PDA

View Full Version : Another Big Lie in the Spielberg Lincoln Movie




green73
02-06-2013, 08:04 AM
Thomas DiLorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131908.html):


I have written (http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo245.html)of how the theme of Steven Spielberg's movie "Lincoln" -- that Abe used his "political genius" to get the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress -- is one big lie. I quoted David Donald, the preeminent mainstream Lincoln scholar of our time, as writing in his biography of Lincoln that Abe barely lifted a finger in the effort. In fact, he literally refused to assist the abolitionists in Congress when they requested his help. Even worse, Lincoln DID work mightily to get a first Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1861 -- the "Corwin Amendment (http://philmagness.com/?page_id=398)" that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.

Another gross historical inaccuracy in the "Lincoln" movie that was recently brought to my attention is a scene where it is said that Connecticut congressmen voted against the Thirteenth Amendment. Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut saw the movie and smelled a rat, so he asked the Congressional Research Service to look into it. They informed him (http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130206/ENT01/130209725/-1/ENT05) that all four members of Congress from Connecticut voted YES.

In other words, the votes were already there. There was no need for Abe to use his "political genius" to persuade them, as is argued by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Spielberg's historical advisor, in her book upon which the movie is based.

BAllen
02-06-2013, 08:14 AM
Lincoln was a statist, plain & simple. He said if he could free none of the slaves to preserve the union, he would do it. He also supported sending all the blacks back to Africa. Doubt they told that in the movie.

Natural Citizen
02-06-2013, 08:16 AM
Corporations were pronounced persons in 1886, and in 1896 black people were declared to be sub-persons. In the 20th century we have seen the emergence of wage-slavery on a massive scale. 21st century shows a constant abuse against humanity itself at the hand of the entity. This is as a direct result of the amendments in question as well as mistranslation.

You seem to be swirling a single drop of water around the bottom of an empty glass. The Problem though is that realistically the glass is full. And it's tall. Well...not you, per se. Thomas probably hasn't ever been challenged in a serious debate though regarding the subject in scope. Give someone a platform to pop off and they think they know everything. Or, at the very least, control the terms of controversy. Terms of controversy reach far beyond this typical aspect of the discussion. There are better and more practical ways of discussing personhood and it's history as well as advancement and application. But methinks maybe that's what seems to be purposefully lacking. Lincoln is irrelevant to the discussion.

green73
02-06-2013, 08:21 AM
Jesesu H Christ, what does the above have to do with the OP?

liveandletlive
02-06-2013, 09:19 AM
The Confederacy didnt exactly protect people's civil liberties either, lets be fair

otherone
02-06-2013, 09:45 AM
The Confederacy didnt exactly protect people's civil liberties either, lets be fair

omg...must we choose one or the other? You voted for Romney?

The Gold Standard
02-06-2013, 09:48 AM
Lincoln is the father of our beloved Republican party. How dare you talk about him in such ways.

nasaal
02-06-2013, 10:24 AM
When you start treating pieces of fiction (the movie) from an accurate historical perspective you give legitimacy to the pieces of fiction. I'm no more gonna debate the legitimacy of this movie than I am Braveheart or Inglorious Bastards.

green73
02-06-2013, 10:25 AM
When you start treating pieces of fiction (the movie) from an accurate historical perspective you give legitimacy to the pieces of fiction. I'm no more gonna debate the legitimacy of this movie than I am Braveheart or Inglorious Bastards.

Sadly it's put forward as non-fiction, and many, many people will take it as such.

Aratus
02-06-2013, 10:42 AM
this recent Lincoln flic did ambitiously try to film text!pages from the Congressional Record.
as a statement about our history, its up there with Henry Fonda's young Abraham Lincoln.
docu-dramas mix history & fiction and romantic historical novels are seldom factoid driven.
could this film sink SAT scores in the very young if it humanizes Thaddeus Stevens a tad?
can we say bio-flic before we debate Jefferson Davis's choices in terms of wearing apparel?
admittedly a slightly different Congress went hammer & tong after a contrary Andy Johnson.

Aratus
02-06-2013, 10:45 AM
duckies, the Golden Globes and the SAG awards are a past tense, but the Oscars & GWTW's neat 1939
romp looms as high expectations. i expect more civilized Civil War theads on this all as in very soon now.

Occam's Banana
02-06-2013, 11:38 AM
Corporations were pronounced persons in 1886, and in 1896 black people were declared to be sub-persons. In the 20th century we have seen the emergence of wage-slavery on a massive scale. 21st century shows a constant abuse against humanity itself at the hand of the entity. This is as a direct result of the amendments in question as well as mistranslation.

You seem to be swirling a single drop of water around the bottom of an empty glass. The Problem though is that realistically the glass is full. And it's tall. Well...not you, per se. Thomas probably hasn't ever been challenged in a serious debate though regarding the subject in scope. Give someone a platform to pop off and they think they know everything. Or, at the very least, control the terms of controversy. Terms of controversy reach far beyond this typical aspect of the discussion. There are better and more practical ways of discussing personhood and it's history as well as advancement and application. But methinks maybe that's what seems to be purposefully lacking. Lincoln is irrelevant to the discussion.


Jesesu H Christ, what does the above have to do with the OP?

Nothing at all. I usually just skip NC's posts, but your comment caught my attention.

NC's posts are often tangential (or even orthogonal) to the the thread topic and rarely seem to add anything substantive.

NC also has a penchant for criticizing others for the folly of not grinding NC's preferred axes - and for "missing" what NC considers to be the more important "bigger picture" (whatever that might be - I've never really been able to tell).

The post you referred to (quoted above) is an exemplar of all these things.

Aratus
02-06-2013, 11:53 AM
NC often has the theme & meme that civilization and political debates have gone downhill
since the late 1700s because our new weapons of war have gained in efficacy & ferocity

cajuncocoa
02-06-2013, 11:56 AM
Lincoln is the father of our beloved Republican party. How dare you talk about him in such ways.
Reported.

Brian4Liberty
02-06-2013, 12:40 PM
Another gross historical inaccuracy in the "Lincoln" movie that was recently brought to my attention is a scene where it is said that Connecticut congressmen voted against the Thirteenth Amendment. Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut saw the movie and smelled a rat, so he asked the Congressional Research Service to look into it. They informed him that all four members of Congress from Connecticut voted YES.

It's a sad state of affairs that most of America gets their history lessons from Hollywood fiction. Orwell's Ministry of Truth is now a very real thing, but in today's modern, popular morphing of old philosophies and agendas, it has become a public/private partnership instead of a purely Stalin-style government bureau.

oyarde
02-06-2013, 12:44 PM
I have not seen this movie , not really on my list.