Comments on: LINCOLN: It’s Awesome

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:22:39 +0000

Say more on the Lincoln film, Dan.

I do love all the David Lean films I’ve seen (despite the bad writing and acting for the K. Hepburn character in that Venice one), but for some reason haven’t seen the Oliver Twist one. I will say outright that his Great Expectations (1946) is easily a superior film to Lincoln, and is a must-see for all. Then of course there’s Zhivago, Lawrence, and his late-life triumph A Passage to India.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:13:19 +0000

Surely, my dear friend, you jest when you praise such a dreadful film, not great in every way as you imagine, but terrible in every way. Acting, scripting, photography, music and directing are all equally puerile.

I am continually amazed that some well-intentioned folks cannot see through the treacle dished out by the ham-fisted Mr Spielberg, whose films indicate a mentality on the Junior High level. Could I humbly suggest an antidote to such poor filmmaking? Get yourself a copy of, say, David Lean’s 1948 version of OLIVER TWIST. There will you see brilliance and artistry in every frame, every moment, every department.

It is long past time to rediscover what has been lost to us in the field of cinema.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:39:31 +0000

Carl, would say the purpose of the Constitution, its intent, is to describe, exactly the many LIMITATIONS of the central gummint?
And, you’re correct about the judiciary and its intended limitations.
Looking forward to your comments on the 14th Amendment. And, that’s the one Spielberg should have covered.

By: TUESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit

TUESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:13:30 +0000

[...] LINCOLN: It’s Awesome – Carl Scott, PoMoCon [...]

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:35:45 +0000

John, I'm too busy this week to dip into the Corwin thing, but any part of the U.S. Constitution, even the existence of three branches, can be struck out or changed by amendment, with the one and only remaining exception listed in article V, and likewise, anything under the sun can be added to the Constitution via amendment. There cannot be the slightest question of the "constitutionality of an U.S. amendment" if it has been written so as to strike out potentially conflicting language elsewhere in the Constitution, or written so make exceptions in its case. So there is nothing, let alone a court case in Ohio, that could have the made 13th amendment unconstitutional, so long as it was ratified by correct process. (Robert's complaint of course is about the process.) I insist on stressing this point, because it highlights the error of a vague but widespread current belief in judicial supremacy.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:36:02 +0000

BTW, when are one of our bloggers going to do a piece on the 14th Amendment? You know the one ratified in the occupied states under threat of the bayonet.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:32:09 +0000

Lewis, your above isn’t bad, but reallly rambles and is hard to follow. You should expand it and make it intelligible.
Re: “The South Rising again and folks like Cheeks causing problems for the republican …” Really? Dude, I’m here as a defender of the olde republicanism which is, as far as I can tell, about the only form of gummint that works for a virtuous people. I will grant you I am mightily opposed to this absurd Rinoism/commie-Dem Light that so sadly prevails here.
Remember, my progressivist friend, the flaws of any republic can be corrected, but the machinations of the progressivist state always derail into corruption and evil.

By: John Lewis

John Lewis — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:20:18 +0000

I think that is right Paul Seaton. It depends if you take Ashley’s side or not. (I am thinking of this in terms of Ohio History). Short comment version:

Ashley vs. Corwin. Previous to the outbreak of the Civil War, Ashley in Ohio had lost to Corwin and Ohio had declared in part as positioning for negotiation that the free soil branch of the republican party (namely Ashley) would be kept under control. The Corwin ammendment which Ohio passed…if it had been ratified would have made the 13th ammendment unconstitutional.

Corwin and Ashley didn’t like each other, and the failure in negotiation ruined Corwin…and swung the pendulum to the free soil pro-13th amendment wing lead by Ashley. Corwin and some of the interests he represented argued that since 3 states had passed the ammendment and since Ohio was one of them, Ashley representing Ohio could not put forward the 13th(at the time the Corwin Act was submited to the states without a deadline….so in a sense it could still have been ratified at the point when the 13th was under discussion….and possibly still today (did you know that Mississippi still hasn’t ratified the 13th…The South Rising again and folks like Cheeks causing problems for the republican brand just needs Miss to ratify the Corwin act!) Of course any lawyer today would know that the most important thing to do is have a deadline/cut off the chain of proximate cause/regulate History…but apparently Corwin didn’t want to put a deadline on it..(for fear that failure to meet such a deadline would have meant war?!)

Corwin in part blaming the free soil wing of the republican party for its rhetoric…never really forgave Ashley, for the breakdown in negotiations (avoiding the Civil War was supposed to be his key accomplishment…and Spielberg should have made a movie about the greatness of Corwin!) But Alas War came…in part because of Ashley’s big free soil mouth! (not exactly the way Lincoln puts it in the second inaugural)

So basically I think the movie seems accurate on the 13th in so far as the Ashley side of the Republican party was concerned! (really the unconstitutionality was basically caused by Corwin’s own procedural gaffe.) I don’t actually think a procedural error in a poorly written quasi- ammendment (whose original intent was as a negotiation ploy to avert war can stop the 13th!)… On the other hand the 13th itself is rather moot mechanically…which is why: “It’s just one of those episodes that for whatever reason, historians have not paid much attention to” (other than Ohio Legal Historians!…)

I just happened to take a class from a person who might be one of the few experts on it. Prof. Melhorn( Senior partner at Marshall&Melhorn…an old school Harvard educated lawyer whose exclusive hobby is research into ohio legal history.)

By: paul seaton

paul seaton — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:50:39 +0000

I said this below in a previous post and thread, but the greatest historical inaccuracy/omission in the movie concerning the 13th amendment was the following: the main focus of the debate in the 38th Congress was over the very constitutionality of the amendment. That was totally missing from the movie. Michael Zuckert has a very good article on this focal point, “Completing the Constitution: The Thirteenth Amendment”, in Constitutional Commentary, v. 4, pp. 259 – 283. I, too, was ignorant of the closeness of the vote; it certainly is not mentioned in Kelly/Harbison/Belz, The American Constitution, although I suspect that Herman Belz discusses it in his separate treatment of the topic, A New Birth of Freedom.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:25:13 +0000

In regards to number 6, this was addressed in the film. In January 1865 the war was clearly coming to an end. Though the Republicans would have held a larger majority in the House in March, the close proximity to peace could cause conservative Republicans to balk at at passing the 13th Amendment.