>Everyone who opposed the thirteenth amendment was just being racist
This movie pissed me off so much man. Slavery was so much more complicated than "Oh blacks aren't real people, fuck em hahahaha". The way they portrayed the representatives in this movie is completely inaccurate. It was a lot more based on politics and peace with the confederacy than it was "Black people don't deserve to be free". The only time anything other than racism was mentioned in defense of slavery was when Rorschach at the end brought up the economy of the South, and that was one sentence that was quickly swept under the rug.
Instead of the movie being about the importance of fundamental human rights and the lengths we must go as a society to fix injustice, we get a movie about "These guys in the past were way racist, luckily Lincoln came around and showed them a thing or two".
Fuck hackberg.
>>67779849
That and it was a boring fucking film
>>67779849
>It was a lot more based on politics and peace with the confederacy
Did you miss that whole "so far as I know" subplot about Confederacy representatives that Lincoln lied about so that he could get the moderate Republican vote?
>>67780134
He didn't even watch the movie. It's obvious.
>>67780134
I was referring to the portrayal of the democrats which every single one of them was portrayed as something along the lines of
"What? Black people equal? That's preposterous!"
"What's next? Black people voting? WOMEN voting!?"
"What will black people even do with freedom what the fuck man?"
Where the democrats were all from states where slavery was abolished and were arguing for states rights and peace bartering with the South. Which yes, peace bartering was brought up, but that wasn't their main argument. Their main argument was "I'm a racist and I have racist views, therefore fuck the blacks"
>>67780310
>every single one of them
There were plenty of defectors too
>>67780679
I'm talking about the democrats who opposed the 13th amendment you dense fuck.
My problem is the oversimplification of the antagonists. Not the people that side with the protagonist.
>>67780754
IIRC Lee Pace's character mentions habeas corpus and calls Lincoln a tyrant for not respecting states' rights
>>67781001
He didn't even watch the movie. It's obvious.
>>67781001
Yeah, followed by "BLACKS AREN'T REAL PEOPLE!!!!"
>>67781077
Are you saying that that wasn't also their main argument?
>>67781131
It's completely overshadowed by "muh racism"
>>67781207
>I will focus on things that upset me the most
The only good thing about Lincoln was the acting in the film they all did a great job other than that it's shit.
>>67781246
If you're quoting Spielberg on the making of Lincoln, that quote is accurate.
>>67781369
>Spielberg wrote the film
An Anti-Zionist Jew did actually
>“These men flocked to the plains, and were rather stimulated than retarded by the danger of an Indian war. This was another potent agency in producing the result we enjoy to-day, in having in so short a time replaced the wild buffaloes by more numerous herds of tame cattle, and by substituting for the useless Indians the intelligent owners of productive farms and cattle-ranches.”
>― William T. Sherman
Everyone was racist as fuck back then, but no one could be motivated by racist ideas? That's very faulty logic.
>>67780310
but the majority opinion at the time, even among supposedly "liberal" republicans, was like that.
Blacks were actually seen as inherently, genetically unequal. many of the republicans of the day, and basically all of the democrats, believed that. Hell, in Lincoln's private letters, there is some fairly convincing evidence that he believed it.
>>67781521
They weren't really wrong.
They only better than us in some niche areas. Like sun/malaria resistance.
well black's AREN'T really people, and still aren't today
Noone can live near & associate with them while thinking they are people
Only I watched the movie in this thread and I just joined
>>67779849
Bullshit. Do you actually know anything about this historical time period, or are you just one of those inbred rednecks from /pol/ always shrilly screaming about "WAAAHHH, the South was the best! Lincoln's a bully for buttsmacking us! It wasn't fair! All we wanted to do was commit treason! The South will rise again! WAAAHHH!"
>the civil war wasn't incited through racism, it was literally only business and government related
American education at its finest
>>67781747
Hi Spielberg
>>67781679
So then what's OP's problem? If the portrayal is correct, and it was all about the blacks being inferior to the democrats, then why does this thread exist? Bait?
>>67781859
OP is mad that Spielberg made a movie about American politics.
>>67781679
And we are better at resisting AIDS, so its a wash.
>>67779849
The amendment shouldn't have made blacks citizens.
It should have included a ban on blacks living in the United States.
A mandatory deportation should have taken effect.
Hardly /pol/ (they're shitty neckbeards), but the literal argument for Confederate slavery on moral grounds was based in racist rhetoric. It was historically accurate.
Anyway before /pol/ cries "muh jews" being against the confederacy remember that the Confederate foreign secretary and Jefferson Davis' closest adviser was Jewish
>>67781924
>in racist rhetoric
Was based on the universal view of blacks shared all around the world including by the blacks, who themselves practiced mass slavery.
>>67781446
Georgia:
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi:
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Texas:
>She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
South Carolina:
>...its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States
should i continue? It's hilarious how revisionists try to paint the south as "states rights" when the biggest and most important states right for them was slavery. all my quotes are from the state's declarations of secession
>>67781924
The movie wasn't about the confederacy though. It was about politics in the Union where all slaves were freed.
>>67781973
This is a shillbot copy-paste.
When Obama is out of the white house hopefully this MUH CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT 1 THING!!!!! agenda will fall off the top of the NSA's opinion pushing docket.
It takes a real willful ignorance to think the Civil War had NOTHING to do with race and slavery. If you think the average illiterate hick in Mississippi gave a shit about states rights and not the ability to work people without paying them and keep the social status quo, or was just riled up by angry rhetoric you're delusional
It's like believing every man who fought in the Revolution was a great thinker fighting for democracy, instead of guys who didn't want to pay high taxes and were riled up over embellished British wrong doings
>>67781997
He didn't even watch the movie. It's obvious.
>>67782024
nice rebuttal. evidence and facts are all part of the shill agenda
EXPLOITATIVE
S
H
L
O
C
K
>>67782142
Only rich folk held slaves retard
The war wasn't fought over the right of rich folk to hold slaves
The revolution was started by edgy liberal progressives. There was no real "british wrong doing" or "high taxes"
Merely a lack of loyalty to Britain.
>>67782024
fuck off, buddy.
Yes, the civil war was about more than 1 thing. So then why are you trying to argue that it is only about 1 thing: state's rights?
The issue was manifold, but indisputably, chief among the problems were slavery, state's rights, and economic disputes over levied tariffs that hurt agriculture and helped commerce. Those are the big three.
So then why do /pol/tards try to act like it was never about slavery, and ONLY about "M-MUH! M-M-MUH! MUH STATE'S RIGHTS!"
I also love that your argument for why people think slavery was the main cause of the war is Obama and the NSA and a horrible New World Order Illuminati Freemason consiracy, whent that argument (that slavery is the overarching reason for the war) has been around since before the war was even started, often used by the Southern Democrats in their propaganda to drum up support for secession.
>>67782241
>Only rich folk held slaves
>The war wasn't fought over the right of rich folk to hold slaves
... Uh, yea, it was. As all the issues of the war only affected rich folk.
>>67782331
The war was fought over the federal government being almost entirely funded by taxes on the south
>>67782241
You show a complete lack of understanding of history. Congrats.
Hint: just because the majority of slaves were owned by the rich doesn't mean all the slaves were.
2nd hint: just because the majority of the poor didn't own slaves doesn't mean they didn't aspire to do so. Owning a slave was a status symbol. They all wanted one, and they all supported slavery. They thought that slavery would be abolished was unconscionable to them.
3rd hint: the only thing that elevated the poor whites above the slaves was the actual institution of slavery. The last thing the poor whites wanted was for the slaves to be freed, as then they'd actually be worse off, or at least equal to, the majority of the slaves.
>>67782389
Which mostly affected, say it with me now, rich folk.
>>67782389
Why didn't the North pay into it if they were so industrialized and rich?
>>67782241
>Only rich folk held slaves retard
I know that, but it still put blacks at a lower social rung than poor whites, and we know from the 150 years after the war that poor whites love that.
>The war wasn't fought over the right of rich folk to hold slaves
Are you serious?
>The revolution was started by edgy liberal progressives. There was no real "british wrong doing" or "high taxes". Merely a lack of loyalty to Britain.
Thats what I said. Political minds started it and the public joined in for lesser reasons
>>67782620
because they were run by south hating abolitionists who wanted to see whites genocided by blacks
Kinda like today the country is run by progressives who want to see the whites genocided by mexicans & asians.
>>67782478
> The last thing the poor whites wanted was for the slaves to be freed, as then they'd actually be worse off, or at least equal to, the majority of the slaves.
Complete and utter nonsense
You seem to believe some sort of "whitey was racist!" can sum up everything
I watched it expecting to see Lincoln portrayed as a human being with flaws, instead I got the messiah for SJWs
>>67782741
what sort of "human being" would start a pointless brothers war?
>>67782710
Now why are broad, hyperbolic statements like a "white genocide" acceptable to you but the idea that racial division in society was a factor in the civil war is nonsense
>>67782710
I don't mean "whitey is racist", though the whites were, as mentioned in this thread already by another anon, often quite racist, even in the north.
What I mean is that economically and socially speaking, the only real thing that separated the majority of the poor whites, who were sustenance farmers for the most part, from the slaves, who were sustenance farmers for the most part, was the actual institution involved. Once that institution was removed, many of the whites feared, the blacks would be able to destroy their way of life by taking away their jobs.
There was a racial element to the poor whites' fears, but really, it was more fear of social chaos and economic strife that worried them.
>>67779849
Lincoln fucking hated blacks.
>Spielberg in charge of political films
Never again.
>>67783034
Thats based at least partly in fact though. Shmaltzy as hell but not untrue
>>67783004
subsistence farming*
>>67783004
The "fear" would be more about blacks voting as a block & taking over government, as they were majorities in everywhere. As well as blacks engaging in violence against whites.
Which were a 100% legitimate fears, which now today are considering the norm noone is allowed to talk about.
>>67783293
>which now today are considering the norm noone is allowed to talk about.
Legal citizens voting and having a say in local government is something we should "talk about"?
>>67783293
also quite true, yes.
though the poorer whites, the true hillbillies, probably cared less about the political impact, since they were already pretty much disenfranchised at this time.
Still though, yes, that was definitely another concern.
>>67783417
Once first world cities turning into slums is not an issue? Just abandon every city ever built by whites as non-whites take it over?
Which country do you intend to flee to, once the whole country is taken over?
That's what the civil war was about, the south defending its home, but whites defending themselves is an unacceptable crime nowadays.
>>67783599
American cities are free for any american to live in.
>>67783447
poor whites were still citizens and "americans"
the blacks were not
>>67783985
Every single "ghetto" or slum in america was a white area before they decided to build subsidized housing for blacks in it.
White flight was a giant thing, encompassing tens of millions, at an economic cost of trillions.
>>67781972
The MORAL Justification were that blacks were lower beings. Black on black slavery (to this day) is either based in Islam which justifies enslaving non-Muslims or simply "fuck you, you lose the war".
American, German, and Japanese slavery were based on racial hierarchy, Arab too if you substitute race for religion.
>>67782024
It is also the current conventional opinion of civil war - era historians, ex. David Blight
sick thread, actual humans vs. /pol/ cromagnons
>>67785111
wrong black on black slavery which still exists in Africa is based on tribal hierarchy (every tribe but ours is made up of monkeys we can do whatever we want with)
>expecting heebs to make nuanced, intelligent, complex, and factual films about slavery, human rights, and war
>>67785345
>expecting someone who says heebs to make nuanced, intelligent, complex, and factual arguments about anything
>>67784707
Sure. What's your point? Poverty exists and effects everyone.
>>67785458
He didn't even watch the movie. It's obvious.
>>67785562
dude just fuck off to stormfront already
>>67779849
I saw this movie and don't even remember a thing about it. That's how boring it was.
>>67785696
Thats what I'm trying to say to him.
>>67785272
Sure but that's still inherently different from rationalizations for American slavery.
>>67784707
Are you just dumb or something dude. I literally can't glean any kind of salient point from your posts. White flight is white people opting purposefully to move, it's not like they were driven from their homes under threat of death.
>>67779849
Calm down Cletus
>>67779849
I remembered it being a pretty fair and unbiased movie.
ITT: Niggerlovers
>>67785732
>I saw this movie and don't even remember a thing about it. That's how boring it was.
Welcome to cinema after 2010, everything is shit and generic as fuck. Except Blue is the Warmest Color, I can't remember anything from the last 5 years.
