- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should I go watch this Lincoln flick?
Posted on 11/15/12 at 11:34 am to Baloo
Posted on 11/15/12 at 11:34 am to Baloo
quote:
Especially when he is fighting against a group of people committing treason.
Not to get into a political debate, but secession isn't treason. It was very much a fundamental right of the states to do so as a means of keeping federal power in check.
I didn't realize the movie was based off of a book however. I'll need to check the book out before seeing.
To your other point, Lincoln was not anti-slavery to begin with. He had slaves pretty Much up until the Emancipation Proclimation IIRC. Did some of his party wear on him throughout the war? Absolutely, however he did not start an illegal war to free slaves.
ETA:regardless, I'm going to see the film because it is about one of the most interesting and controversial points in American history.
This post was edited on 11/15/12 at 11:37 am
Posted on 11/15/12 at 11:52 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Not to get into a political debate, but secession isn't treason. It was very much a fundamental right of the states to do so as a means of keeping federal power in check.
While I dispute the legality of this statement (and in fact, it is contrary to SCOTUS rulings... in 1868), that's irrelevant. Armed insurrection IS treason however you define it. As soon as the South took up arms against the federal government, they were actively committing treason. When South Carolina fired on the US Army trying to resupply a federal fort, they were taking up arms against the US government.
quote:
To your other point, Lincoln was not anti-slavery to begin with. He had slaves pretty Much up until the Emancipation Proclimation IIRC.
You don't RC. Lincoln did not own slaves. His family was poor and even if he was pro-slavery, which he wasn't, he couldn't have afforded them. He also rose to national prominence during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, in which a key issue was slavery. Lincoln took the anti-slavery position and argued against the recent Dred Scot decision. Lincoln also made his famed "half-slave, half-free" speech before he was president.
The idea that Lincoln was not anti-slavery does not withstand the barest scrutiny. Now, was he a radical abolitionist? No. Among Republicans, he was seen as a moderate. However, the Republicans were formed as an anti-slavery party.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News