\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Did they show the fight with Kirk, Spock, Kahless, Colonel Green and Geghis Khan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Also enjoyed it. Team of Rivals was better and this was an abridged adaptation. Very little about the war. Ah, so it was neo-revisionist psychohistory? The Lincoln legacy is a pro-statist lie. Edited December 5, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 History is often in the eye of the beholder. History has lots of differing stories, it's often hit and miss on facts and truth, and it takes a lot of faith if you haven't done the research yourself. Especially when it's the history of someone's motives. I don't have the time to try to sort through all the history of Lincoln and the people around him to determine what's actually true. But as far as the movie goes, I thought DDL did a really good job. Other than that...the movie was pretty alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 The Lincoln legacy is a pro-statist lie. In what way??? Educate us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 In what way??? Educate us If you're actually interested, which I doubt, this is a decent primer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 If you're actually interested, which I doubt, this is a decent primer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac Thanks for the link. I always enjoy an alternative viewpoint on history whether I agree or not. I disagree with DiLorenzo's assertion that Lincoln has been 'deified' as no president, either during or after his lifetime, has been subject to as much scrutiny and critical review. Lincoln was far more demonized by the South, and for generations, much more than he was ever deified. Is there a mythical element to his life? Of course. Same with any major historical figure. And yes, schools teach what he's most famous for, The Emancipation Proclamation, but it's unrealistic to think that schools would have the time to go into the depth of his politics to any great level. He also seems to throw a lot of his own opinion out there as fact without the necessary supporting evidence (see 1st link below). Perhaps my biggest issue with DiLorenzo is his affiliation with the neo-Confederate movement, specifically as a former lecturer for the League of the South, even though he now seems to disavow that association (2nd link). It's hard for me to ignore that bias. http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I take great issues with him personally in regards to his general positive views of governmental Christian culture and his whole sale objection to the civil rights movement, but have reviewed all of his source material, and have found his work to be intellectually honest; and find myself generally in agreement with many other tenents of neo-Confederacy. As to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, that's part of the great myth. It didn't free a single slave. Edited December 6, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I take great issues with him personally in regards to his general positive views of governmental Christian culture and his whole sale objection to the civil rights movement, but have reviewed all of his source material, and have found his work to be intellectually honest; and find myself generally in agreement with many other tenents of neo-Confederacy. As to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, that's part of the great myth. It didn't free a single slave. been reading some Lerone Bennett have we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 been reading some Lerone Bennett have we? Amongst many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I take great issues with him personally in regards to his general positive views of governmental Christian culture and his whole sale objection to the civil rights movement, but have reviewed all of his source material, and have found his work to be intellectually honest; and find myself generally in agreement with many other tenents of neo-Confederacy. As to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, that's part of the great myth. It didn't free a single slave. what would you have had him do differently? Dr. Bennett does not seem to offer any alternatives for actively freeing the slaves in teh South, although, I suppose he implies that it would have taken military force to do so. Which is essentially what happened as the US forces marched south... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I take great issues with him personally in regards to his general positive views of governmental Christian culture and his whole sale objection to the civil rights movement, but have reviewed all of his source material, and have found his work to be intellectually honest; and find myself generally in agreement with many other tenents of neo-Confederacy. As to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, that's part of the great myth. It didn't free a single slave. I disagree. I think the confusion lies in the difference between what the proclamation did and did not do. It didn't outlaw slavery for instance and it wasn't applicable in the border slave states, but the executive order expressly conferred freedom upon any slave in Union-occupied territory in 10 specific confederate slave states immediately upon effect on 1/1/1863. As a result, thousands of slaves were declared free. And the more the Union army advanced during the course of the war, the more slaves gained their freedom. But I think it's moot point anyway because Lincoln was certainly a major player in getting the 13th Amendment ratified by the states. Here too, the Emancipation Proclamation is seen as a catalyst since he knew that it wouldn't suffice on its own as a war time powers act signed through executive privilege. This neo-Confederate narrative that Lincoln wasn't against slavery is just not supported. He grew up with a father who was anti-slavery and his speeches and writings also attest to his own anti-slavery views. Edited December 6, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I disagree. I think the confusion lies in the difference between what the proclamation did and did not do. It didn't outlaw slavery for instance and it wasn't applicable in the border slave states, but the executive order expressly conferred freedom upon any slave in Union-occupied territory in 10 specific confederate slave states immediately upon effect on 1/1/1863. As a result, thousands of slaves were declared free. And the more the Union army advanced during the course of the war, the more slaves gained their freedom. But I think it's moot point anyway because Lincoln was certainly a major player in getting the 13th Amendment ratified by the states. Here too, the Emancipation Proclamation is seen as a catalyst since he knew that it wouldn't suffice on its own as a war time powers act signed through executive privilege. This neo-Confederate narrative that Lincoln wasn't against slavery is just not supported. He grew up with a father who was anti-slavery and his speeches and writings also attest to his own anti-slavery views. Well stated. It should also be pointed out Lincoln did not have constitutional authority to outlaw slavery by a declaration in the States still part of the union, only in those that were in uprising agains the US. This is important to refute the claim that he purposly did not include border states in the Emancipation Proclomation, when in fact, he could NOT include them, since they were not directly involved in rebellion. As far as the criticisms that Lincoln was not a complete abolitionist, he was very strongly concerned with his authority given by the constitution. If slavery was "legal", as it was in parts of the US prior to his election, he felt that it was improper to force his opinion (of which historical evidence is strongly supportive) that slavery was wrong and should be outlawed. However, his main focus was to keep the country together, if the US would have lost the war, then it wouldn't have mattered if he physically freed slaves or not... Edited December 6, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Well stated. It should also be pointed out Lincoln did not have constitutional authority to outlaw slavery by a declaration in the States still part of the union, only in those that were in uprising agains the US. This is important to refute the claim that he purposly did not include border states in the Emancipation Proclomation, when in fact, he could NOT include them, since they were not directly involved in rebellion. As far as the criticisms that Lincoln was not a complete abolitionist, he was very strongly concerned with his authority given by the constitution. If slavery was "legal", as it was in parts of the US prior to his election, he felt that it was improper to force his opinion (of which historical evidence is strongly supportive) that slavery was wrong and should be outlawed. However, his main focus was to keep the country together, if the US would have lost the war, then it wouldn't have mattered if he physically freed slaves or not... As to the bold text, this is precisely why the executive order was drafted in the fashion it was. Unfortunately it's what many neo-Confederates seize upon as an argument for stating the order didn't free any slaves. Not in those states certainly, but it didn't pertain to those states in the first place, so their argument is moot. It most certainly freed thousands of slaves in eligible territories immediately upon effect. I think your second paragraph attests to the type of politician that Lincoln was. He was nothing if not politically expedient and he had to pander to the electorate like anyone else. But that doesn't change his anti-slavery stance. I would think the 13th Amendment, which he was so instrumental in getting ratified, would suffice as a testament to his beliefs on the subject on its own. Edited December 6, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I disagree. I think the confusion lies in the difference between what the proclamation did and did not do. It didn't outlaw slavery for instance and it wasn't applicable in the border slave states, but the executive order expressly conferred freedom upon any slave in Union-occupied territory in 10 specific confederate slave states immediately upon effect on 1/1/1863. As a result, thousands of slaves were declared free. And the more the Union army advanced during the course of the war, the more slaves gained their freedom. But I think it's moot point anyway because Lincoln was certainly a major player in getting the 13th Amendment ratified by the states. Here too, the Emancipation Proclamation is seen as a catalyst since he knew that it wouldn't suffice on its own as a war time powers act signed through executive privilege. This neo-Confederate narrative that Lincoln wasn't against slavery is just not supported. He grew up with a father who was anti-slavery and his speeches and writings also attest to his own anti-slavery views. what would you have had him do differently? Dr. Bennett does not seem to offer any alternatives for actively freeing the slaves in teh South, although, I suppose he implies that it would have taken military force to do so. Which is essentially what happened as the US forces marched south... I wanted to get back to you guys on this rather than leave it dangling. I have a very busy schedule today, and into the evening until atleast 10 pm, but I will address both of these posts, and your following conversation either tomorrow or over the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I wanted to get back to you guys on this rather than leave it dangling. I have a very busy schedule today, and into the evening until atleast 10 pm, but I will address both of these posts, and your following conversation either tomorrow or over the weekend. Look forward to the discussion Task! It's refreshing to have an actual conversation on PPP without the usual fisticuffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Will you explore his thoughts on repatriating the slaves to Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Will you explore his thoughts on repatriating the slaves to Africa? Nank, perhaps you refer to the suggestion (pre-1862 I believe) of the discussion around voluntary relocation? Lincoln never tried to persuade congress to deport anyone from the US, although I do think he discussed setting up a black only colony. I do not remember where it was supposed to be. However, it was most certainly not as Mr. Bennett and others imply, that he was a white supremacist; rather, he was more worried about the best way to integrate the former slaves and their former master together as free men. The fact that we still have somewhat of a racial divide present in America today simply demonstrates the difficulty that Lincoln imagined would be much harder than the act of emancipation... Edited December 6, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It might help to do some research on the American Colonization Society as well. It was founded in 1816 and it had support among whites and blacks alike. It actually led to the founding of Liberia. Colonization was a popular movement. As to Lincoln's stance on the repatriation of slaves, it wasn't something he advocated early in his career in Congress. However, he did warm to the concept as a way of peacefully settling the issue of slavery as the movement became more progressive in the 1850s. This wasn't borne out of some idea of racial supremacy so much as a need for a politically expedient solution to an ever-growing problem in the country. We need to be careful not to judge those times through the prism of modern day societal and cultural values. In the end though, it's important to remember that Lincoln's position evolved and by the end of the war he began to see that colonization was never going to be a practical solution and that whites and blacks would have to learn to co-exist as a free people in the US. And I think he was fully aware of the major conflicts this would create in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I take great issues with him personally in regards to his general positive views of governmental Christian culture and his whole sale objection to the civil rights movement, but have reviewed all of his source material, and have found his work to be intellectually honest; and find myself generally in agreement with many other tenents of neo-Confederacy. As to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, that's part of the great myth. It didn't free a single slave. It didn't? What about all those tens of thousands of "slaves" wearing the Union blue who fought for the Union, were they free or slaves? You sound pretty ignorant It might help to do some research on the American Colonization Society as well. It was founded in 1816 and it had support among whites and blacks alike. It actually led to the founding of Liberia. Colonization was a popular movement. As to Lincoln's stance on the repatriation of slaves, it wasn't something he advocated early in his career in Congress. However, he did warm to the concept as a way of peacefully settling the issue of slavery as the movement became more progressive in the 1850s. This wasn't borne out of some idea of racial supremacy so much as a need for a politically expedient solution to an ever-growing problem in the country. We need to be careful not to judge those times through the prism of modern day societal and cultural values. In the end though, it's important to remember that Lincoln's position evolved and by the end of the war he began to see that colonization was never going to be a practical solution and that whites and blacks would have to learn to co-exist as a free people in the US. And I think he was fully aware of the major conflicts this would create in the future. He tried it, it didn't work and he abondonded it. The racism at that time was so much more bitter and hateful than in our time that it made it seem like the only solution that had a chance of success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 http://movies.yahoo.com/news/lincoln-cussing-f-050000268.html pure fact??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts