How historically accurate do you think it was? I actually found it to be very accurate. It showed that Lincoln was going through an evolution of thought. He wasn't a radical abolitionist like his friend Thaddeus Stevens (who was also portrayed accurately, imo). I'm sure he was still unsure whether blacks were equal to whites (as he had previously proclaimed a decade earlier). His tone definitely changed from 1858 to 1865. I think the movie really highlighted his struggle with the issue. On the one side, he was being told to do it to end the war, and on the other side (abolitionists) he was being told to do it for the moral implications. The portrayal of him was good. His voice matched the historical accounts and though some things were perhaps given extra drama, for the most part, his stories and tone seemed to match what historical records say. Excellent movie.
Cool story bro. Seriously though I was wondering how accurate it would be, good to hear. I may have to see this.
Erm, how do you know it's accurate? If you're going by written accounts, well, they could be misleading. Especially with someone like Lincoln. Also, on the accuracy part, what did you expect? Did you think they'd add time travel or something? Didn't see the movie though. I've never been interested in Lincoln or his exploits.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc]Abraham Lincoln was a Tyrant! - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgA4qYpR5aI]Abraham Lincoln The Treasonous TYRANT - Judge Napolitano - YouTube[/ame]
I''m glad you put that up. I just scanned it for now (some of us have to work ) but if it isn't there, the doubters simply need to read both of his inaugural addresses and the Stephens debates to see how much of a racist he was, and that he wanted to deport all blacks. Government schools lied to us about who "Honest Abe" really was???? Say it ain't so!!
The film merely makes the viewer sympathetic to America's most famous Stockholm syndrome president. It's no wonder he is idolized in the history books and has a monument in DC, he set the precedent for all the bullshit that DC is able to get away with now. "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." ^ What a sweet guy
Lincoln is basically the godfather of the neocon movement in a way.. Obama, Bush, Regan etc have a lot to thank Lincoln for..
Well, the movie isn't based in 1858. Like I said above, Lincoln's view on blacks and slavery changed dramatically by 1865. His radical friends had an influence on him, and in the end, he was definitely for freedom of blacks. And as for the colonization theory which he supported when he was younger, by 1865 he admitted that it was not likely to work. He had an incredible evolution of thought, and the movie depicted this perfectly. He, and a lot of abolitionist politicians said this in order not to scare the conservatives who didn't want to pass the 13th Amendment. They used it to get people who didn't want to free blacks to free them. Lincoln is known for lying to politicians and being deceptive (in the movie and in real life he lies to Congress and tells them there is no peace talks, so that the vote cannot be delayed. He puts it in a deceptively true manner).
By the way, the fact that he didn't want the vote to be postponed (AKA destroyed), even though he was already in peace talks with the South says something about his true intention.
Right, he was a closet abolitionist who had to hide his true intentions, that's why the quote comes from a private letter to Horace Greeley, not some speech in front of thousands of people. I'm glad you notice that Lincoln is known for lying, although I think we would disagree as to what he lied about. Someone who pursued the possibility of deporting blacks to Peru doesn't strike me as giving two shits about the morality of the status of Blacks in this country. Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies - Telegraph He finishes his statement by denying that he wishes to remove everything from blacks, after listing everything he wishes to keep from them. /facepalm Lest we forget who provoked the war into occurring in the first place: Lincoln Provoked the War Let's not forget his other great achievements either, and what he set the precedent for in future generations: The first use of military conscription, the highest number of American casualties in any war, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, imprisonment of journalists, imprisonment of members of the Maryland legislature, institution of the income tax, protectionist tariffs, and lastly, fiat currency or 'greenbacks'. My, what a great precedent has been left for the forthcoming generations. Future leaders will aspire to conscript more soldiers, imprison more for free speech, tax more, and print more money. That's a real American right there.
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/1136818-abraham-lincolns-presidency.html I made this a day before this thread was made. I'm sure we could've incorporated the film into discussing Lincoln's presidency as a whole.
Thanks for that post, xsmaspoo I was in the middle of digging some quotes out a couple of hours ago to put in this thread, and some guy knocks on my door, saying he'd shot a buck on my property. So I've been busy helping him get the deer out and into his truck. I just got back to the house, poured some champagne, fired up the launch box and got back to the PC. (and a very hot babe is involved in the deer story also, who happens to be my neighbor. I may make a thread about it later.) So I get back here and read your post. Ah! Nice job! Better than I would have done.
Actually it wasn't a private letter. If you read the background of the letter to Horace Greeley, you'll notice it is a response to his editorial, basically taking the radical abolitionist position and urging Lincoln to immediately free the slaves. When Lincoln wrote this response, he had a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk. Horace Greeley, himself, wrote that Lincoln wasn't actually responding to his editorial, but rather preparing the public for his "altered position" on emancipation. The manner in which he spoke in the response was very careful. He didn't want to upset the border states, and he could not yet introduce the Emancipation Proclamation until the North had more military successes. He was using the war to push both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment through. Like I said before, Lincoln, like a lot of moderate abolitionists, did believe in the colonization plan early on (which even Thomas Jefferson subscribed to mildly; James Monroe even carried out a bit of it successfully in Monrovia, Liberia), but he later admits that it wouldn't be successful. Ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? Ever heard of Fort Sumpter?
I currently have a Professor who's a Civil War historian. And I've met a couple of Civil War buffs. Out of all of the Civil War historians I've met or heard, none of them have this tone towards Lincoln. It's sad how biased you guys can be on this particular subject. You exempt all blame from the South (because we all know how innocent they were) and place it all on Lincoln.
But, but, but, my professor said!!!11!1!!! It's not like any of the information we're quoting is some long lost personal diary, you can find the quotes yourself. I'm done with this thread...
Most of what you provided were heavily biased articles from sites. The quotes, I've gone over. None of them are surprising and I've seen them before. Actually it wasn't a private letter. If you read the background of the letter to Horace Greeley, you'll notice it is a response to his editorial, basically taking the radical abolitionist position and urging Lincoln to immediately free the slaves. When Lincoln wrote this response, he had a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk. Horace Greeley, himself, wrote that Lincoln wasn't actually responding to his editorial, but rather preparing the public for his "altered position" on emancipation. The manner in which he spoke in the response was very careful. He didn't want to upset the border states, and he could not yet introduce the Emancipation Proclamation until the North had more military successes. He was using the war to push both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment through. Like I said before, Lincoln, like a lot of moderate abolitionists, did believe in the colonization plan early on (which even Thomas Jefferson subscribed to mildly; James Monroe even carried out a bit of it successfully in Monrovia, Liberia), but he later admits that it wouldn't be successful. Ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? Ever heard of Fort Sumpter?[/QUOTE]
It's a private communication between two individuals, Lincoln didn't write the letter to the Congress, to the Northern states, to the Confederacy, but to Horace. Political posturing aside, he made it explicitly clear that he had no skin in the game as far as slavery was concerned, it only mattered as to what he perceived best helped the military efforts of the Union. Free the slaves when it's convenient, imprison journalists and members of the Maryland Legislature when that's convenient as well. And exactly how many slaves did the emancipation proclamation free, considering he didn't have legal jurisdiction in seceded territory? The Confederate states aren't going to suddenly recognize the jurisdiction of the Union. It didn't free a single slave, the states that had seceded at the time obviously wouldn't recognize this provision, it was merely an encouragement for slaves of the south to revolt on their part and a morale booster for Union troops. But, but... freed the slaves, right? Remember that the 13th-15th amendments weren't ratified until after Lincoln's death. Lincoln pursued this policy of deportation all the way through 1864, before congressional funding was removed, effectively killing the momentum. If you are going to rely on your Professor and uber knowledgeable Civil War buffs, then you know that Bleeding Kansas didn't start the war, the firing on Fort Sumpter did. Kansas validates the principle of secession, people were bickering about how slavery would be addressed, when they could have simply seceded into multiple territories (which they did at one point have two state governments). Multiple territories allows people to vote with their feet, in essence a referendum on slavery, minus the skirmishes. On top of that, if you bothered to read the link I posted, you would see that Lincoln provoked the south into firing the first shot, generating sympathy from a northern population (reluctant to go to war), and the larger western world. You don't wait to take a defensive measure until the other side attacks, if the threat of deadly force appears imminent, you're justified in retaliating. Appeal to authority much? The Confederacy, for all it's hypocrisy regarding natural rights and slavery, sought peaceful secession from the Union, to which Lincoln would not recognize this natural right. Secession is a natural right that precedes the existence of any written law. It is obvious that governments will not peaceably grant secession, as they stand to lose power & revenue from this process. King George did not grant the colonists the opportunity to secede from the British empire, the colonists had to forcibly take it and make secession their right. The same principle was attempted in the civil war, yet Lincoln prevailed through sheer state terrorism & disregard for the constitution that has gone unrivaled by any President prior or since. When consent is withdrawn, the just powers are made obsolete. The Deceleration of Independence is not written in such a way as to codify the right to alter or abolish the government into law. It is written so as to be understood that 'it is the Right', not "The people shall have the right to". Phrasing being important here, implies that the right to alter or abolish government precedes the existence of written law. What is secession if not an alteration or abolishment of the existing government? The problem people have with Lincoln is the groundwork he set for future generations. He set the precedent for all the militarism and economic interventionism that we live with today, he is in effect the intellectual grandfather of progressive/neo-conservative thinking. A much less costly matter that would have freed the slaves and spared the lives of over 700,000 Americans, and over a decade of reconstruction, would have been to simply allow the Confederate states to secede. This would have effectively NULLIFIED the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, allowing runaway slaves that made it to the northern states to be free of worry of being captured and sent back South. This undermining of slavery in the south would have ultimately forced reforms in the Confederacy, and sooner rather than later, seeing as they now lacked the willing participation of the Union states in their schemes. Consider: We cheer for the rebels of most all worldly conflicts, yet we scorn those considered as 'rebels' in our own past. There's a certain level of irony there that can't be ignored. I trust the US History books' version of events about as much as any other nation's, and that's pretty laughable considering who the regimes in other countries consist of.
Again, his response wasn't private. It was published in Newspapers. It was quite a public address. It's not like he sent the letter to Horace Greeley's address and assumed no one else would read it. Horace Greeley himself writes that the letter wasn't addressed to him, but to the public. It was a political move he used to try to push his legislation through. Ignore the facts all you want, that doesn't change history. You can't rewrite history just because you hate Lincoln.