Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594

    Lincoln the Movie

    all i have to say is WOW!

    the nutzos have taken a whole new approach to their propaganda story telling.

    i thought the movie was going to be a BS glorification of Lincoln, but these people came up with a whole new idea, tell the truth about his under-handed tactics, then just act like these deeds were heroic.

    the movie shows,
    * Lincoln pushing unpopular ideas
    * Exploitation of Congressman they portray as weak
    * Intimidation
    * Lincoln buying support
    * Lincoln feeling like the war is a tragedy, when he was the one that started it
    * Lincoln telling everyone the South won't quit until they end slavery, while ignoring Southern diplomats who were in DC to negotiate peace.
    * Lincoln sending a hand written note to Congress saying there were no Southern diplomats in DC, which was a lie.


    the whole basic premise of the movie is, Lincoln says "Even i wasn't sure if what i was doing was Constitutional or not"
    implying, since the Northern government and Supreme Court didn't stop him, it must have been legal, and he has no responsibility to interpret Constitutional law.

    try a legal defense like that the next time you go to court and see how well it works out.

    then the movie implies that his winning of a second term was a blessing from the public allowing him to break Constitutional law and bypass the Democratic process.


    WOW!


    the whole movie seemed to be a big message to Obama that if he wants a big legacy, he needs to do the same kinds of things.

    one glaring omission from the movie was Lincoln's attempt to rig his re-election by collecting Nevada electoral votes, as a state, before it met the population requirements.

    -----------
    SNL

    "HEY EVERYONE! i would just like to thank Mr. Lincoln for everything he's done for me and my people.
    oh! and i especially would like to thank him for my new job, which is shoveling horse sht into a wagon."
    -Kenan Thompson (playing a slave on SNL)

    ..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Hollywood is rarely history.

    Many people say a lot of strange and a-historical things about the ACW. Many of these come from, sorry, Confederate apologists. Indeed, the last time that I participated in such a conversation with actual ACW historians and enthusiasts, most of the conversation focused on the Southern attempt to reconstruct historical events in a favorable way to themselves (to be taught at school, for example).

    A few things should be made clear, I think.

    The North fought to preserve the Union, not end slavery. Indeed, Lincoln could have accepted the secession and then the North would have rid itself of slavery without a bloody war. Ending slavery became a later goal.

    It is also true that at one point, the South could have accepted a proposal to simply halt the expansion of slavery. They could have retained what was in place making arguments around the economic aspect and resulting hit to Southern plantation owners rather spurious and disingenuous. Obviously, they didn't accept that proposal.

    The argument that will never be solved is over Constitutional authority, but most ignore the fact that this has been a problem for every single POTUS since and there hasn't been much of an attempt to do more than argue. Two different administrations have used drones to kill US citizens under the guise of the War on Terror. This discussion still has relevance.

    I will give my opinion on this matter with regards to Lincoln which you may take or leave.

    Lincoln's basic argument was that the Constitution contained an underlying and implicit understanding that the government had no power to destroy itself. Therefore, he felt it necessary to take certain liberties to save the Consitution itself as if there were ever a case where it was not used as law, then there was no Constitution at all.

    However, the idea that he then proceeded in sneaky and underhanded ways is largely BS and, in fact, quite the opposite was the case.

    Indeed, he had this to say in an address to a special session of Congress in 1861;

    "To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made.
    He had also sworn in his Inaugaration to defend the Constitution BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Therefore, he felt that he had given an oath to do just that. Hard to see how anyone would misunderstand his intent.

    As a matter of fact, he also felt that his actions should be open to popular appeal, and many of his Republican peers didn't exactly agree with a lot of what he did. However, he felt that his re-election was (as most Presidents feel is the case) a referendum and justification of his first term actions.

    We'll probably never all agree on whether or not it is ever justified to stretch or invent executive powers and as I've said we've got a lot to say and talk about on this issue even today.

    Still, that doesn't mean that we can't get the rest of the story straight.
    Last edited by scrogdog; 01-23-2013 at 09:08 AM.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Hollywood is rarely history.

    Many people say a lot of strange and a-historical things about the ACW. Many of these come from, sorry, Confederate apologists. Indeed, the last time that I participated in such a conversation with actual ACW historians and enthusiasts, most of the conversation focused on the Southern attempt to reconstruct historical events in a favorable way to themselves (to be taught at school, for example).

    A few things should be made clear, I think.

    The North fought to preserve the Union, not end slavery. Indeed, Lincoln could have accepted the secession and then the North would have rid itself of slavery without a bloody war. Ending slavery became a later goal.

    It is also true that at one point, the South could have accepted a proposal to simply halt the expansion of slavery. They could have retained what was in place making arguments around the economic aspect and resulting hit to Southern plantation owners rather spurious and disingenuous. Obviously, they didn't accept that proposal.

    The argument that will never be solved is over Constitutional authority, but most ignore the fact that this has been a problem for every single POTUS since and there hasn't been much of an attempt to do more than argue. Two different administrations have used drones to kill US citizens under the guise of the War on Terror. This discussion still has relevance.

    I will give my opinion on this matter with regards to Lincoln which you may take or leave.

    Lincoln's basic argument was that the Constitution contained an underlying and implicit understanding that the government had no power to destroy itself. Therefore, he felt it necessary to take certain liberties to save the Consitution itself as if there were ever a case where it was not used as law, then there was no Constitution at all.

    However, the idea that he then proceeded in sneaky and underhanded ways is largely BS and, in fact, quite the opposite was the case.

    Indeed, he had this to say in an address to a special session of Congress in 1861;



    He had also sworn in his Inaugaration to defend the Constitution BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Therefore, he felt that he had given an oath to do just that. Hard to see how anyone would misunderstand his intent.

    As a matter of fact, he also felt that his actions should be open to popular appeal, and many of his Republican peers didn't exactly agree with a lot of what he did. However, he felt that his re-election was (as most Presidents feel is the case) a referendum and justification of his first term actions.

    We'll probably never all agree on whether or not it is ever justified to stretch or invent executive powers and as I've said we've got a lot to say and talk about on this issue even today.

    Still, that doesn't mean that we can't get the rest of the story straight.
    Well said.

    I would just add, as scrog mentioned, Hollywood movies are a poor source of credible historical information.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    157
    My favorite lines of the movie is when he told the story about Ethan Allan visiting the court of St. James in London after the revolutionary war. For those that didn't see the movie, the story Lincoln told was Allan was trying to restore diplomatic relations with England. He was invited to a lords townhouse for a dinner party where all were having fun. Allan had to use the loo and asked where it was. He was led to the loo as guests started laughing. Once in the loo he noticed only one wall decoration - a painting of George Washington.
    The English expected Allan to come out furious, but he said nothing. Curious, they asked him if he saw the painting. He said he did and thought it a brilliant idea of English efficiency. He said what would make an Englishman sh## faster than to look up and see George Washington looking down at him.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594
    [QUOTE=scrogdog;15054661]QUOTE]

    i'm not trying to be offensive but you have a good education in the bullsht side of The War of Northern Agression.

    the argument that Lincoln was trying to PRESERVE the Constitution doesn't fly.
    how does a man who breaks the Constitution become it's defender?
    the US Constituion was never approved for the purpose of enslaving states.


    if the South walked away, the North could have continued on under the Constitution.
    unfortunatley, if the South walked away , most of America's revenue would have gone with it. (hmmmm, makes you think)

    also, according to Jefferson Davis, the Southern Constitution was supplimental to the US Constitution.
    so the Constituion wouldn't have been destroyed in the Confederate States of America either.

    the only reason why there is a debate about Lincoln's actions, is because out modern historians like the idea that he Federalized the whole country.


    anyone who wants to understand the era should read (the first quarter) a book printed by someone who was actually there, Jefferson Davis.
    Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
    it documents the thinking of Southern leaders and quotes the founders of the nation

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfstrike View Post

    i'm not trying to be offensive but you have a good education in the bullsht side of The War of Northern Agression.

    the argument that Lincoln was trying to PRESERVE the Constitution doesn't fly.
    how does a man who breaks the Constitution become it's defender?
    the US Constituion was never approved for the purpose of enslaving states.


    if the South walked away, the North could have continued on under the Constitution.
    unfortunatley, if the South walked away , most of America's revenue would have gone with it. (hmmmm, makes you think)

    also, according to Jefferson Davis, the Southern Constitution was supplimental to the US Constitution.
    so the Constituion wouldn't have been destroyed in the Confederate States of America either.

    the only reason why there is a debate about Lincoln's actions, is because out modern historians like the idea that he Federalized the whole country.


    anyone who wants to understand the era should read (the first quarter) a book printed by someone who was actually there, Jefferson Davis.
    Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
    it documents the thinking of Southern leaders and quotes the founders of the nation
    No offense taken, and same here by the way.

    The study of history is not an exact science. Like science, it can also evolve. In fact, it is estimated that we've only uncovered about 5% of all the artifacts and bones and such that are available.

    There is only one way to study history and it involves the use of many sources from all sides. I would no more base opinion on one book or one group of people in the ACW, then I would accept the word of say, just the Americans or just the Russians with regards to WWII.

    I have read the book you mentioned, by the way, though admittedly when I was much younger. I am at the age now that I forget where I may have read certain things. lol

    I've many books about the ACW and that's not even my specialty. I've read over 300 books on WWII. By everyone from American submariners to Japanese pilots to Russian tankers. Political works, Eisenhower, Churchill, on and on.

    I will never know all about WWII.

    In any case, regardless of your sources, the plain reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court has looked at the secession issue.

    If I may paraphrase their findings; there is no language in the constitution that describes the legal process of exiting the union. Therefore, it cannot be done, or is unlawful, if you will.

    Of course, after handing down the judgement we often will get an explanation with it or a dissenting opinion.

    The explanation that I read basically said that what COULD happen is that language could be proposed as an amendment which, of course, would need to be ratified the same way as any other.

    That has not happened and I don't think it is likely.

    So, it looks like the SC disagrees and I think I might too. Seems like the secessionists, then, were the ones that took unlawful action.

    What is your take on the matter based on Constitutional language?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594
    In any case, regardless of your sources, the plain reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court has looked at the secession issue.
    who cares?
    any judge that disagrees with plain language is corrupt, and their opinion means nothing

    If I may paraphrase their findings; there is no language in the constitution that describes the legal process of exiting the union. Therefore, it cannot be done, or is unlawful, if you will.
    the Constitution works the opposit way.
    it has to be stated in the Constitution that the Federal government has the authority to control the states.
    when the Constitution was adopted, the Feds had to be invited by a state to get involved.

    passing an Amendment during corrupt times doesn't count either because it contradicts the spirit of the Constitution.(and infringes on other rules)


    What is your take on the matter based on Constitutional language?
    the issue is clear and many words from the founders back it up.
    (modern historians ignore their words)

    1) there was a state who didn't want to ratify.
    there would have been a big hole in the US if they didn't sign, no one ever suggested invading the state to force them.
    2) James Madison wrote an Amendment that states were subject to Federal review, in a very limited way. the Amendment was rejected by the founders
    3) the federal courts had to be invited to get involved with state cases
    4) 2 states, i believe, Virginia and Mass wrote in their state constitution that they could walk away from the union.
    modern historians have no logical explanation for this , people who believe the feds could attack a state over leaving the union, believe these state amendments meant nothing to anyone. modern historical review doesn't make sense.
    the reason why the other states didn't write similar state amendments, is because everyone knew the Federal government had no such power.
    5) the 9th or 10th Amendment says that rights don't have to be spelled out
    6) when the country was created there was no federal army that could attack a state. the power was in state militias and private gun ownership.
    the idea that every state would attack a state that left was unthinkable, even before the civil War.
    7) the South had almost no weapons manufacturing when they seceded. most of the country didn't think the feds would raise an army to attack states who left.



    Lincoln claimed that attacking the South and freeing the slaves would solve the Federal judicial review debate.
    the North claimed they would enforce the Bill of Rights in all of the states, but if we look at a quick history of the 2nd Amendment , we see that the Federal government had no intention of enforcing gun ownership or any other Amendment unless it was conveinient.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    909
    Lincoln was a gutless murderer. He ordered cold blooded killings of POW's. He circumvented the entire constitution. And he was a fag. Enough said.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,642
    It was wartime....and Lincoln was faced with an ginourmous number of southern yokels who would surrender at the drop of a hat..... he just couldnt build enough prison camps to hold the whole rebel army.....

    reason for editing: I replaced the word enourmous with ginourmous. Ginourmous probably isnt as good a fit as enourmous....but I dont get the chance to use ginourmous that much and i wanted to use it here.
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594
    Lincoln was faced with an ginourmous number of southern yokels who would surrender at the drop of a hat
    i suppose it was all just luck the South killed twice as many combatants

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,251
    I did not see it... watched a few trailers and decided the movie was BHO propaganda. Not hard to figure out... even if one only sees the trailers.

    Just goes to show: Holywood is for sale... just like the govt is.

    If we learn nothing else from this fiasco... I hope we learn that to trust what is put in front of us without questioning... is just as stupid as p*ssing into the wind... and the one making the stupid choice is the looser.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Galatians 2:20-21; Colossians 1: 21-22 & 26-27; 3:1-4; Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    20,251
    A little off topic... however article starts out with a reference to Lincoln:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2J7WF03CE

    This BHO mess has no way other than to turn out bad. OTOH:

    This may well be the BEST wake-up call America has had in over a generation. Lets hope breakfast is hearty enough to get America going again after she is awakened.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Galatians 2:20-21; Colossians 1: 21-22 & 26-27; 3:1-4; Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,642
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfstrike View Post
    i suppose it was all just luck the South killed twice as many combatants
    wouldnt call it luck... guess it was because the north didnt give up when the going got rough.They actually fought till the end and ended up dead instead of living on in shame like the yellow bellied southern boys.
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event