Oscar-nominated “Lincoln,” which depicts the political fight to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, played a role in Mississippi officially ratifying the amendment this month — a century and a half later.
The story opens, not surprisingly, in a movie theater.
Last November, Dr. Ranjan Batra, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomical sciences at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, saw the Steven Spielberg film and wondered afterward what happened when the states voted on ratification.
That night, Batra — a native of India who became a U.S. citizen in 2008 — went on the usconstitution.net website, learning the rest of the story.
After Congress voted for the 13th Amendment in January 1864, the measure went to the states for ratification.
On Dec. 6, 1865, the amendment received the three-fourths’ vote it needed when Georgia became the 27th state to ratify it. States that rejected the measure included Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey and Mississippi.
In the months and years that followed, states continued to ratify the amendment, including those that had initially rejected it. New Jersey ratified the amendment in 1866, Delaware in 1901 and Kentucky in 1976.
But there was an asterisk beside Mississippi. A note read: “Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official.”
The next day, Batra spoke with Ken Sullivan, an anatomical material specialist for UMC’s body donation program.
When Batra mentioned Mississippi had never ratified the amendment, Sullivan responded that he remembered state lawmakers had voted to ratify the amendment in 1995, when he was a senior at Crystal Springs High School.
Batra shared what he had read online, and Sullivan started researching.
He telephoned the National Archives’ Office of the Federal Register, confirmed Mississippi had yet to officially ratify the amendment and found out what paperwork was needed.
That weekend, Sullivan took his wife, Kris, to see “Lincoln,” which details the 16th president’s fight to abolish slavery once and for all.
I really, really want to play poker — Texas Hold ‘Em — with the Rushmore Presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Lincoln), plus John Adams and perhaps John Quincy Adams. I think that would be a fun table.
Failing that (and slightly more realistically), I think a Hold ‘Em game with President Obama, VP Biden, ex-Secretary of State Clinton, and Wil Wheaton would be just as fun.
I have sent an email to the White House to see if President Obama would like to play Hold ‘Em with me, but I haven’t gotten any answer. Or Secret Service visits.
So, y’know, it balances.
Which Presidents would you like to play a game against? Any game, any President.
Edited to add: Tiddlywinks with Taft seems like a winner!
Some here have taken issue with me for even calling David Barton a “pseudo” historian, I guess because even that insult is an insult to pseudo historians everywhere, but I digress…
At any rate, David Barton was on Glenn Beck’s TV show, discussing the film Lincoln, even though he admits he didn’t see it because it had lots of bad words in it.
Let’s go to the tape:
Hat tip - Right Wing Watch
Rush Limbaugh: Why the left loves ‘Lincoln’
By KEVIN CIRILLI | 1/14/13 3:19 PM EST
Rush Limbaugh said Monday that the reason Hollywood is so ‘gaga’ for Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ film is because of the liberals’ attempt to ‘finish’ off the South.
‘Have you asked yourself why is Hollywood so gaga over Lincoln, the movie? Why is Bill Clinton all of a sudden out there at the Golden Globes last night being brought on stage to thunderous standing ovation to talk about Lincoln and what he did during the Civil War? What did Lincoln do, as far as these people are concerned? He wiped out the South. But he didn’t finish,’ the conservative commentator said on his radio program, according to a show transcript.
‘Lincoln’ was one of the big winners at last night’s Golden Globes, during which former President Bill Clinton made a surprise appearance — to a nearly 30-second standing ovation — to introduce a clip from the film about former President Abraham Lincoln.
On his radio program Monday, Limbaugh discussed articles from the left-leaning publication Salon titled: ‘Welcome to the new Civil War — Lincoln’s Unfinished War Rages On, As The Neo-Confederacy Tries to Turn Back the Clock on Women, Gays, God and Guns.’
Read more: politico.com
Let’s face it, the Republican party was finished off by their support of Prohibition, and their handling of the Great Depression. There was a short reprieve during the 50s by Ike’s victory but he was like a light New Deal president. The GOP really is the party that Nixon made, when he courted the racist Southern Dixiecrat votes to switch over and come into the Republican party of the 60s and 70s. Reagan added some cornpone into the mix to fool blue collar urban white voters and for a while the GOP was a mix of Dixiecrat elements, religionists, middle American whites and cold warriors but by the era of W. Bush the GOP became a party dominated by the racist and religious wings and the rest have been silenced or left the party. So it is no surprise that the Republican surrogate chief, Rush Limbaugh, hates the movie Lincoln and what that president represented.
I can go on plenty of right wing Republican conservative websites and find countless comments by “Republicans” on how the South was justified in leaving the Union and how Lincoln was a tyrant, etc.
Times Have Changed, Obama Has Changed, Hope Has Changed: The Obama we saw on Thursday was a more sober and realistic man than the one we saw in 2008, or for that matter than the one we saw in 2004, when he delivered a lyrical ode to American unity.
The Obama we saw today didn’t run from the promises of hope and change central to his previous campaign. But he presented a tempered, more serious version of it, one seen through the prism of a man at the tail end of his first term as president. In fact, Obama hardly smiled. He said:
“I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed — and so have I.
“I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the President. I know what it means to send young Americans into battle, for I have held in my arms the mothers and fathers of those who didn’t return. I’ve shared the pain of families who’ve lost their homes, and the frustration of workers who’ve lost their jobs. If the critics are right that I’ve made all my decisions based on polls, then I must not be very good at reading them. And while I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together, I’m far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, ‘I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.’
“But as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America. Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I’m naïve about the magnitude of our challenges.
“I’m hopeful because of you.”
Imagine, for a moment, that it is 1862 and you are Gen. George B. McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, the Union’s premier fighting force. The Confederate Army, led by Robert E. Lee, has just invaded Maryland. As you’re preparing your strategy for checking Lee’s advance, a message arrives at headquarters: A corporal from Indiana has found an envelope lying in a field near enemy lines. Inside are three cigars. Oh, and a copy of Lee’s Special Order No. 191, detailing his invasion plan and revealing that the Confederate general has split his force in two, a daring move that has left his army dangerously exposed to attack. You’re George McClellan—beloved by your soldiers, tasked by your commander-in-chief with destroying Lee’s army. What do you do?
Smoke the cigars, obviously . But after that? If you answered, Attack with all possible speed, by god!, you have a lot to learn from Richard Slotkin’s The Long Road to Antietam: How the Civil War Became a Revolution. As its title suggests, the book sets out to show how the nature of the war changed during Lee’s Maryland campaign, which culminated in the famously bloody Battle of Antietam. Up until that point in the war, powerful men on both sides of the conflict believed that a negotiated peace might be hammered out. But after 3,600 Americans died fighting outside a farming village on the banks of Antietam Creek, Lincoln would issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a radical document that ended any hope of reconciliation. In the wake of Antietam, the Union would fight an all-out war of subjugation, with the goal of crushing the rebellion beneath its Yankee boot and ending the institution of slavery by force.
Slotkin, a historian and a writer of historical fiction, offers an absorbing account of this evolution. But the central figure of The Long Road to Antietam isn’t the author of the Emancipation Proclamation; it’s a man who openly opposed it—George McClellan. Vainglorious but insecure, power-hungry but risk-averse, a Democrat fighting a Republican’s war, McClellan is arguably the Civil War’s most fascinating figure and certainly its most frustrating. In McClellan, Slotkin finds an embodiment of the thinking that Lincoln repudiated with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation, namely the idea that the South should be compelled to rejoin the Union, but allowed to preserve its peculiar institution. Unfortunately for Lincoln, McClellan was also the Union’s best hope for delivering a battlefield victory big enough to give the president the political capital required to issue such a controversial proclamation. Reading deeply and thoughtfully through McClellan’s correspondence—the general didn’t so much as trim his moustache without first dropping a line to his wife Mary Ellen—Slotkin paints a detailed portrait of the talented but flawed general who helped Lincoln bring about his revolution, if ever so unwillingly.
Because Darwin and Lincoln are forever paired, thanks to their shared birthdate 200 years ago and the profound and lasting (but separate) influence of their ideas and actions, as Adam Gopnik explains, a question arises: What did they think of each other?
In today’s hyper-mediated, celebrity-saturated global village the world’s leading biologist and the leader of the free world might be expected to meet at, say, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (though we’re not aware that Lincoln or Darwin skied), at a climate-policy summit or over pints at Bono’s.
But Darwin and Lincoln did not cross paths. And though a perusal of reliable sources suggests that the two did not mention each other by name in writing, there’s evidence they were at least aware of one another’s efforts.
Darwin, a staunch abolitionist, as our Times of London, whose correspondent in the States was not sufficiently against slavery, Darwin wrote, and covered the war “detestably.”
Asa Gray between 1862 and 1865 referring to the Civil War, slavery or the “president.” Darwin was not forthcoming about Lincoln and appeared to grow more pessimistic about the war as the years went on.
But brighter cinematic days seem to be on the horizon. Judging by what’s been announced, 2012 will be refreshingly light on lazy franchise cash-ins (like Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was), revivals of cartoons from the ’80s (like The Smurfs), and the rare movie that manages to be both (hello, Transformers: Dark of the Moon). Do a little digging, and there’s plenty to look forward to in 2012. And much of it original: Of the 17 films on our list of the most promising films of 2012, only four are sequels, and only five are being released in 3D
I never realized that the civil war was actually a war against Marxism…who knew? I thought it was about states declaring themselves independent of the federal constitution and slavery.
Abraham Lincoln initiated the first Communist (Marxist) Revolution of the United States with corrupt election tactics massive voter fraud combined with forced closing of opposing news media. Marx and Lincoln had adequate funding from internationalists of his day. (The Engels family and The Bank of England.) Lincoln resorted to unconstitutional executive orders to invade South Carolina and declare war on the opposing invaded Southern States without a vote from Congress.
President Lincoln then prosecuted his ruinous Marxist backed war between the States implementing police state rule over the Northern States also with the war as his excuse. Many in the north called this a civil war, but in the south it was called a war of Lincoln Aggression.
The Marxists first attempted and failed to overthrow Germany and Lincoln supported this communist attempt in 1849. Their efforts in the United States came next. After the American Communist revolutionary war ended Marxists initiated similar Communist revolutions in Russia, and China . This immoral economic/civil system resulted in the slaughter and starvation of millions of free people and the theft of their property in a redistribution of wealth and their property. Strong police state-type rule and regulations were implemented over so called rights including travel and employment. Freedom was gone and more is rapidly fleeing in the United States.
Uhh…Karl Marx influenced the civil war? Really? .
Richmond had fallen. Lee had surrendered. The war was finally coming to an end. It was time to celebrate the victory, unify the American people and rebuild the nation.
On the evening of Good Friday, April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln decided to spend a relaxing evening at Ford’s Theatre. He would never return to the White House.
Years later, in 1887, Capt. D.W. Taylor presented this cup to Robert Todd Lincoln, the oldest of Abraham and Mary Lincoln’s four sons. He explained that a White House servant had seen the President leave the cup behind on a windowsill just before departing for the theater and had preserved it as a relic of that tragic night.
This item is one of 137 million artifacts, works of art and specimens in the Smithsonian’s collection. It is on display at the National Museum of American History.