Movie Review: Lincoln


Abraham Lincoln is challenging subject matter for movie makers, for two reasons.

First there are the practical challenges of portraying someone as unique looking as Lincoln on the screen in a believable manner without having the portrayal descend into caricature.

Second, there are the challenges of the complexities of Lincoln’s times which have become obscured by the myths which have grown to surround Lincoln himself, along with the other larger-than-life characters of that age. Let’s not forget that Lincoln himself has evolved beyond martyred political hero into the realm of fictional super hero and vampire slayer in popular culture.

One can see how other heroes of old, such as King Arthur and Robin Hood, have happened to become more myth than historical fact.

Lincoln rises to the first challenge beautifully. Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln is spot-on. Perhaps the most surprising element of the portrayal is his voice. We have no recordings of Lincoln himself to listen to, and I think most expect such a large man to speak in a deep, resonating baritone. But Lewis is true to contemporary descriptions of Lincoln as having a higher-pitched voice that, while authoritative, was also soft. Add in a few examples of Lincoln’s propensity for making his points with humorous anecdotes (you’ll laugh out loud at his Ethan Allen story even if you, like me, have heard it before) and you get a pitch-perfect image of Lincoln on the screen that may never be rivaled.

On the second challenge the movie, while not executing perfectly, did much better than I expected (part of me expected, Hollywood being Hollywood, that Lincoln and his fellow abolitionists would be affiliated with Democrats in the film) which perhaps shouldn’t surprise me as it used as its source Doris Kearns Goodwin’s most excellent and scholarly work on Lincoln and his cabinet, Team of Rivals.

The most interesting aspect of Lincoln’s time in office, for me anyway, has always been the morality of his brand of leadership. It often gets lost in the great, shining light of the man’s accomplishment in freeing the slaves, but Lincoln was not a politician afraid of crossing ethical lines. What surprises me is that the movie does make an effort to touch on this more unseemly side of Lincoln’s character, though it doesn’t get the attention it should.

Perhaps that, too, is not surprising. Lincoln has become an almost messianic figure in American history, and any attempt to portray any aspect of his character in a negative light can stir controversy. Especially tied as he is to America’s troubling history with racial issues. Americans often prefer their stories about national heroes like Lincoln to be more hagiographic than faithful to reality.

Yet still, in the movie Lewis as Lincoln delivers a soliloquy before his cabinet in which he admits that his Emancipation Proclamation may not have been entirely legal, and was little more than a political gimmick at best. Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, portrayed in the movie by David Strathairn, would say of that proclamation in real life that “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lewis as Lincoln mentions in this same speech that some have come to see him as a dictator, running roughshod over the nation’s laws. He references his controversial suspension of habeas corpus, as an example.

Later, Lincoln’s descent into outright bribery to win votes for the 13th amendment is illustrated colorfully and at length. At the end of the movie Tommy Lee Jones, portraying abolitionist Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, presents the amendment as one having been bought with “bribery.”

Lincoln’s ethical lapses are portrayed in an approving manner, and with little exploration of whether or not the ends Lincoln deployed justified the means. Perhaps they did. Perhaps the cause of freeing the slaves was so just that a little vote buying, and some stretching of executive powers and privileges, was justified.

But then, as we see all the time with government, once certain powers are stretched they tend to remain stretched. And are not all those who back a cause in government confident in its righteousness? Might they, too, be excused for crossing ethical lines in pursuit of their goals?

That seems a slippery slope, if there ever was one. But perhaps the movie-going public at large isn’t prepared for lengthy explorations of ethical quibbles and moral ambiguities. It is to the credit of the movie, though, that they at least tried to incorporate these elements.

The focus of the movie is on the issue of slavery, and the battle over the 13th amendment in particular, so it may be excused for not tackling the other thorny issue of Lincoln’s day which was the issue of state’s rights and secession. There, too, Lincoln’s true legacy is obscured. Lincoln was an absolute believer in the superiority of the federal government over the states. The impetus for the north’s war on the south wasn’t directly about slavery, though that blemish on the soul of American democracy was the foundation, but rather about the nature of the union itself. Was the union a voluntary organization of sovereign states that could be dissolved by some or all of the state should they wish?

The south thought so, and invoked their view as a way to keep slavery legal. The north disagreed, and Lincoln was an absolute tyrant in imposing his view of federal supremacy (author Thomas DiLorenzo has done some excellent work on that subject matter). The war between the states cost America over 600,000 lives, more than any other war in our nation’s history, but perhaps the graver cost was the loss of the sovereignty to the states to the central government. That’s a fundamental shift in the balance of power in our nation that we still feel today as we battle federal law that runs roughshod over the states, from education to health care to drug prohibition.

The greatest evil ever done to the cause of state’s rights, I believe, was the tying of state’s rights to the institution of slavery in the Civil War era. Even today, those espousing states rights are accused of having racism as their motivation. But I digress.

This is a movie very much worth seeing, but if you do see it, please do so as a prelude to picking up Goodwin’s book on which it was based, and perhaps as a jumping off point into a more thorough exploration of one of the most transformative times in our nation’s history, and not just on issues of race but on the relationship between the states and the union they formed.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Neiman

    First, a movie line says when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. After Hollywood post Sixties have eviscerated every moral exemplar, as the Left (includes all atheists) needs desperately to destroy anything and everything that even appears fine, decent and good, I cannot applaud dissecting an historical giant like Lincoln that he may be made less a role model for the people to admire. Intelligent people know he was not a god, that he had a host of faults and was just a man, but we can look away from the gross faults and admire the great good he did this country and the strength of character he displayed.

    I cannot believe anything honest or good can come from any liberal at all, especially a known extreme left wing plagiarist like Goodwin, she is proof of my contention that nothing good exist in academia, all liberal historians are born liars. Once things are in print, people generally feel no need to examine every word, they become fact and even having not read it, I will bet big money that Goodwin’s Lincoln is filled with liberal distortions and a waste of time.

    Just seeing the angry Lincoln in the previews and the distorted image created by Daniel Day Lewis, immediately removes it from my list of movies I want to see. The problem is that Goodwin, Lewis, Hollywood and you want to destroy everything that speaks in a positive way of any moral values, you all want to see every historical figure in our history taken apart and reconstructed in a twisted, atheist image. I recall your admiring the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, so I watched it and knew why you preferred it to the original, the strong God fearing family many in the original film that took the bad guy to Justice was remade as a simpering wimp having no Christian values any longer, being a worthless coward of a man and the bad guy became the hero of the film. I might still have considered Lincoln, but knowing that an atheist, moral anarchist like you thinks it of value, I know it is no damn good.

    • Grizzler

      Nothing but hyperbole and absolutist nonsense. Try remembering that just as you are not rev phelps simply because you both worship the same deity, niether are all the groups you so casually lump together as all the same, simply because they shares some common ground. Its like saying all blacks love watermelon. Some do some don’t and everyone is different

      • Neiman

        Thank you, I truly understand you do not respect anyone having any opposite opinions from your own or their daring to express them.

        While there are no truly, perfectly monolithic groups, all those I mentioned in general, as a rule, share the same anti-American and anti-Christian values and the love of historical revisionism. Do a few in each vary? Yes, but not as a general rule.

        • Grizzler1

          In the process of defending the undefendable you prove My point. Double down, fine with me, but when others who practice the same intellectually dishonest technics on you and your like, lumping you all together with your bretherens worst traits, I expect you to accept it with a smile and a nod. To do otherwise would be make you not only an intellectual invalid, but also a first class hypocrite.
          What am I saying? You of all people are not swayed by your own glaring inconsistencies. Its a flaw in your logic and therefore a flaw in your character. Thats too bad for you. Its the perfect example of how an otherwise intellegent person becomes a laughing stock an and easily dismissable buffoon. Lack of credability is your worse enemy.

          • Neiman

            It would be nice if other than silly, failed attempts at bolstering your own sagging ego, you were actually able to state your case and prove your silly assertions with some clarity and intellectual agility. Sadly, it was all sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing at all, akin to sitting in an empty drum and falling in love with the sound of your own voice.

            Liberalism is intellectually dishonest, it puts on a false coat of misplaced, false compassion that actually harms the very people they pretend to represent. So, we can apply as a general rule the same values to them all, as they walk in the same path towards the same dark goals.

    • Flyby_Knight

      “even having not read it…”

      That’s where I stopped reading. If you haven’t read it then no intelligent person will care what you think about it.

      • Neiman

        I know the source (Goodwin), an extreme Left Wing plagiarist and that makes it not worthy of being read. She is a known Marxist and liar, why would I waste my time or money on her propagandist filth?

        • Rob

          You should read the book. You’re complaining from a place of ignorance.

          • Neiman

            If I know the character of a person and their point of view, knowing it is a dishonest point of view from a dishonest, biased person, why would I waste valuable time reading or money buying it? I have never read Anton Levey’s “Satanic Bible,” but I know him to have been a vile human being that was in league with hell and so I will not expose my spirit to that hellish spirit without necessity. The same goes for Goodwin a known extreme liberal academic and plagiarist, she is dishonest and nothing she writes can be of any value. Why expose my spirit to her lies with necessity, in your case yours and her spirit are in harmony.

          • $8194357

            Truth is “alien” to the world that loves its own, huh.
            Just as Jesus implied…
            The decieved condition leads to
            hatred of Truth.

          • Rob

            It is amazing to me that you could accuse someone of dishonesty without even having read the book in which they’re supposedly dishonest.

          • $8194357

            Says the pot to the kettle..
            Be more like me….
            “moderate in all things”.
            Your lack of understandings are glaring to
            those who see/or understand the signs of the
            progressive globalist times
            A man of greatness in his own limited understandings
            is still a fool by another name…

        • Zog

          Why would you object to reading “filth:? You read Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy, and they’re pretty filthy.

          • Neiman

            Only to an atheist/liberal.

          • Zog

            Do you pant and drool all over the pages while you read? Tell the truth now.

          • Neiman

            I don’t even know what that childish nonsense means.

    • Matthew Hawkins

      So you would rather have idolatry than truth, I understand it.

      But 3:10 to Yuma is a book by Elmore Leonard. The second version was not a remake of the original. It was a more accurate portrayal of Elmore Leonard’s book.

      • Neiman

        More of your lies, making something out of nothing. There was not the tiniest speck of endorsement of idolatry, but role models that was asserted.

        It does not matter that is was a not a remake, it changed the story in the original production of a God fearing farmer of courage to a total Nancy in the latter and it was that I bemoaned, the original and your endorsement of evil and story be damned.

    • Guest

      Hollywood also makes films glorifying pirates, then presses Congress to pass strict laws against pirating their products. It is very satisfying when they become the victims of the crimes they enourage.

      • Neiman

        Here is the truth: If moral libertines like Rob and extreme liberals like senator Reid and Hollywood stars like this movie, we absolutely know that it makes Lincoln into a liberal too and that was the whole idea – destroy Lincoln as a Republican, make him mean, angry and hateful. Strange though, the Southern slave masters were Democrats, but the liberals can twist pretzels many times until they look straight.

  • awfulorv

    Lincoln, as well as all children from 1823 on, learned to read and to form his, sentences and thoughts, through the use of a teaching book called The McGuffey Reader. This book was the basis for teaching phonetic spelling until someone decided that it contained too many sentences relating to hard work, loyalty, God, love of country, family, and such. Don’t want to fill the kiddies heads with those kind of thoughts now, do we? And it gave short shrift, or none at all, to the struggle of the slaves to rise from the cane fields to the couches. Ebonics, and other ethnically flavored languages, were not even mentioned in it’s pages, and so the, obviously racist, books had to be relegated to the dust bins of schools throughout the country, as they eventually were, by those who knew best. Pity…

    • $8194357

      So now they indoctrinate them into gay sex and the evils of capitalism..
      But we are still behind the muslim countries in early indoctrinations..

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        ….and hate for blacks is quickly followed up with hates for gays, liberals (your hallucinated version) and Muslims.


        • $8194357

          hanni who who..
          hanni boo boo

        • $8194357

          Whats classic is when the “truth” in the statement is called HATE..
          Been working for the devil and his disciples since the fall.
          The useful fool tools who buy into the enlightenment of deception.
          Lenin had ya all pegged, sharkbait..
          Lenins useful idiots…

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Ebonics? Couldn’t get through your posts without bashing black people, eh?

  • Matthew Hawkins

    I love it when people state that the Civil War was more about States Rights and the 10th Amendment than it was about slavery. It is total BS.

    The Civil War was about the abolition of slavery and the destruction of an economic system that was reliant on slavery.

    People don’t go to war over abstract ideas, which is what “States Rights” is.

    People go to war when you threaten their lifestyle. The most powerful people in the south relied on slavery for their wealth. They went to war to protect their wealth, not for some abstract notion of State’s Rights. That is just revisionist history.

    However, what I get from your review is that you would support slavery at the expense of limiting the federal government.

    • Neiman

      A. It is a most damnable liberal lie to suggest any conservative and that includes Rob, would ever support slavery. You are the party of racists and division, it was your party that were the slave owners and fought to keep slavery, talk about revisionist history.

      B. Only a liberal would try and separate one issue totally from another, tearing the fabric of truth apart. It was then believed the independent states, under states rights, had the right to keep or not keep slaves, so states rights and slavery were intertwined, one fabric.

      C. Rob is also right that Lincoln did believe in the dominance of the federal over the states and while the cause of ending slavery was unquestionably good for human decency, the total destruction of states rights that followed was not good.

    • Rob

      I didn’t say that the Civil War was more about states rights than slavery. I said it wasn’t just about slavery.

      The nuances of that conflict are apparently beyond your middle school grasp of the history.

      Of course the rich southerners wanted to protect their wealth. But they tied their cause to states rights, and just because their ultimate goal was the repulsive oppression of blacks doesn’t make them wrong about the nature of the union.

      As I said in the post, the greatest evil ever done to states rights was tying them to slavery.

      Nor is the issue as black and white as you suggest. Was the civil war necessary? There is a case to be made for the notion that slaver was on its way out without the north pushing as they did. Yes, slavery surviving for more generations would have been awful, but so was the loss of all those lives.

      • Matthew Hawkins

        Please explain the case for me that slavery was on its way out without the North pushing as it did? Were rich plantation owners going to give up their source of the wealth? If true it would be to form a system of indentured servitude.

        You say i have a middle school grasp of history. You seem to have an elementary grasp of it.

        • Rob

          Blacks were not unaware of the world around them. Between the advocacy and activism of abolitionists in the north, not to mention the slave uprisings in other parts of the world, the blacks in the south weren’t going to stay enslaved forever. On the plantations and the like the whites were outnumbered. If the blacks decided to free themselves, they could have.

          It would have required insurrection and uprising, but it could have happened and for a lot less blood spilled than the civil war, and at a much lesser cost to the rule of law for which Lincoln often cared very little.

          Anyone familiar with academic work on the issue of the civil war is aware of this theory. Of course, it is just a theory, and one born in 20/20 hindsight no less. But there is a case to be made for the civil war having been avoided had Lincoln more fidelity to the law.

          • Neiman

            Slavery was ended by the moral persuasion of Christian ministers from England, like Wilberforce; and a host of them here, not just speaking against slavery, but often working in the underground railroad. It was not ended, nor would it ever have ended without that wholly Christian moral force. Yes, many ministers in the South spoke for slavery, being immersed in that culture; but make no mistake it was not good atheists or liberals or anything short of Christianity that brought it to an end.

          • $8194357

            And they seem to forget islams role in bringing it to the Democratic party in the first place.
            Not to mention the indiginous peoples who captured folks from other tribes and enslaved them as well..
            PC communist social justice revisionism in action.
            Evil a$$ white conservitives..
            Oh wait…Those weren’t Christian Constitutionalist Republicans now were they…The Democratic KKK hung them as well…

        • Rob

          And speaking of my willingness to tolerate slavery for the sake of state’s rights, I’d point out that we make a lot of decisions like that in order to uphold the rule of law.

          For instance, in our courts, criminals guilty of real and serious crimes (sometimes even violent crimes) go free when it can be proven that the police or prosecution did not follow the law.

          Does that mean that we are willing to tolerate releasing violent criminals for the sake of upholding the law? Well, yeah. I’m all for putting thieves and murderers in jail, but I’m also against the police violating search and seizure laws and otherwise undermining due process.

          But then, I like to think I take something more mature than an adolescent’s view of such issues.

  • magnolia3

    I am concerned that you would mention Thomas DiLorenzo in your review, and would state that he “has done some excellent work” on the subject of the supposed tyranny of Lincoln. In his books “The Real Lincoln:Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unecessary War” and “Lincoln Unmasked:What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe,” DiLorenzo paints Lincoln as a tyrannical unrepentent federal government expansionist ideologue, and unapologetic trampler of state’s rights, which at best is highly debable and at worst, is far from the truth. In Thomas L. Krannawitter’s book, “Vindicating Lincoln:Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President,” he writes “It is true that Lincoln demanded an increase in governmental power, coupled with increases in revenue, in order to prosecute the Civil War. But, Lincoln understood that the economic policies necessary to fund the war were all temporary: they were emergency measures that would end with the emergency’s resolution. In 1861, we had our first income tax; by 1863, we had a progressive income tax; but by 1872 the income tax was gone. In 1865, we had a huge budget deficit and a mammoth $2.7 billion national debt. But then we had twenty-eight continuous years of budget surpluses. Fifty years after the Civil War, the national debt had been more than halved to $1.1 billion. These are not the legacies of a president who wanted to replace limited constitutional government with a large welfare state. Lincoln never wavered in his committment to the principles of limited constitutional government; rather, his policies resulted from the fact that he was fighting a war to save limited consititutional government.” It should also be noted that Thomas DiLorenzo is a known historical revisionist and has spoken out in favor of the secession of the confederate states. He has been described as one who fervently believes that Lincoln’s intent was to destroy states’ rights and build a huge federal government.

    • Neiman

      One thing I love about blogs, someone will bring in unknown information to counter misinformation.

  • NNccWW

    Hi, Rob.

    1. Haven’t seen the movie.
    2. Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor. He won me over with “The Last of the Mohicans.”

    A friend of mine, Hank Cox, wrote a book about the Sioux Uprising of 1862 in southwestern Minnesota, in which some 800 settlers were killed in the most vicious of ways. In it, he explores Lincoln’s decision making in pardoning most of the 303 Sioux men sentenced to death by a military commission. (Eventually 38 or 39 were hanged.) Even during the horrors and the possibility of the Union losing in the Civil War, Lincoln took the time to review the transcripts and other records about the accused. He resisted the demands for mass execution. This little-remembered event — except around New Ulm, I suppose — really brings home Lincoln’s moral courage and leadership.

    • Rob

      I’m adding that book to my reading list.

      Lincoln was certainly a very complex figure, and I should note that in my review my intent wasn’t so much to besmirch his character as to express a preferences that Lincoln the man and leader be presented with warts intact. Because I think it makes for a more honest, more interesting portrayal.

      The movie did touch on Lincoln’s dedication to reviewing records of the accused. In one scene Lincoln wakes up his secretaries John Hay and John Nicolay at 3am to tell them that he’d like to pardon a 16 year old soldier who was to be hanged for laming his horse to avoid combat. That’s a representation of the facet of Lincoln’s character that you talk about.

      By the way, Hay went on to an illustrious legal/political/journalism career which included serving as Secretary of State to first William McKinley and then, after the assassination, to Theodore Roosevelt.

      That surprised me when I stumbled across it several years ago while reading a biography about Roosevelt. Lincoln and McKinley/Roosevelt seem like they’re from such different eras in American society. That a figure like Hay was contemporary to all of those men surprised me until I did the math on the dates.

      It’s a testament to just how rapidly things changed in America after the Civil War.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Be forewarned that the book bashing president Lincoln for not increasing the number of the largest US execution in our history, leaves out important details, called facts by the rest of us, that expose how the Sioux were forced into starvation, and while that’s no excuse for their barbarous actions, they too were part of a long history of retaliations by Americans were they suffered brutal attacks and murders by settlers and the US government.

  • camsaure

    I think the “states rights” thing is a rather flimsy excuse for the civil war. Fiirst I must say I am a very strong believer in states rights. The rights of the slaves is protected by the constitution and not reserved to the states Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be granted to all, and is laid out clearly in the constitution, so slavery should not have been left up to the individual states. The way the Damocrats are ursurping the constitution at present indicates to me that they would have very little chance of becoming free in these days.

  • Stuart

    Any time I see Hollywood put out a movie, I am suspious of the creative license they believe they are entitled to. Is it written somewhere that Lincoln screemed at his cabinet or Congress. I’d like to see some sound proof before I believe the drama that Hollywood permeates the movie with. Hollywood do anything to exaggerate and under the history of America.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Yeah, they should totally portray Lincoln in the way that you think you heard something, somewhere…..because, like, Hollywood sucks and stuff.

  • citizen

    I will have to see the movie. I’ve read many books about the civil war, and several biographies about Lincoln and many presidents. One thing I would like to offer is I believe his overriding concern for saving the union directed his actions toward slavery. He made statements like, “If I could save the union by freeing all slaves, I would do it, or by freeing no slaves I would do it, or by freeing some but not all…etc. I believe the emancipation ordered the army as it advanced into confederate territory to treat all slaves as free. it could be argued that it was probably a moral victory over slavery as much as anything. I believe it still took a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery as the emancipation was an executive order given to the army if i recall and obviously not a law passed by congress.
    By the way, George Washington struggled with slavery. In his will he ordered all his slaves to be released after Martha (as he suspected he would die first) passed away. He struggled with considerations as to whether he made money on Mount Vernon with his agricultural activities or lost money with slaves because of the cost of supporting them. There were constant references to that in his letters. He wasn’t a rich man and was always in debt and struggling for cash. I guess he was land rich, but cash poor. Odd that the man who led the struggle for America’s liberty in the battlefield owned slaves. That was a knock on Washington by many people in the northeastern paper editors throughout his 2 terms.
    I think movies that discuss important historical moments in history are great. As always, we have to be sure we as viewers don’t assume the creative license part of Hollywood substitutes for fact certainly. Not an easy thing to do when more young people watch movies and TV rather then read factual accounts of historical events.

  • spud

    Should not be surprised this is a Stephen Spielberg movie who is one of if not the best story-teller of all time. His detail is second to nobody. When great movies are being made he is the one usually making them. Neiman ranting on a book he never read states the obvious. He may believe everything is biased but he also is biased beyond relief so take what he says and flush it down the toilet. Go see the movie heck read the book if you feel the need then form your own opinion. Can’t wait to see this movie and Rob you are right the civil war was the major grab for power that the federal government used in disguise to form a more perfect union.

    • Rob

      We must disagree as to whether or not that “power grab” did, indeed, form a more perfect union.

      • spud

        I never said that it did. I meant that they felt in order to form a more perfect union they needed to abolish slavery and make the federal government the main source of power instead of the states.

    • Neiman

      Look potato-head, I never said other people should not see it or read the book or not form their own opinion; it is just that you don’t grant me the right not to see it and condemn it because of its source, so you must be a liberal, at least a social/moral, family values amoral liberal.

      As I said below, I would not waste my time or money reading the late Anton Lavey’s “Satanic Bible,” he was a thoroughly evil man that is reported to have admitted on his death bead he was deceived by Satan. Spielberg may be a great story teller and a terrific movie producer, but one that has only made movies with strong liberal and anti-military themes, like “Saving Private Ryan.” So, I know the source of the movie Spielberg is an extreme Obamanite, a most extreme liberal; and, the author Goodwin is a known extreme liberal academic and plagiarist, you know, a damn liar. The previews and reviews tell us this is revisionist history designed to belittle Lincoln because he was a Republican and he cannot compare the Lord Your Savior Obama, the latter must,by Hollywood, be made greater than Lincoln and worshipped by one and all. So, I will not waste time or money on liberal propaganda, you of course will and will accept everything these liberals have to say as liberal gospel.

      You would flush everything Jesus said down the toilet too, because He did not advocate liberal moral values, He was not a liberal; so I don’t feel insulted as you would treat the Lord even worse in pursuit of your liberal agenda.

  • Guest

    If you carefully read the founding documents, there is a clear provision for states to succeed. States that wished to leave the union were acting within the law. I wouldn’t want to be a slave, but we should tell history the way it happened.