Political Theory

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

idol — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:20:34 GMT

Lincoln is a difficult subject for me. On the one hand, he played a big role in freeing the slaves...On the other, he was a despotic statist.

Rothbard's argument, for me, is the strongest against Lincoln: that we should reject his mission, even if it was to free the slaves, just as we reject so-called "humanitarian" missions that the "anti-war" progressives are always urging.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Bert — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:29:08 GMT

Fun fact: My co-workers brother is an extra in this movie. He was supposed to only film for 2 days, but due to lack of extras filmed for 2 months and is seen in a majority of the movie. The part where everyone starts yelling at one another (I assume more than one) the director said just to get up and just do that, sort of improv, and my co-worker told me his brother stood up and to the guy next to him yelled "You sir are a fool, and I pity you!" All I know is he has a beard, if I can find a pic I'll post it.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:53:19 GMT

Watch Pearl Harbor if you want to watch another work of fiction (not necessarily good).

1. Love story

2. Love story

3. Love story

4. Pearl Harbor gets attacked for no reason at all and all of the Japanese are evil

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Neodoxy — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:42:44 GMT

Well I went to see the movie... Here's my thoughts:

1. Good movie overall. Very good at representing the time period

2. Overall a rather poor and unrealistic view of Abraham Lincoln. It was really rather pathetic. If you wanted to copy and paste the public's view of this political icon this would be it. He was represented in an almost Christlike way. The only thing that stopped this from being a case was that it showed that his relationship with his wife was rather messed up, but in the political realm he was represented as perfection itself, seamlessly combining benevolence, idealism, and pragmatism. The old fashioned ideas surrounding slavery, the old prejudices which plagued mankind were with EVERYONE except for Lincoln. He was the only one who seemed to have thoroughly modern views on everything.

I frankly find this entire thing disgusting and wrong. No one is that perfect, no one. Even Christ despaired on the cross, but no such weakness, in the political realm, is displayed by Spielberg's Lincoln. Any weakness or human frailty which he does display is always in the personal realm, which always increases his humanity to the audience. I think that in large part this comes from the fact that the book is partially adapted from Doris Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" which pretty much paints Lincoln out to be the greatest political mastermind who ever lived, devoid of any sort of flaw. I had a civil war historian come to my school to give a talk once and so I'll quote from him: "My problem with her book is that you can't always know what what's going to happen all of the time".

What's most disturbing is that it flat out lies to the audience. It lies to them to their faces and it wouldn't even have to. At one point a free black woman asks Lincoln if he would "get used to them", that is to say if he thought that blacks and whites would happily coexist in America. He responds along the lines of "I think so", but the true answer is NO. NO HE DID NOT. The fact that he could answer that question without mentioning the FACT that he thought the vast majority of, if not practically all, blacks would leave for Liberia, in large part because he thought that the two races would have an extremely difficult time coexisting. The fact that he could answer this question, and many of Lincoln's supposed views, especially on matters of race and slavery were discussed without once mentioning this plan is disingenuous and tantamount to lies. I think that there is plenty of evidence that Lincoln was ultimately against slavery, although to what extent is far less clear. I also think that there is plenty of evidence that he was a racist in a way that would be considered incredibly severe in our day, and rather liberal in his own. And do the modern American citizen and Lincoln historian I say : Deal with it. Your leaders weren't f***ing saints.

Ultimately this film can be reduced to propaganda.

Also I thought that the guy who played Lincoln didn't have the voice for the part. I mean the man looked like a gorilla, he almost certainly had a deep and burly voice, not a rather high pitched and reedy one... But whatevs.

3. The acting was superb throughout the movie. I thought the guy who played Thaddeus Stevens was really good, his speeches were great, and I practically cheered when I saw that the guy who played Gale on Breaking Bad had a part, and a significant one, in this movie. He did a really good job.

4. One thing which was surprisingly upsetting to me was this fire effect which happens just after Lincoln dies. It zooms in on this flame and slowly the flame evolves into one of Lincoln's past speeches. It was a little detail but it was so Hokey and B-Movie like that it stuck in my mind.

Overall it's quite a good work of fiction.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Lady Saiga — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:23:56 GMT

Are DiLorenzo's books credible? Does he overlook evidence contrary to his aims? I like to read dissenting views, but those books look pretty sensationalized.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 05:29:55 GMT

Just went to go see Skyfall. My thoughts? It was enjoyable. Libertarian themes? Not too much to it.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

gotlucky — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:56:10 GMT

He was a politician trying to get elected. I think we can all agree that means he was a liar. But in this case he had to lie about just how anti-slavery he was :\

It's possible, but in order to prove this, you have to start with the conclusion that freeing the slaves really was his goal, and then you find certain evidence that supports it (well, slaves were freed, weren't they?). But throughout his political career, he did many actions that were counter to this goal. So, it could be that he believed the end justified the means, so that it's okay to support the Fugitive Slave Act so long as in the end the slaves are freed. But what of the accusation that Lincoln was relectant to even do this?

Why attribute to Lincoln a view of racial equality under the law as his motive when another motive, retaining the Union, is far easier to defend and explains his actions far better, and he even stated it as his motive? It's far simpler than claiming that Lincoln's entire career was focused on freeing the slaves and he lied throughout in order to achieve this. What a risk he would have taken, supporting the Fugitive Slave Act along the way, if he had failed in this supposed final goal.

Also, his support for the fugitive slave act was an expression of his support of the rule of law. He couldn't just act like an imperial president in those days and get away with it. Unlike modern presidents.

I don't see any evidence that Lincoln valued the rule of law. The Emancipation Proclamation was absolutely against the rule of law, as well as suspending habeus corpus. Lincoln was very much an imperial president.

You may be interested in Walter Williams' foreword to Thomas DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln (or the book itself). From the foreward:

Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

You might find this court case in chapter two to be interesting:

Lincoln was a highly skilled lawyer who, from 1837 to 1860, tried literally thousands of cases and was frequently employed by other lawyers as a consultant. He was one of the top attorneys in the Midwest, and his clients included the Illinois Central Railroad, then the largest railroad in the world. By the 1850s his income averaged $5,000 per year, three times what the governor of Illinois was paid.

Lincoln tried all kinds of cases, from those dealing with disputed wills, taxes, foreclosures, and debt to slander, assault, murder, divorce, and horse theft. He argued before the Illinois Supreme Court dozens of times and once appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court. In twenty-three years of litigation he never defended a runaway slave, but he did defend a slaveowner.

His client was a wealthy Illinois farmer named Robert Matson who brought slaves into Illinois from Kentucky during part of the year to work his farm. Matson's mistress became agry with him and threatened to sell the slaves in another state. Anthony Bryant, a freed black who was Matson's overseer, smuggled the slaves away to an innkeeper's house, and Matson brought suit to have his slaves returned.

Lincoln defended Matson before William Wilson, the chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court. The slaves' attorney argued that since Illinois was a slave state, the slaves had to be set free. Lincoln countered that the Illinois Constitution did not apply because the slaves were only seasonal workers and did not reside in Illinois the entire year; they returned annually to Kentucky, which was a slave state. On October 17, 1847, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln and emancipated Matson's slaves.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Anenome — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:32:10 GMT

Perhaps he didn't actually think blacks were inferior, even though he stated otherwise. But there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates Lincoln was racist, and the only evidence that is ever provided in his defense is that he freed the slaves. Considering that he was reluctant to do so and that he supported the Fugitive Slave Act, well, damn.

He was a politician trying to get elected. I think we can all agree that means he was a liar. But in this case he had to lie about just how anti-slavery he was :\

Also, his support for the fugitive slave act was an expression of his support of the rule of law. He couldn't just act like an imperial president in those days and get away with it. Unlike modern presidents.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Anenome — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:30:05 GMT

Lincoln's letter to a friend:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.

And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power.

I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways.

And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law.

Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.

I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.

When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity.

When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come.

When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.

In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, -- no loss by it any how or any where.

On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain.

If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly,

A. Lincoln"

Seems to me Lincoln was deeply anti-slavery, but equally or moreso a statist! He was deeply conscientious in his execution of the powers of the presidency, which conflicted with his anti-slavery stance. Still, in the end, he went ahead and did it when he could, having found a reason to do so during the war.

But those opening lines are powerful.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

gotlucky — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:22:10 GMT

Sowell's article was a book recommendation.

Ostensibly then, we'd expect to find such evidence and citations in that book. That's about as far as I'm willing to go to prove anything.

Sowell has a track record of not citing in general. I'm not surprised he can't even bother to cite a page number or even chapter from the book about Lincoln's motivations. I like most of his articles, but history is not his specialty, so I can't just take him at his word, given his track record of never citing.

And sure, Lincoln was a statist (very few weren't back then), as you point out, in his support of recolonization efforts. But that's moving the goal-post; the question was whether his support of that was necessarily racist, and I'm not sure it is.

The goal posts haven't moved. If you read what I said, I said:

gotlucky:

Even if Lincoln were to think this is what they wanted, apparently he didn't think enough of them to make decisions on their own.

You also assume a lot of black people hadn't decided to go back to Africa--I'm not at all sure this is true.

I don't assume that. I have no idea how many did or didn't want to go to Africa. Could you point to where I said that?

Large numbers went back eventually and founded Liberia. It's not a clear cut case that his support of this effort is evidence of racism on his part. And almost every other thing cited in that article of yours as evidence of his racism has similar potential extenuating circumstances.

Large numbers went back eventually and founded Liberia. It's not a clear cut case that his support of this effort is evidence of racism on his part.

The only case I've seen for Lincoln's supposed anti-slavery sentiments is that he freed the slaves. Considering Lincoln said he did it in order to preserve the Union, the matter should pretty much be settled there. We could go further and look at his support for the Fugitive Slave Act and the Black Codes. That's pretty anti-black.

Maybe I'll have to actually read the book Sowell recommends after all, but at least I think you should reserve judgment. Just because we're free to denounce him for being a statist doesn't mean we should discount progressive anti-slavery sentiments he held, if he did indeed hold them.

Perhaps he didn't actually think blacks were inferior, even though he stated otherwise. But there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates Lincoln was racist, and the only evidence that is ever provided in his defense is that he freed the slaves. Considering that he was reluctant to do so and that he supported the Fugitive Slave Act, well, damn.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Anenome — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 03:10:34 GMT

Sowell's article was a book recommendation.

Ostensibly then, we'd expect to find such evidence and citations in that book. That's about as far as I'm willing to go to prove anything.

And sure, Lincoln was a statist (very few weren't back then), as you point out, in his support of recolonization efforts. But that's moving the goal-post; the question was whether his support of that was necessarily racist, and I'm not sure it is.

You also assume a lot of black people hadn't decided to go back to Africa--I'm not at all sure this is true. Large numbers went back eventually and founded Liberia. It's not a clear cut case that his support of this effort is evidence of racism on his part. And almost every other thing cited in that article of yours as evidence of his racism has similar potential extenuating circumstances.

Which makes it a circumstantial case.

Maybe I'll have to actually read the book Sowell recommends after all, but at least I think you should reserve judgment. Just because we're free to denounce him for being a statist doesn't mean we should discount progressive anti-slavery sentiments he held, if he did indeed hold them.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

gotlucky — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:07:13 GMT

Anenome:

Eh, I found that article to say a lot of things out of context and ignoring a lot of history. It paints him as a racist for using the n-word--we perceive that word differently than past peoples did. It was as easily a descriptive term in past centuries without the strong perjorative connotations now.

Well, I excerpted some lines from the article in a post above. The fact is that supporting the fugitive slave act is not anti-slavery. Supporting the Illinois Black Codes is not friendly to blacks.

It casts him as racist for pursuing ideas of deportment to Africa of freed slaves. But this need not be racist, Lincoln may have believed this is what Black people wanted, and that it was the just thing to do, to return them to the place they'd been taken from.

Let black people decide what they want to do (as individuals). There is no good reason to force them to do anything, whether it is staying in the states or leaving for Africa. Even if Lincoln were to think this is what they wanted, apparently he didn't think enough of them to make decisions on their own.

It quotes the usual statement of not wanting to free slaves in other states, blah, blah, read my article. It explains how Lincoln was very cognizent of the political constraints he acted under and had to couch his attacks on slavery for that reason. What we view today as white supremacy may have been far more on the progressive side against slavery in his day.

I read Sowell's article, and nowhere did he provide proof of Lincoln's supposed anti-slavery. Sowell's articles typically make bare assertions, and this is yet another one of those times. I typically don't care that he doesn't source, as that would take up a lot of space for his very short articles, but here he makes an assertion into what Lincoln believes, and there is no evidence anywhere that Lincoln was anti-slavery.

At least with Ron Paul we get hints of voluntaryism and government is aggression. But Sowell's argument is: "Let's assume Lincoln is not racist. See, look at the time period. He would never have been able to say what he really means. He must always talk about hating black people and calling them inferior, but he didn't really mean it."

Well, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes and the Fugitive Slave Act. So if we are going to ignore his statements about saving the Union no matter what, then let's not ignore his support for anti-black legislations.

I'll say that I'll cautiously review the material from here and see which side seems most reasonable, but I don't find that article necessarily compelling. I could see how it would be compelling for someone who didn't know the wider context that Sowell points out, and someone who hasn't read the book he cites.

Sowell doesn't provide proof of anything. It's just bare assertions. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he is going to claim to be able to read a man's mind, then I would like some evidence to support that claim. Just saying that he couldn't because of the times is not evidence. Evidence would be things he said, legislation he supported, that sort of thing. And if we start from a neutral position, Lincoln looks pretty damn racist.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

Anenome — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:40:59 GMT

gotlucky:

Anenome, read the link I provide for QC here. I love Sowell, but he is very much mistaken here.

Eh, I found that article to say a lot of things out of context and ignoring a lot of history. It paints him as a racist for using the n-word--we perceive that word differently than past peoples did. It was as easily a descriptive term in past centuries without the strong perjorative connotations now.

It casts him as racist for pursuing ideas of deportment to Africa of freed slaves. But this need not be racist, Lincoln may have believed this is what Black people wanted, and that it was the just thing to do, to return them to the place they'd been taken from.

It quotes the usual statement of not wanting to free slaves in other states, blah, blah, read my article. It explains how Lincoln was very cognizent of the political constraints he acted under and had to couch his attacks on slavery for that reason. What we view today as white supremacy may have been far more on the progressive side against slavery in his day.

I'll say that I'll cautiously review the material from here and see which side seems most reasonable, but I don't find that article necessarily compelling. I could see how it would be compelling for someone who didn't know the wider context that Sowell points out, and someone who hasn't read the book he cites.

But I trust Sowell far more than the editor of Ebony Magazine.

"Analysts as diverse as Frederick Douglass and historian Richard Hofstadter have ardently criticized Lincoln's "passive" attitude toward abolition. These critics frequently point out that the Emancipation Proclamation was, in practical terms, meaningless, since it freed only those slaves in areas under Confederate control and left slaves in the Union border states in bondage. In this fine work of counterrevisionism, history professor Guelzo strives to resurrect the traditional image of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. Despite Lincoln's frequent assertions that the preservation of the Union was his paramount goal, Guelzo insists that Lincoln was committed to abolition once hostilities commenced. His repudiation of efforts by John Fremont to liberate slaves were merely tactical retreats, according to Guelzo, and when he deemed the moment appropriate, Lincoln struck a mortal blow against the institution. Guelzo marshals considerable evidence to support his views, but this is hardly the final word on the subject. Still, his work is a valuable counterweight to those who too easily dismiss the importance of the document and Lincoln's role in eliminating slavery."

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

QuisCustodiet — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:38:47 GMT

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Dr. Paul's newsletters have racist things in them. Lots of people tried quoting them to prove he was racist. In reality, his policies would really help minorities. Lincoln's did, as well. Just putting that out there.

Re: Lincoln movie - my thoughts

cab21 — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:28:20 GMT

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html intersting article on lincoins race relations

ill see the movie when it gets o a cheaper theater