In response to:

Spielberg’s Lincoln is a Grand Tribute to a Masterful Leader

nimh1 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 6:32 AM
Read Thomas J. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". You will find that Lincoln was the closest thing to a despotic dictator that this country has ever had. The glorification of Lincoln is based on massive lies and misconceptions. The "civil war" did not have to be fought . . . it was the north that started that war of aggression with the imposition of taxes and tariffs ONLY on the south. Most people are unaware that Lincoln,s "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the Union--only slaves in the "disputed states" were declared to be "free" It is also a little-known fact that many slaves voluntarily fought alongside their "masters" to maintain the honor of the south. The war of aggression on the south was not about slavery .
Chris660 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 12:37 PM
The war was about many things, but the states in the South seceded over slavery. Read the secession documents. They specifically mention slavery as their right and the primary reason for seceding from the Union.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:08 AM
I was wondering if anyone out there was not as enamored of Lincoln as me.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:14 AM
Lincoln was clearly the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. He was the power-mad despot who started our long slide into central government tyranny. Not surprisingly, he was a big advocate of central banking and "protective" tariffs (ironic quotes--such tariffs just protect the public against lower cost, higher quality foreign products).

The South simply wanted to leave the Union peacefully; the tyrant Lincoln would have none of it.
VaSteve Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:16 AM
The Big Myth continues. I see no mention of Lincoln's steadfast efforts to "colonize" the freed slaves. No mention of Abe's desire to have a "White West". No Blacks.No Reds.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:22 AM
Don't forget Lincoln's backing of plans to forcibly deport people of African heritage, either back to Africe, or to islands in the Caribbean. In addition to being a tyrant, he was a particularly vile racist.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:48 AM
Don't forget the suspension of Habeas Corpus! That's my particular favorite. Although, Paulus, he has some stiff competition for worst president. FDR and his uncle (cousin,whatever) Teddy were right up there. The present POTUS is giving him a run for his money. Serious consideration must be given LBJ, but having half a million Americans killed on your watch does seem to put you over the top!
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:57 AM
Good points, Matthew. FDR, in my book, comes in a close second to Lincoln. Third place should go to TR, with a tie for fourth between LBJ and the pinch-faced schoolmarm, Woodrow Wilson. Obama may give them all a run for the money--only time will tell.

Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is a different film than one would expect from the brilliant filmmaker responsible for unforgettable films like “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.” Unlike those two features, “Lincoln” takes place on a much smaller scale.

When its trailer arrived in theaters several months ago, many viewers undoubtedly believed that the film would attempt to tell Abraham Lincoln’s complete story, focusing on a young Illinois lawyer who became president and saved the Union from self-destruction. But this movie isn’t about that, nor is it simply a noble and simplistic tribute to the 16th President. The film is, instead,...