| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
|||||||||||||
| LINCOLN | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13th, 2012 10:45 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
Barlow Member 
|
In the end, I will only grant Texas Defender the position that there is no right or wrong, legal precedent, mention within the Articles of Confederation or Constitution that secession is mentioned or not mentioned. In other words, there is no right, nor is there a prohibition within these above documents to secession. In the end, Lincoln was a serious statesman interested in saving the nation; he was not interested in scoring debating points with secessionists. May I suggest, Mark E. Neely Jr Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation, a rather dry but effective book; Lincoln's Four Main Arguments against Secession, which can be found online and by George Desnoyers; The Impending Crisis by David Potter. Regarding the trial of Jefferson Davis, making that argument that because he was not tried, ergo Secession must have been legal is baseless at best. Times were different and President Johnson was facing Impeachment himself and had no time for a trial. Holt was prepared to do it, but the country had no stomach for it. Because we have not tried the terrorists at Guantanamo, are we to say they must be innocent? I do take back that we should have hung Lee, however, and apologize for my sectionalism. Go Notre Dame!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Dec 14th, 2012 12:07 am |
|
22nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
In the end, I will only grant Barlow some credit for making a more rational entry onto this thread with the 21st Posting than he did with the 8th. As for the Jefferson Davis trial, I never took the position that not trying Davis made secession legal. (My position is that the Tenth Amendment made secession legal). What I said was that the Federal Government was afraid to carry forward the trial because top legal minds believed that it was likely that the Government would lose the case. If the Government lost the case, that would vindicate the Confederate position that secession was legal and not a crime. It would also discredit the Government's main argument for fighting the war that caused so many deaths. It was a risk that the Federal Government finally decided that it could not take. As for Joseph Holt- he was the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He was in charge of the military commission that tried the Lincoln conspirators. He tried to convince the commission that Jefferson Davis was personally involved in the assassination plot. He also withheld the existence of the Booth diary from the commission. In addition, he was accused of withholding the commission's recommendation that Mrs. Surratt be spared the death penalty. His handling of the case seriously damaged his reputation. General Holt attempted to defend himself with a publication titled: "The Vindication of Judge Advocate Holt From the Foul Slanders of Traitors, Confessed Perjurers and Suborners, Acting in the Interest of Jefferson Davis." After the end of hostilities, the citizenry was much less tolerant of the idea that military tribunals should be trying citizens where normal civilian courts were established or had been re-established. In the USSC case ex parte Milligan (1866) the justices (Even those appointed by Mr. Lincoln) found that military tribunals should no longer be used wherever civilian courts were operating. Ex parte Milligan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If the trial of Jefferson Davis had gone forward, it would have been in civilian courts. The Government's case would have been the responsibility of the Attorney General of the United States, not a subordinate of the Secretary of War. The three Attorneys General in office in the years right after the war were James Speed (1864-66), Henry Stanbery (1866-68), and William Evarts (1868-69). Mr. Speed, a personal friend of Mr. Lincoln, was a radical Republican who resigned in 1866 over Andrew Johnson's opposition to black suffrage (Among other things). Mr. Stanbery resigned in 1868 to conduct the defense of Andrew Johnson in the impeachment trial. Mr. Evarts was ready to release Jefferson Davis rather than pursue a case that the Federal Government delayed for years because it couldn't decide what to do. By 1869, it was recognized that releasing Mr. Davis was the most prudent course to take. In the case of the terrorists at Guantanamo, the Federal Government finds itself in a sticky mess again. I certainly wouldn't maintain that not trying them makes them innocent. But trying them would present greater problems than doing nothing has- so far. Absent a declaration of war,there is no real legal precedent for what the Federal Government is doing with the detainees at present. Many have been held for several years without trial. What rights, if any, do they have under U.S. Law? How about International Law? The legality of trying them by military tribunals has also been questioned. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As seen in the Hamdan case, in some cases, the status of detainees as combatants or non-combatants could be difficult to determine. There are many other questions that an experienced attorney might be aware of that I am not. But I know that it is all a murky situation. I also know that it is in the national interests of the United States that many of the detainees are never allowed to be at large again. Some who have been released have returned to the practice of attacking U.S. troops. In my view, it is in the national interests of the United States to avoid trying them at all unless it somehow becomes necessary. It will be interesting to see how this problem is ultimately resolved. Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 04:35 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2012 01:26 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
I mentioned on another thread that Hollywood doesn't have a very good record in depicting historical events, and that their response to criticism is to say that their production is not history, but entertainment. That allows them carte blanche to distort historical events in any way they wish to to try to tell a story that is: "Entertaining." The recent movie: "Lincoln", which is praised to the skies by some people, is no exception when it comes to making historical errors. Here is a list of some of them: Lincoln Movie Errors I'm sure that as time passes, the list will grow. Speaking to the one case listed where someone tells Mr. Lincoln that he is on the 50 cent piece- during the Civil War era, the silver half dollar depicted : "Lady Liberty" seated. During that time, no actual person, living or dead, had been portrayed on any regular issue U.S. coins. Mr. Lincoln does have the distinction of being the first actual person on a regular issue U.S. coin, which was on the penny in 1909. The next was George Washington on the quarter in 1932. (The first commemorative U.S. dollar coin was issued in 1900. It depicted Generals Washington and Lafayette). As for fractional paper currency issued during the war- none showed the face of Mr. Lincoln. Some did show the face of one government bureaucrat, which outraged the Congress and induced them to make official the tradition of not putting the face of any living person on U.S. currency. The link below discusses the fractional currency and shows pictures of some from that time. None was used after 1876. US Fractional Currency - Collector Information | Collectors Weekly Last edited on Sat Feb 9th, 2013 01:55 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2012 09:52 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
the Federal Government was afraid to carry forward the trial because top legal minds believed that it was likely that the Government would lose the case…It was a risk that the Federal Government finally decided that it could not take…By 1869, it was recognized that releasing Mr. Davis was the most prudent course to take. This is not true. Charges against Davis weren’t dismissed until President Johnson issued his comprehensive amnesty. Some in the government held the minority opinion that a conviction would be difficult to obtain, but not because the government couldn’t mount a convincing case regarding treason, but, rather, because the mood of the country was shifting towards amnesty. In the end, such concerns were brushed aside, and the government was fully prepared to move forward with the trial. If the trial of Jefferson Davis had gone forward, it would have been in civilian courts. This had already happened. Davis had been released to civil authorities and indicted in the US Circuit Court.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2012 10:51 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
JG6789- The two special counsels, namely John J. Clifford and Richard Dana, who were appointed by the Federal Government both withdrew, questioning the validity of the Government's case. They thought that the Government was likely to lose and should leave well enough alone. Southern Heritage 411 There was no enthusiasm in the Federal Government to pursue the case against Jefferson Davis. The source above claims that it was the Government looking for a way out in 1868. It was the Government that continued to delay the proceedings over and over again. If the Government was: "Fully prepared" to press the case, it certainly could have. The defense team was certainly fully prepared to defend Mr. Davis. The case never got beyond preliminary motions. There was no desire on the Government side to risk having a civilian court rule in Davis' favor and validate the legitimacy of secession. There was little to be gained by risking such an outcome. You can have your own opinion, but I think it highly unlikely that the Government could ever have obtained a treason conviction against Mr. Davis in a Virginia court. The one point that we agree on is that the civilian populace as a whole had no desire to pursue vengeance in 1868. There was a desire to return to normalcy. As for Andrew Johnson's blanket amnesty granted on 25 December 1868, this Virginia source claims that it was motivated by the fear that the USSC court would rule in Davis' favor on the double jeopardy issue. Encyclopedia Virginia: Jefferson Davis's Imprisonment A timeline is included. As for my statement about the case going forward in civilian courts, that was in response to Barlow's comments on this thread about Joseph Holt being: "Ready to go." My point was that Mr. Davis was in civilian control beginning in 1867. (I previously noted that Davis was indicted by a grand jury in Virginia). Holt would never have gotten the chance to try Davis with a military tribunal because such tribunals had been declared unconstitutional wherever civilian courts existed. (See USSC Decision ex parte Milligan (1866). ). The indictment against Davis wasn't made in Virginia until 1868. Last edited on Sun Dec 16th, 2012 11:30 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2012 11:23 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Texas Defender wrote: JG6789- Davis’ defense argued in US Circuit Court that Davis’ indictment be thrown out because—as they argued—he had already been punished for treason by the clause of the 14th amendment barring those who have engaged in rebellion, insurrection, or treason from public office. Thus, to try him for treason constituted double jeopardy. The government responded with the argument that the disqualification from office was not a criminal penalty, therefore the trial could go ahead. The Circuit Court judges demurred, and put the matter to the Supreme Court. Dana and Clifford did indeed express doubts that the government’s argument would win in the Supreme Court but, significantly, these doubts were not over whether the government could successfully convict Davis of treason at a trial, but over whether the Supreme Court would even let them go to trial in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2012 11:49 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
JG6789- Both Mr. Clifford and Mr. Dana withdrew rather than pursue the case. Feel free to present your source saying that either man felt that the Government should pursue the case against Mr. Davis or had a good chance to obtain a conviction against him for treason. In the case of Mr. Dana, he said directly that the treason charge against Mr. Davis should not be pressed. See his letter to Attorney General William M. Evarts dated 24 August 1868 in the link below: Richard Henry Dana, Jr., on trying Jefferson Davis for Treason | American Civi In this letter, Mr. Dana expresses his concern that a jury might not convict Mr. Davis, and says that such a result would be a great humiliation for the Government. Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2012 12:30 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2012 01:25 am |
|
28th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
“Both Mr. Clifford and Mr. Dana withdrew rather than pursue the case…In the case of Mr. Dana, he said directly that the case against Mr. Davis should not be pressed. See his letter to Attorney General William M. Evarts dated 24 August 1868.” I’m aware of that letter. And yet…three short months prior to writing the letter to which you link Dana had helped compile the evidence against Davis and penned the indictment. And, contrary to what you suggest, four month later he was still on the government’s team, fielding Davis’ motion to dismiss the charges in the US Circuit Court. “Feel free to present your source saying that either man felt that the Government had a good case against Mr. Davis” Did you read the letter you submit as evidence?: “It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the Jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took any part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military" He, in fact, argued that the government had an excellent case. His objection was that there was an outside chance that a maverick juror would not do his duty. He simply didn’t think the risk—however small—was worth taking given the limited political gains to be had from a conviction. Simple as that. And he was equally timid after the Circuit Court deferred the motion to dismiss to the Supreme Court. The important point is that, as I wrote in my first post, these concerns were brushed aside and the government was ready and willing to go forward until Johnson annouced general amnesty.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2012 01:55 am |
|
29th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
JG6789- First, re-read my previous post, because you misquote what I said. My posting says: "Feel free to present your source saying that either man felt that the Government SHOULD PURSUE THE CASE against Mr. Davis...." What I said was that Mr. Dana's expressed opinion was that the Government should NOT pursue the case against Mr. Davis, which should be clear to anyone who reads the letter. Quoting from the letter, Mr. Dana wrote: "After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question whether the late Civil War was treason, and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at: "nisi prius." To me, that is the: "Important point," not whether or not Mr. Dana thought that the Government had a : "Good" case. Contrary to what you said in Posting #26, Mr. Dana DOES express serious doubts that the Government could successfully convict Mr. Davis of treason in a trial in Virginia.. This fact you continually seek to play down. These doubts that Mr. Dana had could well have been one of the factors influencing Andrew Johnson's decision to issue the general amnesty four months later. When the letter reached the desk of Mr. Johnson, he wrote on it: "This opinion must be filed with care. A.J." Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2012 05:44 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2012 01:40 pm |
|
30th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
JG6789- While re-reading your Posting #28, I realized that the paragraph you quoted from Richard Dana's letter is incomplete. In trying to show that Mr. Dana thought that the Government had a : "Good" case against Mr. Davis, you have omitted a part of his paragraph, and even cut off what he said in mid-sentence. In order to illustrate (In case it needs any further illustration) my point that Mr. Dana preferred not to press the case against Davis, I am finishing the appropriate paragraph for you: " ... why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with power to find in the negative, or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury; certainly it is not a fact which a Government should without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore." It is clear that Mr. Dana was fearful that a jury in Virginia might be inclined to rule against the Federal Government. My guess is that most Virginians would have relished the opportunity to rule against the Federal Government in 1868. As for the Government having a : "Good" (Or even: "Excellent") case, I'm certain that the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case thought that their case was: "Good." (Not that I would compare Jefferson Davis to O.J. Simpson). Still, the unanimous ruling came back against them. In the end, what really matters is who is sitting on the jury. Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2012 02:16 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2012 11:35 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Barlow Member
|
If venue lies in any northern state aggrieved by the determinations and actions of Davis, why wouldn't venue lie in Chambersburg Pennsylvania or Hanover or any area in North in which rebel soldiers held the city for ransom, by the directives of Jubal Early ala Jefferson Davis. I will research why Holt and Dana felt a trial must be held in Virginia, but personal jurisdiction and venue could have easily been gained in northern cities. Who determined venue?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2012 12:36 pm |
|
32nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Barlow- The Federal Government decided to indict Mr. Davis in Virginia because Richmond was the former capitol of the CSA, and that is where his: "Crime" was presumed to have taken place. Davis, Imprisonment and Trial of: Information from Answers.com Joseph Holt wasn't involved in the court case of Jefferson Davis in any way. (Once again, see the USSC Decision ex parte Milligan (1866).) Holt's claim that Mr. Davis was involved in the plot to assassinate Mr. Lincoln was totally without merit. In addition, John Wilkes Booth's diary showed clearly that the original plot was to kidnap Mr. Lincoln. It only changed to an assassination plot shortly before Mr. Lincoln was actually shot. This information was known to General Holt and his superior, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, but was withheld from the military commission judging the Lincoln conspirators in 1865. Holt's dishonesty regarding the separate plots, as well as his unduly harsh treatment of the defendants was soon recognized and he was discredited as a result. Joseph Holt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia THE HANGING OF MARY SURRATT In addition to the charge that General Holt was withholding evidence in the trial of the conspirators, there is the charge that he withheld from the President the fact that the majority of the military commission wished for Mrs. Surratt to be spared the death penalty. General Holt denied the charge, but Andrew Johnson said later that had not seen any plea for clemency until after Mrs. Surratt was hanged. Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2012 03:48 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2012 11:09 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
Barlow Member
|
Today, any U.S. Attorney feeling he/she has the evidence to indict and having personal jurisdiction (i.e. the acts are committed within the federal district) can bring a case against a defendant. That is how Jim Garrison indicted persons on the killing of Kennedy (see: Oliver Stone). So, because Early and Lee entered Adams County and other Southern Penn. counties, and took ransom, the U.S. Attorney for Southern Penn. could have indicted Davis there. I dont believe there is any mystic relation to the federal court in Virginia. re: Surratt. Hancock waited for a order from President Johnson on the fateful July day for clemency or reduction to life in prison. It did not come. Anna Surratt was at the White House wailing and begging. Johnson had plenty of time and opportunity to pardon or reduce. In the end, Lew Wallace and others were just as well with the hanging of Mrs. Surratt. Believe me, if Davis werent in Irwin Georgia, and was captured around April 15-July 7, he would have been invited to the necktie party. Didn't he end up having a dalliance with the lady in Biloxi, much to Varina's displeasure?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2012 02:09 pm |
|
34th Post |
|
Hellcat Person 
|
Ok, so why wasn't Davis hung? You said had he been caught between April 15th and July 7th he would have also been hung. Well May 10th saw his capture, Barlow. That's within the time you say had he been captured he would have also been hung. He was already a prisoner in Fort Monroe when those accused in the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln were executed, but he wasn't invited to that neck tie party. The way I read your post was as assuring us that had he not been in Irwin, Georgia and been captured between April 15th and July 7th that he would have also been hung. Well he hadn't been in Irwin Georgia for over a month when the executions occured. Last edited on Thu Dec 20th, 2012 02:13 pm by Hellcat |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2012 02:37 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Barlow- First I would say that the way things are done now aren't relevant to the way things were done in the years after the end of the Civil War. By 1867, when Jefferson Davis was passed to civilian authorities, it was believed by Attorney General Stanbery and Chief Justice Chase that the trial of Mr. Davis should take place in Virginia. Apparently, you believe that Jefferson Davis was responsible for everything that his soldiers ever did on their own initiative on northern soil. If you want to take that concept to an even higher level of absurdity, why not indict Jefferson Davis in Vermont for the St. Albans raid there? The Attack on St. Albans Actually, the depredations of Jubal Early's troops on the 1864 campaign to threaten Washington were relatively minor when compared to those of Union generals such as: "Black Dave" Hunter and Philip Sheridan (Famous, or rather, infamous, for: "The Burning" in the Valley). In fact, Early's men demanded a ransom from the citizens of Chambersburg, PA as: "restitution" for property destroyed by Hunter in Virginia. Was Abraham Lincoln guilty of a crime because his generals destroyed property in the south? There was a lot more burning of the property of southern citizens by Union troops than there was the other way around. Or was it okay for one side to destroy property but was a crime for the other side to do so? Encyclopedia Virginia: Hard War in Virginia During the Civil War As for Mrs. Surratt- the controversy continues as to whether of not Andrew Johnson saw the plea for clemency signed by five members of the military commission that tried the conspirators. You may believe Josph Holt if you wish to. I do not, as I believe that his judgment was clouded by grief over the assassination of Mr. Lincoln and a hatred of Confederates in general, and Jefferson Davis in particular. His charge that Mr. Davis was involved in the assassination plot was quickly seen to have no merit whatever. Your statement: "Believe me, if Davis weren't in Irwin, GA, and was captured around April 15- July 7, he would have been invited to the necktie party" is simply ridiculous. Mr. Davis was captured in GA during that timeframe- on 10 May to be exact. (And Mr. Davis was captured near Irwinville, GA- not: "Irwin"). By 22 May, he was installed in Ft. Monroe, VA, where he was kept under extremely harsh conditions until October of 1865. He remained a prisoner there until 1867. So, obviously, I don't believe you. At the same time the trial of the Lincoln conspirators was being conducted, the case that eventually reached the USSC as ex parte Milligan got underway. Its decision was that it was unconstitutional for military tribunals to try citizens wherever the civilian court system was operating. In addition, it said that even in places where habeus corpus was suspended, military authorities could only hold citizens without charges. They could not try them, and, obviously, they could not execute them. Clearly, the courts in WDC were operating in 1865, so the tribunal set up to try the Lincoln conspirators would not have been allowed if the Milligan case had somehow been concluded before the tribunal was formed, and made its decision (And carried out the executions on the following day.) As an aside, it was a strange coindence that Lambdin Milligan filed his initial petition in a U.S. Circuit Court in Indiana on 10 May 1865, the same day that Jefferson Davis was captured. As I previously said, the populace as a whole was more interested in reconciliation than vengeance after the shooting stopped. Many were put off by how the trial of the conspirators was conducted, and there was little enthusiasm for such trials after 1865. As for the contention that a : "Dalliance" had taken place between Jefferson Davis and Mrs. Dorsey at Beauvoir, there is no indication, let alone any proof, of that happening. But like the ludicrous story that Mr. Davis was wearing a dress when captured, it was something that many in the north then (And apparently you now) were willing to believe. Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2012 02:59 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Feb 1st, 2013 05:28 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
PW Hess Member
|
'Lincoln' was excellent if you are a fan, as i am Otherwise most will regard it as a borefest. ALSO-Julie Harris played the best Mary Todd Lincoln in the play, 'The Last Of Mrs. Lincoln' Sally Field?? Try as she may, she'll always be a 'B' grade actress to me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Feb 1st, 2013 06:03 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
PW Hess- Would it qualify as a double entendre to say that an actress would have to be a little crazy to credibly play the role of Mary Todd Lincoln?  Last edited on Fri Feb 1st, 2013 06:11 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Feb 9th, 2013 01:05 am |
|
38th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Further illustrating what I said before about the difference between actual history and Hollywood's treatment of it, on the link below the screenwriter of the movie: "LINCOLN" admits to purposely distorting historical events. He says that this complies with: "Time honored and completely legitimate standards for the creation of historical drama." 'Lincoln' screenwriter fires back at Conn. congressman | Daily Record | dailyr Apparently, if it is labelled: "Historical drama," that allows movie makers to not only be loose with historical facts, but to knowingly falsify them in order to try to produce the desired effect on the unknowing audience. Editing: And here is an editorial from a Hartford, CT publication published after my original posting: Hollywood takes liberties with Connecticut's vote on slavery - Hartford Courant Last edited on Fri Feb 15th, 2013 02:45 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2013 06:03 am |
|
39th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Tonight is the night that the latest set of Oscars will be awarded. I am not a fan of Hollywood, so I seldom care about who wins or doesn't win such awards. But this year I have a definite wish when it comes to two of them. I cringe every time Hollywood produces an historical:"Blockbuster," because it is more than likely that history will be distorted. This turns out to be true once again with the nominated movie: "LINCOLN." Below is a link to another set of inaccuracies to add to those previously listed on this thread (And to more pointed out elsewhere). I hope that the movie: "LINCOLN" is not rewarded with the Best Picture award. 'Lincoln' Movie Review: 10 Ways It Distorts History (In spite of everything, this reviewer remains a fan). I have a greater wish that the screenwriter, Mr. Kushner, is not rewarded for his screenplay. To me, it is his transgression that is the greatest. It is one thing to embellish the facts a bit. That is to be expected in a movie, as is the introduction of fictional characters, and hopefully plausible dialogue. But it is something else entirely when one knows what the facts are, and chooses to PURPOSELY falsify them to try to produce a desired effect. (As Mr. Kushner does with the voting on the 13th Amendment ). It is, quite simply- a lie. It shows disdain for the history that it professes to portray. It also shows disdain for the audience, which is thought to be too ignorant to know the difference (This is sadly true in most cases). When someone comes along and points out the inaccuracies, Hollywood types like Mr. Kushner bristle with indignation. Like a few on this forum, they believe that they have some grand ideas to advance, and this is much more important than being concerned about the accuracy of some: "Minor facts" of history. But to those who are students of history, there are facts, and there are fictions. One should not be presented as the other, especially when it is done intentionally. Tony Kushner Stumbles Again | Crossroads As this reviewer points out, the true story was more compelling than the twisted one told by Mr. Kushner. James E. English - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This Connecticut Congressman cast one of the votes that was crucial in getting the 13th Amendment passed. Last edited on Sun Feb 24th, 2013 12:11 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2013 11:12 pm |
|
40th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
I've seen it twice, and the second viewing was as fascinating as the first. Great acting made believable characters. The reality of mixed support for the 13th amendment was a key message. Without Lincoln the politician, Lincoln the humanitarian would not have been.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:50 pm | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > LINCOLN | Top |
