I went to see the new Lincoln movie with my family and some friends. Here are my thoughts on the movie.
The one thing I liked about the movie was that it actually took time to show political corruption, backhanded deals, and the like. I liked that it at least devoted some effort to showing how some people tried to bribe politicians to get the 2/3rds majority vote in the house of representitives. Even if people agree with the ammendment, at least it shows that dubious means were used to get it passed.
There were some moments that made me think, “Show me the historical sources”, as they looked like fabrications or exaggerations. One example was Lincoln casually meeting with black members of the military. I also felt that it could have been an anachronism that they refered to the South rejoining as reconstruction before it actually happened. It also did not portray lincoln as a racist at all, when things he did in the past contradict that, did he suddenly have a change of heart?
The movie, I felt, did not show the real reasons for why the war was being fought, by emphesizing the 13th ammendment, it did disservice to what was really going on.
The movie was boring. It appeared to drag on and on, and wasn’t really all that interesting.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the movie, and would like it if my hunches on what is false could be researched.
I thought it was riviting. I thought Day-Lewis was incredible, and as always, Spielberg knocked it out of the park.
I never understood why, of all people, libertarians would take a politician’s words and claim those words reveal what the politician believes to be true. I think the effort Lincoln made to pass the 13th Amendment proves he wasn’t racist, and yes, that politicians (including Lincoln) lie. You have to look at what they actually do. Racist people who truly don’t care about slavery one way or the other don’t support the 13th Amendment. LvMI spends too much time bashing Lincoln.
The libertarian wouldn’t have conscripted a military or suspended habeas corpus or printed fiat money to do it, but I don’t see anything wrong with employing “dubious” measures like lying to end slavery. Who cares? I would have lied about Confederate negotiations, or encouraged WV to secede from Virginia, or blocked operations of the Maryland legislature if it could end slavery sooner.
What I hope people take from the movie is that you can admire the good things unlibertarian politicians do, like the passage of the 13th Amendment, or in Andrew Jackson’s case – remember, the Trail of Tears guy? the ardent defender or slavery? – shutting down the central bank.
Dr. Paul could be a secret anarchist – it’s possible – but it’s unlikely. He’s more honest than other politicians. It’s also possible that he’s secretly a Communist, but that’s also unlikely. Jefferson could have been secretly an anarchist. Martin van Buren, too.
And Paul has always acted in such a way to defend the Constitution, not to abolish it. On the other hand, Lincoln acted to abolish slavery, so I’m on much more solid ground saying that Lincoln was opposed to slavery despire some of his rhetoric.
It’s also possible that Rothbard was secretly a minarchist. He obviously wasn’t a poltician, but he still could have been lying. Maybe Lew Rockwell isn’t actually an anarchist!
There’s too much stuff on this forum and by other people on Lew Rockwell’s site about Lincoln’s racism for me to bother pursuing this. Ron Paul’s actions of being friends with known anarcho-capitalists and the fact that he is known as Dr. No couldn’t possibly be an indication of his beliefs, but Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation that didn’t free the slaves in the states that were still part of the Union (which means under Lincoln’s authority), well that just is nothing but an indication that he hated slavery…
The man suspends habeus corpus but doesn’t free slaves in his own territory? Yup, that guy is as nonracist as they come…
I’m willing to forgive Spielburg for this movie due to the fact that he’s made several other films that highly appeal to libertarians, i.e. Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, and others.
13th Amendment > Emancipation Proclamation. Freeing slaves without amending the Constitution is not a permanent solution. Lincoln easily could have blew it by not amending the Constitution.
Oh, and you know who else besides Ron Paul was associated with known anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard? Lugwig von Mises. Mises said on one occasion that whatever Rothbard had written was of the upmost importance!
So basically, whatever Lincoln said is irrelevant, but whatever Paul says is relevant, unless of course he is talking about voluntarism and that the government is aggressive.
Okay.
You haven’t been around here long enough, so I suppose this is forgiveable, but Mises was about as close to being an anarchist as one could be. The only writings he has against anarchism are against anarcho-communism, which was typically called “anarchism” in his day. Even Rothbard was initially against calling himself an anarchist because of this fact. Anyway, here is Hoppe on Mises’ near anarchism.
Facepalm. If Lincoln’s actions didn’t match his words, which they didn’t, then his words are irrelevant. Paul has not acted so as to abolish government. He has acted and advocated shrinking it (very, very small), but you can’t assign a meaning to his statements about government aggression for him. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. “Oh, but what else could it mean?” Fund the government in other ways besides taxation and use it to defend free exchange. If you disagree with what he says is aggression, fine.
Yeah, but he could have been lying, like you think Ron Paul is. That was my point. Further, Rothbard could have been lying about being an anarchist; after all, he respected Mises so much…
It’s hogwash. But I really don’t want to make a career out of this kind of revisionism
Reading some articles, and sort of taking back my comment on the corruption. While at least it does show political corruption, it appears to be another fabrication to bring home the idea of Lincoln as a hero.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
I’ve read a convincing argument that what Lincoln said here was an attempt to be politic. That this didn’t represent his true feelings, but was what he had to say at the moment to preserve his intention to end slavery.
"Since the 1960s, it has been fashionable in some quarters to take cheap shots at Lincoln, asking such questions as “Why didn’t he free all the slaves?” “Why did he wait so long?” “How come the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t just come right out and say that slavery was wrong?”
People who indulge themselves in this kind of self-righteous carping act as if Lincoln was someone who could do whatever he damn well pleased, without regard to the law, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. They might as well criticize him for not discovering a cure for cancer.
Fortunately, there is an excellent new book, titled “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation” by Professor Allen C. Guelzo of Gettysburg College, that sets Lincoln in the context of the world in which he lived. Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.
Just one fact should give pause to Lincoln’s critics today: When Lincoln sat down to write the Emancipation Proclamation, the Supreme Court was still headed by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, saying a black man had no rights which a white man needed to respect…"
It’s not that I think I’m smart it’s just that I’ve already responded to your claim (words vs. actions).
Okay. You insinuated that Paul was secretly an anarchist while calling for a small government, and thus, that he was not telling the truth about his political views.
And I’m still waiting for you to read that article that disproves your claims.
Please source where Ron Paul calls for small government as an end. As far as I can tell, he has always claimed that it is better than what we have now, even in his farewell speech. And then he throws out all the specific words and phrases that voluntaryists use on top of it. It looks like small government is a means to an end for Ron Paul.
What was Jefferson’s end? I mean, he did write that you can alter or abolish a government that does injury to liberty… It would distort history to claim he was therefore an anarchist.
I read it like 20 minutes ago. There is evidence he pushed for the amendment (and that it wasn’t the other way around), but I don’t have time to get into it. Even if he was pushed into it by others, expressing his support for it helped the cause.
Kind of like how the Dodgers were pushed (by the market) into hiring a black baseball player. It’s still good that it happened, and I can still be happy the Dodgers did it.
