One Hundred and Fifty Years Ago On This Day

[bobabode]

These words were spoken by President Lincoln at Gettysburg.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

[donquixote99]

Best speech ever made.

[piece-itpete]

We were very 'lucky' to have him at the right time.

Pete

[Zeke]

This is not a denigration but I often believe that Lincoln is overwrought.

Any reasonably competent leader would look down, see that he has a relatively weak hand, but know that the only manner in which to preserve the nation is to move all in.

1. He gets away with it.
2. He gets killed.

Suddenly, he's a Top Five President.

Again, not knocking but I believe we lose some candor due to his manner of death. (Similar occurred with Kennedy.)

Am I the only person who thinks this?

[Charles]

This is not a denigration but I often believe that Lincoln is overwrought.

Any reasonably competent leader would look down, see that he has a relatively weak hand, but know that the only manner in which to preserve the nation is to move all in.

1. He gets away with it.
2. He gets killed.

Suddenly, he's a Top Five President.

Again, not knocking but I believe we lose some candor due to his manner of death. (Similar occurred with Kennedy.)

Am I the only person who thinks this?

I tend to agree with you, only I couldn't see any percentage in me saying anything.

But since you brought it up.

Chas

[JJIII]

Apparently Mr. Obama feels somewhat that way also.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/gettysburg-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow.php

[piece-itpete]

He may not be the indispensable man that Washington was. He also might have been though.

Look at his predecessor. That said they're all hyped almost like a national religion.

Great link John, thanks!

Pete

[donquixote99]

This is not a denigration but I often believe that Lincoln is overwrought.

Any reasonably competent leader would look down, see that he has a relatively weak hand, but know that the only manner in which to preserve the nation is to move all in.

1. He gets away with it.
2. He gets killed.

Suddenly, he's a Top Five President.

Again, not knocking but I believe we lose some candor due to his manner of death. (Similar occurred with Kennedy.)

Am I the only person who thinks this?

The death was a trauma that created a massive sense-of-loss and veneration-reaction. Same seen with Kennedy.

But I think Lincoln had political chops that Kennedy never dreamed of, a gift of eloquence of very rare quality, and at bottom a profound human decency that actually justifies the veneration, even if it didn't directly create it.

[donquixote99]

Apparently Mr. Obama feels somewhat that way also.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/gettysburg-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow.php


Consider this imaginary conversation:

"Hey, look at that fine red dog."

"Well, he may be a red dog, but he don't hunt."

The doubt is not about the redness, but about what it means, see.

Similarly, Hayward is trying to hang a whole thesis on Obama's "may" indicating doubt about 'self-evident,' when the point was the contrast between 'self-evident' (true) and 'self-executing' (not true). Hayward's dog don't hunt, I fear.

Further, he's smart enough to know it, so I must question his sincerity.

[JJIII]

My post was in reply to Zeke and Charles "on Obama’s skipping out on the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address today."


(Bolded from the link.)

That's all.


This is not a denigration but I often believe that Lincoln is overwrought.

Any reasonably competent leader would look down, see that he has a relatively weak hand, but know that the only manner in which to preserve the nation is to move all in.

1. He gets away with it.
2. He gets killed.

Suddenly, he's a Top Five President.

Again, not knocking but I believe we lose some candor due to his manner of death. (Similar occurred with Kennedy.)

Am I the only person who thinks this?

I tend to agree with you, only I couldn't see any percentage in me saying anything.

But since you brought it up.

Chas

Apparently Mr. Obama feels somewhat that way also.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/gettysburg-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow.php

[donquixote99]

My post was in reply to Zeke and Charles "on Obama’s skipping out on the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address today."


(Bolded from the link.)

That's all.

I don't get your what you're saying here. I assume you thought Hayward (that's Steven Hayward, the author of the thing you linked-to) was kind-of right-on, since you posted the link. You seem to think there's some truth there. You say it indicates what Obama 'somewhat feels.'

So my post taking issue with Hayward's speck of so-called evidence as to what's in Obama's mind isn't on point?

[JJIII]

I don't get your what you're saying here. I assume you thought Hayward (that's Steven Hayward, the author of the thing you linked-to) was kind-of right-on, since you posted the link. You seem to think there's some truth there. You say it indicates what Obama 'somewhat feels.'

So my post taking issue with Hayward's speck of so-called evidence as to what's in Obama's mind isn't on point?

Zeke said that he thought the adoration of Lincoln was a little much. (Paraphrasing here.) Charles agreed. I was merely pointing out that Mr. Obama apparently thinks so too, as evidenced by his not showing up at the ceremony.
Kind of strange to me since Lincoln "freed the slaves" and Mr. Obama is the first black President. I think he (Obama) had a chance to make a positive statement but he had "scheduling conflicts".

As for the rest of the article, I make no comments either way about it.

[donquixote99]

Well, if the point is to guess what's in Obama's mind, my guess is he knows his numbers are down, and fears that when pundits parse his words with razors looking for things to criticize, they will find more sympathetic ears than usual. It's therefore a good time for him to keep his mouth shut, especially when the subject is so loaded as Lincoln at Gettysburg.

[JJIII]

Well, if the point is to guess what's in Obama's mind, my guess is he knows his numbers are down, and fears that when pundits parse his words with razors looking for things to criticize, they will find more sympathetic ears than usual. It's therefore a good time for him to keep his mouth shut, especially when the subject is so loaded as Lincoln at Gettysburg.

Well.. OK.;)

[BlueStreak]

He may not be the indispensable man that Washington was. He also might have been though.

Look at his predecessor. That said they're all hyped almost like a national religion.

Great link John, thanks!

Pete

Anyone who thinks Obama is the "worst president ever", needs to read up on James Buchanan. It's quite possible that the Civil War might have never happened had Buchanan possessed a spine.

Dave

[Charles]

Lincoln was a politician, a very good one, who abandoned the Whigs and became a Republican, and is credited with saving the Union. At the point of the bayonet, and the suspension of Habeas corpus...I might add.

Perhaps a master politician could have accomplished the same without becoming complicit in one of the bloodiest civil wars in modern history, perhaps the die was already set.

But the man was not a deity. And whenever society elevates one to the position of a deity, they eliminate any rational criticism of their newly created god.

I kind of like to look at my gods warts and all...being I've never seen any wisdom in bowing to a myth.

Chas

[donquixote99]

Oh, I agree he's not a diety. But he's got quite a temple on the mall anyway.

He went to war because he was told it would be quickly won, while ducking it would have been difficult and probably politically ruinous. A 'police action' was what was expected; the army would march south and restore order. He had no experience to tell him how bad it could be, and the experienced guys were very confident.

The Habaes Corpus suspension was completely justified and proper under the circumstances, except the Constitution gives Congress the power to do it, not the President. But Congress ducked making it legal, preferring to leave Lincoln stuck with the onus.

Now I'm OK with criticism of Lincoln in principle, if well-founded. But most of it is trite and tainted with Southern Revisionism.

[BlueStreak]

But the man was not a deity. And whenever society elevates one to the position of a deity, they eliminate any rational criticism of their newly created god.

I kind of like to look at my gods warts and all...being I've never seen any wisdom in bowing to a myth.

Chas

Me neither, as is evidenced by the long list of people who hate me, or at least appear mystified by my refusal to deify St. Ronnie as they expect me to do.

To my mind, the guy was just a smartass bullshitter who got lucky enough to be in the right place when the Soviet pig finally rolled and wheezed it's last breath. And, that in the short run his economic policies may have provided a temporary boost, but in the long run are a disaster that led to unrealistic expectations of perpetual fealty to corporate interests.

Or, as Bill Maher recently put it, "Yeah, we all know you want slave labor with a tax and regulation free business environment. Well, tough shit, you can't have it.":p

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Oh, I agree he's not a diety. But he's got quite a temple on the mall anyway.

He went to war because he was told it would be quickly won, while ducking it would have been difficult and probably politically ruinous. A 'police action' was what was expected; the army would march south and restore order. He had no experience to tell him how bad it could be, and the experienced guys were very confident.

The Habaes Corpus suspension was completely justified and proper under the circumstances, except the Constitution gives Congress the power to do it, not the President. But Congress ducked making it legal, preferring to leave Lincoln stuck with the onus.

Now I'm OK with criticism of Lincoln in principle, if well-founded. But most of it is trite and tainted with Southern Revisionism.

How DARE you suggest southerners would revise history to pretty it up and make themselves feel better, Sir!!! Why such moral and dignified gentlemen would nevah DREAM of such a thang! :rolleyes:

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Without war the Union would have been split.

Me neither, as is evidenced by the long list of people who hate me, or at least appear mystified by my refusal to deify St. Ronnie as they expect me to do.

....

Heathen!

Pete

[icenine]

Oh, I agree he's not a diety. But he's got quite a temple on the mall anyway.

He went to war because he was told it would be quickly won, while ducking it would have been difficult and probably politically ruinous. A 'police action' was what was expected; the army would march south and restore order. He had no experience to tell him how bad it could be, and the experienced guys were very confident.

The Habaes Corpus suspension was completely justified and proper under the circumstances, except the Constitution gives Congress the power to do it, not the President. But Congress ducked making it legal, preferring to leave Lincoln stuck with the onus.

Now I'm OK with criticism of Lincoln in principle, if well-founded. But most of it is trite and tainted with Southern Revisionism.

He went to war because after he was elected the South seceded because they were upset that a President opposed to the EXTENSION of slavery to the new states was in office. When the Federal government tried to resupply the base on Ft Sumter they were attacked by the South.

You sort of make it sound like Lincoln made the decision on his own. His adminstration called it The War Of The Rebellion.

I do agree with you however in your main points. All the revisionist arguments are bullshit.
Pretty soon the "slavery did not cause the war" bullshit will rear its neanderthal head.

[donquixote99]

He went to war because after he was elected the South seceded because they were upset that a President opposed to the EXTENSION of slavery to the new states was in office. When the Federal government tried to resupply the base on Ft Sumter they were attacked by the South.

You sort of make it sound like Lincoln made the decision on his own. His adminstration called it The War Of The Rebellion.

I do agree with you however in your main points. All the revisionist arguments are bullshit.
Pretty soon the "slavery did not cause the war" bullshit will rear its neanderthal head.

Lincoln made the decision to resupply Sumter, rather than surrender it, knowing and expecting that the southerners would open fire if resupply was attempted. He saw war as necessary and practically unavoidable, and he wanted the South to fire the first shot.

Pete is correct, above: it was war or accept disunion. Lincoln, for both principled and practical reasons, could not accept disunion.

[icenine]

Lincoln made the decision to resupply Sumter, rather than surrender it, knowing and expecting that the southerners would open fire if resupply was attempted. He saw war as necessary and practically unavoidable, and he wanted the South to fire the first shot.

Pete is correct, above: it was war or accept disunion. Lincoln, for both principled and practical reasons, could not accept disunion.

As Commander in Chief you do not have a choice in re-supply matters.

[Zeke]

As Commander in Chief you do not have a choice in re-supply matters.

Which goes to my original point: any competent Executive would have taken the same actions that Lincoln did.

Presuming a desire to retain the Union at all costs, the only play is "all in."

[Charles]

H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

From "Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.
First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141

"Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that seldom, if ever, lose money in the United States—first, murder stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly overcome by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious ideas—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Was he a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Jesus? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Jesus were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other early friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but the Rev. Willian E. Barton, one of the best of later Lincolnologists, argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were live today, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.

Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has been perceptible humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus marking hum fit for adoration in the Y.M.C.A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions. Until he emerged from Illinois they always put the women, children and clergy to bed when he got a few gourds of corn aboard, and it is a matter of unescapable record that his career in the State Legislature was indistinguishable from that of a Tammany Nietzsche. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a messiah. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist, and Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. An Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and more important still, until the political currents were safely funning his way. Even so, he freed the slaves in only a part of the country: all the rest continued to clank their chains until he himself was an angel in Heaven.

Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched hum, and the Cooper Union Speech got him the Presidency. His talent for emotional utterance was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fire-works—the hollow rodomontades of the era. But in the middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost badly simple—and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered today. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary."

Any thoughts,

Chas

[icenine]

Which goes to my original point: any competent Executive would have taken the same actions that Lincoln did.

Presuming a desire to retain the Union at all costs, the only play is "all in."

Yeah what kind of President would let his troops go without food, etc?
Gotta take care of the troops....

[piece-itpete]

I'll agree that the Civil War guaranteed Federal superiority, and that Lincoln was NO saint. He was a master politician for sure. Agreed too about his beliefs. He sure knew his Bible though.

He also dances awkwardly for furniture commercials every Presidents day. I think it's very unsuitable for a man in his position.

Pete

[icenine]

Chas..who gives a phuck what Mencken thought about Lincoln. Mencken was just the early 20th century version of Howard Stern who actually acheived immortality by poking fun at the hypocracies of "Progressive" 20th century America that felt it necessary to ban alcohol.

And Lincoln did not smile in the pictures for the same reason no one else did at that time....the exposures were too long in the early days of photography you could not smile or the picture would have motion in it. DUH.

Sure Lincoln was a normal politician like everyone else back then. The outcome matters Chas not the motivation. When he saw the cost of lives in the middle of the conflict he realized that slavery had to end. Whether he came to that realization on his own with diffidence or the lastest body count from Antietam shocked him into action does not really matter. Who cares.

[piece-itpete]

The timing was political cunning.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I've already had this argument.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

From "Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.
First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141

"Some time ago a publisher told me..........Blah, Blah, Blah.........

Any thoughts,

Chas

Two;

1). Lazy and arrogant white men always want someone they think is beneath them to do their work for them and do it cheaply. It's a problem we still struggle with today.

2). Was Menken a Southerner? Why yes, of course he was.

:rolleyes:

Dave

[donquixote99]

As Commander in Chief you do not have a choice in re-supply matters.

In any case he feels warrants it, the Commander in Chief can assert control. Everybody knew that Sumter was about out of food, the commander had already advised his Southern counterparts, in response to their demands for surrender, that it would be forthcoming in a few days due to the exhaustion of victuals. Lincoln could have let the surrender happen, or attempt resupply, with the latter being viewed by the South as a hostile act. The Southerners had made it explicitly clear that they would respond with force to a resupply attempt. He chose to attempt it, and it was a personal, considered, and informed decision.

[donquixote99]

H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

From "Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.
First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141

"Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that seldom, if ever, lose money in the United States—first, murder stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly overcome by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious ideas—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Was he a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Jesus? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Jesus were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other early friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but the Rev. Willian E. Barton, one of the best of later Lincolnologists, argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were live today, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.

Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has been perceptible humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus marking hum fit for adoration in the Y.M.C.A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions. Until he emerged from Illinois they always put the women, children and clergy to bed when he got a few gourds of corn aboard, and it is a matter of unescapable record that his career in the State Legislature was indistinguishable from that of a Tammany Nietzsche. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a messiah. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist, and Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. An Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and more important still, until the political currents were safely funning his way. Even so, he freed the slaves in only a part of the country: all the rest continued to clank their chains until he himself was an angel in Heaven.

Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched hum, and the Cooper Union Speech got him the Presidency. His talent for emotional utterance was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fire-works—the hollow rodomontades of the era. But in the middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost badly simple—and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered today. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary."

Any thoughts,

Chas

My thought is that's a malicious pile of punditry. I will elaborate.

For a thing labeled "on Lincoln" it's amazing how much is about other things and other people. I see comments about what books people buy. I see comments about what people do or don't know about Lincoln, and much about people's feelings about him. A fair bit at the beginning is about people's opinions (offered with only the scantest allusions to evidence) about Lincoln's possible lack of Christianity. Mencken repeatedly expresses his doubts, an attack by innuendo similar to the McCarthy-era when 'doubting' someone's hatred of Communism was enough to brand them a sinner against America. But actually the opinions and doubts given us, as they appear, contain mainly information about the opinion-holders and doubters, and very little actually about Lincoln. In any case, this first part gives us a good idea of Mencken's malice toward his subject, and the sort of methods he is willing to employ.

Contrasting the views people purportedly hold of Lincoln, compared to Washington, is of course again not about Lincoln, it's about people's views. The bit about not smiling and "cackling" is of course raw ad hominum, again baring the writers malicious intent. There follows in this paragraph an exposition detailing the contrast between an idealized popular image of Lincoln (which of course was not of the dead president's making) and observations of the actual man, which strike me as composed largely of nasty insult (put the women, kids, and clergy to bed indeed.)

There remain two accusations of some apparent substance in the later part of the essay. Mencken, a skilled polemicist, perhaps saves his real argument until after the ground has been prepared by his preliminary bombardment, that is, until after he already has the readers who have stuck with him well in the mood to think bad and worse of Ol' Abe. These last arguments can be summarized as
1) Lincoln wasn't really devoted to freeing the slaves, and
2) the Gettysburg address falsely represents the nature of the war.

Regarding 1), the argument again is mainly that the real Lincoln does not live up to his posthumous legend. Again, that legend is not a fair burden to impose upon him. He certainly never called himself a "messiah." Likewise, he never called himself an 'abolitionist,' a thing Mencken mentions as a reproach for no reasonable reason I can discern. Did Lincoln have some obligation to be a radical zealot on the matter? Would Mencken actually like him better if he were? Here again, Mencken seems to think it valid to contrast the real Lincoln, who was an effective politician, with a imaginary demigod who could of course abolish slavery unilaterally, at a stroke, whenever he wished. Lincoln's policies evolved over time, both to adapt to changing conditions, and to reflect development and growth in his own thinking. And he was never omnipotent, he always had to overcome or finesse opposition from many quarters.

The bottom line on freeing the slaves is Lincoln did it, to include the difficult feat of securring passage of the 13th Amendment through Congress, the final time he tried, after an earlier attempt was defeated. I have my doubts as to whether Mencken actually applauds this deed (and he deserves to be attacked by innuendo here, as he does it so much himself), but in any case, his voiced criticism seems to be that Lincoln should have dione a quicker and better job of it. Well, I wonder how many amendments Mencken ever found a 2/3 majority in Congress for.

If the recent Speilberg movie has the history right, Lincoln could have had a Confederate surrender in advance of the final bloodbaths necessary for the fall of Richmond, if he'd been willing to sacrifice the anti-slavery amendment. He was not, though the question was for a time in the balance. But at the last, he knowingly spent thousands of lives to insure that slavery was done. Mencken's criticisms in contrast strike me as base, unworthy attacks on the man whose responsibility was to wrestle with choices that would drive most men of conscience to despair. This decision by Lincoln should put to final rest any question of his sincere and utter opposition to slavery, at the last.

Second, there is the accusation that the Gettysburg Address was false. Why? Because the invocation of self-determination contrasts with the freedom lost by the southerners as a result of the war. This carping is easily disposed of; Mencken comes close to doing it himself when he compares the southerner's lot to prisoners in a penetentiary. Freedom is lost in peacetime by criminals, convicted by due process of law, and in wartime, by a people who place their 'freedom' to oppress others above the due process of constitutional government. There certainly were faults and wrongs, on all sides, in the reconstruction era. The irony is that a great what-if of history is the liklihood of a much wiser and more reasonable process, had Lincoln, whom Mencken despises, lived to place his stamp upon it, as opposed to dying in a way that inflamed the North as nothing else might have done.

[icenine]

Turning Lincoln into a saint because he preserved the Union and ended slavery is certainly nothing to be critical about.

Great post Don!

[Charles]

My thought is that's a malicious pile of punditry. I will elaborate.

For a thing labeled as "about Lincoln" it's amazing how much of it isn't. I see comments about what books people buy. I see comments about what people do or don't know about Lincoln, and much about people's feelings about him. A fair bit at the beginning is about people's opinions (offered with only the scantest allusions to evidence) about Lincoln's possible lack of Christianity. Mencken repeatedly expresses his doubts, an attack by innuendo similar to the McCarthy-era when 'doubting' someone's hatred of Communism was enough to brand them a sinner against America. But actually the opinions and doubts given us, as they appear, contain mainly information about the opinion-holders and doubters, and very little actually about Lincoln. In any case, this first part gives us a good idea of Mencken's malice toward his subject, and the sort of methods he is willing to employ.

Contrasting the views people purportedly hold of Lincoln, compared to Washington, is of course again not about Lincoln, it's about people's views. The bit about not smiling and "cackling" is of course raw ad hominum, again baring the writers malicious intent. There follows in this paragraph an exposition detailing the contrast between an idealized popular image of Lincoln (which of course was not of the dead president's making) and observations of the actual man, which strike me as composed largely of nasty insult (put the women, kids, and clergy to bed indeed.)

There remain two accusations of some apparent substance in the later part of the essay. Mencken, a skilled polemicist, perhaps saves his real argument until after the ground has been prepared by his preliminary bombardment, that is, until after he already has the readers who have stuck with him well in the mood to think bad and worse of Ol' Abe. These last arguments can be summarized as
1) Lincoln wasn't really devoted to freeing the slaves, and
2) the Gettysburg address falsely represents the nature of the war.

Regarding 1), the argument again is mainly that the real Lincoln does not live up to his posthumous legend. Again, that legend is not a fair burden to impose upon him. He certainly never called himself a "messiah." Likewise, he never called himself an 'abolitionist,' a thing Mencken mentions as a reproach for no reasonable reason I can discern. Did Lincoln have some obligation to be a radical zealot on the matter? Would Mencken actually like him better if he were? Here again, Mencken seems to think it valid to contrast the real Lincoln, who was an effective politician, with a imaginary demigod who could of course abolish slavery unilaterally, at a stroke, whenever he wished. Lincoln's policies evolved over time, both to adapt to changing conditions, and to reflect development and growth in his own thinking. And he was never omnipotent, he always had to overcome or finesse opposition from many quarters.

The bottom line on freeing the slaves is Lincoln did it, to include the difficult feat of securring passage of the 13th Amendment through Congress, the final time he tried, after an earlier attempt was defeated. I have my doubts as to whether Mencken actually applauds this deed (and he deserves to be attacked by innuendo here, as he does it so much himself), but in any case, his voiced criticism seems to be that Lincoln should have dione a quicker and better job of it. Well, I wonder how many amendments Mencken ever found a 2/3 majority in Congress for.

If the recent Speilberg movie has the history right, Lincoln could have had a Confederate surrender in advance of the final bloodbaths necessary for the fall of Richmond, if he'd been willing to sacrifice the anti-slavery amendment. He was not, though the question was for a time in the balance. But at the last, he knowingly spent thousands of lives to insure that slavery was done. Mencken's criticisms in contrast strike me as base, unworthy attacks on the man whose responsibility was to wrestle with choices that would drive most men of conscience to despair. This decision by Lincoln should put to final rest any question of his sincere and utter opposition to slavery, at the last.

Second, there is the accusation that the Gettysburg Address was false. Why? Because the invocation of self-determination contrasts with the freedom lost by the southerners as a result of the war. This carping is easily disposed of; Mencken comes close to doing it himself when he compares the southerner's lot to prisoner's in a penetentiary. Freedom is lost in peacetime by criminals, convicted by due process of law, and in wartime, by a people who place their 'freedom' to oppress others above the due process of constitutional government. There certainly were faults and wrongs, on all sides, in the reconstruction era. The irony is that a great what-if of history is the liklihood of a much wiser and more reasonable process, had Lincoln, whom Mencken despises, lived to place his stamp upon it, as opposed to dying in a way that inflamed the North as nothing else might have done.

Your piece is superb. Definitely the most concise and well written argument ever exhibited here, and would stand tall with any argument written anywhere. You Sir, are quite eloquent.

No doubt Mencken possessed a sharp tongue, and took a great delight in deflating idols in tandem with offering a viewpoint which differed from the accepted norm. That was his bread and butter, and although you may take issue with this particular piece in no way detracts from his literary accomplishments.

The man was, and still is highly respected in his field...perhaps for his curmudgeonly aspects, and at times in spite of them.

I am a bit surprised that you mentioned that it took Lincoln two trips to the alter to pass the 13th Amendment with a 2/3 majority. Considering that 1/3 of the population was politically disenfranchised at that point, and that 1/3 would have been the most likely to oppose the 13th Amendment, you're not making a very strong case for the freedom loving Northern states...where slavery was still legal in places.

Another issue I would like to address is whether or not Speilberg got it "right". Has Hollywood ever gotten anything "right".

And the final issue I would like to address is your is your supposition that Mencken "despises" Lincoln. While he obviously despises tin gods, and the fools who worship them, I couldn't detect any personal animosity towards Lincoln on his part.

In closing, I'm of the opinion that Mencken made several salient points. First of all, Lincoln was a politician as opposed to a deity. Secondly, he used emancipation as more of a political tool as a just cause. But perhaps more importantly, the people of the South were fighting for their own self determination. And they had every right to do so.

And IMHO, after 150 yrs we are still unable to respect those who gave their lives for what they thought was necessary. They all deserve our respect, it's time to let it go.

Chas

[donquixote99]

Chas, thanks very kindly for your complements.

We can agree that many in the North were far from pure on the matter of race and slavery. I nonetheless have little sympathy the the resentful attitude that places great store in this point. The sins of A do not excuse the sins of B. But I do agree that those who attack the South collectively, and zealously, are likely guilty of indulgence in their own sort of prejudice. Judgement should be even-handed. It should be of individuals, never of collectives, and based on actual evidence, not on stereotypes of group character. And the motives and character of those who climb the stump to condemn others must certainly be able to withstand scrutiny.

There's more to discuss, that is, I don't agree with several things you say. :)

And I'd like to look into what fact-checking has been done on Spielberg. We'll want the real scoop there, not just a collective judgement that 'Hollywood is never right.' Won't be today, though. Busy day here.

[Charles]

Chas, thanks very kindly for your complements.

We can agree that many in the North were far from pure on the matter of race and slavery. I nonetheless have little sympathy the the resentful attitude that places great store in this point. The sins of A do not excuse the sins of B. But I do agree that those who attack the South collectively, and zealously, are likely guilty of indulgence in their own sort of prejudice. Judgement should be even-handed. It should be of individuals, never of collectives, and based on actual evidence, not on stereotypes of group character. And the motives and character of those who climb the stump to condemn others must certainly be able to withstand scrutiny.

There's more to discuss, that is, I don't agree with several things you say. :)

And I'd like to look into what fact-checking has been done on Spielberg. We'll want the real scoop there, not just a collective judgement that 'Hollywood is never right.' Won't be today, though. Busy day here.

Your compliment was richly deserved.

While certainly not an advocate of the "peculiar institution", I feel that it is best viewed through the prism of that time frame. To separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak, and lend credence to both sides of the argument. To be an observer as opposed to a partisan hack searching for specific criteria in an attempt to bolster their view of being "right".

And speaking of a busy day, the time has come for me to get busy with mine.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Your piece is superb. Definitely the most concise and well written argument ever exhibited here, and would stand tall with any argument written anywhere. You Sir, are quite eloquent.

No doubt Mencken possessed a sharp tongue, and took a great delight in deflating idols in tandem with offering a viewpoint which differed from the accepted norm. That was his bread and butter, and although you may take issue with this particular piece in no way detracts from his literary accomplishments.

The man was, and still is highly respected in his field...perhaps for his curmudgeonly aspects, and at times in spite of them.

I am a bit surprised that you mentioned that it took Lincoln two trips to the alter to pass the 13th Amendment with a 2/3 majority. Considering that 1/3 of the population was politically disenfranchised at that point, and that 1/3 would have been the most likely to oppose the 13th Amendment, you're not making a very strong case for the freedom loving Northern states...where slavery was still legal in places.

Another issue I would like to address is whether or not Speilberg got it "right". Has Hollywood ever gotten anything "right".

And the final issue I would like to address is your is your supposition that Mencken "despises" Lincoln. While he obviously despises tin gods, and the fools who worship them, I couldn't detect any personal animosity towards Lincoln on his part.

In closing, I'm of the opinion that Mencken made several salient points. First of all, Lincoln was a politician as opposed to a deity. Secondly, he used emancipation as more of a political tool as a just cause. But perhaps more importantly, the people of the South were fighting for their own self determination. And they had every right to do so.

And IMHO, after 150 yrs we are still unable to respect those who gave their lives for what they thought was necessary. They all deserve our respect, it's time to let it go.

Chas

He (and you) apparently has the time to be long winded. Some of us are forced to be blunt and mean spirited by the constraints of the working world..

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Now, you two Marys have a nice, cordial day of mutual back patting.

[BlueStreak]

Turning Lincoln into a saint because he preserved the Union and ended slavery is certainly nothing to be critical about.

Great post Don!

Can you please expand this post to five paragraphs, each at least two hundred words in length to make the same point, please?:p

Dave

[icenine]

Well Dave

when we were kids in school Lincoln was lumped with Washington and sort of presented as a equal to the Founders because he ended slavery. Simplistic yes but a good foundation for kids and future citizens to understand that freedom from slavery, equal rights regardless of color, and democracy were indeed good things. Nothing wrong with that at all.

You can get into revisionist territory when one becomes a graduate student and takes seminars on Civil War and the South and discuss the economics behind slavery and the military situation on the battlefield that influenced Lincoln.
I am by no means an expert on the Civil War. However I was taught by guys at Kent State who had all been influenced by the history department at the University of Wisconsin....in short the intellectual birthplace of American Civil War historiography.
No one ever took the sort of arguments about self-determination of the South seriously. In fact, none of us would even think of bringing up such an argument. We studied slavery and what made the South different, but the paradigm is that slavery was an evil institution and that Lincoln defeated it because the nation had to in order to survive.

Was Lincoln John Brown?
no
Was there racism in the North?
yes

at the end of the day however the North realized that slavery had to be ended.

The North had to militarily defeat the South on the battlefield and forge a complete surrender on the part of the Confederacy.

All the South had to do was wait it out and see if the North would get tired of fighting. We are lucky we had Lincoln.
A lesser President might have caved. The world is lucky too.

Imagine Hitler tearing across Europe 80 years later and the Western Democracies in Europe having an American ally only half as strong or completely isolated. Imagine Hitler having an alliance or a neutrality pact with a Confederate nation whose birth was indeed predicated on the institution of preserving servitude based on race.

Imagine apartheid being in place in half of our continent in 2013.

I don't like the revisionist world at all as you can tell.


If you make a statement that the South had the right of self determination because they wanted to expand slavery into new territories seized from Mexico you need to really think about what you are saying.

[bobabode]

Hell's bells, Mencken was known as the 'Sage of Baltimore' ferfuksake, a thoroughly rough and tumble, irascible in nature, segregated and bigoted city even into the 1970s, in my personal experience. The bars at Fell's Point were a classic example of the raucous, knock down & drag out and toss your ass into the street port town. Much like I imagine Port Royal, Jamaica was centuries ago before the earthquake and tsunami swallowed that pirate hellhole up. :rolleyes:
That is until it was cleaned up and all gentrified by all those yuppified hipsters from the 'burbs in the '80s & '90s.:(

I've heard that the denizens of Balamer threw rotten cabbages and bricks at the Union troop trains as they rolled through the city on their way to the Capitol and points south during the Civil War. Most people think of B-more as some heroic and patriotic footnote of the Revolutionary war because some lawyer with a penchant for florid prose set a poem to paper while watching the British bombard and burn the city and Fort McHenry while sitting on his ass on a British prison ship.

They ought to take a stroll down the Block downtown with all of it's hookers, pimps, muggers, sneak thieves and dealers one summer night. It's been more than 30 years since I've been there so, that's probably been cleaned up too.
Hitting the Civic Center for more than a few concerts and getting hammered while barhopping at Fell's Point were fun as hell for me but what can I say? I used to enjoy low places when I was young and dumb as the proverbial fencepost.

Sorry for rambling and reminiscing as I hope there was a point somewhere in the previous. Maybe it's just that I view Mencken as a wicked satirist and a Baltimoron. Funny reading but not someone I would view as a great mind. Am I making any sense? Don't really give a crap...where's the bourbon?

[bobabode]

No offense intended to any Baltimorians, the gentrified or morons.

[Charles]

Hell's bells, Mencken was known as the 'Sage of Baltimore' ferfuksake, a thoroughly rough and tumble, irascible in nature, segregated and bigoted city even into the 1970s, in my personal experience. The bars at Fell's Point were a classic example of the raucous, knock down & drag out and toss your ass into the street port town. Much like I imagine Port Royal, Jamaica was centuries ago before the earthquake and tsunami swallowed that pirate hellhole up. :rolleyes:
That is until it was cleaned up and all gentrified by all those yuppified hipsters from the 'burbs in the '80s & '90s.:(

I've heard that the denizens of Balamer threw rotten cabbages and bricks at the Union troop trains as they rolled through the city on their way to the Capitol and points south during the Civil War. Most people think of B-more as some heroic and patriotic footnote of the Revolutionary war because some lawyer with a penchant for florid prose set a poem to paper while watching the British bombard and burn the city and Fort McHenry while sitting on his ass on a British prison ship.

They ought to take a stroll down the Block downtown with all of it's hookers, pimps, muggers, sneak thieves and dealers one summer night. It's been more than 30 years since I've been there so, that's probably been cleaned up too.
Hitting the Civic Center for more than a few concerts and getting hammered while barhopping at Fell's Point were fun as hell for me but what can I say? I used to enjoy low places when I was young and dumb as the proverbial fencepost.

Sorry for rambling and reminiscing as I hope there was a point somewhere in the previous. Maybe it's just that I view Mencken as a wicked satirist and a Baltimoron. Funny reading but not someone I would view as a great mind. Am I making any sense? Don't really give a crap...where's the bourbon?

Damn, that sounds a lot like Colfax Avenue back in the '70's.

Chas

[bobabode]

Damn, that sounds a lot like Colfax Avenue back in the '70's.

Chas

What city?

[Charles]

What city?

Denver.

Chas

[Zeke]

Turning Lincoln into a saint because he preserved the Union and ended slavery is certainly nothing to be critical about.

It is buying the falsehood that only he could have accomplished this feat and deifying him for it.

Given the circumstances and alternatives -- presuming preservation of the Union was paramount -- any competent Executive would have been FORCED to make the same choice(s).

1. Do we want a Union?

Yes.

2. Can we exist with a free North and slave South?

Not any longer.

3. We have to take the South.

Clearly.

4. We have to free slaves.

See Number Two.

End result is what occurred.

Right? :confused:

[Charles]

It is buying the falsehood that only he could have accomplished this feat and deifying him for it.

Given the circumstances and alternatives -- presuming preservation of the Union was paramount -- any competent Executive would have been FORCED to make the same choice(s).

1. Do we want a Union?

Yes.

2. Can we exist with a free North and slave South?

Not any longer.

3. We have to take the South.

Clearly.

4. We have to free slaves.

See Number Two.

End result is what occurred.

Right? :confused:

Based on your initial assumption, I would agree that the remainder of your analysis is basically sound.

As to whether the preservation of the Union was necessary, or even wise at that particular point in time, is a topic which is best viewed as a separate issue.

Unfortunately, the fire breathers on both sides of the issue labored under the false assumption that somehow a civil war would be a gay affair settled within a month or two.

Now considering that what could have been, what should have been, and the ramifications of pursuing a different avenue can make for some interesting discussions, they are inconsequential as the water has already passed beneath the bridge. And they ignore the primary lesson.

Which is inflammatory rhetoric is a poor excuse for a rational dialogue. And had cooler heads prevailed, quite possibly none of this would have been necessary.

Chas

[JJIII]

And they ignore the primary lesson.

Which is inflammatory rhetoric is a poor excuse for a rational dialogue.

Chas

Exactly!


(Is there an echo in here?);)

[icenine]

It is buying the falsehood that only he could have accomplished this feat and deifying him for it.

Given the circumstances and alternatives -- presuming preservation of the Union was paramount -- any competent Executive would have been FORCED to make the same choice(s).

1. Do we want a Union?

Yes.

2. Can we exist with a free North and slave South?

Not any longer.

3. We have to take the South.

Clearly.

4. We have to free slaves.

See Number Two.

End result is what occurred.

Right? :confused:

I sort of buy into the Big Man Theory of History, which is sort of politically incorrect but stipulates that history in influenced more by powerful individuals rather than mass movements....that is a simplification.

A lesser man than Lincoln could have gave up after Bull Run. Sure another man may have been as strong as Lincoln and saved the union and ended slavery.

So he would be the hero....so who cares?
It is the outcome.

[Zeke]

A lesser man than Lincoln could have gave up after Bull Run.

Conversely, I believe a lesser man than Lincoln would have been more influenced to continue. Compromise takes more cajones than Quixotically losing.

Sure another man may have been as strong as Lincoln and saved the union and ended slavery.

So he would be the hero....so who cares?

The folks peddling Lincoln as an American deity.

It is the outcome.

In many ways, it was the only outcome.

[Charles]

In many ways, it was the only outcome.

If the primary issue was slavery, as many contend, the end of it WAS the only outcome.

Even slave owners, by and large, knew that this was a problem which must be addressed.

Chas

[Charles]

Exactly!


(Is there an echo in here?);)

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one wants to hear it, does it make a sound?

Chas

[JJIII]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one wants to hear it, does it make a sound?

Chas

I like it!:)

[bobabode]

We've been watching the newish PBS miniseries, 'Abraham and Mary Lincoln-A House Divided' 2011. Pretty interesting.

[piece-itpete]

There is a marked tendency to view great events in history as a matter of course, that it's what would've happened regardless.

So I ask - what then would the difference be between Obama and Romney? Somehow the end result would be the same, goes this argument.

Consider too that most folks who worked with him thought he was amazing.

The south fired on the north because we were no longer going to allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. So while I agree the Civil War basically killed off states rights, the south started fighting on the assumption that their rights would be taken away some time down the road, not in response to an actual encroachment. And by doing so I believe drastically augmented Federal power in a way it might never have been, or at least sped up its' growth.

Not resupplying Sumter would have been tantamount to surrender. The reasons against a split country are the same reasons for unification in the first place. Endless petty wars and perhaps not petty. It that a reason to force the south into staying? I don't know. Saying the States agreed to the Constitution is probably better but something doesn't feel right. I would have loved to hear what 'each generation should write its' own constitution' Jefferson would've had to say.

He (and you) apparently has the time to be long winded. Some of us are forced to be blunt and mean spirited by the constraints of the working world..

Dave

So we can't just be mean spirited? :D

Pete

[bobabode]

So we can't just be mean spirited? :D

Pete

Works for me, you neo Whig...;)

[Zeke]

There is a marked tendency to view great events in history as a matter of course, that it's what would've happened regardless.

So I ask - what then would the difference be between Obama and Romney? Somehow the end result would be the same, goes this argument.

It would be, once the Republicans had no choice due to the fall of modern society.

Now, we're trying to get ahead of the curve with actual leadership.

[Charles]

It would be, once the Republicans had no choice due to the fall of modern society.

Now, we're trying to get ahead of the curve with actual leadership.

After living in Texas, I've always said that I have never seen so many people so proud of nothing.

But that was before Obama was elected.

Chas

[Zeke]

After living in Texas, I've always said that I have never seen so many people so proud of nothing.

But that was before Obama was elected.

Chas

Yes.

Because, now, idiots are proud of shutting down the government for no reason... :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Works for me, you neo Whig...;)

LOL!

After living in Texas, I've always said that I have never seen so many people so proud of nothing.

But that was before Obama was elected.

Chas

Daaaaaaayum :D

Pete

[donquixote99]

Another issue I would like to address is whether or not Speilberg got it "right". Has Hollywood ever gotten anything "right".

I finally got around today to reading a number of 'historical criticisms' of the Spielberg movie. Everyone I found agreed that Spielberg got the big stuff right, while fudging some less-important things for the sake of on-screen drama. It is, for example, totally unlikely that two soldiers would have the Gettysburg Address memorized--it was in the 20th century that it became a text for reverential study by schoolkids. And Mary Todd would never have visited the House of Representatives to observe a vote. Etc.

But no one contradicted the films big point, which was that Lincoln so wanted the 13th Amendment that he pursued it even though he knew he could probably have immediate peace with the South, if he did not.

[Charles]

I finally got around today to reading a number of 'historical criticisms' of the Spielberg movie. Everyone I found agreed that Spielberg got the big stuff right, while fudging some less-important things for the sake of on-screen drama. It is, for example, totally unlikely that two soldiers would have the Gettysburg Address memorized--it was in the 20th century that it became a text for reverential study by schoolkids. And Mary Todd would never have visited the House of Representatives to observe a vote. Etc.

But no one contradicted the films big point, which was that Lincoln so wanted the 13th Amendment that he pursued it even though he knew he could probably have immediate peace with the South, if he did not.

I've read conflicting reviews. Here is one I found to be one of the more interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/spielberg_gets_lincoln_wrong/

Here is another.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/02/expert-killing-lincoln-bill-oreilly-book-more-accurate-steven-spielberg-lincoln

However, criticism comes easy, and by most accounts Spielberg's work is an exceptional movie. And as you point out, he pretty much addresses the big issues in a reasonably honest manner.

After all, it's a movie, and one can only do so much in a couple of hours.

Chas

[donquixote99]

Hadn't seen the Mother Jones one. It appears the the 'Killing Lincoln' crew, by being very careful to fudge nothing for the sake of onscreen drama, succeeded in making "a generally clunky and flavorless exercise weakly mimicking prestige filmmaking."

[BlueStreak]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that a man can have a change of heart? That, maybe at the outset he said he take preserving the Union with slavery, but at some point decided that preserving the union and defeating slavery were BOTH goals worth fighting for? Maybe once he realized that the Union could very well win the war he thought: "What the hell, let's emancipate the negro folks while we're at it. Two birds with one stone and all that."?

Ya think?

Dave

[Charles]

Hadn't seen the Mother Jones one. It appears the the 'Killing Lincoln' crew, by being very careful to fudge nothing for the sake of onscreen drama, succeeded in making "a generally clunky and flavorless exercise weakly mimicking prestige filmmaking."

Let's give the reviewer credit for being brutally honest.

Chas

[icenine]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that a man can have a change of heart? That, maybe at the outset he said he take preserving the Union with slavery, but at some point decided that preserving the union and defeating slavery were BOTH goals worth fighting for? Maybe once he realized that the Union could very well win the war he thought: "What the hell, let's emancipate the negro folks while we're at it. Two birds with one stone and all that."?

Ya think?

Dave

Quit making sense Dave.

You have it right. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt on Lincoln's part to come to an agreement with the South....the slaves were not immediately freed...there was a several month window on the actual emancipation.
He was using that as a carrot....stop the war now and we may come to an agreement on the slavery issue. But the South would not surrender.
As time went on and the body count got higher Lincoln realized the slavey indeed had to go....the war had become too costly in lives.

[icenine]

In effect the proclamation freed slaves in territories fighting the Union...not all slaves every where...to quote wikipedia:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

In other words if a state ended the rebellion by 1 January slaves would not be freed in that state. However none of the states surrendered.

[piece-itpete]

There's also the thing, that the can had been kicked down the road before, after so much bloodshed not putting the final nail in the coffin would've been foolhardy.

Pete

[donquixote99]

In effect the proclamation freed slaves in territories fighting the Union...not all slaves every where...to quote wikipedia:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

In other words if a state ended the rebellion by 1 January slaves would not be freed in that state. However none of the states surrendered.

Yes.

It was the later 13th Amendment, pushed through Congress against all obstacles in January 1865, that abolished slavery everywhere in the US.