Comments for Hope and Change: Spielberg on Lincoln at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 28 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 02:59:13 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14797 Sue: There's nothing Disneyfied about the historical record. Take a look at Madison's notes to the constitutional convention. Your view is that of the abolitionist leader, William Lloyd Garrison, with whom Frederick Douglass broke because of his view of the Constitution. Garrison believed that the Constitution was pro-slavery, and he also believed that it was better to rip the union asunder than to have a union with slaveowners. But how would breaking apart the union have helped the slaves? That is a question that Garrison never answered - and it is a question that you do not answer, either. Union WITH the southern states allowed for the ultimate abolition of slavery. Union WITHOUT the southern states would have permitted those states to perpetuate slavery as long as they wanted. You are misreading the 3/5ths clause. That clause concerns congressional representation, not human worth. If the slaves had been counted fully, rather than as 3/5ths, that would have given MORE congressional power to the slaveowning states. 3/5 was a compromise. The anti-slavery delegates to the constitutional convention would have preferred not to count the slaves at all, because then the southern states would have had fewer congressional representatives and therefore less political power. The Constitution is clearly anti-slavery on its face, and all the more clearly anti-slavery if you read the notes from the convention. I recommend reading the historical record; taking another look at the text of the Constitution; and considering whether the slaves really would have been better off had only the northern states formed a union. - Mr. Levy Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:16:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14791 "Had the Constitution banned slavery, the southern states would not have joined the Union." Maybe so, maybe not...or maybe this is the type of Disneyfied argument, supported by the 1776 musical construction of the Constitution, admittedly trotted out ad nauseam, but whose fatuity blinds us to the reality of the rape of our senses that happens whenever the Declaration and Constitution are juxtaposed. But even if that were the case, was it worth the cost, which we are still paying? Constitution in its very creation, was denying the notion of inalienable rights - it was ITSELF alienating those rights. Language - mentioning "persons held to service" in a founding document is a waffle which includes indentured and possibly other types of labor - so what? The "3/5" phrase speaks more loudly - and no, I don't need to hear how that actually denied slaveholding areas as much power as they might have had. They knew, and Madison CERTAINLY knew, that they could grow their own slaves if only the Constitution could be shut up about the whole damned "peculiar" institution. - Sue Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:00:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14771 Sue: Had the Constitution banned slavery, the southern states would not have joined the Union. Some of them, such as Charles Pinckney of SC, said so explicitly at the time of the convention. As it is, the Constitution goes as far as possible to condemn and circumscribe slavery without abolishing it. For instance, not a single word of the Constitution needs to be changed to allow a black man to become president. How could that be the case if the Constitution supported the enslavement of blacks? And why doesn't the word "slave" appear? Any reference to slaves uses the word "persons." The closest thing to a reference to slaves is "persons held to service," which suggests that the persons are not justly held to service. (The draft phrase was "bound to service," but that language was rejected in the convention because it could imply that the persons were rightfully bound.) This is not to say that the Framers of the Constitution couldn't have done more. I think they might have been able to do more as state legislators and molders of popular opinion after the Constitution was adopted. Then again, some of them did try. A great summary of the relevant history is in Lincoln's Cooper Union address, which can be found immediately with an online search. - Mr. Levy Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:46:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14736 Grump, Google "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" and see that protection of slavery was an explicitly ckted reason for secession of the Southern states. As much as they inveighed legitimately against abuses by the Northern states, the southern states' credibility was seriously undermied by their addiction to their "precious", their peculiar institution of slavery. By the same token, however, we should ascribe condemnation of Madison for failing to convey the inalienable right to liberty in the Constitution, thereby baking slavery into the Constitution. Even worse than slavery was the abusive slavebreeding that mushroomed after the import ban of 1808. And this was foreseeable, especially by Madison, whose notes on the Constitutional Convention clearly recognize the potential for slavebreeding to be an important force. All of which set up our country for perpetuation of eugenics and reproductive abuses on into the 21st century, along with the racist attitudes that never were quenched by the Civil War because they were baked into our country's consitution. And finally, our floundering on the liberty issue has had implications for the protection of life as an inalienable right. Madison's cooking slavery into the constitution had the unfortunate result that even today, critics like Obama can thumb nose at Constitution and abortionists can get away with murder. - Sue Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:16:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14721 In France they have apparently developed an auteur theory for film director Michael Bay -- he of the Transformer series. Bay got into troubled some years ago for THE ISLAND. I won't go into the plot, but in one scene a clone develops in what can only be called a man-sized natal sack. It is attacked and destroyed in a particularly vicious and graphic manner. The movie has the usual elaborate chase sequences but life issues are addressed. Mr. Bay backpedals from that movie to this day. On the flip side I can barely sit through a Hollywood movie in recent years. I don't doubt Mr. Miner's analysis. It rings true. It's all layered narratives now. All very complicated and nuanced. This week Mayor Rahm Immanual gave a speech comparing Obama to Lincoln. As did James Spader, an actor in the movie. And the screenwriter after a White House showing of the movie. And on and on. Remember the take away after the 2008 election: Government is cool again. And as we know, Cool is the new fascism. And the old fascism. I was not being entirely flip to a professor in my legal history course many years ago when I said that if we had just waited a few more decades for our Revolution, the evil of American slavery might have ended more peaceably. Instead we pursued the worst possible termination. Or an impersonal "History" did. Here at the end of our Constitutional Era we have a big problem. Or rather we simply must surrender to fatalism. Here in South East Michigan where left wing politics have always been literal-minded including in the Archdiocese of Detroit, the tone since the election has coarsened. Emboldened by a confirmation of political solutions as the only solution, hostility to Catholics is open and unrestrained from break rooms to parish halls. The genial black woman who is a Eucharistic minister where I attend the Mass has a 95 out of 100 chance of having voted for the president. And her mood since the election has been buoyant. Mine hasn't and she seems to have noticed. The situation is impossible throughout the metropolitan area. And there is nothing anyone can do. Because you can't talk about it even thought the the stakes -- the gauntlet of reproductive rights -- could not be greater. But then his excellency seems to believe that collecting old guns will end the violence in the city. Which it hasn't. As I say, mums the word. And as with abortion, silence is lethal. Lincoln was the more interesting of our two "founding" presidents. Certainly for dramatic purposes. But it comes at a cost. Let's not forget that even if every institution in America has. The tragic view of history and life is called for here. Things are not going well. - Graham Combs Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:03:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14704 Diaperman, Grump: The bete noire of those who love limited government is not Lincoln, who had tremendous respect for liberty and local government, but the Progressive Movement and its leaders, such as TR, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Ronald Pestritto has written a terrific overview of the subject: "The Birth of the Administrative State" Dan: Those are excellent reading suggestions (and I agree about the letter to Mrs. McCollough). I find also that many of Lincoln's lesser-known writings, such as his various letters and orders to his generals, are wonderful, too. These more pedestrian writings can surprise in how much they reveal of his prudence, magnanimity, and profundity. - Mr. Levy Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:17:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14698 I agree with Mr. Levy: read Lincoln's writings. Particularly: His farewell address when he left Springfield for Washington; the first inaugural; the peroration of the 1862 address to Congress; the Gettysburg address; the second inaugural; and his wartime letters (I think his letter to Fanny McCollough is a masterpiece). - Dan Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:26:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14697 HA! Thanks for the quote. I left the movie thinking that if that was indeed how the process actually occurred I felt a little better about our situation today. I'm sure politics has never been pure seeing as how it is engaged in by mere humans. - Louise Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:15:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14695 @ Louise: In one of the drafts I did of the column, I included the famous laws/sausages, generally (and improperly) attributed to Bismarck: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." - Brad Miner Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:58:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14694 I saw the movie last weekend and thought it was a bit like watching sausage being made (isn't that how the political process is often described?) I didn't realize going in that the focus was on the passage of the 13th amendment in the US House. I find watching movies about historical figures a bit unnerving because I'm never sure how much is Hollywood and how much is history. Brad, i had your concern as well...is this a message to someone we know? However, I couldn't come to a conclusion. I was, however, struck by Day-Lewis' emphasis on "unborn" in one of his talks about the importance of the amendment. It made me wonder if that was intentional on his part; a subtle prolife witness of sorts. I too thought he did a masterful job but alas, as I said above, i attend movies such as this with a large amount of reserve which keeps me from fully enjoying them. - Louise Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:53:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14691 @diaperman. Keen observation. Lincoln was a big-government President in the mold of Alexander Hamilton and obviously abhorred states' rights championed by Jefferson. We revere Jefferson but live today in Hamilton's America. - Grump Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:21:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14687 Honestly Grump goes way overboard in his trashing of Lincoln. (David Duke come on?) But I'm surprised Grump's not getting more support from the anti-federal govt. Catholic traditionalist crowd who frequents this page. If you hate what the federal government has become in terms of its size and scope, Lincoln is really your bete noir. He more than almost any one is the person who put the modern state on its growth trajectory. And more importantly he forever crushed the anti-federalist Calhounesque reading of the Constitution. - diaperman Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:16:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14681 @Brad, I admit my screen name is well earned. Upon re-reading your piece, I beg your pardon if I lumped you in with those who "perpetuate" the Lincoln myth. I certainly agree with you that Daniel Day-Lewis is a fine actor whose best performance was in "There Will be Blood." Those who suggest that Lincoln's writings and speeches depict a man of nobility and great character choose to overlook or are not aware of his many misdeeds, dimmed by the gloss of so-called "historians." - Grump Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:26:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14680 Correcting a small error, it was my grandfather's grandfather who died at the end of the Civil War. - Other Joe Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:22:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14679 dear brad, i TRUST YOUR RIGHT-FORMED CONSCIENCE AND THEREFORE I TRUST YOUR JUDGEMENT. i now can't wait to go see this movie. based on some of the typical negative reactions, i am surprised that any decent person still makes the effort to share their thoughts and insights with us here at this website. i often learn so much from the writers but am wondering if maybe the time to remove the comment section has come. i used to be afraid of dying without really being "known". seeing how many supposedly "good catholics" judge the dead as if they "know" something, i hope i am quickly forgotten, and if anything, Jesus remembered. and to some of the commenters, i have a question. does ANYTHING EVER make you happy, smile, omGOSH - CRACK UP LAUGHING? Yes! it says in Scripture (in the Prophet Isaiah) that the Messiah would be "a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief...." but the Gospels also speak of women and children surrounding and not having fear to approach Him. He must have been One Who captured the heart with great Joy. since when is Love ONLY Pain? it is unconscionable to call one's self a Christian and yet to day after day exude such negativity. it does not seem to matter what the post's subject is! there's a wise saying for the likes of these: GET OFF THE CROSS, WE NEED THE WOOD. (i.e., your comments are not Saving Any Souls.) i think i will stop now and only read the post from here out tho the thought of that grieves me. i loved hearing louise's comments and achilles, and other joe, and the one i could never spell: anthunasius (?) and i miss the contributor who is a Muslim young lady on her journey. but this is just getting ruined for me. - debby Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:56:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14678 Other Joe, you took my rough thoughts about Grump’s comment and breathed erudition and depth into them and articulated them as I wish I could have. Grump that was a terribly mis-weighted slandering of President Lincoln. Mr. Minor and Other Joe say it best, but your final jibe, at the bottom next to Obama? What the…..? Did Jimmy Carter outshine honest Abe? You seem victim or perpetrator of revisionist history. Hopefully you looked to the Root for some of your info on Lincoln? Professor Gates has a very strong opinion on the subject and he just might agree with you. I have come to expect much better comments from you than this. - Achilles Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:41:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14672 Just be thankful they didn't make Lincoln fight anti-abortion-rights-terrorists! - Jacob Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:36:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14671 @Grump: My grandfather read everything printed about Lincoln. The books alone filled a bookcase. His father fought in the Civil War, got sick and died before he could get home. The very detailed knowledge of that era was not invented by a couple of pointy heads. Only pointy heads feel comfortable reducing a man's life and moral searching to a handful of snarky (and cringingly superior) comments and motive assignments. I hereby second Mr. Miner's thoughts - above. I hope you never have to encounter such trivializing of your own moral searching. - Other Joe Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:25:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14670 Grump: Goodwin and Kushner, who became known only recently and who relatively few Americans have read, have nothing to do with the high view of Lincoln that most of us have. There is a reason that biographies of Lincoln are far more common than those of any other American. I read his papers and the greatness of the man stands forth. That he should, to some degree, possess the sensibilities of his time, should not be the basis of serious criticism. (Frederick Douglass, who delivered an oration after Lincoln's death calling Lincoln "preeminently a white man's president," still offered high praise for Lincoln's virtues, concluding: " In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us; we have been fastening ourselves to a name and fame imperishable and immortal...") In fact, we might thank G-d that Lincoln was not educated according to our sensibilities today. It is likely he would not have read the Bible, or if so, not the King James; nor would he have read Blackstone's Commentaries; nor would he have had a full understanding of liberty, equality, and the American Revolution. Your other criticisms are misplaced as well. I recommend reading Lincoln's papers directly in order to understand the man - Don Fehrenbacher's small, one-volume book or the Library of America's two-volume set. I also recommend Harry Jaffa's inimitable book, "Crisis of the House Divided." - Mr. Levy Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:04:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/hope-and-change-spielberg-on-lincoln.html#comment-14667 @Grump: Well it's interesting to me that you conclude from this review that I am perpetuating a myth. I suppose it's because I didn't put Great Emancipator in scare quotes. But the sheer sloppiness of the usage ("channeling a still unborn David Duke") in your pre-packaged rant is sad. If nothing else, your over-long, self-indulgent comment confirms your screen name. - Brad Miner Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:49:59 +0100