Lincoln truly was one of those rare great men that only comes along once every century. A complicated man who lived an incredibly hard life. A man who would sacrifice his reputation, and stretch the constitution in order to end the war and abolish slavery. No man other then Lincoln could have done it so successfully.
What’s amazing about this movie is you know the outcome, they end slavery but the fact that this movie keeps you on your toes like, “Come on! We need to get these votes,” just shows how astounding the story, the actors, and the director are.
The rancor-filled, tumultuous passage of the 13th Amendment in "Lincoln" runs a similar course to the tortuous adoption of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, portrayed in the movie "1776." At 2:34 of this clip, Lincoln (Day-Lewis as well) rises in righteous indignation and issues an unmistakable command: ruclips.net/video/1qjtugr2618/видео.html .
Daniel Day Lewis was astonishing as Lincoln. He is a remarkable actor. As was Sally Field was terrific as well, as Mrs. Lincoln. She is one of my favorite actresses. I was lucky enough to see her on stage at a dinner theater my mother managed and got to meet her afterward. She is very nice. And Tommy Lee Jones, who I ran into out camping with our respective families. And James Spader as Bilbo. There were scribes back then that recorded proceedings so there actually are a lot of documents in existence from both sides of the aisle. It is disheartening that we seem to be going backward in our politics and in our country these days. My state of Texas and home state of Florida are particularly awful.
Dessert (n) - A usually sweet course or dish, as of fruit, ice cream, or pastry, served at the end of a meal. Desert (n) - arid land with usually sparse vegetation. Desert (v) - to withdraw from or leave usually without intent to return. The final form is pronounced roughly the same as the form of the sweet treat known as dessert, with two letters S. However, when it is spelled with a single letter S, it is a verb with the above meaning. In this context especially, as an example, “he deserted his post.” To desert, that is, to abandon military duty without leave and often without intent to return. Hence, “deserter.” So when it’s spelled DESERT but pronounced DESSERT, it’s to run away. Fun English trick: often the accent is on the first syllable in a noun, but on the second in a verb with words that are spelled the same way. For example: CONvict = noun, a person who has been convicted. But, conVICT = verb, to find someone guilty. COMbat = noun, used to describe battle, or a fight. “He engaged in combat.” But, comBAT = verb, *to actually* fight or otherwise resist. “We must combat this great enemy.” Lastly, REFuse = noun, trash. Versus reFUSE = verb, to deny. (and in this example, notice how the words are completely unrelated, unlike the first two examples, but similarly to our desert/desert example) This is not an absolute rule, but there enough instances for it to be a possible hint if you’re unfamiliar with how a word is used in context when spoken. At last, our example. DESert = noun, a hot arid place. deSERT = verb to abandon a place.
wow that is very informative, thank you for sharing that, I'm trying to learn more and more, hopefully someday I'll have a pretty good handle of the language
Daniel Day Lewis had a very small part in the movie Gandhi. He had an amazing performance in this (Lincoln) as well as My Left Foot - also based on an actual person, Irish artist, Christie Brown.
"History is written by the victor." This is generally true, but when it comes to the history of the US Civil War, the defeated wrote the history. The vast majority of the history of the US Civil War is based on what is now referred to as "The Lost Cause" narrative or myth. It's only been in the past 30 years or so that the Lost Cause has truly been contested, and a lot of US politics is still up in arms over it. Simply put, one of the downsides of Lincoln's mercy towards the Confederate leadership, as well as the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow (anti-black) laws. It would take a novel's worth of content to barely scratch the surface, but the common view of the US Civil War as viewed though the Lost Cause Myth, and this is across the whole nation (even in the victorious Union states), is that A) the southerners fought for their 'rights' (specifically "state's rights") and economical reasons (such as tariffs), B) the south never had a chance to win, and C) slavery was dying even before the war, and would have died whether or not the war was fought in a generation or two. These are easily debunked by A) simply reading the declarations of secession of the representatives of Confederacy themselves and the fact that the word "tariff" is never once mentioned as a reason for seceding (in fact, South Carolina's representatives were quite clear that the US wasn't doing enough to contest the rights of other states to decide not to return fugitive slaves to their masters, so much for the champions of states' rights), B) a good look at the political/military realities of the war especially before 1864, and C) the simple fact that slavery was the single most profitable and valuable 'commodity' in the United States at the time that the Confederate states rebelled, slavery was worth more money than all the railroads, banks, factories across the United States (the whole United States, north and south) added together. (Slaves were already being put to in factories, so a reason often given by Lost Causers for slavery's "decline" is that factory work was replacing slaves is just silly.) The fact that a four year war still has an extremely strong and skewed effect on US society over 150 years later is thanks completely to this Lost Cause narrative... history written by those who lost the war, but won the peace.
If someone other than Andrew Johnson had been his vice president, reconstruction may have gone much better... tho it's also true the north would have lost interest as quickly... however more the reason it would have been better done immediately
I actually do think slavery would have eventually died out on its own within 50-75 years because of the economics of industrialization but no one could have known that when the war was fought. Farm equipment that was starting to be produced 20+ years afterward allowed work to be done with many, many fewer people. And if southern factory owners tried to use slaves instead of white labor -- poor southern whites would have made sure to elect legislators to end the practice. I'm not sure what kind of life would have awaited the freed slaves afterward though - perhaps even worse than existed under Jim Crow.
The Lost Cause was contested by the Confederates - many former confederates after the war, from the 1870s-1930s, of the ones still alive (Last one died in the mid 1950s), all contested the Lost Cause crap. Many living veterans disliked the statues being put up. It was the generations following the war that did and are making the Lost Cause.
@@CJ87317 You realize 50-75 years would mean that between 1915 and 1940 it would FINALLY end..... why the hell is that a remotely good thing? That makes it worse
Yes, there are verses in the Bible that endorse slavery, but not in the way the south was trying to use it. In other words, yeah, they took it out of context. And context is always important. Hope you get a chance to read parts of the Bible sometime- especially the Gospel (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). On another note, regarding your question about the word "deserting". To desert meant to run away from your post/army. The punishment for it was death, and here Lincoln is pardoning(forgiving) the boy, so he won't be executed. He did that for many such cases. What you were thinking of was "dessert," as in, sweets served after a meal. Even native English speakers can mix those two up, so don't worry about it. :) Love your reaction as always.
I was waiting for a reaction to this movie for a long time. Thank you. American slavery was a unique form, and has its own name. It didn’t start with race hatred, just the always present idea that some people, whether as a result of war or circumstances, can be made to work without compensation. As the South became more dependent on slavery, they had to justify it against growing repulsion to historical slavery. So they promoted the idea that the negro race was imbecilic and menacing. They dehumanized the negroes, as the Nazis dehumanized Jews. That is the ongoing horror. How we are always ready to label certain people as Others.
@@SStupendous that's right..I just checked out some pictures on the ol' google and the Vampire Hunter one was surely the only watchable choice..both were DVD bargain bin purchases..I bought a lot of $4 crap from that local place..one that I remember being pretty ok was "Cornered"..Steve Guttenberg is in it..and it's still ok..
Slaveholders were vampires and the poorer whites in the south who couldn't afford to have slaves were zombies who went to war to defend the institution of slavery that only benefited the rich.
I have visited both Ford's theatre (where Lincoln was shot) and the house across the street where he died (it has a name to but I forgot it) they have it looking like it did when he died and the bed is the same bed he died in, the room itself was roped off, but you could stand in the doorway (the one you can see in this movie) and see the bed. In the basement of the Theatre there was also the chair he was shot in, and fragments of his skull and the bullet that killed him, this was in the late 90s so it has changed since then.
No, he died on the Saturday after Good Friday, the day before Easter. April 15. That date is also commemorated as US Income Tax Deadline, the day Lincoln died and the day the Titanic sunk.
The Bible also DEFINITELY endorses the equality of all people. As with everything else in Scripture, it falls to Christians to decide how those conflicting messages interact with each other and what our takeaways should be. The slave-owners of the American South were very much twisting quotes from Scripture and taking them out of context in order to justify their racist and cruel practices to themselves and others.
Slavery in ancient Israel was very different from how other cultures practiced it. A slaveholder was required to educate their slaves and provide what we'd call a retirement pension for their old age. Most slaves that the Israelites held were Hebrew children of parents who could no longer provide for all their kids and the slave's family could buy their freedom back when they could afford to, no recourse.
Its been awhile since I've seen this movie. From what I remember learning in history classes, and things I've looked up on my own, abolishing slavery in America was more about weakening the South economicly than really caring about slaves and equal rights. Its somewhat of an illusion here in America. As is religion. An invisible friend isn't needed to be a good person and to treat others well. I've yet to encounter a religious person, in politics and personally, who doesn't expect others to conform to their own views to be equal. Very few people in the North, back during the Civil War, treated African Americans as equal. There has been progress but not enough in my opinion (and/or not quickly enough).
No, it was about slavery. The war was about ending slavery. The north was much wealthier than the south and there was no reason for them to weaken the economy of the south...the north needed their cotton too. Even during the war the south was always on the brink of going bankrupt. Many in the north may not have thought of blacks as totally equal, but you don't have to think of a group of people as being equal to know that the institution of slavery is evil and has no place in the future. To the north, the war was about ending slavery and to the south it was about keeping slavery first, and securing states rights second. Lincoln, himself, has always been against slavery but at the beginning of the war he was most concerned about ending the bloodshed as the war was taking astonishingly large numbers of lives.
@Angela You've been fed, as I was, a heavy dose of the Lost Cause Myth. There was absolutely NO REASON for the United States to sabotage certain states, because NO ONE GAINS from this, it's shooting oneself in the foot. This is Lost Cause rationality at it worse. The war is often called the War of Northern Aggression, even today, in my home state of South Carolina, but the fact is, it was 100% Southern Aggression. The southern states seceded when Lincoln was elected because part of his platform was to stop the westward expansion of slavery into the territories with absolutely no intention of inhibiting slavery where it already existed, thus the economies of the southern states that already had slavery in place had nothing to fear from Lincoln's election. But they wanted to see slavery spread across the entire nation from sea to shining sea, and some even advocated strongly for conquering Mexico and Latin America and taking chattel slavery with them. The war on the Union side was originally to preserve the Union, which morphed over time into a war of freedom for the slaves as well. The reason for this change was two-fold, first was that slavery the ONLY cause the southern states had to secede and they pushed for the war in many little ways even before the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter (including calling for 100,000 volunteers to fight the Union BEFORE firing on Fort Sumter, whereas Lincoln only called for 75,000 volunteers AFTER Fort Sumter), second was that the Union soldiers began to witness the inhumanity of slavery themselves on the march and wrote home about it. Get the job of reuniting the country done, and remove the reason for the war itself. The war on the Confederate side was 100% about slavery. Regardless of the wording, it is all tied, completely, to slavery. The only states they cared for the rights of were their own, as South Carolina clearly stated that the US government wasn't doing enough to force other states to return escaped slaves to their masters. Individual rights were the same for whites, north and south, before the war, but the Confederacy practically gutted many rights of individuals during the war. Confederates, soldiers and civilians, complained about this in their diaries. It is true that the vast, vast majority of whites, north and south were white supremacists. But this is a separate issue to that of being pro-slavery, anti-slavery, and abolitionist. This is why the Stevens scene "equality before the law and nothing more" was an incredibly important distinction. The law should protect all people equally, even if sociologically one group looks down on another.
@@blanketstarry7725 No, the south was actually far wealthier than the north, but that had nothing to do with the war anyway. The value of slaves as a whole was greater than all the railroads, banks, and factories of the entire United States at the time of secession. See my reply fo Angela for more information.
"As is religion. An invisible friend isn't needed to be a good person and to treat others well." While I'm inclined to agree, and argue against people that say we'd all be commiting crimes had it not been for a holy book, People who don't believe in religions but believe in human rights say the same - where does that supreme commandment - those human rights - come from, why should we believe they are human rights? Aren't they there because of the idea that we have no morality on our own without?
Hey look, I'm black... last comment lost me any like you would've got. Really insensitive to claim "Not enough" progress has been made. No comparison whatsoever can be made between the racism of the era and now. Don't need to be victimized by anyone, thank you.
11:00 Yes, lots of people snatch verses out of the Holy Scriptures to justify much ill behavior. They're doomed to be on the wrong trajectory if they do so without appreciating the context, the entire Scriptures.
Actually the British abolished slavery in the 1830s about 50 years before the US and were one of the major parties who started the whole African slave trade to begin with. History is a funny thing when it comes to pointing at others and saying they made mistakes. And Britain with her imperialistic history and all the atrocities that happened in their colonies is faaaaaaar from being blameless.
Odd that you say that, when what eventually became the United States was a British colony as recently as 232 years ago and the British government & economy benefited from slave labor directly because of it.
Slavery in Britain existed before the Roman occupation and until the 11th century, when the Norman conquest of England resulted in the gradual merger of the pre-conquest institution of slavery into serfdom, and all slaves were no longer recognised separately in English law or custom. By the middle of the 12th century, the institution of slavery as it had existed prior to the Norman conquest had fully disappeared, but other forms of unfree servitude continued for some centuries. There was a popular perception in the day that a slave which set foot in England was free. As early as 1577 William Harrison in his Description of England asserted that when slaves came to England "all note of servile bondage is utterly removed from them". Maybe not quite as clear cut as I put it, but England/Britain were certainly one of the fore-runners who took the first steps towards it.
@@antonbrakhage490 Beyond maintaining the border, support for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, state's rights, stopping the riots and getting back to normal? Are you sure you're thinking of 2020?
@@joshuagross3151 So basically all Trump's shit (where "maintaining the border" means "locking little kids in cages to punish their parents for being refugees" and "getting back to normal" means "ignoring covid while it kills hundreds of thousands of Americans"). Also, the party that's currently trying to punish Disney for daring not to back the "Don't say gay" bill supports the First Amendment? Right. And we all know that for Republicans, "stopping the riots" is just very thin code for "Make sure the (n-word) know their place."
"America, to this day, still hasn't had a female president" To wit, would you rather have a leader whose selling point is possession of primary skills required of their position, _OR_ one whose selling point is their sex? You should look into lectures and book readings from an American Scholar by the name of, "Thomas Dowell." He's covered slavery, abolition and war in minute detail. If you'd like some further reading into the issue, or a refresher course at least, his research is very fascinating. He's traced modern black American culture to Southern Whites around WWI, and before that, in the South of Wales alongside further suggestion it can be traced as far back as the Gaels in the sunset generation of Rome.
well it's funny cuz if sex is not the main selling point then why is only one sex getting the seat and not the other? my point simply was there is something wrong, cuz it can't be that out of 46 president not one is a female, and not for a lack of trying. I guess it could be but that would mean not one of those who tried was competent which honestly is an even bigger problem. I will look into it, I've got a lot of coursework already but will hopefully graduate soon and then I can just study whatever I want so hopefully then I can get into it.
@UCnUDDhBPBkebetSkDDNWpVg Technically, there's been several hundred _candidates._ The question then becomes "is there something wrong with the system _or the candidate?"_
If there is something wrong with several hundred candidates then that is a failure of the system. The system either isn’t capable of picking competence or just simply designed not to, so the system has failed or is wrong. Either way, not a great look.
@@AffanReacts That would be true under the assumption they were the most fitting to the role, both professionally and in the public eye. But considering most weren't even nominated as a primary party candidate, it's not really fair to blame the system on the shortcomings of an individual. When there's an ideal candidate, they'll be elected.
Several perfect candidates have existed, and will exist and they were and are all overlooked, and I’m not talking about women only. See, your statement also assumes that all candidates who were elected were perfect which we all know to be false. The system is very much flawed.
You said your religion teaches "all are equal". What is your religion? I'm pretty sure there are no major world religion that makes that claim - instead they teach some degree of exclusivity
It’s a major religion, and it’s a direct verse but that’s not important, all are equal and should be treated equally, that’s what we need to focus on 😊
@@simon_a.j.7255 Define "that"? Read up on what Jesus really said and believed, not what his zealous followers say. While all religions give at least some special treatment to their followers, my two indidivual examples are of people who believed none were better than any other. Anyone with an understanding knows that Jesus wouldn't approve of how Christians today focus so much on things they find "issues" like homosexuality, which Jesus never even mentioned - indicating its little importance, if any, to his doctrine and teachings. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Quotes like these don't directly say that "Everyone's equal" but it clearly shows a sense of people being equal - there's no division here, where richer people are exempted from having the SAME standards, everyone treats everyone well. DO to others what you'd have done to you... unless you're high class? No! Same applies to all. The second quote? If the man didn't beleive in equality he'd not have said something like that; that indicates that NOBODY will cast the first stone, as all are equally at fault, religious or not, jew or not. Please do read up on Guatama Buddha's teachings about people - he sure believed in their equality. Jesus? He was a socialist, if you dive into what he really thought and said. Don't take my word for it, do indeed search up evidence for why he's a socialist, or believed what I said he did - not going to make this comment pages long. He often told people they were wrong in how they followed a lot of the old testament's quotes (i.e. "An eye for an eye, tooh for a tooth") and how he believed it should actually be followed . One quote he'd have believed, being in the place he was, would be: "The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all." This is definitely about being equal.
@@SStupendous when I said ‘that’, I was repeating a word you used first. Thinking it would be easier for you to understand - but apparently it did not work. My original point was there are no major world religion that is all inclusive. No world religion teaches “believe whatever you want and do whatever you want - we are all going to Heaven”. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And in John 10:7-10 Jesus said, “Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All those who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” This exclusivity doesn’t get any clearer. In buddhism, it is taught that those who do not follow or believe in budda’s Eightfold Path are destine to go through an endless cycle of reincarnation (samsara). With each rebirth more painful than the next. This cycle can only be broken when one accepts and follows the Eightfold Path, then reaches enlightenment (nirvana). Again, this exclusivity does get any clearer. It is the same with Islam, you cannot be, for example, a Hindu who believes in thousands of gods and enter Islamic paradise, because Islam teaches strict monotheism.
Lincoln truly was one of those rare great men that only comes along once every century. A complicated man who lived an incredibly hard life. A man who would sacrifice his reputation, and stretch the constitution in order to end the war and abolish slavery. No man other then Lincoln could have done it so successfully.
@Chris Davis Truly a perfect storm of people at the right time.
What’s amazing about this movie is you know the outcome, they end slavery but the fact that this movie keeps you on your toes like, “Come on! We need to get these votes,” just shows how astounding the story, the actors, and the director are.
The rancor-filled, tumultuous passage of the 13th Amendment in "Lincoln" runs a similar course to the tortuous adoption of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, portrayed in the movie "1776." At 2:34 of this clip, Lincoln (Day-Lewis as well) rises in righteous indignation and issues an unmistakable command: ruclips.net/video/1qjtugr2618/видео.html .
Lincoln (2012) is one of my favorite Civil War films ever made! Not to mention it’s distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
What a movie! What a reaction!
It was great movie indeed
Insanely you're the only one doing a video on this great film
Well Done! Thank you for doing this. I haven't seen this since 2012 when it was in theaters, and I loved it.
Daniel Day Lewis was astonishing as Lincoln. He is a remarkable actor. As was Sally Field was terrific as well, as Mrs. Lincoln. She is one of my favorite actresses. I was lucky enough to see her on stage at a dinner theater my mother managed and got to meet her afterward. She is very nice. And Tommy Lee Jones, who I ran into out camping with our respective families. And James Spader as Bilbo.
There were scribes back then that recorded proceedings so there actually are a lot of documents in existence from both sides of the aisle. It is disheartening that we seem to be going backward in our politics and in our country these days. My state of Texas and home state of Florida are particularly awful.
Texas *and* Florida? That's the conservative double-whammy!
@@hockema56 You're right! Two of the best states in the union!
Daniel Day Lewis is an excellent actor. My favorite movie of his is The Last of the Mohicans. As is Sally Field (she played his wife).
Dessert (n) - A usually sweet course or dish, as of fruit, ice cream, or pastry, served at the end of a meal.
Desert (n) - arid land with usually sparse vegetation.
Desert (v) - to withdraw from or leave usually without intent to return.
The final form is pronounced roughly the same as the form of the sweet treat known as dessert, with two letters S. However, when it is spelled with a single letter S, it is a verb with the above meaning.
In this context especially, as an example, “he deserted his post.” To desert, that is, to abandon military duty without leave and often without intent to return.
Hence, “deserter.”
So when it’s spelled DESERT but pronounced DESSERT, it’s to run away.
Fun English trick: often the accent is on the first syllable in a noun, but on the second in a verb with words that are spelled the same way.
For example:
CONvict = noun, a person who has been convicted.
But, conVICT = verb, to find someone guilty.
COMbat = noun, used to describe battle, or a fight. “He engaged in combat.”
But, comBAT = verb, *to actually* fight or otherwise resist. “We must combat this great enemy.”
Lastly, REFuse = noun, trash.
Versus reFUSE = verb, to deny.
(and in this example, notice how the words are completely unrelated, unlike the first two examples, but similarly to our desert/desert example)
This is not an absolute rule, but there enough instances for it to be a possible hint if you’re unfamiliar with how a word is used in context when spoken.
At last, our example.
DESert = noun, a hot arid place.
deSERT = verb to abandon a place.
wow that is very informative, thank you for sharing that, I'm trying to learn more and more, hopefully someday I'll have a pretty good handle of the language
So, don't expect a fine dessert as your reward for desertion?
Daniel Day Lewis had a very small part in the movie Gandhi. He had an amazing performance in this (Lincoln) as well as My Left Foot - also based on an actual person, Irish artist, Christie Brown.
16:21 Thats the actor who played thranduil in the Hobbit-Trilogy if you meant the tall one.
23:06 one of the greatest scenes in movie history
"History is written by the victor."
This is generally true, but when it comes to the history of the US Civil War, the defeated wrote the history. The vast majority of the history of the US Civil War is based on what is now referred to as "The Lost Cause" narrative or myth.
It's only been in the past 30 years or so that the Lost Cause has truly been contested, and a lot of US politics is still up in arms over it. Simply put, one of the downsides of Lincoln's mercy towards the Confederate leadership, as well as the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow (anti-black) laws.
It would take a novel's worth of content to barely scratch the surface, but the common view of the US Civil War as viewed though the Lost Cause Myth, and this is across the whole nation (even in the victorious Union states), is that
A) the southerners fought for their 'rights' (specifically "state's rights") and economical reasons (such as tariffs),
B) the south never had a chance to win, and
C) slavery was dying even before the war, and would have died whether or not the war was fought in a generation or two.
These are easily debunked by
A) simply reading the declarations of secession of the representatives of Confederacy themselves and the fact that the word "tariff" is never once mentioned as a reason for seceding (in fact, South Carolina's representatives were quite clear that the US wasn't doing enough to contest the rights of other states to decide not to return fugitive slaves to their masters, so much for the champions of states' rights),
B) a good look at the political/military realities of the war especially before 1864, and
C) the simple fact that slavery was the single most profitable and valuable 'commodity' in the United States at the time that the Confederate states rebelled, slavery was worth more money than all the railroads, banks, factories across the United States (the whole United States, north and south) added together. (Slaves were already being put to in factories, so a reason often given by Lost Causers for slavery's "decline" is that factory work was replacing slaves is just silly.)
The fact that a four year war still has an extremely strong and skewed effect on US society over 150 years later is thanks completely to this Lost Cause narrative... history written by those who lost the war, but won the peace.
If someone other than Andrew Johnson had been his vice president, reconstruction may have gone much better... tho it's also true the north would have lost interest as quickly... however more the reason it would have been better done immediately
Would that count for the poorer men who fought for the Confederacy too? Even ones without slaves or the means to buy them?
I actually do think slavery would have eventually died out on its own within 50-75 years because of the economics of industrialization but no one could have known that when the war was fought. Farm equipment that was starting to be produced 20+ years afterward allowed work to be done with many, many fewer people. And if southern factory owners tried to use slaves instead of white labor -- poor southern whites would have made sure to elect legislators to end the practice.
I'm not sure what kind of life would have awaited the freed slaves afterward though - perhaps even worse than existed under Jim Crow.
The Lost Cause was contested by the Confederates - many former confederates after the war, from the 1870s-1930s, of the ones still alive (Last one died in the mid 1950s), all contested the Lost Cause crap. Many living veterans disliked the statues being put up. It was the generations following the war that did and are making the Lost Cause.
@@CJ87317 You realize 50-75 years would mean that between 1915 and 1940 it would FINALLY end..... why the hell is that a remotely good thing? That makes it worse
Great movie great actors ,,
39:16: Daniel Day-Lewis, he also played the "butcher" in Gangs of New York (2002) and was the main character in "There will be blood (2007).
I haven’t seen those films but might check them out.
Yes, there are verses in the Bible that endorse slavery, but not in the way the south was trying to use it. In other words, yeah, they took it out of context. And context is always important. Hope you get a chance to read parts of the Bible sometime- especially the Gospel (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
On another note, regarding your question about the word "deserting". To desert meant to run away from your post/army. The punishment for it was death, and here Lincoln is pardoning(forgiving) the boy, so he won't be executed. He did that for many such cases. What you were thinking of was "dessert," as in, sweets served after a meal. Even native English speakers can mix those two up, so don't worry about it. :) Love your reaction as always.
I was waiting for a reaction to this movie for a long time. Thank you. American slavery was a unique form, and has its own name. It didn’t start with race hatred, just the always present idea that some people, whether as a result of war or circumstances, can be made to work without compensation. As the South became more dependent on slavery, they had to justify it against growing repulsion to historical slavery. So they promoted the idea that the negro race was imbecilic and menacing. They dehumanized the negroes, as the Nazis dehumanized Jews. That is the ongoing horror. How we are always ready to label certain people as Others.
Uniforms" NO. The United States Army wore blue. The insurrectionists wore gray.
Thank you x
there's also Lincoln vs Zombies and Lincoln vs Vampires..one of them is actually pretty well made..I can't recall which though..
oh nice so those are about the fourteenth amendment then 😂
Second one is better, first one sucks shit
@@SStupendous that's right..I just checked out some pictures on the ol' google and the Vampire Hunter one was surely the only watchable choice..both were DVD bargain bin purchases..I bought a lot of $4 crap from that local place..one that I remember being pretty ok was "Cornered"..Steve Guttenberg is in it..and it's still ok..
@@michaelhawk-fitz7563 I have extreme sympathies for anyone who spent anything seeing either film
Slaveholders were vampires and the poorer whites in the south who couldn't afford to have slaves were zombies who went to war to defend the institution of slavery that only benefited the rich.
I'm atheist, but I know no good Christian would use the Bible as an excuse for slavery. Lincoln was the GOAT.
I'm not Christina either and I do agree, we often blame others, whether it be people or religions but often it is just us where the fault lies.
I have visited both Ford's theatre (where Lincoln was shot) and the house across the street where he died (it has a name to but I forgot it) they have it looking like it did when he died and the bed is the same bed he died in, the room itself was roped off, but you could stand in the doorway (the one you can see in this movie) and see the bed. In the basement of the Theatre there was also the chair he was shot in, and fragments of his skull and the bullet that killed him, this was in the late 90s so it has changed since then.
I visited the Capitol to, but I was smart enough to go during visiting hours.
That’s very interesting, I do like seeing old building particularly ones with historic importance even though it was quite tragic.
Lincoln died on Palm Sunday
No, he died on the Saturday after Good Friday, the day before Easter. April 15. That date is also commemorated as US Income Tax Deadline, the day Lincoln died and the day the Titanic sunk.
Awesome reaction, can you please watch a movie called THE FOUNDER.
I’ll add it to the list, thanks for the suggestion
@@AffanReacts appreciate it so much
Imagine what would of happened if he had not been assassinated🤯
That's the conundrum of history.
@@billolsen4360 yes, Johnson sucked👎👎
Oh, the Bible DEFINITELY endorses slavery. Great reaction video to a great film. Subscribing for this one.
The Bible also DEFINITELY endorses the equality of all people. As with everything else in Scripture, it falls to Christians to decide how those conflicting messages interact with each other and what our takeaways should be.
The slave-owners of the American South were very much twisting quotes from Scripture and taking them out of context in order to justify their racist and cruel practices to themselves and others.
Slavery in ancient Israel was very different from how other cultures practiced it. A slaveholder was required to educate their slaves and provide what we'd call a retirement pension for their old age. Most slaves that the Israelites held were Hebrew children of parents who could no longer provide for all their kids and the slave's family could buy their freedom back when they could afford to, no recourse.
Apparently, pretend Bible scholar Lewis Breland has no response.
Its been awhile since I've seen this movie. From what I remember learning in history classes, and things I've looked up on my own, abolishing slavery in America was more about weakening the South economicly than really caring about slaves and equal rights. Its somewhat of an illusion here in America. As is religion. An invisible friend isn't needed to be a good person and to treat others well. I've yet to encounter a religious person, in politics and personally, who doesn't expect others to conform to their own views to be equal. Very few people in the North, back during the Civil War, treated African Americans as equal. There has been progress but not enough in my opinion (and/or not quickly enough).
No, it was about slavery. The war was about ending slavery. The north was much wealthier than the south and there was no reason for them to weaken the economy of the south...the north needed their cotton too. Even during the war the south was always on the brink of going bankrupt. Many in the north may not have thought of blacks as totally equal, but you don't have to think of a group of people as being equal to know that the institution of slavery is evil and has no place in the future. To the north, the war was about ending slavery and to the south it was about keeping slavery first, and securing states rights second. Lincoln, himself, has always been against slavery but at the beginning of the war he was most concerned about ending the bloodshed as the war was taking astonishingly large numbers of lives.
@Angela You've been fed, as I was, a heavy dose of the Lost Cause Myth. There was absolutely NO REASON for the United States to sabotage certain states, because NO ONE GAINS from this, it's shooting oneself in the foot. This is Lost Cause rationality at it worse. The war is often called the War of Northern Aggression, even today, in my home state of South Carolina, but the fact is, it was 100% Southern Aggression.
The southern states seceded when Lincoln was elected because part of his platform was to stop the westward expansion of slavery into the territories with absolutely no intention of inhibiting slavery where it already existed, thus the economies of the southern states that already had slavery in place had nothing to fear from Lincoln's election. But they wanted to see slavery spread across the entire nation from sea to shining sea, and some even advocated strongly for conquering Mexico and Latin America and taking chattel slavery with them.
The war on the Union side was originally to preserve the Union, which morphed over time into a war of freedom for the slaves as well. The reason for this change was two-fold, first was that slavery the ONLY cause the southern states had to secede and they pushed for the war in many little ways even before the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter (including calling for 100,000 volunteers to fight the Union BEFORE firing on Fort Sumter, whereas Lincoln only called for 75,000 volunteers AFTER Fort Sumter), second was that the Union soldiers began to witness the inhumanity of slavery themselves on the march and wrote home about it. Get the job of reuniting the country done, and remove the reason for the war itself.
The war on the Confederate side was 100% about slavery. Regardless of the wording, it is all tied, completely, to slavery. The only states they cared for the rights of were their own, as South Carolina clearly stated that the US government wasn't doing enough to force other states to return escaped slaves to their masters.
Individual rights were the same for whites, north and south, before the war, but the Confederacy practically gutted many rights of individuals during the war. Confederates, soldiers and civilians, complained about this in their diaries.
It is true that the vast, vast majority of whites, north and south were white supremacists. But this is a separate issue to that of being pro-slavery, anti-slavery, and abolitionist.
This is why the Stevens scene "equality before the law and nothing more" was an incredibly important distinction. The law should protect all people equally, even if sociologically one group looks down on another.
@@blanketstarry7725 No, the south was actually far wealthier than the north, but that had nothing to do with the war anyway. The value of slaves as a whole was greater than all the railroads, banks, and factories of the entire United States at the time of secession.
See my reply fo Angela for more information.
"As is religion. An invisible friend isn't needed to be a good person and to treat others well."
While I'm inclined to agree, and argue against people that say we'd all be commiting crimes had it not been for a holy book, People who don't believe in religions but believe in human rights say the same - where does that supreme commandment - those human rights - come from, why should we believe they are human rights? Aren't they there because of the idea that we have no morality on our own without?
Hey look, I'm black... last comment lost me any like you would've got. Really insensitive to claim "Not enough" progress has been made. No comparison whatsoever can be made between the racism of the era and now. Don't need to be victimized by anyone, thank you.
11:00 Yes, lots of people snatch verses out of the Holy Scriptures to justify much ill behavior. They're doomed to be on the wrong trajectory if they do so without appreciating the context, the entire Scriptures.
Love you Daniel from your American family and also the US FAMILY- proud to have you on board. 😊😊😊😈😈😈🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲❤️❤️❤️💩💩💩
Slavery is stupid. Glad I'm British. We've been slave free for 1,000yrs and forced the abolishment of slavery on other countries!
Actually the British abolished slavery in the 1830s about 50 years before the US and were one of the major parties who started the whole African slave trade to begin with. History is a funny thing when it comes to pointing at others and saying they made mistakes. And Britain with her imperialistic history and all the atrocities that happened in their colonies is faaaaaaar from being blameless.
Interesting take on history. I guess, like gender these days, history can be fluid.
@@timbomania8535 When you say African slave trade, surely you mean the transatlantic trade. As far as Africa goes, slavery predates Britannia.
Odd that you say that, when what eventually became the United States was a British colony as recently as 232 years ago and the British government & economy benefited from slave labor directly because of it.
Slavery in Britain existed before the Roman occupation and until the 11th century, when the Norman conquest of England resulted in the gradual merger of the pre-conquest institution of slavery into serfdom, and all slaves were no longer recognised separately in English law or custom. By the middle of the 12th century, the institution of slavery as it had existed prior to the Norman conquest had fully disappeared, but other forms of unfree servitude continued for some centuries.
There was a popular perception in the day that a slave which set foot in England was free. As early as 1577 William Harrison in his Description of England asserted that when slaves came to England "all note of servile bondage is utterly removed from them".
Maybe not quite as clear cut as I put it, but England/Britain were certainly one of the fore-runners who took the first steps towards it.
It is weird watching a time when Republicans stood for something besides Donald Trump.
A little prejudicial, but think whatever you want, I guess.
@@joshuagross3151 They literally had no party platform in 2020 other than supporting Trump. I calls it like I sees it.
@@antonbrakhage490 Beyond maintaining the border, support for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, state's rights, stopping the riots and getting back to normal? Are you sure you're thinking of 2020?
@@joshuagross3151 So basically all Trump's shit (where "maintaining the border" means "locking little kids in cages to punish their parents for being refugees" and "getting back to normal" means "ignoring covid while it kills hundreds of thousands of Americans").
Also, the party that's currently trying to punish Disney for daring not to back the "Don't say gay" bill supports the First Amendment? Right.
And we all know that for Republicans, "stopping the riots" is just very thin code for "Make sure the (n-word) know their place."
It's only been five, six years mate, slow down
"America, to this day, still hasn't had a female president"
To wit, would you rather have a leader whose selling point is possession of primary skills required of their position, _OR_ one whose selling point is their sex?
You should look into lectures and book readings from an American Scholar by the name of, "Thomas Dowell." He's covered slavery, abolition and war in minute detail. If you'd like some further reading into the issue, or a refresher course at least, his research is very fascinating. He's traced modern black American culture to Southern Whites around WWI, and before that, in the South of Wales alongside further suggestion it can be traced as far back as the Gaels in the sunset generation of Rome.
well it's funny cuz if sex is not the main selling point then why is only one sex getting the seat and not the other? my point simply was there is something wrong, cuz it can't be that out of 46 president not one is a female, and not for a lack of trying. I guess it could be but that would mean not one of those who tried was competent which honestly is an even bigger problem.
I will look into it, I've got a lot of coursework already but will hopefully graduate soon and then I can just study whatever I want so hopefully then I can get into it.
@UCnUDDhBPBkebetSkDDNWpVg Technically, there's been several hundred _candidates._
The question then becomes "is there something wrong with the system _or the candidate?"_
If there is something wrong with several hundred candidates then that is a failure of the system. The system either isn’t capable of picking competence or just simply designed not to, so the system has failed or is wrong. Either way, not a great look.
@@AffanReacts That would be true under the assumption they were the most fitting to the role, both professionally and in the public eye. But considering most weren't even nominated as a primary party candidate, it's not really fair to blame the system on the shortcomings of an individual. When there's an ideal candidate, they'll be elected.
Several perfect candidates have existed, and will exist and they were and are all overlooked, and I’m not talking about women only. See, your statement also assumes that all candidates who were elected were perfect which we all know to be false. The system is very much flawed.
You said your religion teaches "all are equal". What is your religion? I'm pretty sure there are no major world religion that makes that claim - instead they teach some degree of exclusivity
It’s a major religion, and it’s a direct verse but that’s not important, all are equal and should be treated equally, that’s what we need to focus on 😊
You do realize Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism teach that... Jesus and Gaumata Buddha definitely believed that.
@@SStupendous show me proof where they said that
@@simon_a.j.7255 Define "that"? Read up on what Jesus really said and believed, not what his zealous followers say. While all religions give at least some special treatment to their followers, my two indidivual examples are of people who believed none were better than any other. Anyone with an understanding knows that Jesus wouldn't approve of how Christians today focus so much on things they find "issues" like homosexuality, which Jesus never even mentioned - indicating its little importance, if any, to his doctrine and teachings.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Quotes like these don't directly say that "Everyone's equal" but it clearly shows a sense of people being equal - there's no division here, where richer people are exempted from having the SAME standards, everyone treats everyone well. DO to others what you'd have done to you... unless you're high class? No! Same applies to all.
The second quote? If the man didn't beleive in equality he'd not have said something like that; that indicates that NOBODY will cast the first stone, as all are equally at fault, religious or not, jew or not.
Please do read up on Guatama Buddha's teachings about people - he sure believed in their equality. Jesus? He was a socialist, if you dive into what he really thought and said. Don't take my word for it, do indeed search up evidence for why he's a socialist, or believed what I said he did - not going to make this comment pages long.
He often told people they were wrong in how they followed a lot of the old testament's quotes (i.e. "An eye for an eye, tooh for a tooth") and how he believed it should actually be followed . One quote he'd have believed, being in the place he was, would be:
"The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all."
This is definitely about being equal.
@@SStupendous when I said ‘that’, I was repeating a word you used first. Thinking it would be easier for you to understand - but apparently it did not work. My original point was there are no major world religion that is all inclusive. No world religion teaches “believe whatever you want and do whatever you want - we are all going to Heaven”. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And in John 10:7-10 Jesus said, “Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All those who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” This exclusivity doesn’t get any clearer. In buddhism, it is taught that those who do not follow or believe in budda’s Eightfold Path are destine to go through an endless cycle of reincarnation (samsara). With each rebirth more painful than the next. This cycle can only be broken when one accepts and follows the Eightfold Path, then reaches enlightenment (nirvana). Again, this exclusivity does get any clearer. It is the same with Islam, you cannot be, for example, a Hindu who believes in thousands of gods and enter Islamic paradise, because Islam teaches strict monotheism.
Reviewer's attitude is far too jocular and not at all austere commensurate with the gravity of the situation.
18:34 how does lincoln make it more complicated lol...it's you who has problems understanding basic sentences.....
Ah cool dude