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.
It was too narrow a focus and greatly exaggerated Lincolns role in ending slavery. Emancipation was a long process actually initiated by the Abolitionists. Also slavery was on the decline for years by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified . The movie made it seem as if slavery was gaining strength and at its strongest point by the time of ratification Go and see the movie it is entertaining, but read books on the period afterwards.
Would anyone really believe Hollywood would actually do real research to project true historical accuracy on the big screen? I didn't see the film yet and probably won't, since I know the real story. It amazes me the amount of people who never studied or payed attention to history, that will take this movie as the truth, do your self a favor and read the true account before or after the seeing this movie, you will be amazed at the inaccuracies.
[quote=Memphis1979;26989327]Lincoln had said during the campaign that if he could have kept the union together by not ending slavery he would have done so. He also floated the idea of buying the slaves freedom from the southern slave owners as a means to avoid war.
But, as history tells it, he became much more enthusiastic about ending slavery in his time in office. The southern states felt so assured of his anti slavery positions as to leave the union and go to war.
Lincolns own personal writings showed a much more radical stance towards emancipation before he was in office. Like many politicians today, he didn't show his true personal feelings in order to get elected.
So, I think you're right, and wrong together.
This movie was taken from a biography of Lincoln the man, and that man was for ending slavery himself long before he got to the Presidency. Remember, Lincoln was run out of Washington because of his stance on opposing the Mexican American war.
Lincoln was a very complicated man.
Quote:
All that said, I find his massive theft of power to be disgusting and he essentially destroyed the separation of powers and ended the constitution as we knew it before 1861.[/
They attacked her because the woman has such a tiny factual knowledge base. Nobody was afraid of Palin by the time the election took place because she had willingly exposed to everyone how clueless she was regarding facts about history, foreign policy, and even actually the duties of the job of Vice President!
Well, probably MOST SANE citizens were in fact terrified that someone as totally clueless as Palin would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and that was a well-founded fear indeed.
No one said Sarah was a rocket scientist, but compared to Joe Biden, she appears to be a genius and she had more administrative experience than Barack Obama as of 2008. She was far from a community organizer.
She would not have been the first VP to learn on the job.
I do love the argument about Lincolns rank among American Presidents... He teetered on being the worst or best depending on the outcome of the war. Regardless of whether you think he was great or terrible, he certainly had the greatest IMPACT on the US than any other president..
Was he a great President? Yes and No, just like most. But one thing I do know, Lincoln was a great if not the greatest POLITICIAN as evidenced by this quote from his time in the congress;
In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world..."
makes you scratch your head huh... I guess he changed his mind or FLIP FLOPPED as we like to call it today..
An no, a decrease in an upward trend is a decrease in a upward trend. The statement that I responded to and I quote "slavery was on the decline for years by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified." a decline is not a slowing of an upward slopping trend line.
I think what is meant by it being on the decline was, it was on it's way out and already abolished in England in 1833. The primary reason for the civil war was to preserve the union and abolish slavery. I sometimes wonder if the civil war was necessary to accomplish this, 620,000 soldiers died and countless civilians, was it worth it, slavery was on the wane and would have been abolished sooner or later and a hell of a lot less slaves would have died than 620,000 + if we had let it run it's course and be abolished in time.
Lincoln was good cinema, but innacurate Hollywood liberal garbage.
Lincoln is an excellent film and historically accurate, adapted from the Pulitzer Prize winning biography by renowned presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Interesting that the "Hollywood garbage" label is applied to this outstanding effort by obvious Fox News addicts. Because it was produced by Rupert Murdoch's own 20th Century Fox studio.
It was too narrow a focus and greatly exaggerated Lincolns role in ending slavery. Emancipation was a long process actually initiated by the Abolitionists. Also slavery was on the decline for years by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified . The movie made it seem as if slavery was gaining strength and at its strongest point by the time of ratification Go and see the movie it is entertaining, but read books on the period afterwards.
What movie did you go see? It certainly wasn't Lincoln.
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.