Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 25th 2012 new
(Quote) Charles-512043 said: I haven't seen it yet, but from what I understand, the movie is very historically inaccurate. Any piece of w...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said: I haven't seen it yet, but from what I understand, the movie is very historically inaccurate. Any piece of work that portrays Lincoln as a bleeding-heart abolitionist isn't doing history any justice.



In reality, Lincoln was what we would today consider a white supremacist. He spoke out several times stating that he did not believe in the equality of all races, and to the extent that he wanted to abolish slavery at all, it was only as a means to get all African Americans colonized elsewhere so that he could maintain a white America. As late as August 1962, he stated bluntly in a letter that his objective was to stop secession and NOT to end slavery. Here is the exact quote:



"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."



As far as getting the 13th Amendment passed, he actually did not pressure other politicians to support it. It worked the other way around...HE was pressured into supporting it. In his inaugural address, Lincoln actually voiced support for a different proposed 13th Amendment which actually prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery at all.



lewrockwell.com
--hide--


*Correction: As late as August 1862, not 1962.
Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: Marianne, I saw the movie, "Lincoln," on opening day here in San Diego county. I ...
(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: Marianne,

I saw the movie, "Lincoln," on opening day here in San Diego county. I would suggest to anyone wanting to see it, that it is not for young children. There is no vulgar language, but the entire movie is filled with intricate dialogue about getting the 13th amendment passed. Interesting yes, but maybe not for those who are not yet acquianted with the political system.

While I love historical movies, and would wholeheartedly recommend the movie to anyone with similar taste (everyone clapped at the end of the movie).

The part I liked was toward the end, after the amendment was passed. Most of us are familiar with the history. I liked that the movie included a conversation Lincoln had that indicated his feelings, in retrospect, about the victory. It was clear that all along he thought that he was doing God's work. He stated that he wanted to go to Jerusalem and walk along the same path as Jesus.

I found that so very touching that a person in politics would stay the course to do such good, and correct such an extreme social injustice----that on the very face of it was so terribly wrong.
--hide--


Jacqueline: If you want a real shocker, read Charles post below. Apparently, the movie was mostly fiction. I also found it very
wordy and confusing with all of the characters.

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: I haven't seen it yet, but from what I understand, the movie is very historically inaccurate. Any ...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said: I haven't seen it yet, but from what I understand, the movie is very historically inaccurate. Any piece of work that portrays Lincoln as a bleeding-heart abolitionist isn't doing history any justice.

In reality, Lincoln was what we would today consider a white supremacist. He spoke out several times stating that he did not believe in the equality of all races, and to the extent that he wanted to abolish slavery at all, it was only as a means to get all African Americans colonized elsewhere so that he could maintain a white America. As late as August 1962, he stated bluntly in a letter that his objective was to stop secession and NOT to end slavery. Here is the exact quote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

As far as getting the 13th Amendment passed, he actually did not pressure other politicians to support it. It worked the other way around...HE was pressured into supporting it. In his inaugural address, Lincoln actually voiced support for a different proposed 13th Amendment which actually prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery at all.

lewrockwell.com
--hide--


Boy, Charles, this really blows a hole in the whole movie premise. I know the Civil War was fought to keep the South from
suceeding, but I also think that slavery would have ended with or without the 13th Amendment because it had already
ended in Europe. And I read that it was against the Federal laws to take part in slave trading in the US already at that time.
I wonder why the South does not like Lincoln to this day, if he was a white supremacist?

In the movie it seemed like Lincoln tried to end slavery before the south lost, so he would not need their votes to pass
the Amendment. Some of the slaves in the movie were already freed. Actually, there have been slaves since Biblical times.
Now there are still slaves but in different forms, like children being kidnapped.

Well, all of what you said really puts a new spin on the movie. I thought Doris Kearns was a good historian. If you see the
movie, let me know what you think.

Nov 28th 2012 new
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Boy, Charles, this really blows a hole in the whole movie premise. I know the Civil War was fought ...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



Boy, Charles, this really blows a hole in the whole movie premise. I know the Civil War was fought to keep the South from
suceeding, but I also think that slavery would have ended with or without the 13th Amendment because it had already
ended in Europe. And I read that it was against the Federal laws to take part in slave trading in the US already at that time.
I wonder why the South does not like Lincoln to this day, if he was a white supremacist?

In the movie it seemed like Lincoln tried to end slavery before the south lost, so he would not need their votes to pass
the Amendment. Some of the slaves in the movie were already freed. Actually, there have been slaves since Biblical times.
Now there are still slaves but in different forms, like children being kidnapped.

Well, all of what you said really puts a new spin on the movie. I thought Doris Kearns was a good historian. If you see the
movie, let me know what you think.

--hide--


I don't necessarily agree with Charles' point of view about the history of the time. By modern day standards probably most caucasian men in 1862 would have been considered a "white supremacist." Most African-americans were only known to caucasians as slaves, so to think of them as inherent equals in that day was pretty radical thinking.

Probably the exact truth of the matter would not ever be known, with much of the thought of the day shrouded by politics.

Yes, there has always been slavery throughout world history. Scary.

Can you imagine being kidnapped from your homeland and taken to another country, isolated, and not being able to communicate with anyone?
Nov 28th 2012 new

(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: I don't necessarily agree with Charles' point of view about the history of the time...
(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said:

I don't necessarily agree with Charles' point of view about the history of the time. By modern day standards probably most caucasian men in 1862 would have been considered a "white supremacist." Most African-americans were only known to caucasians as slaves, so to think of them as inherent equals in that day was pretty radical thinking.

Probably the exact truth of the matter would not ever be known, with much of the thought of the day shrouded by politics.

Yes, there has always been slavery throughout world history. Scary.

Can you imagine being kidnapped from your homeland and taken to another country, isolated, and not being able to communicate with anyone?
--hide--


I am not sure why Charles information is so contrary to the movie? I do know that America was not the only country
importing Slaves, so there was a definite divide of the races in different parts of the world.



Nov 30th 2012 new


I don't think the literal accuracy of a historical film is all that important. They're telling a story.

The photography was striking. Not going for realism, but for mythopoetic portrayal of a possibly idealized past. I liked that.

The best stuff was the detailed machinations of the legislative process. You don't want to see how laws or sausages are made. It made me nostalgic for the 19th Century, when Congress worked more according to the ideal of being a deliberative body (whenever I see the House floor on CSPAN today it's empty.)

The not-good stuff was Lincoln's family life and I almost felt like the filmmakers were putting in obligatory scenes to show they recognize the horrors of war and the dignity of black people. Could have done without a lot of that.

I also think they should have ended the film after the passage of the bill on Jan 31, 1965 and not continued through to April and the assassination and General Lee getting on his white horse at Appomattox.
.

Because religion in film is on my mind (after seeing Flight), I noted the absence of religion and religious imagery. Lincoln's status as a national hero has produced a legend where the Lincoln/Christ similarities are emphasized. He died on Good Friday! He was our Best, and sacrificed as atonement for our country's sins!


The Jewish screenwriter Tony Kushner and director Steven Speilberg must have known this and they did put in a scene where Lincoln tells his wife he'd like to visit the Holy Land and then the death bed scene, which looks like a Middle Ages painting of Biblical times, with Lincoln bathed in a white light. But that's all I noticed. There were no scenes of a chaplain opening House sessions, no rhetoric from the politicians about religious reasons for ending slavery (strange given how involved churches were in the Abolition movement), no prayers over the war dead, no allusions to the Civil War being a Holy War and nobody singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Some of Speilberg's other films (think Close Encounters, E.T., Always) have tons of religious imagery in them. Lincoln - not so much.

Nov 30th 2012 new

The movie struck me as a gross oversimplification.

Nov 30th 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: I don't think the literal accuracy of a historical film is all that important. They'r...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:


I don't think the literal accuracy of a historical film is all that important. They're telling a story.

The photography was striking. Not going for realism, but for mythopoetic portrayal of a possibly idealized past. I liked that.

The best stuff was the detailed machinations of the legislative process. You don't want to see how laws or sausages are made. It made me nostalgic for the 19th Century, when Congress worked more according to the ideal of being a deliberative body (whenever I see the House floor on CSPAN today it's empty.)

The not-good stuff was Lincoln's family life and I almost felt like the filmmakers were putting in obligatory scenes to show they recognize the horrors of war and the dignity of black people. Could have done without a lot of that.

I also think they should have ended the film after the passage of the bill on Jan 31, 1965 and not continued through to April and the assassination and General Lee getting on his white horse at Appomattox.
.

Because religion in film is on my mind (after seeing Flight), I noted the absence of religion and religious imagery. Lincoln's status as a national hero has produced a legend where the Lincoln/Christ similarities are emphasized. He died on Good Friday! He was our Best, and sacrificed as atonement for our country's sins!


The Jewish screenwriter Tony Kushner and director Steven Speilberg must have known this and they did put in a scene where Lincoln tells his wife he'd like to visit the Holy Land and then the death bed scene, which looks like a Middle Ages painting of Biblical times, with Lincoln bathed in a white light. But that's all I noticed. There were no scenes of a chaplain opening House sessions, no rhetoric from the politicians about religious reasons for ending slavery (strange given how involved churches were in the Abolition movement), no prayers over the war dead, no allusions to the Civil War being a Holy War and nobody singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Some of Speilberg's other films (think Close Encounters, E.T., Always) have tons of religious imagery in them. Lincoln - not so much.

--hide--


That was a good review of the movie, Cathy. I agree it should have ended much sooner. And I thought that was General
Grant on the horse, not Lee, until I was told who it was. General Grant's tomb is not too far from where I live. I visit it
with friends once in a while.

I did not know that Lincoln died on Good Friday, and if I did, I had forgotten. The bedside scene is actually from a photograph
that I have seen of people all around the bed of a dying Lincoln. That is what I thought of when I saw that scene.

There was a bit of poetic license as you are saying. I just found the movie confusing with all the dialog.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Nov 30th 2012 new

(Quote) Sean-851370 said: The movie struck me as a gross oversimplification.
(Quote) Sean-851370 said:

The movie struck me as a gross oversimplification.

--hide--


They did pick and choose what they included. I would have wanted to see the scene of General Grant and
General Robert E. Lee together at the end of the war, signing the peace treaty. That would have made a
good scene--two generals together, both graduates of West Point, and each on opposite sides of the war.

They had Lee in a nice light blue uniform on a nice horse. They just left out Grant.

Nov 30th 2012 new

I loved it, because I thought Daniel Day Lewis was awesome and born to play the role (like Jim Caveziel in Passion of the Christ).

I thought you would "enjoy" it more if you had a little history lesson before hand to remember what all happened. I wished they kept showing the subtitles of the names more than just the first time you saw a character!

I agree about seeing that politics has been the same game all throughout our history--to think that slavery was abolished, not because it was the right thing to do, but because of horsetrading on the voting, wow....I am not history expert, but it made me think that even through an imperfect process, America did the right thing. I hope we can continue to do that somehow.

I thought the cinematography was amazing. The dim lighting of the White House (before electricity), etc.

On a personal note, I was fascinated by the portrayal of Robert Todd Lincoln, as he was the founder of the first law firm I worked at, Isham Lincoln and Beale, here in Chicago (which is no more). I was always sort of proud of that here in the Land of Lincoln.

The scene of Robert at the military hospital was one of the most gut wrenching I have ever seen...reminded me of that scene in Gone with the Wind where they keep pulling the camera back, and the wounded stretch as far as the eye can see. The carnage that was the Civil War is staggering.

And it makes me wonder now what has to/will happen with our current culture war against life.

ALthough it was not a perfect movie (see some of the comments above), I think Lincoln is the best movie of the year so far (and by far the best performance by DDL), but I have not yet seen Anna Karenina, which might take the cake for me!

Posts 11 - 20 of 23