should add that Confederate sympathizers and latent supporters of Jim Crow would take umbrage at your comparison to the National Socialists but I fail to see a tangible difference between Jim Crow and the Nuremberg Laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:36 PM

75. Reconstruction was basically done before the 1876 election

At that point we had pulled federal troops out of most states, and you had the same traitors we had been fighting a decade ago running the governments in many of the states that he won. The south should've remained as conquered territory for another decade or two with nobody (other than freed slaves) getting a say in who gets to be President of the United States.

Tilden would've likely lost the election (for real) had that been the case. And actually if he had won under a hypothetical scenario where southern whites weren't a big part of his coalition, he may not have pulled the troops out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #75)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:43 AM

114. PREACH!

Thumbs up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:19 AM

104. And now the most ridiculous among them are threatening to secede again...

 

Because a liberal black man was elected. Funny how history runs in these spirals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #67)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:28 AM

84. NC was dragged in kicking and screaming

The last to leave the Union, and the bulk of its citizens didn't want to do so. The plantation owners on the coast did it. NC was relatively poor then, and not a huge slaveholding state, and also had a very strong abolitionist and Quaker influence, which extended to being an important part of the Underground Railroad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polldancer2012 (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:18 AM

82. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:32 PM

66. This one's the one with Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln?

Four score and seven years ago, I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:27 PM

76. I read Team of Rivals and am excited to see the movie

The problem is that I'm in South Korea and it is difficult to find out when the movies are released. I looked at IMDB and it didn't have South Korea on the list. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan are all listed for early next year which makes me think we have a few months to wait before getting to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:47 PM

77. Did the movie talk about the Greenback dollar?

Lincoln financed the war by having the United States (Union side) print its own money called the Greenback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #77)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:32 AM

85. It wasn't the Union side, it was teh United States government

There weren't two sides during this, that was only the US government fighting traitors.

I am a proud North Carolinian, and there is no way to spin what the CSA stood for. Treachery and slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:26 AM

88. I put Union Side in parentheses to differentiate it from confederate states

since the use of Greenbacks was only used by the Union side.

The use of Greenbacks by the United States government during the civil war is really the real reason President Lincoln was assassinated. But any historical account always skips this fact. As usual, always look at the money trail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #88)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:22 AM

105. Agreed, fighting a central bank had a great deal to do with it.

 

Lincoln declared the central banksters a worse enemy than the Confederacy. And by printing our own interest-free money, he committed the cardinal sin against the rich elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:44 AM

80. Really looking forward to this movie

The reviews look good, but I would go see it, regardless what the reviews say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wraith20878 (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:33 PM

149. Lincoln is the Best Film I've seen in Decades...

 

I was moved.. very moved by this film.

Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln is amazing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:42 AM

86. 600,000 Americans dead and 1 million amputations with no medication

 

I'm no fan of Lincoln's, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:20 AM

87. If You Were Black And Your Children Were Sold Like Animals From The Same Litter

If you were black and your children were sold like animals from a litter you might have a different opinion. As Lincoln said " Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

That's the long answer.

And the south seceded. Maybe if they just seceded, history wouldn't be so harsh but they seceded with human booty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #87)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:59 AM

90. History does not work like that ...

Predicting History is Tricky

How many would have predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, dissolution of the USSR starting in 1990, the end of virtual black slavery known as "Apartheid" in South Africa in the early 1990s?

Here is a possible alternate scenario:

Lincoln negotiates with Robert E. Lee to allow partial secession of the South while maintaining loose confederation with the rest of the United States. The USA is allowed by agreement to gradually purchase the freedom and relocation of slaves on the condition that no trade barriers are introduced by the USA and minimum price supports are introduced for Southern agricultural products. Minimum Southern slave "rights and conditions" must be adopted by Southern states.

The Northern states, unencumbered by war debts and proud of its "fight for freedom" status, encourages early black integration and prospers far more than the already backwards Southern states. There is a "brain drain" of more progressive Southerners and those seeking Northern prosperity. This northward flight encourages moderation in Southern politics and more rights for "slaves". That cycle accelerates as the economic gulf between North and South continues.

Later, many Northerners no longer want to continue agricultural price supports to the "slave owning" South. They want to dissolve the confederation between the USA and the breakaway South. There are further negotiations between North and South with the end result that the South agrees to gradually end slavery to maintain its "most favored trading" status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LVZ (Reply #90)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:45 AM

92. While All This Is Occurring Blacks Folks Are Continued To Be Treated Like Chattel

And the union is dissolved which is exactly what Lincoln rightfully opposed.

As it was the U S A was one of the last industrialized nations to abolish slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:56 AM

93. in the short term, yes, in the longer term, Southern blacks may have suffered more ... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LVZ (Reply #93)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:05 AM

94. They Suffered More Because Reconstruction Ended Too Soon.

HippoTron was correct in asserting that the occupation of the south should have been more like the occupation of Germany after WW ll. It should have continued until every vestige of pro Confederate sentiment was eradicated. There are still neo-Nazis in Germany but pro Nazi sentiment is infinitely more muted in Germany than pro-Confederacy sentiment is in some parts of the American south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:17 AM

95. very likely true ... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #94)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:31 AM

107. That's true.. even in blue Virginia I see Confederate flags frequently.

 

And it was far worse in Alabama, where I spent 10 long years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #94)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:25 AM

113. AMEN!

Thank you. Completely agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #94)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:18 PM

125. Yeah, we let them up a little too easy

These people were traitors and should have been treated as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #87)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:42 PM

98. Not worth 600,000 dead and 1 million amputations with hand saws

 

Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded the Constitution. He should have let them go without war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:37 AM

91. So Don't See The Fucking Movie. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #86)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:24 AM

106. Is it Lincoln's fault effective anesthesia and penicillin did not yet exist? (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maplegrass (Reply #106)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:13 AM

117. Is It Lincoln's Fault That The South Seceded From The Union Because They Wanted To Own Other Folks?

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #117)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:51 AM

119. Or fired on FEDERAL TROOPS because they were pissed Lincoln was elected?

Because they wanted to own and trade and breed and treat HUMAN BEINGS as livestock?

I'm a North Carolinian through and through, and most people here did NOT want to join the CSA. It disgusts me the rice planters here made this state join the CSA. The CSA was a traitorous movement formed ONLY because rich slave owners wanted to keep on being rich slave owners. THAT'S what they meant by states' rights. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:02 AM

99. He was a truly great man.

 

Sadly, he would have zero chance of winning today due to his appearance - and his honesty and integrity.

But mainly his appearance. That's the world we now live in.

We should be thankful we had this man as a leader when the times permitted it. And although he was the first Republican president, we should remember that at the time, Republicans were the progressive party (and stayed that way right through Teddy Roosevelt).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:23 AM

112. I really can't wait to see Lincoln but...

In my opinion he was a bit deified by Americans and Radical Republicans after his death. There's really no telling what he intended to do with the newly freed slaves. My old history professor Eric Foner let me read a copy of a paper he was working on that talked about Lincolns negotiations to send the freedmen to Haiti or Liberia to be with "their own people." Just as Kennedy's death was used by LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965 passed so too did the Radical (badass mofos) Republicans use Lincolns death as a cause celebre to enact the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. ALSO, Lincoln probably wouldnt have kept the troops in the south to protect the black vote as long as the Republican Congress did. I still respect Lincoln of course though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abetterkid (Reply #112)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:22 AM

118. Doesn't The Scholarship Suggest Lincoln Abandoned His Repatriation Plans Prior To His Assassination?

Going back to my original argument it's unfair to judge someone from the mid nineteenth century using late twentieth century or early twenty first century standards. Most of the black folks Lincoln knew were servants. One of the few truly emancipated black men Lincoln knew was Frederick Douglass and he impressed Lincoln greatly. Through him Lincoln can see what all folks could be, intellectually, if given the chance.




I'm heading to the library later to check out Foner's book as well as 'Team Of Rivals' and James Macpherson's book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #118)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:00 PM

120. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abetterkid (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:57 PM

134. He was a man with flaws and had complex views on many subjects.

He didn't see things in terms of black and white, (sorry about that phrase there) but as having many facets.
The movie doesn't portray him as a perfect superman.

He comes off as an fascinating character with deeply thought views and a stubborn determination to do what he thought was right to get the best, not perfect but best under the circumstances, results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:45 PM

123. I saw it today

I thought it was a pretty good film. Probably one of the few I'll see in theaters this year. The movie is 2.5 hours long but goes by pretty quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:36 PM

127. Why didn't the Emancipation Declaration include outlawing slavery in the North? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:32 PM

128. One of the sole reasons for the Proclamation

was to cut into the confederate states workforce. Almost half the people in the south were slaves and a large number of white laborers had joined the CSA army. If the proclamation was more sweeping it would have destabilized conditions in the border states that allowed slavery but stayed in the union. Once the war was over the 13th amendment was passed that abolished slavery everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:40 PM

129. enjoyed it greatly, and can't wait.....

to do some research on Thaddeus Stevens. He was really only a name to me before. Looking forward to finding out more about the man. And of course, Tommy Lee Jones just killed it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dhill926 (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:36 PM

132. I "think" he was the one who was beaten so badly by a southernor in the House of Representatives

that he was damaged for the rest of his life (which is portrayed in the movie).

According to Daivd McCullough's book "the Greater Journey" he was beaten by a souther slave state representative with his cane so badly that Stevens was crippled for life...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #132)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:08 PM

133. interesting.....

thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:17 PM

144. No, that was his ally Charles Sumner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #144)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:37 PM

145. Thanks. I was really uncertain about this one. Since Stevens was an abolitionist and it looked

like he had bad injuries, I assumed (with some doubt) he was the one.

Thanks for the correction...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:45 PM

146. They didn't really portray Sumner as injured in the film

I'm not sure how noticeable his injuries were in later life.

Stevens' limp was a disability from having a club foot as a child.

Interesting fact: When Stevens died, he was buried, according to his wishes, in one of the few non-segregated cemeteries in existence at the time.

His grave, in Lancaster, Pa., reflects that:




It shows just how successful the southern racist revisionism in this country has been, when traitors like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are memorialized and have countless buildings in their name, yet Stevens (who was immensely popular in his day) has become almost a forgotten man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:03 PM

147. I actually noticed that club foot in the film (toward the end).

I love this movie because it DID spotlight his own wonderful contributions to this country. He was a real hero. I'm glad that Spielberg made this happen thru his script and his casting of Tommy Lee Jones.

I think Jones will get an Oscar for this performance!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adenoid_Hynkel (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:14 PM

148. Just an aside,

but Tommy Lee Jones looks a whole lot more like Andrew Johnson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dhill926 (Reply #129)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:24 PM

150. I saw it last night.

Thought the same thing, very interesting man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:44 PM

131. There Was An Argument How About Many Lives Needed To Be Sacrificed To Free The Slaves

That question should have been directed to the slaves. I suspect they would have said as many as necessary.

Also, a parallel argument that Lincoln didn't free the slaves. They freed themselves. Nearly 200,000 fought on the side of the Union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:46 PM

139. Thanks for the post.

I'm going tonight after work, can't wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:33 PM

142. Saw it last night.

Very good, I must say. No doubt if this were 1862 instead of 2012, I'd be a proud Republican!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:19 PM

143. Saw it this past sunday. Great movie. Impeachable offense for Lincoln?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread