Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 11/22/2012 4:57:29 PM EST
I thought it was well done, and there are a lot of jabs at democrats in it. I know they only focused on the good things that Lincoln did but overall it was a very well done movie
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 5:46:55 PM EST
I am going to disagree with you. I went to see it last weekend and thought it was awful. Tommy Lee Jones had his moments as Thaddeus Stephens but overall I thought it was dry, boring and lacking of any and all merit. The weekend before that I watched Here Comes the Boom and although it is an awful movie in itself at least it was enjoyable. Lincoln just gave me a reason to catch up on my zzzzzzzz's.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:28:40 PM EST
It should have been called The 13th Amendment.

It was fairly biased, and not so much about Lincoln, particularly.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:32:45 PM EST
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:41:56 PM EST
How does it end?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:42:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 6:43:51 PM EST by Gelgoog]

Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?

pick up a fucking history book, you have no idea what you are talking about.


hell two seconds on wiki would have told you as much.



Lincoln, the leader most associated with the end of slavery in the United States, came to national prominence following the advent of the Republican Party in the 1850s, which was opposed to slavery's expansion. Earlier in the Whig Party, as a member of the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln issued a written protest of its passage of a resolution stating that slavery could not be abolished in Washington, D.C. In 1841, he won a court case (Bailey v. Cromwell), representing a black woman and her children who claimed she had already been freed and could not be sold as a slave. In 1845, he successfully defended Marvin Pond (People v. Pond) for harboring the fugitive slave John Hauley. In 1847, he lost a case (Matson v. Rutherford) representing a slave owner (Robert Matson) claiming return of fugitive slaves. While a congressman from Illinois in 1846 to 1848, Lincoln supported the Wilmot Proviso, which, if it had been adopted, would have banned slavery in any U.S. territory won from Mexico.

Lincoln had left politics until he was drawn back into it by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed territories to decide for themselves whether they would allow slavery. Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery and politically opposed to any expansion of it. On October 16, 1854, in his "Peoria Speech", Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated en route to the presidency. Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice, he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..."

Lincoln was nominated as the Republican candidate for president in the election of 1860. Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery, but held that the federal government was prevented by the Constitution from banning slavery in states where it already existed. His plan was to halt the spread of slavery, and to offer monetary compensation to slave-owners in states that agreed to end slavery (see Compensated emancipation). He was considered a moderate within his party, as there were some who wanted the immediate abolition of slavery.

In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky:

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. . . How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty— to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy [sic].[/url]






Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:45:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 6:47:55 PM EST by bennnn]
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:46:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 6:46:56 PM EST by Alien]

Originally Posted By bennnn:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?



Lincoln started talking about his revulsion to slavery in 1836.





Dude don't bust the modern day rebels' pussies like that!
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:49:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:56:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?


"Uncle Bubba-Ray's guide to Southern History" is not very scholarly reading.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:56:04 PM EST
Did he turn into a vampire at the end?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:58:24 PM EST
Don't give away the ending.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:04:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?


"Uncle Bubba-Ray's guide to Southern History" is not very scholarly reading.


If you want to see some really interesting Civil War history being discussed go check out the other Lincoln thread. Raf and Rick-O-Shay have been at it for days.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:06:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Marsell:
I am going to disagree with you. I went to see it last weekend and thought it was awful. Tommy Lee Jones had his moments as Thaddeus Stephens but overall I thought it was dry, boring and lacking of any and all merit. The weekend before that I watched Here Comes the Boom and although it is an awful movie in itself at least it was enjoyable. Lincoln just gave me a reason to catch up on my zzzzzzzz's.


I won't lie, I started dozing off during it too. It was decent though.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:19:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sketti:
Did he turn into a vampire at the end?


No, but he killed a shit pile of em. Best documentary ever!
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:33:43 PM EST
He's doing well in theaters....finally.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:34:02 PM EST
Originally Posted By juan223:
He's doing well in theaters....finally.


Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:45:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By bsnare:
Originally Posted By Sketti:
Did he turn into a vampire at the end?


No, but he killed a shit pile of em. Best documentary ever!


Was that before or after he rose as zombie Lincoln?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:29:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/23/2012 1:49:26 AM EST by mean_sartin]
Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By bennnn:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?



Lincoln started talking about his revulsion to slavery in 1836.





Dude don't bust the modern day rebels' pussies like that!


Oh you got me boss. I'm a copperhead up here in Northern Ohio. You'll be able to spot my rebel pussy in every Civil War thread.

It's not like his first inaugural address he stated he wouldn't let his personal beliefs dictate policy:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that––

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.




I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.


I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution––which amendment, however, I have not seen––has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.


In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


So much for my rebel pussy, eh? I just read what the man wrote. He said his job was to preserve the union and was willing to let slavery continue to do so.




My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves 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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

-Abraham Lincoln. August 22, 1862.


He then gave his Second Inaugural Speech:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.


Lincoln's primary objective in the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Secession's essence lies within anarchy and Lincoln's job was to prevent that. He admitted his goal early on was to contain slavery not eradicate it: he only came to the conclusion of emancipating the slaves once he realized the South wasn't amicable to containment. If he really wanted to do the right thing he would have abolished slavery in all states, not just the ones in rebellion, and wouldn't have waited for two years..


But please keep telling me how I must be a Confederate sympathizer because I never bought the idea that the Union and their President went to war for slaves but rather to keep their nation together. Because people so staunchly against slavery would promise to allow it to continue and would not oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow it continue if they thought slavery was such a wrong.

He only freed some of the slaves when he was in a political and strategic position to do so. If he really believed in the abolishioniat cause as much as you want to believe, he would have gone all out; unless you're going to tell me that lying politicians are a recent invention. We love to point out in GD that Ron Paul loved to bring home pork all the while railing against gov't spending. If a man thought a particular institution were truly a scourge upon mankind, would you expect him to let shit slide as a way to maintain order?

Obviously one could only come to that conclusion by having a rebel pussy and from owning Bubba Ray's Official History of the Confederacy, and not taking a man at his word.

He wasn't the white knight of the abolishionist movement; he was a pragmatic politician.
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 1:52:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By bennnn:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?



Lincoln started talking about his revulsion to slavery in 1836.





Dude don't bust the modern day rebels' pussies like that!


Oh you got me boss. I'm a copperhead up here in Northern Ohio. You'll be able to spot my rebel pussy in every Civil War thread.

It's not like his first inaugural address he stated he wouldn't let his personal beliefs dictate policy:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that––

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.




I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.


I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution––which amendment, however, I have not seen––has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.


In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


So much for my rebel pussy, eh? I just read what the man wrote. He said his job was to preserve the union and was willing to let slavery continue to do so.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves 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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

-Abraham Lincoln. August 22, 1862.


He then gave his Second Inaugural Speech:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.


Lincoln's primary objective in the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Secession's essence lies within anarchy and Lincoln's job was to prevent that. He admitted his goal early on was to contain slavery not eradicate it: he only came to the conclusion of emancipating the slaves once he realized the South wasn't amicable to containment. If he really wanted to do the right thing he would have abolished slavery in all states, not just the ones in rebellion, and wouldn't have waited for two years..


But please keep telling me how I must be a Confederate sympathizer because I never bought the idea that the Union and their President went to war for slaves but rather to keep their nation together. Because people so staunchly against slavery would promise to allow it to continue and would not oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow it continue if they thought slavery was such a wrong.

He only freed some of the slaves when he was in a political and strategic position to do so. If he really believed in the abolishioniat cause as much as you want to believe, he would have gone all out; unless you're going to tell me that lying politicians are a recent invention. We love to point out in GD that Ron Paul loved to bring home pork all the while railing against gov't spending. If a man thought a particular institution were truly a scourge upon mankind, would you expect him to let shit slide as a way to maintain order?

Obviously one could only come to that conclusion by having a rebel pussy and from owning Bubba Ray's Official History of the Confederacy, and not taking a man at his word.

He wasn't the white knight of the abolishionist movement; he was a pragmatic politician.

I never said he was the white knight savior of the blacks and am well aware of the primary reason he went to war. Don't take GD so seriously or people might think your... pussy... is hurt.


Link Posted: 11/23/2012 1:57:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By juan223:
He's doing well in theaters....finally.


BOOM!....headshot!!!
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 1:58:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jayhawk2218:
How does it end?


Don't spoil it
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 2:12:19 AM EST
I just cant make myself go see it.. since Sally "Dumb Bitch" Field is in it.... I am surprised that they didn't put that America hating asshole Danny Glover in it somewhere....
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 2:12:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By bennnn:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Did they gloss over the fact he didn't give a fuck about the slaves until after the Civil War started?



Lincoln started talking about his revulsion to slavery in 1836.





Dude don't bust the modern day rebels' pussies like that!


Oh you got me boss. I'm a copperhead up here in Northern Ohio. You'll be able to spot my rebel pussy in every Civil War thread.

It's not like his first inaugural address he stated he wouldn't let his personal beliefs dictate policy:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that––

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.




I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.


I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution––which amendment, however, I have not seen––has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.


In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


So much for my rebel pussy, eh? I just read what the man wrote. He said his job was to preserve the union and was willing to let slavery continue to do so.




My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves 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; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

-Abraham Lincoln. August 22, 1862.


He then gave his Second Inaugural Speech:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.


Lincoln's primary objective in the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Secession's essence lies within anarchy and Lincoln's job was to prevent that. He admitted his goal early on was to contain slavery not eradicate it: he only came to the conclusion of emancipating the slaves once he realized the South wasn't amicable to containment. If he really wanted to do the right thing he would have abolished slavery in all states, not just the ones in rebellion, and wouldn't have waited for two years..


But please keep telling me how I must be a Confederate sympathizer because I never bought the idea that the Union and their President went to war for slaves but rather to keep their nation together. Because people so staunchly against slavery would promise to allow it to continue and would not oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow it continue if they thought slavery was such a wrong.

He only freed some of the slaves when he was in a political and strategic position to do so. If he really believed in the abolishioniat cause as much as you want to believe, he would have gone all out; unless you're going to tell me that lying politicians are a recent invention. We love to point out in GD that Ron Paul loved to bring home pork all the while railing against gov't spending. If a man thought a particular institution were truly a scourge upon mankind, would you expect him to let shit slide as a way to maintain order?

Obviously one could only come to that conclusion by having a rebel pussy and from owning Bubba Ray's Official History of the Confederacy, and not taking a man at his word.

He wasn't the white knight of the abolishionist movement; he was a pragmatic politician.

I never said he was the white knight savior of the blacks and am well aware of the primary reason he went to war. Don't take GD so seriously or people might think your... pussy... is hurt.






Normally when I get trolled I just lave profanity together to form a tirade.


Fuuuuuuuuuuu.
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 2:23:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/23/2012 2:23:57 AM EST by Ponyboy]
I thought the movie sucked, though truthfully I didn't see the whole thing. I bought a ticket yesterday and went in for the last 10 minutes so I could catch the good part but there wasn't one.
Top Top