In response to:

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

Nomad02 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:38 PM
My mind boggles to contemplate the kind of America that might be here today, with the abscence of a significant black populace. It is very true, that Lincoln was no saint, but when judging historical figures, one must always remember to view them in the context of the times they lived in, not in the times that we live in.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 3:33 PM
Okay, Nomad, let's go there. The Civil War happened just over 70 years after the Constitution was ratified, just under 150 years ago. Lincoln was just not that far removed historically from our founding to be allowed a pass for what he did to that document. He basically disregarded it. He trashed the first amendment, habeas corpus, the commerce clause and the enumerated powers clause. The reason for those clauses must surely have still been fresh in the collective minds of Americans when he so ruthlessly quashed them.
I also don't understand where NOT fighting that war would have significantly diminished the black population.

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,...