Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > History
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:29 AM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
Works for me, you neo Whig...
LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
After living in Texas, I've always said that I have never seen so many people so proud of nothing.

But that was before Obama was elected.

Chas
Daaaaaaayum

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-08-2013, 04:25 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
Another issue I would like to address is whether or not Speilberg got it "right". Has Hollywood ever gotten anything "right".
I finally got around today to reading a number of 'historical criticisms' of the Spielberg movie. Everyone I found agreed that Spielberg got the big stuff right, while fudging some less-important things for the sake of on-screen drama. It is, for example, totally unlikely that two soldiers would have the Gettysburg Address memorized--it was in the 20th century that it became a text for reverential study by schoolkids. And Mary Todd would never have visited the House of Representatives to observe a vote. Etc.

But no one contradicted the films big point, which was that Lincoln so wanted the 13th Amendment that he pursued it even though he knew he could probably have immediate peace with the South, if he did not.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-09-2013, 07:25 AM
Charles Charles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 View Post
I finally got around today to reading a number of 'historical criticisms' of the Spielberg movie. Everyone I found agreed that Spielberg got the big stuff right, while fudging some less-important things for the sake of on-screen drama. It is, for example, totally unlikely that two soldiers would have the Gettysburg Address memorized--it was in the 20th century that it became a text for reverential study by schoolkids. And Mary Todd would never have visited the House of Representatives to observe a vote. Etc.

But no one contradicted the films big point, which was that Lincoln so wanted the 13th Amendment that he pursued it even though he knew he could probably have immediate peace with the South, if he did not.
I've read conflicting reviews. Here is one I found to be one of the more interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/spie...lincoln_wrong/

Here is another.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-med...elberg-lincoln

However, criticism comes easy, and by most accounts Spielberg's work is an exceptional movie. And as you point out, he pretty much addresses the big issues in a reasonably honest manner.

After all, it's a movie, and one can only do so much in a couple of hours.

Chas
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-09-2013, 07:41 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,161
Hadn't seen the Mother Jones one. It appears the the 'Killing Lincoln' crew, by being very careful to fudge nothing for the sake of onscreen drama, succeeded in making "a generally clunky and flavorless exercise weakly mimicking prestige filmmaking."
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-09-2013, 07:42 AM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Has it ever occurred to anyone that a man can have a change of heart? That, maybe at the outset he said he take preserving the Union with slavery, but at some point decided that preserving the union and defeating slavery were BOTH goals worth fighting for? Maybe once he realized that the Union could very well win the war he thought: "What the hell, let's emancipate the negro folks while we're at it. Two birds with one stone and all that."?

Ya think?

Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-09-2013, 09:02 AM
Charles Charles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 View Post
Hadn't seen the Mother Jones one. It appears the the 'Killing Lincoln' crew, by being very careful to fudge nothing for the sake of onscreen drama, succeeded in making "a generally clunky and flavorless exercise weakly mimicking prestige filmmaking."
Let's give the reviewer credit for being brutally honest.

Chas
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-09-2013, 09:13 AM
icenine's Avatar
icenine icenine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
Has it ever occurred to anyone that a man can have a change of heart? That, maybe at the outset he said he take preserving the Union with slavery, but at some point decided that preserving the union and defeating slavery were BOTH goals worth fighting for? Maybe once he realized that the Union could very well win the war he thought: "What the hell, let's emancipate the negro folks while we're at it. Two birds with one stone and all that."?

Ya think?

Dave
Quit making sense Dave.

You have it right. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt on Lincoln's part to come to an agreement with the South....the slaves were not immediately freed...there was a several month window on the actual emancipation.
He was using that as a carrot....stop the war now and we may come to an agreement on the slavery issue. But the South would not surrender.
As time went on and the body count got higher Lincoln realized the slavey indeed had to go....the war had become too costly in lives.
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Last edited by icenine; 12-09-2013 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-09-2013, 09:18 AM
icenine's Avatar
icenine icenine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,538
In effect the proclamation freed slaves in territories fighting the Union...not all slaves every where...to quote wikipedia:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

In other words if a state ended the rebellion by 1 January slaves would not be freed in that state. However none of the states surrendered.
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-09-2013, 09:57 AM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
There's also the thing, that the can had been kicked down the road before, after so much bloodshed not putting the final nail in the coffin would've been foolhardy.

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-09-2013, 11:40 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenine View Post
In effect the proclamation freed slaves in territories fighting the Union...not all slaves every where...to quote wikipedia:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

In other words if a state ended the rebellion by 1 January slaves would not be freed in that state. However none of the states surrendered.
Yes.

It was the later 13th Amendment, pushed through Congress against all obstacles in January 1865, that abolished slavery everywhere in the US.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.