If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Welcome toThe Spill Movie Community
Sign Upor Sign In
by Manuel Guardado
Tags: Daniel Day-Lewis, Hal Holbrook, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lincoln, Sally Field, Steven Spielberg, Tommy Lee Jones, audio, review, spill, More…spill.com
Join The Spill Movie Community
My Review of Lincoln http://www.ryanhawbecker.com/2012/11/lincoln-movie-review.html?spref=tw …
Y'all have never heard of question time? prime ministers questions? it's how politics should be handled: in the trenches. politics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshed.
I agree to disagree. There didn't need to be more fighting or a continuation of the war. There was still government forced violence after the civil war. Telling land owners to let their slaves go free hardly seems like a "major reform" especially after just beating the South.
The country still grew after the war, sure there was a slow down and the economy was shot. But life still moved on. Keeping slaves after the war was still a treasonous act. So what's the point of a huge war in that one of the major factors was the abolishment of slavery, then to not enforce it after the war is won? I mean Abe could have taken a few naps and send over a few union soldier to make sure the agreement was upheld. Since he is one of America's greatest presidents... or Johnson or Jackson could have, too. But in my best Kanye West voice "19th century politicians don't care about Black people!"
We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
The War left Lincoln completely drained and I doubt that he had enough fight left in him to make the major reforms you are alluding to. If you look at his pictures and contemporary accounts it's clear that the events of 1861-65 had taken out most of the fight that he had in him. So, we can't really be sure what he would have done. The same goes for America in general. Once the South had capitulated, most people just wanted a return to peace as the economy of the United States was in shambles and too many families had been shattered as it was. Few people had expected the war to drag on for so long and most Americans were more than ready to accept an imperfect peace than continue quarrelling about issues of principle which could just as easily be ironed out during peacetime.
Regarding slavery, I said that it was "all but gone" not that it was stamped out completely. My point was that there is no comparison between the slave trade before and after 1865.
I feel what you are saying is that, what they did was unavoidable aftermoving forward with the victory over the southern states. That if Lincoln lived everything would have been the same. I disagree.
And I not mistaking cheap labor for slavery. You can look it up, slavery still existed years are abolition. There a lot of stories of black people dying in slavery years after that proclamation.
And when you said that I said, "they could do more" it was in the sense if Lincoln was alive and not assassinated. Not after his assignation in which they used Union forces in other ways like killing Indians to make way for railroad productions and so forth.
Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's VP, not Jackson. Jackson was president a few decade's before the Civil War.
Anyways, you ARE saying that they could have done more. Aren't you reading your own posts, man? Look, same post:
"I never said he could do more.
Hindsight or whatever, if there were still slavery after abolishment, they could have done something about it."
Same post! Total incoherency. I'm not trying to make fun of you or anything, I know you're being civil but I can't stand it when someone says "I didn't say that" and then goes on to say it again and again. So, better nip it in the bud.
Your argument is completely bogus imo. Lincoln and his successors could have done more? Easy to say now. Let's flip your argument on its head, shall we?
Lincoln could have done nothing. He would have had a quiet presidency. Maybe the occasional abolitionist disturbance to quell, but nothing that would have imperilled his presidency. It was clear that the US was slowly, but surely heading towards abolition, yes. New free states were joining the Union, turning pro-slavers into a minority. But in 1861 they were only 2 to 1 at best. He could have just left the issue on the backburner, let a few more territories organise themselves into free states and let a future president tackle the matter when public opinion was more strongly anti-slavery. But, he didn't. Don't you see? A third of the nation rebelled against him, but he pushed ahead!
He decided that enough was enough and the rest is history, as they say. I think that people see history in a linear manner, like "yeah, it was bound to happen eventually." Maybe so, but every now and then you have people like Lincoln who are not ready to wait when they know that something is wrong.
One final point, you are wrong regarding slavery. There was cheap labour and discrimination after 1865, but slavery was all but gone in the U.S. after the War. I won't go into it here as my post is already huge as it is, but there is ample information about this issue.
Leon, man, Who gives a fuck if it looks like Lincoln saved black people, He had a big part in helping out. Can't really change it to a black guy doing everything, It's History!
@ Dredd. I never said he could do more. Just questioning the sensationalism of Abe's personality and thought process. And despite Andrew Jackson's presidency there were still slaves for many years after the abolishment of slavery, those are the facts. It had nothing to do with who was president at what time for how long.
And what I meant by winning the civil war, they could have continued to hold influence over those southern states in which they did not. Hindsight or whatever, if there were still slavery after abolishment, they could have done something about it.
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.