In response to:

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

Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 8:23 AM
Read Tom DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln, which thoroughly "unmask" the tyrant.
Bamboozle Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 1:51 PM
Slavery was ending naturally because the industrial revolution was taking place and owners were making their slaves sharecroppers so they could lead their own lives and make their own living. Slavery would have died within 20 to 30 years because it had become too expensive and unproductive.

Secondly, Lincoln could have ended the Fugitive Slave Act in the North allowing fleeing slaves to remain free in the North instead of returning them to their owners in the south. But of course the northern workers would not want to compete for jobs with freed slaves which was the real cause of the draft riots.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 1:36 PM
I HATE being pragmatic in a philosophical discussion, but buying them with federal monies and setting them free, would have been pennies on the dollar to the cost of the war.
USAstuckOnStupid Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 12:07 PM
Paulus, you make some good points. How would you have proposed ending slavery?

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,...