It was. I won't argue that. There's some serious fucking mental midgets out there. On both sides. Not sure why. All I know is that this stuff divides our country. And I also know somewhere out there there's money that has a long term plan.... thats pouring gas on this fire. Fucked up as this sounds...I can only attempt to discern how to trade it and make money from it.... I guess I'm hardened... but I see things for what they really are. And folks are being played like fiddles.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; How Capitalism Saved America; Lincoln Unmasked; Hamilton’s Curse; Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; and most recently, The Problem With Socialism.
This is not true. Libel and slander are not constitutionally protected. Nor is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre. There are lots of limits to free speech. That guy who drove his car into all those protestors. Was he an antifa? Further I don't know how wearing battle gear, carrying a torch, and displaying symbols that universally represent genocide does not promote violence. Are you now promoting violence that more people will die if your white supremacist buddies can't go around marching and threatening people?
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/22/165671751/we-ask-a-historian-just-how-accurate-is-lincoln We Ask A Historian: Just How Accurate Is 'Lincoln'? November 22, 2012 Ronald White, author of A. Lincoln: A Biography, tells NPR's Linda Wertheimer that if a ninth-grader were to write a school paper based on the film, she'd find that its "dramatic core" is basically on target. Interview Highlights On the film's overall historical correctness "The dramatic core of this remarkable four months of trying to pass the 13th Amendment is true. Is every word true? No. Did Lincoln say, 'And to unborn generations ...'? No. But this is not a documentary. And so I think the delicate balance or blend between history and dramatic art comes off quite well." http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/149664 by Kelsey McKernie Kelsey McKernie is a staff writer for the History News Network. She is a graduate of Berry College in Floyd, Georgia, where she majored in history. December 2012 How Historically Accurate is "Lincoln"? Moviegoers flocked to the theaters to see Lincoln over Thanksgiving weekend, and the history buffs among them probably wondered, with some anxiety, how much of it would be fact and how much of it would be fiction. The quality of the production, on top of some truly remarkable performances by Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones and others, certainly lent it a grounded feel. But how accurate is it? There is a short answer and a long answer to this question. The short answer is: very. The long answer requires a bit more digging. http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnmoviefacts.htm Quick fact check of Stephen Spielberg’s movie Lincoln by Gordon Leidner of Great American History If you have seen Steven Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln,” starring Daniel Day-Lewis, you may want to know: “how much is fact and how much is fiction?” As you probably have heard, the movie is based in part on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s excellent book about Lincoln, entitled, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln . Of course, in order to make an interesting story it was necessary for the movie’s screen writer, Tony Kushner, to start with Goodwin’s book and add a lot of conjectured dialogue. Although it is beyond this article’s scope to cover movie dialogue, I do address the movie’s basic historical facts below. The Thirteenth Amendment As can be seen by other articles from Great American History, the basic history covered in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie is correct. Lincoln did, in fact, lead the fight to get the 38th Congress to pass the Thirteenth Amendment and abolish slavery. He used his political skills and his “immense power” (which, by the way, Lincoln DID say) to sway the votes of reluctant Democratic congressman towards acceptance of the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens worked together, in spite of their differences, to pass the the Thirteenth Amendment through the 38th Congress. (More on this here). There was a lot of pressure put on Lincoln to delay the Thirteenth Amendment’s passage until after the war had ended. But Lincoln was concerned that if he waited for the 39th Congress to pass the amendment after the war, his previously issued Emancipation Proclamation might be overturned by the courts—allowing slavery to continue. Consequently, Lincoln was insistent on using his influence as President of the United States to assure the Thirteenth Amendment’s passage. Fortunately for the slaves, he succeeded before he was assassinated on April 14, 1865.
GS has been in a downturn, I got stopped out last week. Basically, seems like safe-heaven investments are the good ones right now (crypto, gold, etc...). Oh, Raytheon and Lockheed if they keep the N. korea rhetoric.
Lincloln and the 13th ammendment: "It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President's role rested on gossip . . ."" Tony's "historians" have no evidence at all. Yet they all agree. How curious. The leading historian on Lincoln says it NEVER HAPPENED. So how does Tony try to pass the buck? He says Lincoln had to bribe the northern congressmen and he didn't want anyone to know about it. Iow, the northerners didn't want to repeal slavery. They had to be bribed into doing it. So who to believe? The pre-eminent historian of our time on Lincoln or Tony's gaggle of antifa group-think race-hustling historothugs?
Lincoln ran on a platform of ending slavery in his re election. Lincoln stated in his first state of the union after re election that he wanted congress to pass the 13th amendment. Multiple historians agree Lincoln fought for the 13th amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Abraham_Lincoln#Thirteenth_Amendment Thirteenth Amendment Lincoln became more vociferously anti-slavery as the war continued, and authorized the arming of black soldiers despite considerable resistance from many whites.[163] In December 1863, a proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw slavery was introduced in Congress; though the Senate voted for the amendment with the necessary two-thirds majority, the amendment did not receive sufficient support in the House.[164] On accepting the 1864 National Union nomination, Lincoln told the party that he would seek to ratify a constitutional amendment that would abolish slavery in the United States.[165] After winning re-election, Lincoln made ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (as it would become known) a priority. With the aid of large majorities in both houses of Congress, Lincoln believed that the could permanently end the institution of slavery in the United States.[166] Though he had largely avoided becoming involved in Congressional legislative processes, Lincoln gave the ratification struggle his full attention. Rather than waiting for the 39th Congress to convene in March, Lincoln pressed the lame duck session of the 38th Congress to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment as soon as possible. Lincoln and Seward engaged in an extensive lobbying campaign to win their votes. In a vote held on January 31, the House narrowly cleared the two-thirds threshold in a 119-56 vote.[167] The Thirteenth Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, and Secretary of State Seward would proclaim its adoption on December 18, 1865. Abraham Lincoln State of the Union 1864 - 6 December 1864 At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but in intervening election shows almost certainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now for the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisis like ours unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable--almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that end such will, through the election, is most dearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.-Abraham Lincoln http://www.history.com/news/congress-passes-13th-amendment-150-years-ago That summer, Lincoln’s position on the 13th Amendment continued to evolve. At his party’s convention, he pushed for a Republican platform that called for slavery’s “utter and complete extirpation,” and in accepting the nomination he for the first time called for a federal amendment banning slavery as “a fitting, and necessary conclusion” to the war. Emboldened by the 1864 election that not only returned him to the White House but increased his party’s seats in Congress, Lincoln threw himself behind the effort to pass the amendment. In his annual message to legislators in December 1864, Lincoln made clear that he had no intention of waiting for the inauguration of the new Congress in March. “The next Congress will pass the measure if this does not,” he wrote. “May we not agree that the sooner the better?” Although it wasn’t legally necessary, Lincoln affixed his signature to the engrossed copy of the amendment the following day. That night, a jubilant crowd led by a brass band gathered by torchlight outside the White House and raised a great cheer when Lincoln’s lanky frame appeared in a central upper window of the portico. The president leaned outside and told his supporters that slavery had caused the Civil War and must be expunged so that it would never tear apart the country again. “This amendment is a king’s cure for all the evils,” he said. “It winds the whole thing up.” Before he left, Lincoln congratulated the country “upon this great moral victory.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirt...States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] He had remained outwardly neutral on the amendment because he considered it politically too dangerous.[41] Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46] Lincoln instructed Secretary of State William H. Seward, Representative John B. Alley and others to procure votes by any means necessary, and they promised government posts and campaign contributions to outgoing Democrats willing to switch sides.[47][48] Seward had a large fund for direct bribes. Ashley, who reintroduced the measure into the House, also lobbied several Democrats to vote in favor of the measure.[49] Representative Thaddeus Stevens commented later that "the greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America"; however, Lincoln's precise role in making deals for votes remains unknown.[50] https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...s/abraham-lincoln-and-passage-thirteenth-amen However, despite fears to the contrary, in the fall of 1864, Lincoln won a resounding re-election, and with that momentum behind him, he endorsed the proposed amendment as the only way to “meet and cover all cavils” about the abolition of slavery.[3] In his December 1864 annual message to Congress, he called for “reconsideration and passage” of James Ashley’s “proposed amendment of the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the United States.”[4] And when Ashley moved reconsideration on January 6, 1865, Lincoln went to work, dangling rewards and twisting congressional arms, until on January 31, the reconsideration squeaked through the House by seven votes.[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...s-mostly-realistic-his-advisers-arent/265073/ Lincoln did, in fact, assume great risk in backing the amendment during his re-election canvass the year before, and he placed the weight of his presidency behind it in 1865. Spielberg's film also credits Lincoln with sanctioning, and in some cases directly negotiating, the brazen use of patronage appointments to buy off the requisite number of lame duck Democratic congressmen. Here, the record is hazy. Historians generally agree that the president issued broad instructions to Seward, who in turn hired a group of lobbyists from his home state of New York to approach potential apostates. It's highly implausible that Lincoln dealt directly with these men, or that he immersed himself in the details. He was too smart a politician to do that. But he did whip hard for the amendment. He visited a Democratic congressman whose brother had fallen in battle, to tell him that his kin "died to save the Republic from death by the slaveholders' rebellion. I wish you could see it to be your duty to vote for the Constitutional amendment ending slavery." That scene is true to history. Joshua Zeitz is the author ofLincoln’s Boys: John Hay, John Nicolay, and the War for Lincoln's Image. He has taught American history and politics at Cambridge University and Princeton University, and is currently writing a book on the making of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
According to this history forum your pal Thomas DiLorenzo from the shitty web site you linked to (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/11...-myth-of-lincoln-and-the-thirteenthamendment/) is full of shit. http://historum.com/history-films-television/49846-lincoln-movie-4.html "I see the movie has prompted our neo-Confederate friend, Thomas DiLorenzo, to come out with more of his infamous fraudulent claims. I'll quote his lies in this post, then post the truth in the following post." "Again, the above quoted (Thomas DiLorenzo) material is a pack of LIES."