Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't really matter which part of that book it's based on. Doris Kearns Goodwin is an admitted plagarist and card carrying member of the Lincoln Cult. If you want a truthful look at Lincoln, get that DiLorenzo book.
Your location combined with "DiLorenzo" says it all. He is a quack pseudo-historian. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He is a friend and lecturer to the "League of the South". No thanks.
I wont be seeing it and I believe it will be as historically accurate as a modern junior high history textbook. Which is to say....not even close! The previews even sucked. To make a truly accurate movie about Lincoln, they would have to offend to many folks. Ain't gonna happen
This is another textbook Democrat lie. How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?
Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor
In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964. Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.And as we all know by now, the ONLY admitted former KKK member in Congress was Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK.So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?
FACT.. Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. Democrats sat back and talked about it and did nothing. The more things change the more they stay the same!
Why did the South begin the process of turning Republican in the 1960s, I wonder?
There's a reason why Lyndon Johnson (one of the only decent southern Democrats of the period) said "There goes the South for a generation" when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Just sayin'
Why did the South begin the process of turning Republican in the 1960s, I wonder?
There's a reason why Lyndon Johnson (one of the only decent southern Democrats of the period) said "There goes the South for a generation" when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Just sayin'
After Wallace lost in 1968 the south began electing Republicans. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Lamar Alexander, Saxby Chambliss, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, etc., etc. By the time the 1972 election rolled around all five southern States that voted for Wallace in 1968 voted for Nixon in 1972.
If it really was historically accurate, it would be incredible, but liberals would be having conniption fits.
Most people don't understand that Lincoln was a manic-depressive who caused the deaths of 750,000 Americans in order to destroy the very foundations of State's rights against an oppressive and growing Federal Government, and used the issue of slavery to get the northern masses to support a war to defy the constitution and create a powerful Federal level that effectively controlled the states. His letter to Horace Greeley leaves no doubt: "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." Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
It is interesting to note that slavery died out worldwide, with the thousands of other nations in the world NOT having to go through a protracted and catastrophic war that killed three quarters of a million of their own citizens. It is utterly ridiculous to think that the Civil War and horrendous Reconstruction Period was a better alternative than the inevitable legal changes following the economic demise of slavery (which was already well in progress when Lincoln led the nation into catastrophe). Former slaves in the post Civil War period suffered immensely, and for far longer than was necessary, as their former means of food, clothing and housing instantly disappeared and was replaced with...nothing. In fact, for a full 80 years after the Civil War, a period of "Neoslavery" reigned (The Untold History of Post-Civil War 'Neoslavery' : NPR). During this period, "thousands of African-Americans who were arrested on trumped-up charges and forced to work as convict labor" 'Slavery by Another Name' Relays the Forgotten Stories of Post-Civil War Slaves | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 13, 2012 | PBS. In addition, "Many freedmen, herded into contraband camps, were hired out to loyal Unionist plantation owners for low wages, and others in the Western theater were assigned parcels of confiscated lands for subsistence farming. Still others rendered service to the army." Often the former slave stayed on the plantation as a sharecropper, thus relieving the slave owner from the responsibility of keeping the former slave fed, clothed and housed: "Perhaps the most general outcome was that a good percentage stayed on or near the plantations and farms they had formerly be enslaved upon, working out some form of employment with their former masters, usually in some form of sharecropping." U.S. History: What happened to the liberated slaves after the American civil war? - Quora
But most importantly, this happened: "Homeless, with few possessions, blacks fleeing to Union lines for protection found themselves as dependent on the Federal government for their existence as they had been on their masters." Freedmen, The Freed Slaves of the Civil War In other words, responsibility for paying for the food, health care, clothes and housing of a large number of African-Americans was eventually transferred from slaveowner to the taxpaying working class--which could never have afforded a slave in the first place.
And no, I'm not saying slavery should still be in place; it was already dying when Lincoln caused the Civil War. I am saying that the Civil War was a disaster for the working classes in America: it began the reign of an omnipotent and invasive Federal Government that eventually got the Constitution amended to allow an income tax, and also eventually created a huge underclass of minorities that lived generations believing that the U.S, taxpayer owed them perpetual food, clothing, housing, and health care.
I believe the institution of slavery was diminishing, but doesn't that have a lot to do with the advancements of the industrial revolution and how the old agrarian culture the South was based on was less and less economically tractable?
Also, didn't the blacks who did not flee to union lines have a hell of a time? The neo-slavery is a good signal of that and given the cultural attitudes towards blacks at the time and the generations of deprivation and reliance on the plantation economy, wouldn't you expect there to have been a heavy transition period especially as the Freedmen's Bureau was often ham-stringed and was gotten rid of fairly quickly given (within a few years) that it was to make productive citizens out of several generations of considering people as property and denying a majority of that population of what's considered property access to education and the willingness to break up the bulwark of a family institution or the insurgency in many former Confederate states that ended up being institutionalized through intimidation and segregationist public institutions that enforced the separate, but wasn't really that big on the equal part of the slogan? Isn't it silly to expect slaves newly freed to tell them, well, you're free now, figure something out for yourselves because I'm sure you can spontaneously find an education, social support, capital (which must've have been fairly shared given the labor they provided, right?) and trade skills you can employ just about anywhere and people are totally not going to discriminate against you since the end of the war and we now obviously will treat you as equals?
I do wish things were resolved without a Civil War and that the south simply agreed to transition out of slavery.
I wont be seeing it and I believe it will be as historically accurate as a modern junior high history textbook. Which is to say....not even close! The previews even sucked. To make a truly accurate movie about Lincoln, they would have to offend to many folks. Ain't gonna happen
Read a few "real" history books, and not the lies and claptrap of the racist DiLorenzo.
Learn some history my find, and stop listening to neo-confedrates. Unless you yourself are another US hating anti-american southerner.
Eric Foner is a Lincoln scholar, known as one of the pre-eminent historians in the US today. He won a pulitzer prize for his Lincoln book. You won't see any book award for DiLorenzo. Shelby Foote was a southerner and also thought Lincoln one of our greatest presidents.
Here is the thing about Lincoln. He changed and evolved thru his presidency.
By the end of the Civil War Lincoln had decided that blacks should be full and equal citizens of the USA. In fact, Booth heard Lincoln give a speech about blacks getting the right to vote, and he decided then and there Lincoln must die.
"Foner believes that Lincoln's assassination and quick ascension to near saintly status as "the Great Emancipator" obscured a more interesting and human story about the change Lincoln underwent during the course of the war as he developed a greater respect for black people, so many of whom served bravely in the Union Army. What comes through the pages of The Fiery Trial is the sense of a practical, moral man of his time whose mind was open to change and who, only in the last years of his life, came to embrace the idea that former slaves could be full citizens in a reunified nation."
I saw the film last night. It’s well done but, despite Tony Kushner being one of my favorite playwrights, it didn’t find it as gripping as I wanted it to be. In my opinion, real drama comes from moral ambiguity, which is almost impossible in a film about slavery.
If I were writing the screenplay, I would have made it more about the people who switched their votes out of the conscience. That’s a more interesting story.
I found the scenes where the Cabinet discusses the purely legal aspects of amendment vs. the Emancipation Proclamation and “war powers” to be the most interesting. Then again, I’m a nerd.
I'll have to check in with my puppet-masters on fox news to see if I can watch it.
It's being distributed by 20th Century Fox. Murdoch likes to make money on both ends ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
