| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|||||||||||||
| LINCOLN | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Nov 6th, 2012 04:22 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Michael F. Blake Member
|
LINCOLN is, simply, an amazing film. It is wholly unlike the typical Steven Spielberg films of recent vintage I have grown tired of. This is a film of amazing artistry, heart and depth. Using Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, "A Team of Rivals" as its basis, the film centers on the last four months of Lincoln’s administration and his efforts to pass the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. What we, the audience gets, is a literate screenplay (by Pulitzer Prize winner, playwright Tony Kushner) that, sadly, the silver screen has been lacking 9 times out of 10 for longer than I care to admit. The words jump from the screen in a wonderful flow of language, using period vernacular to help carry the feeling of us really being there instead of watching a movie. Great movies are like that. We get swept up in the story, become involved as if we are part of the process, not simply sitting as just a viewer. Daniel Day-Lewis is beyond perfection as Lincoln. Period. I was not watching an actor playing the 16th President, but felt like I was truly watching Lincoln play Lincoln. His Lincoln is passionate, witty, and tremendously smart. He is everything we expected Lincoln to be and more. It is beyond a performance. Day-Lewis actually lives this role. You ache watching him, wishing we had this kind of leader now. Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens has the greatest lines in the film and it nice to see Jones have a role where he relishes it. I have felt (with the exception of No Country For Old Men), he has been phoning in his performances for many years. Now he has a role that truly allows him to shine and he runs with it. David Strathairn, an actor who I have long admired, comes to the forefront as Secretary of State Seward. His Seward is a man of practical understanding of politics who tries to make Lincoln understand the games of the political machine, yet comes to support his President. Strathairn is one of those wonderful actors who makes his roles stand out and hides behind the part, makeup and costume. He is truly one of the best American actors working today on stage and screen. Sally Field plays Mary Lincoln. There is one dramatic scene with Day-Lewis that is the kind actors long to play, and she more than holds her own against her leading man. Her performance proves, once & for all, she is an extremely talented actress. The rest of the cast is all top-notch, down to the smallest part ringing positive. This is one film that does not have one bad performance, including the numerous extras who bring themselves to life. One interesting piece of trivia: When Lincoln is looking and playing with his pocket watch at his desk, listen to the ticking sound. That is NOT something manufactured for the film. Spielberg actually had his sound department record the ticking of Lincoln's pocket watch (yes, it still runs!) and used it in the scene. You are really hearing the pocket watch tick, as Lincoln heard it. John Williams has written a score that doesn’t dominate the film, but carries it along in the needed moments, and remains silent in others. His recent scores (excepting War Horse) have overshadowed films and, at times, sound repetitive. Not this one. Williams, like his director, has taken a step back and let the scenes dictate the mood for the music. It is one of his best scores in long time. What amazed me the most is that Spielberg finally seems, with the right material, to once again trust himself and not beat the audience over the head to get a point across. Gone are the ride camera moves that remind one of a E-ticket ride at Disneyland. In this, like in a John Ford film, the camera moves with a purpose, and doesn’t call attention to it. Also gone is the cloying, let-me-pull-your-heartstrings moves that has dominated so many of his recent films. He doesn’t manipulate your feelings, as he’s done in the past. The scene of Lincoln picking up his young son has an honest, heartfelt feeling to it. The emotions you feel watching that scene are honest and simple. With LINCOLN, Spielberg has made a thoughtful, truly heartfelt film that allows the audience you to become involved. LINCOLN is one of those rare films (at least nowadays) that is like a fine meal. You savior every bite, allowing the texture and taste to envelope you. Long after the screen has faded out, this film stays with you. This is a film that will stand the test of time for centuries to come.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 6th, 2012 12:53 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Mark Member
|
Thanks for the review! I'm quite jealous you got to see an initial screening! How did you manage that? Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 6th, 2012 09:55 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Michael F. Blake Member
|
I worked on the film. One of several (uncredited unfortunately) makeup artists who were on it for about 7 weeks.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 14th, 2012 08:14 am |
|
4th Post |
|
elrichbach Member
|
I admit, I agree with you. it was really a great movie. You can see history.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 15th, 2012 11:54 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
pamc153PA Member
|
Thanks, Michael, for that detailed post. As if I wasn't already chomping at the bit to see it! I'm going to have to wait until after Thanksgiving, and now that'll be doubly hard! Did you get a chance to do any of Daniel Day-Lewis' makeup? The way he was "turned into" Lincoln is uncanny to me--bravo to whomever was responsible!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2012 11:22 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Barlow Member 
|
Bought the CD of the music played during the movie. Alone, without the movie, the music is rather blah and very sad. If you buy the soundtrack, prepare for half hour of funeral dirge from John Williams, who is ordinarily brilliant. The one song I adore, is the music from the scene when the Amendment is passed and the House Republicans sing the Battle Cry of Freedom. I love the line in the song, "Down with the Traitors, Up with the Flag..." If you have a choice this holiday season, buy the soundtrack from the movie, "Gettysburg" instead. Anyone know when the movie will be released on CD?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2012 01:13 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Barlow- In George F. Root's song: "Battle Cry of Freedom," there is no line that goes: "Down with the traitors, up with the flag." The correct line that you profess to love goes: "Down with the traitors, up with the stars." (Or: "star" in some versions.). The Battle Cry of Freedom There were many 150 years ago who considered that secession itself or firing on federal facilities constituted treason, but treason can only be committed against one's own country. The Confederates claimed to no longer be part of the United States of America, and to have established a separate country. When the war ended, many in the north wanted the major Confederate figures to be tried for treason, but no such trials were actually concluded. Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason in Virginia after the war, which began a legal wrangle that lasted four years. It was well known that Davis planned to use the defense that secession was legal under the U.S. Constitution. If the Federal Government failed to convict Davis, that would have legitimized the legality of secession and undermined the Government's position that the Confederacy never existed as a nation, and that the eleven states had never actually left the Union. (This position was finally upheld legally by the USSC decision Texas v. White in 1869). Faced with the dilemma about what to do in the Davis case, the Government kept delaying the trial. Well respected legal minds of the day pointed out that the Government did not have a strong case. Prominent figures like USSC Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and U.S. Attorney General William M. Evarts did not want to risk losing the case, and so a way out was found and all charges against Davis were eventually dropped. In the end, no Confederate official was ever convicted of treason against the United States. Southern Heritage 411 As an aside, U.S. Attorney General William M. Evarts defended President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment case. He also officially dropped the charges against Jefferson Davis. A great grandson of Evarts was Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the Watergate scandal over a hundred years after the conclusion of the Johnson impeachment trial, as well as the case against Jefferson Davis. Last edited on Tue Dec 4th, 2012 02:41 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2012 06:09 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Barlow Member
|
Please see: http://www.apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html The answer on whether the south could secede was answered by the War. Holt was ready to prosecute Davis. Johnson was not due to impeachment proceedings. Johnson lost the nerve. Holt was always ready to go. The founders new that the answer to states rights issues lied in war...only. It was answered. I would have hung Lee, Davis, Mosby and Forrest
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2012 11:41 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
borderuffian Member 
|
Barlow wrote: I would have hung...Forrest Good luck with that... "No man kills me and lives." -N.B. Forrest
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2012 11:53 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
Lincoln (movie) If you are a Lincoln fan it's right up your alley... ...otherwise save your money.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2012 12:55 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Barlow- The result of the war clearly made secession:" impractical," did not make it illegal under the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln and others could make various arguments against it such as by claiming that the Union was: "Indivisible", but they could not show anywhere in the Constitution that gave the Federal Government the authority to forbid secession. Thus, that remedy was available to the states and to the people. If the result of the war settled the question of secession, there would have been no need to address the issue in the USSC decision Texas v. White in 1869. That decision said that the states did not have the authority to leave, but that in no way made secession :'Treason" or any other crime in 1861. The Constitution clearly forbids any kind of ex post facto laws. If Mr. Lincoln had lived, he would have opposed such trials for treason as the one proposed in the case of Jefferson Davis. His attitude in his own words was to: "Let 'em up easy." He had already clashed with the Radical Republicans in 1864 when he refused to sign the Wade-Davis bill. Unlike the Radicals, Mr. Lincoln had: "Malice towards none," and sought to: "Bind up the nation's wounds." Wade–Davis Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Proclamation on the Wade-Davis Bill, July 8, 1864 : Abraham Lincoln : AMDOCS: Mr. Lincoln clearly opposed the harsh measures advocated by the Radicals. For the most part, Andrew Johnson followed the blueprint of Mr. Lincoln's policies, though he was less amenable to the idea of black suffrage. No less a figure than General Grant declared that attempts to bring treason charges against prominent paroled Confederates was: "Injurious." He asked that such indictments be stopped, and even threatened to resign his commission if they were not. After the war, men of good will like Generals Grant and Lee sought to promote reconciliation among the regions. The Federal Government managed to get a treason indictment against Jefferson Davis from a grand jury in Virginia, but that in no way guaranteed a conviction. Famous legal minds (Such as John Clifford and Richard Dana) brought in by the Government to examine the case found it lacking and unlikely to succeed. They also cited the danger to the Government if the case was brought and failed. The danger for the Federal Government was that if Mr. Davis was not convicted, secession would be legitimized, and the primary reason for fighting a war of subjugation to force the southern states to remain (That the Union must be preserved, etc.) would be repudiated. If that had happened, it would have been difficult to rationalize the deaths of over 600,000 Americans. If in the unlikely event that the: "Crime" of secession had led to a conviction of Mr. Davis for treason, and if in the unlikely event that he and others had been hanged as you would have proposed, the results would have been disastrous. In all probability, it would have led to a generation of violence at one level or another. The Federal Government might have had to occupy the southern states for 50 years. It would have led to a very different trajectory for the country, and its doubtful that the US would have become a world power in the early 20th century, and a superpower by the middle of it. After having gone through a devastating four year war, men of intelligence like Clifford and Dana and Chase could imagine the possibility of the above scenarios taking place, and shudder at the prospect. There was much to lose and little to be gained by attempting acts of vengeance against a few individuals. Thankfully, those in the Government saw that the risk was much greater than the reward. In the end, they came to their senses and declined to take a course of action as utterly stupid as the one you would have proposed to them. Last edited on Wed Dec 5th, 2012 01:10 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2012 03:01 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
I love this topic. As far as I can tell, there have been no secession attempts since the civil war. Could it be that it has been determined to be illegal? And by logic alone it should be, secession is completely destructive to a democracy. How can it work if the minority can secede ( or disobey the laws) whenever they do not agree with the majority? With precedent set for secession, the confederacy would have eventually destroyed itself as new reasons to secede from the new union came up. This probably would have occurred sooner rather than later. The only valid and legal way to leave a democracy is though the democracy - legislation to create a process for secession , if necessary a constitutional amendment to clarify the law and a vote by the people to do so. This actually happened in Sudan a couple years ago, and North and South Sudan were created peacefully. Huh? Peaceful Secession. So 750,000 dead may not have be en necessary? Before sumpter there were many in the north that would have said. "let them go" or "good riddance". There were obviously nearly intractable differences. Did folks really want to kill to settle them? Americans from the south committed treason and created war by firing on a federal fort. And so a political issue was decided by violence rather than politically . As for the movie LIncoln, this is a great movie about an inspirational leader and great man. There will be no comparable movie on Davis. Davis was a poor leader for a very bad cause. Last edited on Thu Dec 6th, 2012 03:03 pm by MildMan |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2012 04:05 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Mild Man- The USSC decision Texas v. White (1869) determined that states did not have a right to secede. Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This decision in 1869 did not make secession a crime in 1861. You can say that in your opinion, secession is:"Completely destructive to a democracy," but that doesn't change what is in the Constitution. It is the document that governs. I would add that we do not live in a democracy. It is a representative republic. The majority does not always rule. Whether of not an independent Confederacy would have fragmented later is also irrelevant. In fact, some in the north feared that if secession was allowed there might be later fragmentation among the northern states. Mr. Lincoln said before he took office that he would not accept secession. Later in cases such as ex parte Merryman, he showed that he was perfectly willing to ignore court opinions and decisions that he didn't like. He was even willing to usurp the powers of Congress by illegally suspending the writ of habeas corpus. (Some 13,000 persons were arrested and held without trial.) Attempting to litigate the question of secession in federal courts was impractical, and as the Confederates saw it, unnecessary. As for Constitutional amendments, there already existed the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT (my emphasis) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This could not be clearer to me. Do you think that the US Constitution would ever have been ratified if there had been a clause that said: "The people in the various states that have created the US Government hereby give up the power to ever leave it?" I can assure you that it would not have. Even in its original form, many thought that the Constitution failed to sufficiently protect the states and the people FROM the Federal Government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were added to satisfy those who feared an all powerful Federal Government. Without this: "Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified. I have said many times on this forum that firing on Ft. Sumter ( Not: "Sumpter," as you and the NY TIMES of that day incorrectly spelled it) was the greatest blunder that the Confederates could have made. Their view, rightly or wrongly, was that a : "Foreign" military power was occupying their territory and refusing to leave. But even if Major Anderson had been starved out of Ft. Sumter, Mr. Lincoln would have found another excuse to raise an army to invade the states that had seceded. He was never going to allow the southern states to leave peacefully. In the end, the issue could only be decided by force of arms. As for your question about folks being willing to kill to settle their differences, the answer is: "Yes." That is the way that it has always been, which is why soldiers are still needed. Some 170 million souls lost their lives in wars during the 20th Century. Are we more : "Enlightened" now in the 21st? It should be obvious that we are not. In the case of the Civil War, the Confederates were willing to kill to achieve their independence. Mr. Lincoln was willing to kill to prevent them from doing so. It takes two sides to make a war. You apparently wish to blame only one side. The Confederates would have answered your charge of treason by saying that they were no longer part of the USA. Call it an act of war by one country against another if you wish. But only US citizens can commit treason against the US. Your charge of treason would have had no validity to them, nor does it to me. As for Mr. Davis- he never wanted to be President of the CSA. He would have preferred a military commission. He may have been a poor leader, but I doubt that having a different CSA president would have changed the outcome of the war. As for the Confederate cause, you can have your own opinion. The Confederates would have said that they sought to gain their independence from an oppressive government, just as the Founding Fathers did. Even in the present time, there are many who think that the Federal Government has encroached on the authority of the states and the people, which is why there is still talk of secession even now. Last edited on Thu Dec 6th, 2012 07:37 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 6th, 2012 04:23 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
MildMan wrote: "As for the movie LIncoln, this is a great movie" It was a drag. I kept thinking- "When will this be over?...When will this be over?" Even with all of the 4-star actors they couldn't make it into a winner. Only the Lincoln Cult would count it as "great." "There will be no comparable movie on Davis." Davis has no cult following. Last edited on Thu Dec 6th, 2012 04:26 pm by borderuffian |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 8th, 2012 02:46 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender, Thoughtful comments! Thanks for the dialog. Your comment. "Do you think that the US Constitution would ever have been ratified if there had been a clause that said: "The people in the various states that have created the US Government hereby give up the power to ever leave it?" Marriages, unions and partnerships begin with the expectation that they are permanent, till “death do us part”. Only a few plan the dirty business of separation upfront. Still associations do break-up, but the expectation is that they do so in an orderly way. No one expects that they can just unilaterally leave a marriage or a business partnership. Breaking a union requires agreement of both parties or imposition of law on both parties. I do not agree that the South would never have been able to leave. It appears that the belief in “states rights” lead many southern leaders not to want to ask, they actually preferred a belligerent departure. If only cooler heads had prevailed. I live in the north and that is the history I research. There is no evidence that most northerners felt so strongly about taking away slavery in the south that they were willing to fight for it. A majority in the north may have been against slavery and may have agreed with a prohibition of expansion of slavery, but they consistently wanted to leave slavery alone where the constitution allowed it. There was no need for the south to act hastily, a slow deliberate political and legislative war by the south would have worn down the north without firing a bullet. At least we agree on Ft Sumpter (though not the spelling). What on earth were they thinking? Jefferson Davis, and others who forced his hand, made the poorest possible political decision. I have read many local newspaper accounts on the attack and the following outrage. It galvanized the public as Pearl Harbor did in WWII. Northerners were only chanting, “save the union” after US property was fired on by fellow citizens. Yes they were called “traitors’ in the press. My reading of contemporaneous newspapers strongly influences my views on secession. Davis visited Maine in 1858 and was lauded as a statesman. He was even given an honorary degree at Bowdoin College, home of Lawence Chamberlain and Harriet B. Stowe! His arguments on the slavery question were described in the newspapers as thoughtful and convincing. And yet, at least partly because of the social pressure to enlist to save the union after Sumpter, Maine ended up contributing the largest percentage of its men to the war effort. Your point about the date secession was made illegal is interesting. I’ll read Texas vs White. My understanding is that the Supreme Court interprets laws and does not make them. So this would mean that secession was always illegal and that’s what the court found in 1869, it was illegal in 1861. If southern leaders wanted to determine the secession issue peacefully, they could have done so and the issue would have been decided in the court much sooner than 1869. Perhaps there would have been a different Supreme Court decision in 1861. In any case, the south could have worn down the north in legislative battles and forced a change in the laws. My reading of newspaper accounts of antebellum political conflicts leads me to believe that most northerners would have said, “let em go!”
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 8th, 2012 04:35 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
MildMan- First, I would repeat my contention that the Constitution would never have been ratified if it had included a clause forbidding states to ever leave. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Union is forever. The: "Expectations" of many who signed it did not include the idea that it had to be permanent. The vast majority of southerners who favored secession would have been more than happy to have left the Union peacefully. They would have been more than happy to see the Federal Government peacefully leave its installations on their territory. No doubt they would have offered their assistance in that case. At any rate, the reaction of the secessionists in the early days were not uniform. "Cooler heads" prevailed in some places more than others. The new Confederate Government was even willing to compensate the US Government for federal property within its borders. In March of 1861, emissaries were sent to WDC to try to negotiate this very issue, but they were rebuffed by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward. In addition, it was strongly implied to the emissaries that the US Government had no plans to reinforce Ft. Sumter. This turned out not to be the case. As for the spelling of: "Ft. Sumter," perhaps you'll believe the US Government link below. Fort Sumter National Monument - Fort Sumter National Monument The fort was named after a Revolutionary War brigadier general by the name of Thomas Sumter. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I very strongly disagree with any contention that the Lincoln Administration would EVER have agreed to allow secession, no matter what any court might have ruled. One only has to read Mr. Lincoln's statements before and after taking office to realize that he would NEVER have accepted secession. Mr. Lincoln had decided that in this national emergency, he had to assume what amounted to dictatorial powers, and the Judiciary was only a hindrance to him which he ignored. This was clearly seen in the treatment of USSC Chief Justice Roger Taney. I repeat my contention that there was no way for the southern states to expect to litigate leaving, and also that there was no necessity to do so as they did (And I do) read the Tenth Amendment. You can go on and on about: "Expectations" in any kind of partnerships, but such expectations are irrelevant. It is the document that governs. And since you use the analogy of a marriage, the southerners would have contended that their attempt to leave the marriage was prevented by the use of physical force. We do agree on some points. Most northerners would not have fought a war if it had been presented to them as a war to end slavery. Also, many in the north would have been happy early on to see the: "Wayward sisters" leave in peace. But after Ft. Sumter, Mr. Lincoln was able to mobilize the northern populace to fight a holy war to preserve the Union. Later on, Mr. Lincoln attempted to put the war on a higher moral plane by adding the abolition of slavery to his war aims. He cynically said to some who objected to that that if they did not want to fight to free the slaves, that they could fight only to preserve the Union. On the issue of the ongoing political war up to 1860, I would contend that the southerners were losing the battle, and would never have: "Worn down" the northerners on the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories. The abolitionist movement had gained great political strengh in the 1840s and 1850s, and northern and western interests were gaining on the political scene, while the ability of the southerners to protect their interests was steadily declining. This trend would only have continued. The southerners, who had had great political influence in the early years of the Republic, were no longer able to win the political game, which is why they no longer wished to play the game. That is why they sought to leave the game, which they believed that they had the right to do. The USSC decision Texas v. White (1869) said that Texas and the other states that attempted to secede had never actually left the Union. It denied that the states had the right to leave the Union. But your contention that the 1869 decision made secession: "Always illegal" is an absurdity. Using that logic, it would follow that when the 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919, that it made the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors: "Always illegal" prior to that. And then when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th in 1933, would you have said that it was: "Never illegal?" Because the USSC decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the USSC decision Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) does not mean that segregation was illegal in 1896. It only means that segregation became illegal in 1954, when the USSC decided to interpret the Constitution in that way. While it is extremely unlikely, it is at least theoretically possible that some future USSC could overturn Brown v. Board of Education. It could also overturn Texas v. White. Last edited on Sat Dec 8th, 2012 08:20 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2012 01:53 am |
|
17th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Interesting. Thanks for your informative response Texas Defender. Perhaps secession’s legality was decided in 1867 by the supreme court, but that does not mean it was legal in 1861. The example you give of the 19th amendment supports my point. This was a new law in 1919. So only in 1919 did alcohol become illegal. No one would argue that slavery was illegal (where states allowed it) in 1861, but when the 13th amendment was passed in 1865, it became illegal. The laws on which the 1867 decision was based were in existence long before 1867 – no new laws suddenly made secession illegal. And the SC decision said that the states had never seceded – sure sounds like they were looking back. Legal or not, I don’t think southern leadership was interested in either a legal or amicable divorce anyway. And as for the commission sent to negotiate the transfer of forts – Lincoln said he had no authority to act on this. If he is sworn to preserve and protect the union, how could he justify negotiating its destruction? Seems like a good point. As for Lincoln being against secession and your point that he dictated Northern Policy, I have two points. Some southern states seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated. And each secession document justified the action based perceived threats to slavery. I have read extensively about Northern opinions on slavery in newspapers, the prevailing opinion was that it was protected in the constitution, end of discussion. There was no immediate threat to slavery due to a Lincoln administration. Therefore there was no need for the south to act hastily. Lincoln’s acts largely followed public opinion and he rarely was ahead of what the public would allow. He had no mandate to eliminate slavery, so he would not act until public perceptions changed. He was quite clever in the way he acted within his power and within what the public would accept, i.e. emancipation as a war measure. However, If you read soldiers letters, it is apparent that most union soldiers saw through this and did not want to fight to end slavery. Ft Sumter gave Lincoln public support for a war to preserve the union. Southern leadership, by firing on Ft Sumter, gave him the public support he needed. My points remain. 1. Southern leadership misread northern public opinion on slavery, most northerners were content with leaving it alone. There was no immediate threat to the institution. 2. Southern leadership unnecessarily and hastily started a war and gave northern citizens a reason to fight. 3. Southern leadership had more machismo than smarts. Instead of maneuvering to make it apparent that the union would never be effective and amicable( making the north so miserable that they would allow a peaceful separation) they acted unilaterally and declared a divorce and then started a war over some useless property.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2012 02:01 am |
|
18th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
I have read and reread Texas vs White. It sure sounds like they ruled that secession was not legal in 1861. From Wikipedia. In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2012 05:35 am |
|
19th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
MildMan- First, I assume by your continued references to: "1867" that you really mean the 1869 USSC decision Texas v. White. At that time, the justices did indeed declare that the actions taken by the legislatures of the various states that seceded in 1860 and 1861 were invalid. However, in 1860 and 1861 when the actions were actually taken, there was no law or USSC decision that prohibited secession. There was no law or decision prohibiting secession in 1865. Only in 1869 was there one. And even then the US Constitution says that the US Government cannot go back and punish anyone for the act of secession because that would constitute an ex post facto law. Contrary to your expressed opinion, CSA leaders would have preferred to gain their independence without having to fight a war for it. There was nothing to be gained by fighting a war if they didn't have to. They were never intending to take over the US Government, only to leave it. As Jefferson Davis said in 1861: "We seek no conquest. We ask only to be left alone." It is true that some states seceded after Mr. Lincoln was elected, but before he took office. Some prominent southerners warned before the election that if Mr. Lincoln was elected, secession by various states would be the result. Mr. Lincoln was widely perceived as being hostile to southern interests. I would contest your statement that all secession documents justified secession based on the threat to slavery. On the following link you can find the Kentucky Secession Ordinance. It gives a listing of perceived offenses by the Federal and state governments just as the Declaration of Independence did against the British Government. Slavery is not mentioned, except perhaps in the reference to: "Our property." Ordinances of Secession This document was passed by the Russellville Convention. While Kentucky never actually seceded, two separate governments were established and fought a civil war within a civil war. The secessionists in Kentucky certainly considered that they had seceded. There was more to the decision by the southerners to secede than just slavery. Sectional differences had existed since the founding of the Republic. Over time these differences became greater as the north industrialized and the country expanded to the west. Various compromises had delayed the split a number of times, such as in 1820 and 1850. But by 1860, the differences were so profound that the remedy of compromise could no longer be used. As I said previously, southern political power within the US Government was on the decline, and this had reached a point where most (though not nearly all) southerners believed that they would be better off leaving than staying. They considered that they had the right to leave, and so they did. What the southern leadership misread about the northern people was that they would be willing to fight a war to prevent the southern states from leaving. What the northern people misread was that the southerners were really prepared to secede, and to fight a war to gain their independence if necessary. Secession had been threatened before but never followed through on. The northern people did not take seriously the warning that the election of Mr. Lincoln would lead to secession. We remain in agreement that the attack on Ft. Sumter was a stupid decision by those on the ground in SC. It provided the spark that Mr. Lincoln needed and fervently wished for. A much better decision would have been to allow Major Anderson to leave on 15 April as he had told the Confederates that he would have had to do. But even if there had been no attack on Ft. Sumter, Mr. Lincoln would still have proceeded to raise an army to fight a war to reassert federal authority in the states that had seceded. We continue to disagree on the idea that the southerners would ever have been allowed to leave peacefully. Quite simply, the election of Mr. Lincoln made the war inevitable. He was willing to fight a war rather than allow secession. For their part, the southerners were willing to fight a war to achieve their independence. Since neither side would back down, the dispute could only be resolved by armed conflict. Last edited on Sun Dec 9th, 2012 05:48 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2012 06:27 am |
|
20th Post |
|
Nabowness Member
|
yes it was nice. good film. ___________________________ Asking Europe to disarm is like asking a man in Chicago to give up his farmers life
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:55 am | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > LINCOLN | Top |
