VIDEO TRAILER: Lincoln, the Movie (Steven Spielberg) + Review by (The New American)

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVuqYkI2jQ

Lincoln, the Movie
Written by Steve Byas
Saturday, 17 November 2012 17:30


Perhaps the biggest danger of this movie comes from one of its strengths. Almost all Lincoln portrayals ignore or skirt over Lincoln’s many and repeated violations of civil liberties and the U.S. Constitution. To its credit, Spielberg’s Lincoln repeatedly mentions past violations of the Constitution by the president. We see Lincoln talking about it himself, and political opponents and supporters both reference his suspension of habeas corpus and other executive usurpations.

Arguing for the need of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, Lincoln is shown discussing his “war powers” under the Constitution. He asserted that the Constitution gave him the power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, because of his role as Commander in Chief. He “hoped” it was legal to issue the Proclamation and to ignore court decisions. But he feared that without an amendment to the Constitution, some court after the war might declare his action unconstitutional. Adding the amendment, he said, would remove this possibility.

more here... http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/item/13681-lincoln-the-movie

[Origanalist]

I wont spend a dime to see it.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I wont spend a dime to see it.

Would you download a pirated version and help to seed it so it earns less money at the box office? :D

[Origanalist]

I've never done that before, but there's always a first time.......

[GunnyFreedom]

If he would, it's not like he would talk about it here. Few boards on these nets will have more official observation than this one.

[Origanalist]

If he would, it's not like he would talk about it here. Few boards on these nets will have more official observation than this one.

I'm chuckling, but I probably shouldn't. I know you're right.

[John F Kennedy III]

How accurate is it?

[Origanalist]

How accurate is it?

Well, apparently there are some accuracies in it. That has to be an improvement over most of the Lincoln worship garbage. But considering it's Speilberg and he's a big lefty, I wouldn't hope for too much.

[lx43]

I saw the movie. It was accurate and foretelling when Lincoln said "I'm the President of the United States, clothed in immense power". Not sure how accurate the rest of the movie was.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Well, apparently there are some accuracies in it. That has to be an improvement over most of the Lincoln worship garbage. But considering it's Speilberg and he's a big lefty, I wouldn't hope for too much.

Ya, this is more or less what I first thought as well.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I saw the movie. It was accurate and foretelling when Lincoln said "I'm the President of the United States, clothed in immense power". Not sure how accurate the rest of the movie was.

I'm still waiting for the pirated version. ;)

[Odin]

Saw the movie, must say the cost of human life paid to keep the union together is disgusting. No political union should be worth that much in blood.

If the war was over slavery then it may have been justified but just to keep the union together, seems like it was too big a price to pay.

[John F Kennedy III]

Saw the movie, must say the cost of human life paid to keep the union together is disgusting. No political union should be worth that much in blood.

If the war was over slavery then it may have been justified but just to keep the union together, seems like it was too big a price to pay.

I agree.

[Galileo Galilei]

Saw the movie, must say the cost of human life paid to keep the union together is disgusting. No political union should be worth that much in blood.

If the war was over slavery then it may have been justified but just to keep the union together, seems like it was too big a price to pay.

most people who died, volunteered and died should not be included in calculations. How many people who were drafted died, or were civilians? If people want to join the army and get killed they are free to do so.

[CaptUSA]

I must say I'm surprised Lincoln is doing so well at the theatres.

Anyone else seeing the irony?

[paulbot24]

I must say I'm surprised Lincoln is doing so well at the theatres.

Anyone else seeing the irony?

Elaborate on this please. This is an interesting thread.

[rprprs]

Elaborate on this please. This is an interesting thread.
I think he means that Lincoln didn't "do so well" the last time he was (really) at a theatre.
Get it?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Would you download a pirated version and help to seed it so it earns less money at the box office? :D

You know - that is a really interesting thought...

-t

[squarepusher]

zingo

[paulbot24]

I think he means that Lincoln didn't "do so well" the last time he was (really) at a theatre.
Get it?

Oh Christ. That is hilarious. No. I didn't get it. It's the vodka's fault!:D

[truelies]

You know - that is a really interesting thought...

-t

and earn a visit from the STASI???? not worth it.

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/02d5406e39840618d5eca39fed58df2d_XL.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/item/13681-lincoln-the-movie)



Spielberg's Lincoln will add to the heroic status already afforded the 16th president, despite the acknowledgement that Lincoln was willing to (and did) violate the Constitution.


Lincoln, the Movie (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/item/13681-lincoln-the-movie)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
17 November 2012




It is has been said that the motion picture industry created an American West of the second half of the 19th century century that never was, but always will be. The same could be said about the myth of Abraham Lincoln, who has been transformed by multitudes of books, novels, movies, articles, textbooks, and selective historical accounts into the greatest politician, and maybe even greatest personality, America has ever produced. There's even the absurd spectacle of a recent movie in which Lincoln is our champion against vampires.

While Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln has no such supernatural forces to fight, the movie will certainly add to the heroic status already afforded the 16th president. The movie focuses on the last four months of Lincoln’s life, with nearly all the movie centered in January 1865, with the push for approving of the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) by the House of Representatives at the end of that month. The Senate had given its approval the previous year.

As expected with a Steven Spielberg movie, as an art form, it is first-rate. The acting is superb, with Daniel Day-Lewis performing masterfully as Lincoln, even down to the whiney voice, more historically accurate than the booming and deep voice previous cinematic versions have used. Sally Field turns in a fine performance as Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd, who clearly suffered from mental illness. Field’s portrayal gives us sympathy for both Mary Todd and the husband who had to contend with her deep depressions, magnified by the death of their son, Willie.

As expected, Tommy Lee Jones is masterful in the role of the self-righteous abolitionist, Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. Of course, Jones appears to be Hollywood’s premier actor in roles requiring arrogance and sanctimony.

The passage of the 13th Amendment through the House cannot be accomplished without political promises and intimidation, as well as appeals to “the better angels of our nature.” When the push for adoption commences, prospects are bleak. Even if every single Republican were to vote yes, it would still leave the proponents 20 votes short of the constitutionally required two-thirds needed to send the amendment to the states for ratification.

A prospective peace mission to end the Civil War creates political complications. It appears that some House members are willing to vote for the amendment, but the possibility that the war can be shortened by trading its adoption for an earlier end to the war threatens to snuff out its chances for success.

Francis Preston Blair, a prominent private citizen, and one-time advisor to President Andrew Jackson, traveled to Richmond with the goal of opening “peace talks” between Lincoln and the Confederate government. Of course, Lincoln refused to consider the Confederate States of America as a legitimate government, but he told Blair he would meet with the commissioners and “hear them out.”

Not surprisingly, news of the peace mission leaked out, causing some who had supported the amendment’s passage to pull back, afraid passage of an abolitionist amendment could only prolong the war, which had already cost over 600,000 lives. Blair told Lincoln he wished to avoid the nation’s “fourth bloody spring.”

When faced with losing hope for the amendment’s acceptance, Lincoln resorted to an old political tactic — he lied and said there was no such peace conference. Later, he directed the military officers transporting the Confederate commissioners (led by Vice President Alexander Stephens) to stop short of Washington off the coast of Virginia. This allowed Lincoln to send a technically correct message to Congress that no peace commissioners were in Washington.

Lincoln’s duplicity in this case is reminiscent of his dealings with South Carolina in 1861 over the Union garrison that continued to occupy Fort Sumter after South Carolina had seceded from the Union. As William J. Cooper wrote in We Have the War Upon Us, Lincoln led South Carolina and the Confederate government to believe that he was going to abandon Fort Sumter, while simultaneously plotting to reinforce it.

Winning enough votes for passage required various deals. Behind the scenes, Lincoln agents worked to capture votes for the 13th Amendment. Some lame-duck Democrat members of Congress were promised government jobs, such as postmaster positions. One Democrat was even awarded his re-election over a Republican in Pennsylvania, if he would vote for the abolition amendment.

The movie presents a kindly, generous Lincoln, such as in his dealings with his son, Robert, who wanted to join the Union Army; with his wife, Mary Todd; and in his desire to treat the southern states as equals upon their restoration in the federal Union. This desire to “bind up the nation’s wounds” put him at odds with Representative Stevens, who preferred to punish the South for the war. In fact, Stevens considered all the white people of the country, North and South, guilty for the scourge of slavery.

Perhaps the biggest danger of this movie comes from one of its strengths. Almost all Lincoln portrayals ignore or skirt over Lincoln’s many and repeated violations of civil liberties and the U.S. Constitution. To its credit, Spielberg’s Lincoln repeatedly mentions past violations of the Constitution by the president. We see Lincoln talking about it himself, and political opponents and supporters both reference his suspension of habeas corpus and other executive usurpations.

Arguing for the need of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, Lincoln is shown discussing his “war powers” under the Constitution. He asserted that the Constitution gave him the power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, because of his role as Commander in Chief. He “hoped” it was legal to issue the Proclamation and to ignore court decisions. But he feared that without an amendment to the Constitution, some court after the war might declare his action unconstitutional. Adding the amendment, he said, would remove this possibility.

The movie Lincoln argues that his Emancipation Proclamation was constitutional because he had announced it in late 1862, giving the people almost two years to think about what he had done when they chose to re-elect him in 1864. One hopes the adoring audiences are not persuaded that this is sound constitutional reasoning. Such a concept would mean a president would be free to violate the Constitution at will, just so long as he can then achieve re-election.

As historian John J. Dwyer said in his New American article (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/13671-abraham-lincoln-stepfather-of-our-country), in which he called Lincoln the “Step-Father of our Country,” Lincoln violated the Constitution of the United States on several occasions. He basically declared war on the southern states, without any approval from Congress, despite the fact that the power to declare war is a congressional power. To prosecute the war, Dwyer wrote, “He instructed the U.S. navy to buy five warships — an appropriations act needing the approval of Congress.”

Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463&linkCode=as2&tag=libert0f-20), detailed how Lincoln interfered with Northern elections, deported a U.S. congressman for opposing his domestic policies, and imprisoned state legislators. Even Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, an ardent abolitionist, called Lincoln’s calling for 75,000 soldiers without the consent of Congress, “the greatest breech ever made in the Constitution, and would hereafter give the President the liberty to declare war whenever he wished, without the consent of Congress.”

While the movie does not show any of Lincoln's political enemies being imprisoned (perhaps that would make a great movie), it does mention several times Lincoln’s violations of the Constitution. What is dangerous about this is that Lincoln audiences might come to the conclusion that if the presidency is occupied by a “saintly” man like Abraham Lincoln, then wholesale violations of the Constitution are justified in order to accomplish the greater good. That is, the ends justify the means.

These are the sort of arguments used in favor of those provisions of the Patriot Act of dubious constitutionality, and for giving the president the power to detain “terrorists” without legal recourse, as in the National Defense Authorization Act, and even trusting the president to make judicious use of a “kill list.” I recall asking my own congressman about some provisions of the Patriot Act, and he responded that he believed we could trust President George W. Bush to be restrained in its use. I was taken aback, but recovered to point out to the congressman that, even if we could entrust Bush with such power (not conceding that we could), whatever power you give to one president would be given to the next president, as well.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." It would be wonderful to watch a motion picture showing the folly of allowing government to break loose from its constitutional restraints even when the intent is to accomplish noble ends, but it is unlikely that such a movie would be made by Steven Spielberg.


Related article:

Abraham Lincoln, Stepfather of Our Country (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/13671-abraham-lincoln-stepfather-of-our-country)

[FrankRep]

Must Read Books:


https://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B324.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463)
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463) (2003)
- Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo


http://pccapitalist.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lincoln-unmasked-what-youre-not-supposed-know-about-thomas-dilorenzo-paperback-cover-art.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307338428?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307338428)
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307338428?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307338428) (2006)
- Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo

[matt0611]

Thanks, I really don't want to see the movie but I'm sure some of my friends will drag me to it.

Anyone here see it yet?

[Odin]

most people who died, volunteered and died should not be included in calculations. How many people who were drafted died, or were civilians? If people want to join the army and get killed they are free to do so.

There were conscription acts, but for voluntary soldiers it is entirely possible that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into. It's not like you have a choice to leave once you enlist.

[CaptUSA]

I must say I'm surprised Lincoln is doing so well at the theatres.

Anyone else seeing the irony?Lol, sorry if I didn't make that clear.

You know, because historically, that has not been the case. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

While the movie does not show any of Lincoln's political enemies being imprisoned (perhaps that would make a great movie), it does mention several times Lincoln’s violations of the Constitution. What is dangerous about this is that Lincoln audiences might come to the conclusion that if the presidency is occupied by a “saintly” man like Abraham Lincoln, then wholesale violations of the Constitution are justified in order to accomplish the greater good. That is, the ends justify the means.

These are the sort of arguments used in favor of those provisions of the Patriot Act of dubious constitutionality, and for giving the president the power to detain “terrorists” without legal recourse, as in the National Defense Authorization Act, and even trusting the president to make judicious use of a “kill list.” I recall asking my own congressman about some provisions of the Patriot Act, and he responded that he believed we could trust President George W. Bush to be restrained in its use. I was taken aback, but recovered to point out to the congressman that, even if we could entrust Bush with such power (not conceding that we could), whatever power you give to one president would be given to the next president, as well.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/item/13681-lincoln-the-movie


After talking to someone who had seen the movie, it appears that this is the intent of the movie. There was never any doubt that the movie would have a political agenda. Basically it excuses violations of rules, morality and the Constitution, and cloaks that concept in the context of slavery (and thus no one dare question the "correctness" of violating the Constitution). It is an analogy to be used to defend Obamacare, kill lists, undeclared wars, or just about anything.

[Galileo Galilei]

There were conscription acts, but for voluntary soldiers it is entirely possible that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into. It's not like you have a choice to leave once you enlist.

That's basically a leftist argument.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's basically a leftist argument.

Not as much as picking and choosing "who counts" because you don't like the cut of their jib.


most people who died, volunteered and died should not be included in calculations. How many people who were drafted died, or were civilians? If people want to join the army and get killed they are free to do so.

:rolleyes:

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Lol this movie looks horrible.

Side Note:

I'm friends with a real descendant of Lincoln, nice guy, but one of the goofiest bastards I know.

[Odin]

That's basically a leftist argument.

Um, what?!

[Galileo Galilei]

Um, what?!

claiming that social forces make people join the army.

[GunnyFreedom]

claiming that social forces make people join the army.

LOL, so 99.999% of the human race, who recognize that social forces drives nearly all human action, are leftists?

[Odin]

claiming that social forces make people join the army.

I didn't say that (although it is true), I said one might regret their decision to join the army but not have the freedom to leave. Usually it's young kids who think war is glamorous but when they get there and see people dying and understand that their life could end at any moment, they quickly grow up and view war a bit more maturely.

There are many stories of civil war soldiers who deserted and were hunted down and executed.

[FrankRep]

claiming that social forces make people join the army.
I'm sure people join the Army for many reasons, including "social forces."

[Galileo Galilei]

LOL, so 99.999% of the human race, who recognize that social forces drives nearly all human action, are leftists?

People can decide of they want to join the army or not. Claiming someone forced you to join is bullsh**. You also are making a leftist argument. In fact, people can make their own decisions without the help of government.

[Galileo Galilei]

I didn't say that (although it is true), I said one might regret their decision to join the army but not have the freedom to leave. Usually it's young kids who think war is glamorous but when they get there and see people dying and understand that their life could end at any moment, they quickly grow up and view war a bit more maturely.

There are many stories of civil war soldiers who deserted and were hunted down and executed.

So you think Lincoln made it glamorous to invade the South in 1861? I would not have joined up.

[Odin]

So you think Lincoln made it glamorous to invade the South in 1861? I would not have joined up.

Lincoln himself, no, but it's fact that for hundreds of years, probably thousands actually, we militarize boys from a young age. The toys we give them are usually associated with war or violence. (I know I got toy tanks and fighters and stuff when I was a kid). Minds can, and are, propagandized, and it often takes something very shocking to get rid of it.

But to suggest that human action is as simple as people just making choices is wrong imo, you have to ask why they made the choices they made.

For example - "I would not have joined up." But "you" would not have been around back then, even if a clone of you were born in 1840 it would have grown up in a different time and thought different things, and been a different person. So "you" very well could have chosen to join up.

[GunnyFreedom]

People can decide of they want to join the army or not. Claiming someone forced you to join is bullsh**. You also are making a leftist argument. In fact, people can make their own decisions without the help of government.

LMAO yes, I'm a closet communist, and I can't even tie my shoes without government permission. You got me. You are so dam smart rofl! :rolleyes:

[awake]

Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is way better...And possibly more historically accurate.

[Tod]

What if the confederate states had declared secession, but instead of going to war, had just engaged in civil disobedience in the manner of Ghandi? Would they have been more successful?