Lincoln...

[MrsKellyPierce]

Was I the only one uncomfortable in the movie theater? When I looked around all I saw were white people. Not to mention I think they glorified it more than what history was really like.

It to me was definitely a movie for the Republican...

[bluesoul]

It to me was definitely a movie for the Republican...

abe was a republican so...

[MrsKellyPierce]

abe was a republican so...
Abe was definitely a different sort of Republican, especially compared to the ones today that are in congress.

What I mean is it gives the Republican bubble more growth, they can imagine how accepting and great they are.

Like they were using ads in Ohio saying how the Republicans are less racist than the Democrats...mmhmmmm...that made me laugh...

[bluesoul]

Was I the only one uncomfortable in the movie theater? When I looked around all I saw were white people.

i liked this early statement- i'm not sure whether it's because of the films i watch or my location, but when i go to the film theater, it's almost ALWAYS full of white people

[Rusty Eldora]

Was I the only one uncomfortable in the movie theater? When I looked around all I saw were white people. Not to mention I think they glorified it more than what history was really like.

It to me was definitely a movie for the Republican...

OK I confess, I am a fiscal conservative but very libertarian - keep the gov't out of my life kind. The SoCons drive me nuts. I am proud that our representatives back in Lincoln's time did the right thing with the initial steps, but it was more fighting the Civil War that won those than the legislation. The GOP has glorified Lincoln for a lot of decades now, part for real reasons and part for PR.

I was very interested in this Lincoln movie until I heard the primary focus was on the legislation, I figured it was just going to be a PC view of what happened. So I haven't gone to it, I'll rent the DVD. I have a feeling the theater was filled with SoCon leaning people, generally pretty good with civil rights, but wish to impose their beliefs on all of us.

[Rusty Eldora]

Abe was definitely a different sort of Republican, especially compared to the ones today that are in congress.

What I mean is it gives the Republican bubble more growth, they can imagine how accepting and great they are.

Like they were using ads in Ohio saying how the Republicans are less racist than the Democrats...mmhmmmm...that made me laugh...


Kelly- I think the D vs R thing on Racism may be a bit off track, the D's always feel some government program will cure it, the R's often feel that getting the Gov't away from the problem will cure it. Reality is somewhere in the middle. However, in terms of social life, you are spot on, the R's want everyone to be in and following the rules of their Church and that makes them great. Sort of like the Crusades - convert the heathens or else. There is a wing (Ron and Rand Paul) that provide some hope though.

Abe was the first president in a new Republican party, it really didn't exist a decade before (the Whigs cratered leaving a vacuum). Also, by this there were very few pols that were in Congress for the power, rather than doing what was right.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Kelly- I think the D vs R thing on Racism may be a bit off track, the D's always feel some government program will cure it, the R's often feel that getting the Gov't away from the problem will cure it. Reality is somewhere in the middle. However, in terms of social life, you are spot on, the R's want everyone to be in and following the rules of their Church and that makes them great. Sort of like the Crusades - convert the heathens or else. There is a wing (Ron and Rand Paul) that provide some hope though.

Abe was the first president in a new Republican party, it really didn't exist a decade before (the Whigs cratered leaving a vacuum). Also, by this there were very few pols that were in Congress for the power, rather than doing what was right. I agree with the middle. Like many are made about the payroll tax, but they never planned on extending it. Dems or Republicans.

[GroobyKrissy]

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment on the content but I would hardly think you could accuse the movie of being "...for the Republican".

Isn't it directed by Steven Spielberg (hardly a right-wing director), produced by Kathleen Kennedy (hardly a right-wing producer), featuring Daniel Day-Lewis (hardly a right-wing actor), Sally Field (hardly a right-wing actress) and so forth...

[MrsKellyPierce]

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment on the content but I would hardly think you could accuse the movie of being "...for the Republican".

Isn't it directed by Steven Spielberg (hardly a right-wing director), produced by Kathleen Kennedy (hardly a right-wing producer), featuring Daniel Day-Lewis (hardly a right-wing actor), Sally Field (hardly a right-wing actress) and so forth...
If you watch the movie, it glorifies the legislation and definitely isn't historically correct.

[GroobyKrissy]

If you watch the movie, it glorifies the legislation and definitely isn't historically correct.

And how many Lincoln biographies have you read? Which ones?

Or what are you basing your "...isn't historically correct" statement on?

Just questions out of interest. Not trying to start drama.

Lincoln, like ALL MEN was a flawed human. I think we sometimes forget that the world as it once was, for better or worse, was different. People were not as wholly educated, the Internet did not exist, it took MONTHS for information to reach people, there was no Twitter, no email, no TV, etc. etc. etc. Too often, I think we try to take everything we know today and place it in the past... it just isn't that simple.

Lincoln, for all his faults, brought the Country through some of the toughest times in the Nation's history. I dislike the glorification of any human being to the extent that some, on the Right do with Lincoln, but he made some tough decisions... maybe not always right, maybe not always wrong... Those decisions eventually helped lead to the country we have today. He did his best under circumstances that I doubt any of us will EVER have to face.

[loveboof]

definitely isn't historically correct.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER Trailer 2012 Movie - Official [HD] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eo766iZZ0c)

[GroobyKrissy]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER Trailer 2012 Movie - Official [HD] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eo766iZZ0c)

I saw this one. Better than I thought it was going to be.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Yeah that movie I enjoyed lol

[Merkurie]

The Republican party of Abraham Lincoln's day was very different than the party of today. it was basically a northern and midwestern liberal/pro-business party. Republicans had very little influence in the south through the 1950s and really not until the 1980s.

Northern and midwestern domocrats were basically a pro union labor party
Southern democrats were very conservative and anti civil rights and anti progressive until after the 1960s when they started to slowly move to the Republican party. The conservatives have completely taken over the Republican party today.

The liberal/progressive Republican party of Lincoln is dead today. Notice how all the old confederate states vote Republican today.

[MrsKellyPierce]

The Republican party of Abraham Lincoln's day was very different than the party of today. it was basically a northern and midwestern liberal/pro-business party. Republicans had very little influence in the south through the 1950s and really not until the 1980s.

Northern and midwestern domocrats were basically a pro union labor party
Southern democrats were very conservative and anti civil rights and anti progressive until after the 1960s when they started to slowly move to the Republican party. The conservatives have completely taken over the Republican party today.

The liberal/progressive Republican party of Lincoln is dead today. Notice how all the old confederate states vote Republican today.Well said

[Willie Escalade]

i liked this early statement- i'm not sure whether it's because of the films i watch or my location, but when i go to the film theater, it's almost ALWAYS full of white people
Yup...there's quite a mix of folks when you go to say Universal City over The Grove. I'm primarily in Lakewood or Long Beach (local folks will get it).

Just as long as the theater stays quiet, I really don't care!

Still gotta see BOTH Lincoln movies. When will they make one for The Lincoln Motor Company?

[jamesedwards]

Was I the only one uncomfortable in the movie theater? When I looked around all I saw were white people. Not to mention I think they glorified it more than what history was really like.

It to me was definitely a movie for the Republican...

Oh I thought you would feel uncomfy as a TGirl there, but your so cute. wink!

I am not going to see Lincoln, he didn't free Africans because he had a kind soul, he did it to win the fight!!! Simple. That's the truth.

[TSCURIOUS]

Oh I thought you would feel uncomfy as a TGirl there, but your so cute. wink!

I am not going to see Lincoln, he didn't free Africans because he had a kind soul, he did it to win the fight!!! Simple. That's the truth.

If by "win the fight" you mean the Civil War - you're incorrect.
The Civil War was about Cessation of State. The abolition of slavery was a great outcome however.
The end of slavery was going to happen whether the Civil War was fought or not. Already the Serbs of Russia were freed from slavery (indentured might be a better word) a couple years prior to 1861. The north was anti slavery and the movement started to to move south. Like I said, it was going to happen and probably it happened faster because of Lincoln

[loveboof]

The end of slavery was going to happen whether the Civil War was fought or not. Already the Serbs of Russia were freed from slavery (indentured might be a better word) a couple years prior to 1861.

Yeah, and much earlier than that in England...

[TSCURIOUS]

True! Good point-

[jamesedwards]

If by "win the fight" you mean the Civil War - you're incorrect.
The Civil War was about Cessation of State. The abolition of slavery was a great outcome however.
The end of slavery was going to happen whether the Civil War was fought or not. Already the Serbs of Russia were freed from slavery (indentured might be a better word) a couple years prior to 1861. The north was anti slavery and the movement started to to move south. Like I said, it was going to happen and probably it happened faster because of Lincoln

First off, no I'm not incorrect, why do you think Lincoln was assassinated? And why do you think his penny is BROWN and faced the other way of the other presidents on coins? I know history very well, and in order for him to win that war he need African people to fight, because HE AND HIS TROOPS WERE GETTING THEIR ASSES KICKED! That's history. If you can bring other proof then bring it. Other than that, what you're saying is on a whim of "IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY', don't cut it.

[Merkurie]

If by "win the fight" you mean the Civil War - you're incorrect.
The Civil War was about Cessation of State. The abolition of slavery was a great outcome however.
The end of slavery was going to happen whether the Civil War was fought or not. Already the Serbs of Russia were freed from slavery (indentured might be a better word) a couple years prior to 1861. The north was anti slavery and the movement started to to move south. Like I said, it was going to happen and probably it happened faster because of Lincoln

But how much later? 1880? 1900?

The southern states ceceeded because they feared that the northern abolishonists and the Republicans would outlaw slavery and disposess them of their property.

Expansion of slavery into the west and control of congress was the other reason for the war. The confederacy was fighting for their "right to own human slaves" . And if they could not hold slaves as property within the United States they would do it separated from the United States. They were traitors no more no less.

[jamesedwards]

The southern states ceceeded because they feared that the northern abolishonists and the Republicans would outlaw slavery and disposess them of their property.

Expansion of slavery into the west and control of congress was the other reason for the war. The confederacy was fighting for their "right to own human slaves" . And if they could not hold slaves as property within the United States they would do it separated from the United States. They were traitors no more no less.

THANK YOU!!!!!:iagree:

[TSPornFan]

I have not seen the film. However, I've seen ads. This is a trailer for anyone who hasn't seen it.

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

[TSCURIOUS]

I don't minimize "that is was going to happen anyhow"

I must have read different history books than you guys did, but I do know that the end of slavery was a fantastic outcome of the Civil War, but it was not the cause of it. The North was going to win-
Actually, there were no winners. When a Country fights brother to brother - there are no winners. Just a bunch of unneccessary deaths!

[jamesedwards]

I agree with unnecessary deaths, but if am going to fight for MY FREEDOM, I'm going to the death. and for my children's freedom, that makes sense. how do you know you read different history books than me? I don't see it because of what you said. Again, why is Lincoln's penny brown and his face turned a different angle than the other presidents on coins in the US? Surely if you read the RIGHT history book you would know. My complaint was LINCOLN TROOPS WERE GETTING THEIR ASSES KICKED WHICH IS HISTORY, AND HE USED AFRICAN SLAVE TROOPS WHO WANTED TO FIGHT TO WIN!!! That's history. That's what I said. I didn't mention if slavery was going to end one way or the other. I basically said Lincoln used those African men to win his war.



I don't minimize "that is was going to happen anyhow"

I must have read different history books than you guys did, but I do know that the end of slavery was a fantastic outcome of the Civil War, but it was not the cause of it. The North was going to win-
Actually, there were no winners. When a Country fights brother to brother - there are no winners. Just a bunch of unneccessary deaths!

[buttslinger]

My Nephew was an extra in that movie, he didn't meet Spielburg, but Daniel Day Lewis and some other guy talked to him and his buddies.

[GroobyKrissy]

My Nephew was an extra in that movie, he didn't meet Spielburg, but Daniel Day Lewis and some other guy talked to him and his buddies.

That's pretty cool. I think I read during Gangs of New York that DDL was pretty "in character" and spoke to no one. He is a great actor and one of my favorites. I'll bet he would be absolutely fascinating to talk to.

[GroobyKrissy]

I agree with unnecessary deaths, but if am going to fight for MY FREEDOM, I'm going to the death. and for my children's freedom, that makes sense. how do you know you read different history books than me? I don't see it because of what you said. Again, why is Lincoln's penny brown and his face turned a different angle than the other presidents on coins in the US? Surely if you read the RIGHT history book you would know. My complaint was LINCOLN TROOPS WERE GETTING THEIR ASSES KICKED WHICH IS HISTORY, AND HE USED AFRICAN SLAVE TROOPS WHO WANTED TO FIGHT TO WIN!!! That's history. That's what I said. I didn't mention if slavery was going to end one way or the other. I basically said Lincoln used those African men to win his war.

Someone has been watching Glory...?

[flabbybody]

not a perfect film... bit long and talky, but very well acted and I'd recommend.
For me the highlight is a superb Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. History has sometimes been unkind to Stevens' legacy but this film elevates him to saintly heights. He was much more than the political muscle behind the anti-slavery movement. His contemporary opponents hated him because he truly believed in equality of the races and dedicated his life to it, even more so than Lincoln.
The movie makes me wonder about what grade Stevens would give the current racial state of affairs in America 144 years after his death.

[TSCURIOUS]

The Civil War by Ken Burns is quite informative too.
I'll take most of that history over that of a Hollywood movie--

[robertlouis]

I'm looking forward to the film coming out here in the UK later this month - interested to see how Spielberg manages the story. I believe the primary source was Doris Kearns Goodwin's exemplary book about Lincoln's ability to manage a cabinet full of rivalry and internecine hostility, Team of Rivals, recommended. I'm fascinated to see Day-Lewis's take on Lincoln's personality, and after Flabby's comments, Tommy Lee Jones as Stevens. After reading Kearns Goodwin's book I'm also interested to see how Chase and Seward are portrayed.

Lincoln's preferred solution for the freed blacks was to return them to Africa, whether to Liberia or suitable other West African territory. He was no friend or supporter of the African American, although certainly not an old style southern racist. The Emancipation Proclamation was a masterpiece of carefully calculated sophistry which proclaimed freedom only for those slaves who were in Confederate-occupied territory at the time of its announcement, and was therefore calculated to inflict maximum damage economically and logistically on the Confederacy with as little material impact on the Union's war effort as possible. Magnificent rhetoric, but essentially a side issue to Lincoln's primary and all-consuming aim, the preservation of the union.

As the war progressed and the Union made greater inroads in the south and west, and their troops encountered "freed" slaves, they tended to leave them to their own devices, not necessarily from any racist motive, but simply because in a war reliant on rapid movement they could ill afford to take on untrained and hungry mouths as that would have held up the campaigns and slowed the drive to end the conflict. When black regiments first entered the fray they tended to be comprised of freedmen from the north - freed slaves required training and relocation to safe territory, so it was only in the final stages of the war that they made a meaningful impact, although the glorious example of the 54th Massachusetts set the template for others to follow.

Unpalatable facts, perhaps, but it's how wars are waged. And they don't prevent Lincoln from remaining one of my heroes. He died to save the union. How ironic that he, as the first Republican President, held that unique achievement, and that now it is states flying under that same Republican banner which are openly advocating secession all over again.

O Tempora, O Mores!

[Lovecox]

Steven Spielberg is unsurpassed in his talent for taking a very serious subject (the holocaust; world war II; Lincoln) and making it mawkish.

[robertlouis]

Steven Spielberg is unsurpassed in his talent for taking a very serious subject (the holocaust; world war II; Lincoln) and making it mawkish.

Case in point - his last film, War Horse. Not a patch on the original stage show - which had a far better soundtrack too, btw.

That said, the first forty minutes of Saving Private Ryan are up with the most pulverising and realistic war footage ever shot. And Band of Brothers was magnificent.

[bassman2546]

Aside from who was present at the movie theatre, I understand that the movie was a too-lengthy, poorly-lit snorefest that over dramatized history to create a conflicting character. The end result? Perfect for the Oscars and most likely will get Best Adapted Screenplay. You don't get Spielberg involved without a payoff for him, right?

[Females+Shemales]

Abraham Lincoln Vs. Zombies was the best film about our 16th President!

[dafame]

If you watch the movie, it glorifies the legislation and definitely isn't historically correct.

I'm a bit confused because I saw the movie and what I gathered from it is that Lincoln wanted to save the union and he hated slavery and wanted to see it abolished. He didn't want one without the other and the film was about the way he navigated the political landscape in order to accomplish both.

Or is there something that I'm missing?

[fivekatz]

While I am paraphrasing Lincoln, he did state that he would gladly accept keeping the Union in tact with or without slavery where it already existed. His over riding goal was always saving the Union.

As others have noted the emancipation only applied to slaves in states that had left the Union. And it was done to keep the powers in Europe from siding with the South via trade and other aid. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1857 and while it struck down the Dred Scott by the SCOTUS, it had little teeth until 1954 when the Amendment became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education and other equal protection actions to follow.

While Lincoln did not approve of slavery and did not want to see the practice grow in the territories, he was far more concerned with preserving the Union than he was total abolition. Like so many leaders, the office pulled him toward the middle, something that was lost on GW Bush and seems lost today amongst the Tea Party.

American government has always been based on compromise and the Civil War marks a period in which compromise broke down.

As far as the political parties catering the worst nature of racist souls, for years Southern "conservatives" where a core part of the Democratic New Deal voting block, which started to crack in 1948 when Truman came out in favor of ending segregation of the military and was lost to the Republicans by 1968 after the civil rights and voting rights acts were passed by LBJ and the democratic majority in congress.

Just my takes

[jamesedwards]

Niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!



While I am paraphrasing Lincoln, he did state that he would gladly accept keeping the Union in tact with or without slavery where it already existed. His over riding goal was always saving the Union.

As others have noted the emancipation only applied to slaves in states that had left the Union. And it was done to keep the powers in Europe from siding with the South via trade and other aid. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1857 and while it struck down the Dred Scott by the SCOTUS, it had little teeth until 1954 when the Amendment became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education and other equal protection actions to follow.

While Lincoln did not approve of slavery and did not want to see the practice grow in the territories, he was far more concerned with preserving the Union than he was total abolition. Like so many leaders, the office pulled him toward the middle, something that was lost on GW Bush and seems lost today amongst the Tea Party.

American government has always been based on compromise and the Civil War marks a period in which compromise broke down.

As far as the political parties catering the worst nature of racist souls, for years Southern "conservatives" where a core part of the Democratic New Deal voting block, which started to crack in 1948 when Truman came out in favor of ending segregation of the military and was lost to the Republicans by 1968 after the civil rights and voting rights acts were passed by LBJ and the democratic majority in congress.

Just my takes

[TSPornFan]

Here are my two cents.

I am a proud African American. Although some people don't think so because my disliking towards rap, soul, and other urban related culture.

In my opinion I feel that many blacks think that Lincoln was the only white man who stood up for blacks rights. There were many white civil rights activist. However, you never hear about them. I've never heard a black person acknowledging another white man fighting for black rights.

I mostly hear blacks talk about MLK, Lincoln, or Malcolm X(a racist). MLK and Lincoln made positive impacts for African Americans. However, there were many other people who made positive impacts. In my opinion Thurgood Marshall made more impact than MLK.

[jamesedwards]

:iagree:
Also they don't understand or talk about people like the Quakers, who helped slaves escape, and even gave their lives when catch by slave owners.

You have the right to like what type of music you like or dislike, that doesn't change your Melanin possession or African descent ancestry, There are Caucasians that helped, that's just the truth, but those minor Caucasians that helped don't patch up with the other Caucasians did to Africans. Back then they weren't called black.


Here are my two cents.

I am a proud African American. Although some people don't think so because my disliking towards rap, soul, and other urban related culture.

In my opinion I feel that many blacks think that Lincoln was the only white man who stood up for blacks rights. There were many white civil rights activist. However, you never hear about them. I've never heard a black person acknowledging another white man fighting for black rights.

I mostly hear blacks talk about MLK, Lincoln, or Malcolm X(a racist). MLK and Lincoln made positive impacts for African Americans. However, there were many other people who made positive impacts. In my opinion Thurgood Marshall made more impact than MLK.

[dafame]

Here are my two cents.

I am a proud African American. Although some people don't think so because my disliking towards rap, soul, and other urban related culture.

In my opinion I feel that many blacks think that Lincoln was the only white man who stood up for blacks rights. There were many white civil rights activist. However, you never hear about them. I've never heard a black person acknowledging another white man fighting for black rights.

I mostly hear blacks talk about MLK, Lincoln, or Malcolm X(a racist). MLK and Lincoln made positive impacts for African Americans. However, there were many other people who made positive impacts. In my opinion Thurgood Marshall made more impact than MLK.

Although I don't disagree with you that there were whites involved in the struggle for equal rights dating back to the time of slavery all the way through the "Jim Crow" era and march right along side Dr. King as you've noted.

But aside from that this is the most sambo-ish "look at me boss, i'ze be'z one a the good ones" shit I've heard in a long time. Sort if reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson's latest role.

[TSCURIOUS]

i'm a bit confused because i saw the movie and what i gathered from it is that lincoln wanted to save the union and he hated slavery and wanted to see it abolished. He didn't want one without the other and the film was about the way he navigated the political landscape in order to accomplish both.

Or is there something that i'm missing?


no - you got it!!!

[TSCURIOUS]

While I am paraphrasing Lincoln, he did state that he would gladly accept keeping the Union in tact with or without slavery where it already existed. His over riding goal was always saving the Union.

As others have noted the emancipation only applied to slaves in states that had left the Union. And it was done to keep the powers in Europe from siding with the South via trade and other aid. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1857 and while it struck down the Dred Scott by the SCOTUS, it had little teeth until 1954 when the Amendment became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education and other equal protection actions to follow.

While Lincoln did not approve of slavery and did not want to see the practice grow in the territories, he was far more concerned with preserving the Union than he was total abolition. Like so many leaders, the office pulled him toward the middle, something that was lost on GW Bush and seems lost today amongst the Tea Party.

American government has always been based on compromise and the Civil War marks a period in which compromise broke down.

As far as the political parties catering the worst nature of racist souls, for years Southern "conservatives" where a core part of the Democratic New Deal voting block, which started to crack in 1948 when Truman came out in favor of ending segregation of the military and was lost to the Republicans by 1968 after the civil rights and voting rights acts were passed by LBJ and the democratic majority in congress.

Just my takes

YES! Confirming the War was about the Union winning and not about Slavery

[TSCURIOUS]

Here are my two cents.

I am a proud African American. Although some people don't think so because my disliking towards rap, soul, and other urban related culture.

In my opinion I feel that many blacks think that Lincoln was the only white man who stood up for blacks rights. There were many white civil rights activist. However, you never hear about them. I've never heard a black person acknowledging another white man fighting for black rights.

I mostly hear blacks talk about MLK, Lincoln, or Malcolm X(a racist). MLK and Lincoln made positive impacts for African Americans. However, there were many other people who made positive impacts. In my opinion Thurgood Marshall made more impact than MLK.

Franklin - VERY WELL PUT!! THANK YOU!
OK - we can have a drink one day

[jamesedwards]

Although I don't disagree with you that there were whites involved in the struggle for equal rights dating back to the time of slavery all the way through the "Jim Crow" era and march right along side Dr. King as you've noted.

But aside from that this is the most sambo-ish "look at me boss, i'ze be'z one a the good ones" shit I've heard in a long time. Sort if reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson's latest role.

:dead: LOL CTFU

[TSCURIOUS]

Just to add- And Truman, Eisenhower (who never got much credit for his work) and Johnson to name a few-
Harding tried hard to protect the rights in the 20's but got kicked back by the South-

[flabbybody]

Aside from who was present at the movie theatre, I understand that the movie was a too-lengthy, poorly-lit snorefest that over dramatized history to create a conflicting character. The end result? Perfect for the Oscars and most likely will get Best Adapted Screenplay. You don't get Spielberg involved without a payoff for him, right?
The Oscars are in love with certain people no matter what they do.
Kathryn Bigelow and Quentin Tarantino can make movies about pigeons shiting in the park and people will fall all over each saying how brilliant they are.
That's why I admire Mel Gibson. He essentially has always said fuck you to the Hollywood establishment