Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Entertainment

Dem Congressman Claims There’s a Major Historical Error in ‘Lincoln’

Feb. 6, 2013 7:04am Billy Hallowell

HARTFORD, Conn. (TheBlaze/AP) — As Rep. Joe Courtney watched the Oscar-nominated “Lincoln” over the weekend, something didn’t seem right to him. He said Tuesday he was shocked that the film, about President Abraham Lincoln’s political struggle to abolish slavery, includes a scene in which two Connecticut congressmen vote against the 13th amendment to the Constitution, outlawing slavery.

“`Wow. Connecticut voted against abolishing slavery?’” Courtney recalled hearing audience members ask. “I obviously had the same reaction. It was really bugging me.”

He said a cursory Internet search confirmed his suspicions that the movie, directed by Steven Spielberg, was historically inaccurate. He asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate, and it reported that all four Connecticut congressmen backed the amendment in a January 1865 vote.

Rep. Joe Courtney Claims Lincoln Has Factual Inaccuracy Surrounding Slavery, Connecticut

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) (2nd L) speaks as House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) (R), and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (L) listen during a news briefing after a closed caucus meeting June 27, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Various topics were discussed during the briefing including the possible outcomes from the Supreme Court ruling of the Healthcare Reform law. Credit: Getty Images

Not, Courtney wants to set the record straight.

A spokesman for Dreamworks Pictures, which produced “Lincoln,” did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday.

Courtney praised the film’s acting and cinematography but said artistic license does not permit it to inaccurately put Connecticut on the wrong side of history, particularly on an issue as powerful as slavery. In a letter to Spielberg, the four-term Democratic congressman includes a tally of the 1865 vote by the state’s congressional delegation and a passionate defense of the state’s role in emancipating millions of blacks.

Actor Daniel Day-Lewis (Photo Credit: AP)

“How could congressmen from Connecticut — a state that supported President Lincoln and lost thousands of her sons fighting against slavery on the Union side of the Civil War — have been on the wrong side of history?” he said in his letter.

Courtney, who majored in history at Tufts University, asked that the movie, which stars Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, be corrected before its release on DVD.

“Lincoln,” which leads the Oscars with 12 nominations, also stars Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln and Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. It has earned more than $170 million at the box office.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (247)

nomadhalo
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:21am
i thought the war was over financial independence and states rights, slavery was only a minor footnote in the equation,,, dont get me wrong, slavery is wrong and im glad it was abolished, but taking something and making it THE reason instead of a small part of the equation (which it was) in order to be politically correct, in order to justify a war with ourselves is wrong… its not the truth

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:21am
  Steven Spielberg is another culture changing, Jewish progressive. They do not want a conservative, traditional culture based on individual liberties. They want an international kibbutz. Commune-ism. Communism.
  
  Report this comment
- redfish52
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:38am
  To quote Hillary Clinton…”What does it matter…thousands of people died…was it because of slavery, states rights or Government overreach…..what does it matter!!!
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:01pm
  I find it ironic that the very people who complain against “revisionist” history are the first ones who try to change it when they don’t agree with reality.
  
  States rights my ass…States right to hold slaves was the only real question.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:05pm
  Part 2
  
  South Carolina was the most ingrained into slavery, much more so than the western southern States. The brake came because of Lincoln’s election and then the Republican party stance of “mandate” to abolish slavery outright and immediately.
  South Carolina, and many of the States to follow, rose up because the Congress was FORCING them to do something that their State said was legal. Up until that point the abolition of slavery was left to a State by State vote, dating back to Vermont in 1777. States were ON THEIR OWN slowly removing slavery from being legal but those States still held blacks as second class, didn’t treat them as equals, didn’t let them vote for the most part, and might have called them “servants” but still paid them what we would consider today “slave wages.”
  
  So there is a case, from the northern point of view, to say the war was over slavery. And there is a case from the southern point of view, to say the war was over State’s rights. At that time, succession was STILL upheld by the SCOTUS as viable and since the individual State’s had ratified the Constitution and were still treated as INDIVIDUAL Nation-states by the SCOTUS and the Constitution, they could remove themselves from the united States for whatever reason they saw fit.
  
  It wasn’t under AFTER the Civil War that the SCOTUS opinion and the national opinion changed on succession…and that still took about another 40 years.
  
  Report this comment
- ENCIINOM
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:11pm
  One more mistake. Lincoln was a democrat. The repubs have always been opposed to anything that would help minorities.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:16pm
  trolltrainer
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:01pm
  States rights my ass…States right to hold slaves was the only real question.
  ===============
  
  A government that openly admits that it seeks to disarm you in order to “protect you from guns” isn’t going to war for the purpose of freeing any slaves….
  
  If you actually believe that, then you probably repeated the 1st grade several times.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:23pm
  VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:05pm
  So there is a case, from the northern point of view, to say the war was over slavery.
  =================
  
  Not really…….
  
  The Corwin Amendment (that passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861 and to which Lincoln referred to in his 1st Inaugural Address) is still pending before the States for the purpose of ratification even to this very day:
  
  ————————–
  “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
  
  Report this comment
- jblaze
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:34pm
  ENCIINOM
  As always, your brain eludes you!
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:37pm
  Try reading Lies My Teacher Told Me and other works by the same author. If you go back to the original records from the time, the war was absolutely about slavery. The northern states were creatively interpreting the laws on the books to avoid returning fugitive slaves. For example, according to federal laws the states were required to capture and return escaped slaves. They couldn’t forbid their law officers to do it, but said that they would have to go slave catching on their own time, the locals weren’t going to pay their salaries for the time spent chasing after them. The southern states wanted a strong federal government that could bring the other states to heel, and compel them to actually catch and return the escaped slaves.
  
  If you read the records of the discussion among the state representatives in the south when they were voting on secession, it is perfectly clear. Slavery wasn’t AN issue, it was THE issue. I don’t have the details handy on where to look up the source material, but you can find it.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:42pm
  @Encinom
  
  You are a fool and a moron..go away…
  1954 – LBJ , a democrat- head of the Senate at the time PREVENTS the Eisenhower, a republican, Civil Rights Act from passing until he can successful GUT the provisions for Federal enforcement, thus making the act toothless and useless.
  1964 – LBJ, then a democrat president, closet racist, and A-hole supreme – takes credit for the republican Civil Rights Act that passed both houses of Congress easily
  
  Report this comment
- henryKnox
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:16pm
  I always thought @ENCIINOM was serious. Now by saying “Lincoln was a democrat” I know to not take the comments from this user seriously. Republicans have always and continue to be for individual rights. Democrats are the party of the KKK.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:23pm
  @Freevoice
  so you want us to believe a man, James Loewen, that claims he wants history to be taught from multiple viewpoints so students can find the truth between the bias, yet his textbooks are being used exclusively to teach his history classes? He is not even requiring himself or those that use his texts to do what he claims he wants done.
  Loewen is a follow of Howard Zinn…they both write on the same topics from the same viewpoint with the same bias. The underlying theme is that “whites” have literally and figuratively “enslaved” all minorities in an effort to subjugate the world and pillage all the natural resources, including low or no cost labor. Thus the “white” history textbooks paint a false sense of history and what happened and only these two “know the truth.”
  Too bad there are many organizations that refute all their body of work. Students for Academic Freedom and News-busters are just two that pop up with a quick search.
  Neither of these men were even historians but a sociologist and a political scientist/sociologist. Both attended and taught at very Liberal colleges (i.e. Progressive) and grew up in very politically liberal surroundings. To call them historians mean that you would have to call any citizen that read history books and original sources and then formed their own opinion, a historian. Funny that both of these men claim to want that but when you disagree with them, you are wrong…
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:32pm
  ENCINO “mom” is more aware of historical events in the middle east than anything in the WEST…right ENCINO “mom”?
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:33pm
  @1Free
  But back to what you suggest…I have read parts of “Lies” and parts of the Zinn book “People”…I love history and have taken courses in History and have a collection of books on history, quite a bit on the Civil War period, but I still would not call myself a “historian” but an “enthusiast.”
  
  All you are basically doing it copy and pasting the authors summary of the work. NO original thought there, how quaint.
  
  Unfortunately, when you take the events out of the context of history, as Zinn and Loewen frequently do and try to fit them into a “modern” worldview, things get fuzzy at best, a down right falsehood at worst.
  
  The southern States DID not want a strong Federal government, even back to the colonial times, most don’t still today. What is sighted as proof is simply not paying attention to the body of Law that was on the books during that age. The Northwest Compromise, MIssouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850 were all attempts by Congress to soften the removal of slavery from the USA. In those acts, the South was granted the “right of return” of any runaway slave and the North was OBLIGATED under law to find them and return them.
  When the southern States said they were succeeding due to the Federal governments FAILURE to enforce these acts on the northern States, IT WAS ABOUT STATE’S RIGHTS! The Fed was supposed to “keep the peace” between the States and WASN’T.
  
  Report this comment
- tenndave
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:51pm
  Here is where history is being rewritten. Yes States Rights was the main issue. But the right in question was the issue of Slavery. Stephen Douglas was going to beat Lincoln handily. But at the 1860 Democratic Convention, Douglas would not make the issue of slavery a part of his platform. Lincoln did not either. Both recognized its polarity with voters. But Stephen Calhoun of South Carolina was so vehement about Slavery being on the platform that when it wasn’t, he and some of his fellow southern politicians broke off and formed another party and ran their own candidate, splitting the vote away from Douglas and allowing Lincoln to win. So yes it was about States Rights, it is just that the right that was causing the most trouble was the right to have Slavery, legal. Did Lincoln really intend to free the slaves or was it the way to get more volunteers in the Northern Army when the war broke out. Let that debate rage.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:57pm
  States Rights only came into the fore because the Mason Dixon line was a continual issue since the founding of the country. There wasn’t a a Mason-Dixon Line per se at the founding, but there was always a knock down drag’em fight over admitting states as slave state or free states. States rights was used by the elite of the south who were afraid of losing the political battle in the end. They had already lost the fight ti import more slaves around 1806. Sooner or later there were going to be more free states than slave states. So the elite of the south decided to secede.
  
  It was always about Slavery.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:58pm
  States rights to own slaves.
  
  Report this comment
- b@man
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:05pm
  I would have said the same thing. Lincoln was not a good man. He was a tyrant and as evil as any since. If they had killed him in 1860, there would not have been a war and slavery would have gone away anyhow. It was on the way out anyway. The war only happened because of Lincoln, and no one else. His generals were against, but noooo, he thought of himself as a king, a power hungry control freak, a liar, manipulator. Who does that remind you of?
  
  Report this comment
- chrisad
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:05pm
  Since when does Hollywierd give a crap about the truth. Their entire lives revolve around the fantasy. They play the role of intelligent people and after a while, start believing they really are.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:33pm
  VRW Conspirator
  ” and might have called them “servants” but still paid them what we would consider today “slave wages.””
  
  Interesting post.
  
  Considering mist blue collar workers were considered to be paid inadequate wages in a number of industries & then add to that fact that blacks were discriminated against, it would be a sucker bet to argue that blacks were not paid slave wages up north.
  
  I came at some information sideways. Was reading a short excerpt about the draft riots in NYC during the Civil War. Part of the word put on the street was anti-black propaganda that blacks would take the jobs of the Irish & others if they were drafted. And those jobs did not pay much to start with but seem to be higher than what blacks were paid.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:41pm
  @ VRW
  “Up until that point the abolition of slavery was left to a State by State vote, dating back to Vermont in 1777.”
  You might want to check into that a bit more. Vermont was the 14th State — brought in AFTER the Constitution (written in 1787) was ratified.
  
  Report this comment
- iono12345
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:41pm
  Well white guilt will have us all believe if we state any other reason than race we are wrong and racists…so get it straight the war was over race :)
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:44pm
  Walkabout
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:57pm
  It was always about Slavery.
  ========================
  
  What was the purpose of the Corwin Amendment for then?:
  
  March 2, 1861: The Corwin Amendment
  
  Report this comment
- 2WarAbnVet
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 4:50pm
  In something of a “fit-of-pique”, seven Southern States seceded in response to Lincoln’s election. Quite possibly the matter could have been settled diplomatically, once the reality of their unsustainable situation became apparent, and the lack of desire for radical change on Lincoln’s part was seen. Slavery would have sooner-than-later been consigned to history’s dustbin.
  Instead, Lincoln chose a confrontational path. He kept military forces in the seceded states, and called for 75,000 troops to invade them. This caused four more important states to secede, and resulted in a “dust-up” that cost between 600 and 700 thousand lives.
  
  Report this comment
- MemphisTigerFan89
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:25pm
  To ENCIINOM: You need to go check your facts. Lincoln was Republican. It was the Southern Democrats that supported slavery. Check your facts. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html
  
  Report this comment
- JoeBloe
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 6:18pm
  @VFW CONSPIRATOR
  
  I was all good with your reply until you wrote this:
  ” At that time, succession was STILL upheld by the SCOTUS as viable and since the individual State’s had ratified the Constitution and were still treated as INDIVIDUAL Nation-states by the SCOTUS and the Constitution, they could remove themselves from the united States for whatever reason they saw fit.
  
  It wasn’t under AFTER the Civil War that the SCOTUS opinion and the national opinion changed on succession…and that still took about another 40 years.”
  
  While you are correct that SCOTUS ruled after the Civil War (1869 – Texas v. White), the issue was well decided long before – through the ratification process of the US Constitution. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and the primary reason the Constitution was authored was because it DID allow for unilateral secession. That allowance was predicated upon State Sovereignty – that the States were Sovereign even after signing the Articles of Confederation. The “State Sovereignty” was conceptually the problem the Constitution was designed to resolve. Signing the Constitution meant that Sovereignty was surrendered to the superior Federal Government. The specifics of what rights each had are laid out in the Constitution plainly for all to see.
  
  Every State’s ratification convention contained FIERCE arguments about this very point. And every State’s ratification vote – acknowledged that State Sovereignty was the pric
  
  Report this comment
- loneindividual
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:57pm
  Financial Independence? Really?
  
  My ***!
  
  Listen, I have heard all sort of different explanations.
  
  It was over economics, it was over trade routes, it was over “states rights”….blah de ****ing blah
  
  IT WAS OVER SLAVERY YOU LIARS!
  
  Enough of this Progressive name changing crap…..
  
  Report this comment
- DeniseR55
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:47pm
  ENCIINOM
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:11pm
  
  One more mistake. Lincoln was a democrat. The repubs have always been opposed to anything that would help minorities.
  ———————————————————————————-
  LINCOLN WAS NOT A DEMOCRAT.. His VP(Jackson)was, HE wasn’t
  
  Report this comment
- JimGribbin
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:18pm
  I always though both played large parts. The question of which cause was the greater still seem to be a matter of dispute today. I got in a formal debate about this in the early 70s in school. Got rather interesting because in this case, both sides honestly believed they were in the right and there is ample evidence out there to support both cases. It makes for a good debate when both sides actually believe in their argument.
  
  Report this comment
- tipical
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:40pm
  Steven Spielberg did take the political left view and took it upon himself to have artistically liberties with the facts. The four Congressmen from Connecticut that voted to abolish slavery are rolling over in their graves. Steve Spielberg’s Opinion is his and if he wants to make it a fiction, ok! But he is not entitled to manufacture hi own facts.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:57pm
  I Bet Spielberg Did NOT put this Quote in his MOVIE
  
  “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
  
  – Abraham Lincoln
  
  Report this comment
- paulnashtn
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:58pm
  you are only partially correct, slavery was not the “reason” for the War Between the States but it was the underlying cause for all the “reasons” so therefore it was a very large part of the equation
  
  Report this comment
- tomcat11767
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 12:19am
  Deniser55,
  That was Andrew Johnson, not Jackson.
  
  Report this comment
- pdw
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 12:54am
  Well the south rebelled because of economical cost, they could send their goods to England and back cheaper than to the north. Slavery had been allowed to keep all the States united but was not favored by the north or some of the south, so when the war broke out that was no longer an excuse not to repeal slavery. All Democrats of the time period who were against slavery became Republicans. That is one of those things that seem to get lost in our history also.
  
  Report this comment
- Wringeaux
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 2:36am
  Agreed. I would like to add…There is nothing racist about the Confederate Battle Flag. That idea was invented by modern liberals (a type of Yankee). The southern states still hate being told what to do by the Feds.
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 3:12am
  @VRW
  You cannot say LBJ took credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act when Republicans were actually behind it. LBJ publicly promoted the bill and the Democratic House + Senate passed the bill. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill. Southern conservatives voted no. These people were Democrats but soon left and became Republicans (see Strom Thurmond).
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 3:34am
  @Kidchar
  The Corwin amendment passed both houses of congress AFTER Southern states seceded. Also the proposed amenment would have to be ratified by the states, with this process a) not guaranteed and b) time consuming.
  
  Further, to say that slavery was not the main causal factor of the civil war is disingenuous and an example of historical revisionism. Just read the letters from southern states declaring their sucession and stating their justifications.
  Georgia: “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.” The letter continues by stating that the issue of slavery was delegated to the states by our Constitution. In other words, state rights was an issue but the larger issue was the practice of slavery.
  
  Mississippi: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government [..] it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
  
  The overall theme: secession was necessary because the federal government was dismantling slavery by limiting s
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 3:41am
  Also everyone should realize that “enciinom” (two ii’s) is a troll. Stating that Lincoln was a Democrat is obviously a troll move. So stop taking it seriously.
  
  Report this comment
- jst1425
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 5:38am
  What I saw during the movie was in the first part there was a shot (no pun intended) where Lincoln read a short speech and the American flag was raised.
  
  That flag had the fifty state stars on it…
  
  At the beginning of his term there were 34 states, but two more, West Virginia (1863) and Nevada (1864), were admitted during his administration.
  
  Report this comment
- redfish52
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 7:33am
  I’ll say it again…before Lincoln, the South had zero un-employment in the black community…everyone was working.
  
  Report this comment
- Pacapapa
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 8:15am
  @Trolltrainer
  If the war was entirely about slavery, like you say, then why would the southern states need to secede from a union that already allowed each state to decide for itself whether or not to permit slavery. Your argument is just lame words with not thought behand them.
  @Enciinom
  You’re just an idiot. Shut up.
  
  Report this comment
- Bloody Sam
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 10:08am
  It is said, “Do not look to the Courts for justice. For there, you will only find the law.”
  
  The same can be said of Hollywood movies. Do not look for the truth. For there, you will only find agendas.
  
  Report this comment
- TreeTrimmerJim
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 10:30am
  VRW – “1964 – LBJ, then a democrat president, closet racist, and A-hole supreme – takes credit for the republican Civil Rights Act that passed both houses of Congress easily”
  
  According to the voting records the Democrat were the majority party in both houses at the time of the vote. Also according to the record the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed on Democrat votes alone.
  
  According to congressional records LBJ voted for less than 2% of all Civil Rights legislation while an elected official. LBJ was the senate majority leader who kept Eisenhower’s Civil Rights bill from coming to the senate floor for a vote.
  
  “Easily passed”… not exactly.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 12:20pm
  loneindividual
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:57pm
  Financial Independence? Really?
  Listen, I have heard all sort of different explanations.
  It was over economics, it was over trade routes, it was over “states rights”….blah de ****ing blah
  IT WAS OVER SLAVERY YOU LIARS!
  =========================================
  
  Only an idiot actually believes that:
  
  ————————-
  Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:
  
  “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service….[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
  -Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
  
  Report this comment
- osgeek
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 5:18pm
  Also the Emancipation was not this grand altruistic gesture, it was used as a tool of war. It was meant to cause economic and social disruption in the South. Lincoln was willing to throw the slaves under the bus if the Union could be restored without bloodshed. He wrote several letters to southern states governors stating he would protect slavery if they would not leave the Union.
  
  Report this comment
- lemonfemale
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 8:53pm
  Slavery was not stated but was the cause. Why did the South secede after Lincoln’s election? Because he was anti slavery. Why did the rioters in the New York draft riots target and kill random blacks? Because they were being drafted to help free slaves. Also this, when the South was on the ropes, one military advisor recommended to Jefferson Davis that the South free its slaves and use black troops who would fight for their homeland if they had a stake in it. Replied Davis “We fought this war over the black question.” and he rejected the idea out of hand. (Mentioned here http://books.google.com/books/about/Confederate_emancipation.html?id=KoR3AAAAMAAJ)
  
  Report this comment
- ddevonb
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 9:10pm
  Since the issues over financial independence and states rights were primarily focused on slavery… it was about slavery ultimately… and whether the south had a right to secede.
  
  Had slavery never been allowed in America, the issues that led to secession wouldn’t have existed.
  
  Report this comment
KidCharlemagne
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:17am
Of course, it’s not the “errors” so much that are bothersome……it’s the fact that significant events are purposely omitted in order to portray Lincoln as some sort of anti-slavery crusader (which he readily admitted that he wasn’t)…

For instance, you’ll never see this included in any Lincoln movie:

“When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day forty-seven years before my grandfather, Mr. Francis Scott Key, then prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry. When on the following morning the hostile fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed.”
Grandson of Francis Scott Key held as a political prisoner by Lincoln

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- normbal
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:00am
  Several historians have compared Lincoln with VI Lenin – among other despots – for his suspension of habeas corpus, his prosecution of an unconstitutional war (after federal occupation of Ft. Sumpter was to be discontinued, he doubled down on it in violation of good faith), imprisoning political protestors, threats to imprison the US supreme court for ruling against him and more. Not really an all-around good guy. If he had had drones, I have no doubts he would have used them on his domestic enemies.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:09am
  Lincoln was just like Obama in that. He used the scriptures to get what he wanted.
  Born into a strict babtist family he never attended church after his youth. He was thought to be athist, and looking back I feel he was. Taxing the states he didn’t like and giving it to the states he did.
  Shall we say redistribution of wealth? OK
  
  Report this comment
- alinmatt
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:36am
  Shhh… Lincoln has been deified. He may come down from heaven and smite you all for telling it how it was.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:53am
  @alinmatt: he didn’t descend from heaven.
  He ascended from he!! And is our president today 1/2&1/2
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:56pm
  I have always wondered if Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation so he could have more troops to throw into the grinder.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:25pm
  the EP was totally a political device to cause a psychological war on the South….having soldiers and more importantly officers thinking that the slaves back home would rise up and revolt and endanger the soldiers family was a powerful tool. That is the ONLY weight of the EP. It had no force of law and since the nation was at war, the southern States would just ignore the law anyway, if it was one. It was a Presidential decree, even an EO, but not law.
  
  And yes, Lincoln did a lot of nasty things during the war to strive to hold the nation together. No worse than FDR or WW in the world wars or LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam or Andrew Jackson or Bush or Obama. Even George Washington and some of the first generation Presidents did some “unconstitutional” things, the Whiskey Rebellion and Shea’s Rebellion come to mind.
  
  That doesn’t make what he did right…it was unconstitutional…but Congress actually did give him “special” wartime powers….so you can say he had cover, at least politically.
  
  There are MANY gray areas in and around the presidential powers and actions. We can not judge them based on our opinions and thoughts. That is why we are supposed to have an unbiased, strict constructionist SCOTUS that doesn’t care about party only the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:01pm
  Normbal: Nothing even remotely resembling Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural with its appeal to “the better angels of our natures” ever came from Lenin. You should make a serious study of the Russian Civil War of 1918-1921 before making any more facile Lincoln/Lenin comparisons!
  
  Report this comment
e7705
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:01am
Great arguments here, but could you ALL please proofread what you write?

“there” = a place, “their” = people, “they’re”= they are. And try “they’re” first, to rule it out.

Only use “it’s” if you are saying “it is”, or” it has”. If not, use “its”.

Only use an apostrophe in possessives if you can ask “Whose _______?” before the noun, (ie. Tom’s hat), or if it was implied, as in “Whose hat was it? It was Tom’s.”

Thanks! It just makes it much easier for us all to read and understand what you wrote.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TROONORTH
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:15am
  Thank you E7705. If the language degrades much further we will be unable to communicate with each other. Be prepared to be ‘flamed’ by those same people who do not know the difference between there, their and they’re.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:35am
  Get aholed of president Corpseman.
  
  Report this comment
- ForestHollow
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:46am
  Thank you E7705. The other word use that really gets me is ‘I and me’, like someone says “he gave it to Sam and I”. We wouldn’t say “he gave it to I”, so drop the other names to see if the use of ‘I or me’ is correct!
  
  Report this comment
- duhTruth
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:47am
  You’re right E7705. I want The Blaze to be successful, but they refuse to proof read their stories before publishing. I have politely contacted the authors and Blaze Editor Scott Baker several times about the errors in their stories, and their reaction has been extremely dismissive.
  
  My point is this:
  
  1) I expect them to report the truth. To do so would require them to PROOF READ the story to make sure their facts are correct, and that the story unfolds as they intended. It would seem logical, that during this proof reading for accuracy, they would catch grammatical errors and fix them. Since there are a plethora of grammatical errors on The Blaze, I can only conclude that they DO NOT proof read their articles for ACCURACY before they publish. This leaves me feeling that some of their news must contain errors. (I remember a story where they had a picture of an object that was black, and in their story they described the item as being white. That was blatant sloppiness).
  
  2) A news outlet with this many errors is unprofessional.
  
  I have been unsuccessful in getting them to improve by contacting them privately behind the scenes. The only way we can get them to do a better job is if enough of us call them out, and demand a better product.
  
  To The Blaze, please react, because I want you to succeed, but at this point I am extremely leery of your workmanship!
  
  Report this comment
- duhTruth
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:59am
  You wood also think that when riding a story about someone else’s accuracy problem, that you would make shore that your being accurate, wood’nt You? … Making a funny about a serious point.
  
  Report this comment
- CarolinaGirl
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:52pm
  It’s all about the dumbing down of the schools since the 70′s due to integration. This is a fact. It’s worse now (the dumbing down) because we have included the Hispanics in the system. This is not the fault of the minorities. This is the fault of the liberals so that they could enslave them for votes.
  
  Report this comment
- hawaiianninja
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:26pm
  I’m afraid proper grammar has gone to the wayside via a lousy education system and the spellchecker.
  
  Report this comment
- redfish52
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:41pm
  E7705…..Get a life…
  
  Report this comment
- BlessedGirls2
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:28pm
  So well said!
  
  Report this comment
- peaceangel
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:07pm
  That’s funny and I am aware that one third of all Americans who attended our public schools cannot read or write, punctuate a sentence or spell anything—-
  
  I have worked nationwide with rock stars, jock stars and gangbangers over the past four decades and 80% of them cannot even speak the English language so that the rest of us can understand them.
  
  BUT I know for a fact that a lot of us have picked up bad habits from using the internet which I am sure you are fuming about already and that is okay with me and I won’t hold it against you.
  
  Although I type really fast, my mind still goes faster, way faster and because I work on the internet I will let a typo slip or a comma or the use of “there” instead of “their” because I know the difference between the two and because I know I am doing way better when just typing comments than most of the rest of the ppl and becauseI am in a hurry all the time which is why UNLESS I am publishing information for work,I will let things slide, lots of things as I have just done in the post to make a point in that—this obsession with trying to get everyone to do it your way will only make you old much sooner than God intended and it is often on purpose that some of us bypass proper grammar and punctuation and is NOT about you or intended to piss you off, so don’t let it. Yoga and meditation are your best first steps to fixing this and well realizing that you have a problem—–Good Luck
  
  Report this comment
- JoeBloe
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 6:40pm
  @CAROLINAGIRL
  
  It isn’t “integration” per se that is the problem – integration is just a formalization of the “Melting Pot” concept, which has always been one of the Nations greatest sources of strength. The problem is the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979.
  
  That one Act has done more to ruin education, literacy and our American culture than any other force – bar none. Remember that every time you hear a politician say “invest in education”. The Department of Education has used tens of billions of dollars since 1979 and in that time ALL measurable outcomes (literacy, reading comprehension, etc.) have FALLEN.
  
  The greatest “investment in education” this country could make is to dissolve that Department, return their budget to the States. The States best contribution would be to in-turn dissolve the Boards of Education in their communities and let individual schools do what they want – as was the SUCCESSFUL case up until 1979.
  
  Report this comment
- WaterTheTree
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:19pm
  I encourage my fellow posters to work on their spelling too. It helps understanding and is essential for computerized translation. But even more importantly, using non-standard spelling and grammar makes it too easy for the narrow minded trolls to dismiss serious posters. I might not be perfect, especially when I’m trying to type a reply on my smartphone, but it doesn’t take much to learn the correct use of their, there, and they’re.
  
  And I will add my voice to the call for the Blaze to get a copy editor for their writing staff. While we can tolerate non-standard grammar in the replies, it’s absolutely essential for the stories (and headlines) to be polished and professional.
  
  (Full disclosure — I’m a working journalist and former copy editor.)
  
  Report this comment
dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:57am
Democrats have always supported slavery and still do through welfare system.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bikerdogred1
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:40am
Hollywood made a mistake,Lincoln,was really black,we all know how Hollywood bends the truth.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
theBru
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:24am
As we all know, history is written by the winners…the Civil War was not fought over the slavery issue…the reason the South seceded was due to the high tariffs placed on their agricultural goods and other economical issues…they thought that the Northern Industrial Complex was squeezing them, since they controlled the export of the agricultural goods from the South…Like most wars, there is always some “do-good” myths about the “reason” it was fought, but 99% of all wars are fought for and over money…As seen here, the slavery issue was not voted on until 1865, well after the South seceded in 1861…

And for all of the Republicans of today, Lincoln was one and the whole South was Democrats, ever hear the saying, “Southern Democrats”…they were not talking about the blacks from the South either…Republicans = Carpetbaggers…Apparently, they have switched roles over the course of time…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck7884
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:53am
  Yes this is due to the British. England wanted a faster route back and fourth between America and England. So it was decided New York had the fastest route and therefore The southern states must move there goods to New York either by sea or by land. Cotton and Tobacco were the number one trade goods the English Valued.So every State in between would charge either a Tariff and or tax and sometimes both. The Southern States would eat any Profit due to the fact the Federal Gov. by right already set the price of the Goods sold.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:59am
  Liberal Hollywood doesn’t care about accuracy, they care about narrative.
  
  Report this comment
- AceOfHockey
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:22am
  Ok, this is an excerpt from a speech given by Alexander Stepens (vice president of the confederacy) shortly after Lincoln’s inauguration.
  
  “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
  questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper
  status of the ***** in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture
  and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the
  old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But
  whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be
  doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time
  of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation
  of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They
  rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error….Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its
  corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery—
  subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”
  
  While there was talk of duties and other oppositions, there was no doubt that this was the catalys
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:34pm
  The rise of New York City postdated the colonial era and did not really get under way until after the War of 1812. It mostly resulted from New York State’s farsighted decision to build the Erie Canal, so it took the lead in tapping the produce of the West. It’s hard to see that it offered a “faster route” to England,as it was further away than Boston or Newport. Anyhow, right down to the Civil War and after, plenty of ships carried cotton and tobacco from New Orleans, Charleston or Baltimore direct to Europe. Southern products that went north, either for northern consumption or to be shipped overseas, usually went by sea, and if they did go by land, they could not have paid tariffs to states through whose territory they passed because the Constitution did not allow states to charge tariffs. The Federal government did not actually set the price of cotton or anything else, though tariffs charged on manufactured imports did tend to work to the disadvantage of the South.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:35pm
  Sorry previous comment was for Chuck 7884.
  
  Report this comment
- TreeTrimmerJim
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 10:38am
  Explain how slavery, being barred from owning fire arms, barred from marriage is in accord with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”?
  
  Report this comment
Talmid of Yeshua
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:24am
Also, Lincoln was a dictator.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rogwl
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:36am
  Stop
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:02am
  Rog. He was. Lincoln was a tyrant. He was nothing like history made him out to be. He suspended Habeus Corpus. Suspended the first amendment. Used federal troops against American citizens. He also milked whatever cause ju’dour he could in order to win the war. The only thing he wanted was a “whole nation”. He cared not how he got it.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:18am
  @00100111 No he did not. Only time a State can Succeed from the Union is at Ratification of the Constitution and is why Lincoln Kept the Southern Delegation Out of the Capital when the 13th Amendment was being passed in Congress and Ratified. In order to Succeed from the Union in any other way. Permission to do so must be granted by the President and or Congress in which case The government did have a right to war with the Confederation.
  
  Report this comment
- One_Southron
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:02am
  To be taken seriously Chuck you are going to have to learn the difference between Succeed and Secede.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:21am
  @One_Southron Ouch Did not catch the error my bad!.
  
  Report this comment
- Lordchamp
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:25pm
  Chuck you assumption depends on the government being the last final answer to the question. Our government was never setup to be that way. It’s setup to be INDIVIDUAL, State, then federal government at the bottom of the list.
  
  How then can the federal government stop the most important and powerful components, Individuals and States, from overruling it and dissolving something that THEY created?
  
  It’s not logical.
  
  The federal government is only as powerful as We the People say it can be. When we decide to stop it or dissolve it, that is our RIGHT to do so. Read your American History and stop believing the lies of the progressive traitors.
  
  Report this comment
Talmid of Yeshua
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:23am
Is what this Democrat isn’t telling us that the four who voted yes were Republicans.

Democrats love slavery, whether it be the ownership of blacks, or the current welfare system in place to keep them under their control. Either way, Democrats love slavery.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Skeeterhawk
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:15am
  You are right. Conveniently left out the party of those who voted against slavery in the 39th Congress. Both houses in the federal government were led by the Republican Party as well as both houses of the CT congress.
  
  Report this comment
- LestWeForget
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:24pm
  Exactly. All congressmen from CT were Republican, and all Civil Rights acts tried for the next 100 years were Republican supported. (Don’t tell the lefties there were black Republicans in office in the 19th century, even from Georgia. They might have an identity crisis.)
  
  Report this comment
WillG
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:22am
Stevie left the Vampire Hunter thingy out also.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Lordchamp
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:17am
Very little true historical fact in the movie. The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery to begin with. In fact, right before the beginning of the war there was even a Constitutional Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, that stated that slavery could NOT be prohibited.

It was ratified by 3 states to include Lincoln’s own state Illinois. The war began before more could ratify it and it was dropped.

It was an attempt to keep the South in the union. So they were willing to keep slavery if the South would stay. Really shows what they REALLY thought of slavery huh.

The war started because of MONEY! Taxes and Tariffs. The South paid the most in tariffs and taxes and the North RECEIVED the most benefit from those revenues because they had the biggest share of the representation. They could allocate themselves the biggest piece of the pie. This was the taxation without representation argument yet again as we had seen about 100 years earlier.

So the major reason was money and States rights with slavery a distant reason. In fact, the emancipation proclamation that is touted ad freeing slaves did NOT cover the slaves states that did not secede, ONLY the ones that did and it was merely an executive order, not a law as some state.

It’s purpose was in hopes the slaves would rise up and kill the women and children remaining on the plantations but they didn’t. They stayed until they were forced to leave by the union army in many cases. Study the truth

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:28am
  “So the major reason was money and States rights with slavery a distant reason.”
  ========================
  
  Correct:
  
  ————————————————-
  What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?
  New York Evening Post
  March 12, 1861
  
  There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively.
  
  That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of the public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop. Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent., which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York;
  March 12, 1861: “What Shall Be Done For A Revenue?”
  
  When all else fails, then just follow the money…it will always take you to the truth.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:47am
  The entire premise of the movie is a revisionist concoction. What they (left and right) gloss over is the balance of “ideas” Lincoln promoted that has led to our universal ruin. What was Lincoln in favor of? Read his own words on the matter: all his “State of the Union” addresses:
  
  1861: of particular note is the last 3 paragraphs
  http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/lincoln/stateoftheunion1861.html
  
  1862: suspension and confiscation of “specie” – Lincoln was first to print money not backed by gold/silver, confiscated the gold, and sent the government presses into overdrive. The first “unconstitutional” dept formed, the USDA. “Direct tax” revenue reported, Lincoln placed the first “income tax” on the people. The most of this “address” deals with his scheme to end slavery and deport the freemen. Enjoy.
  http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/lincoln/stateoftheunion1862.html
  
  1863: Lincoln’s “Dream Act” of citizenship by military service. You’ll make the discovery that 19th Century Republicans used “alien voting” and saw nothing wrong with it. Abe’s Indian policy of “extinguishing the possessory rights of the Indians”.
  http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/lincoln/stateoftheunion1863.html
  
  1864: Centralisation of banking and government money control. Indian policy shifts to subjection by extermination.
  http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/lincoln/stateoftheunion1864.html
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:44am
  Honest abe Lincoln my foot.
  Http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/issues/Lincoln.HTML
  He didn’t pay the Indians what was agreed to and even had some hung. Trials lasting 10 minutes each.
  
  Report this comment
- AceOfHockey
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:46am
  More excerpts from a speech by Alexander Stephens, vice president of the confederacy. And just so you know, the “cornerstone” he speaks of is the institution of slavery.
  
  “The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees,
  in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon
  principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders
  “is become the chief of the corner”—the real “corner-stone”—in our new edifice….Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors
  are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.”
  
  Sounds pretty prominent to me!
  
  Report this comment
- Lordchamp
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:41pm
  Ace, yes slavery was an issue. It has been throughout the history of human beings and always will be. Still is today.
  
  Some in the South AND North staunchly believed in slavery but most did not. The South was portrayed as all plantations with slaves all over the place. That is false. Yes, there were some but the majority of the South were poor small farmers struggling to live and feed their families and couldn’t have had slaves whether they believed in them or not.
  
  In fact, there was great amounts of slavery in the north and many restrictions on blacks to include many states forbidding blacks from even entering the state.
  
  There were no places in the South where slaves were brought into the States from abroad. They all came through northern ports mostly in New England in exchange for their rum.
  
  So again, it’s hypocritical to say this was only a “Southern” problem, when in essence the North caused it. After all, our society and Country began in the northeast and expanded south and west.
  
  So who really is responsible for slavery?
  
  History is what it is and should be presented truthfully whether it fits what you like and your agenda or not.
  
  Concentrating on just one small part of history is wrong. It must all be taken as a whole to understand and learn from it.
  
  Slavery is wrong but so is subjugating people for the sake of taxes and tariffs. Is that too not really slavery but on a larger scale?
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:54pm
  I’m no fan of Stephens. His name was Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the fact he’s carrying perhaps the greatest villian of our Founding Fathers as his first two names – makes me not like him so much. Stephens was a devout Whig – also something I historicly detest.
  
  However, the “Cornerstone” speech was reported by a Massachusetts reporter who attended. Stephens actual speech was given improptu and not written. So, the account of a biased Yankee is all we have. In addition, Stephens was horrified by the Massachusetts report and wrote several appeals contrary to what was, and has become, the official report. Stephens contention was that the Confederate Constitution differed in no way on the matter of slavery than the US Constitution and laws extent in the Union at the time. Which, is absolutely true.
  
  In fact, much lauding has been given the 3/5ths clause in the road to emanicipation. The CSA constitution contains the EXACT same clause with one exception: The US uses “persons held to service”, the CSA says “slave”.
  
  So, I have grave issue with Stephens on issues related to his “whig-ish-ness”, but not on the Cornerstone speech. He spent vast amounts of energy refuting the report given of it and clarifying the Constitutional position of both the US and CS constitutions on the matter. The speech then, becomes an appeal that on the matter of slavery – there is no material difference between the two. That is unfortunately true – like it or not.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 4:58pm
  @LordChamp:
  By the time the Corwin Amendment passed through Congress, seven states from South Carolina to Texas had already seceded, established a capital, elected a President and Congress, and drawn up a provisional constitution for the CSA. It seems doubtful to me that even a speedy ratification of the amendment would have prevented the ensuing showdown between South Carolina and the Federal government. “Fire-eaters” there and elsewhere, especially in the Deep South, had been talking defiance of Washington for thirty years, while endlessly boasting about the superiority of southern men, southern institutions, and southern arms in any fight against the North. They wanted war. They would not have been appeased by any offers made by the hated “Yankee nation” because they believed they were no longer a part of that nation.
  
  Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:28am
Anyone who has Richard Trumka in the same picture is automatically a douche bag not matter what.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:30am
  This bobble-head from eastern CT voted for EVERY budget busting Obama DEMOCRAT measure.He voted for Tarp , every stimulus pkg, the raiding of Medicare to the tune of 825 billion, yes to have the fed gov freeze gas prices, yes to increase the debt limit. He is a thru and thru Socialist and will vote yes to any gun ban proposed by the Marxist in Chief.
  
  Report this comment
- Kaoscontrol
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:38am
  Richard Trumka looks great standing behind…isn’t that “Mr Burns” from the Simpsons?
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:19am
This makes me question the accuracy of all Spielberg films. Does this mean E.T. never actually flew on a bike?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:31am
  Of course he did. Pffft, next thing you know, you’ll be telling me the Arc of the Covenant isn’t stored in a government warehouse.
  
  Don’t be silly.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:58am
  Squidvetohio: the arck is stored right next to the gold that use to be there. Now China has both, as collateral on our worthless debt.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:28am
  Thanks Squid, my world was shaken there for a moment.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:33am
  The arrogance of them. Then again, Hollyweird is in the pocket of the KKK Dems so they might compromise their artistic license to suit their Washington Masters. Can you imagine the laughter if a government official demanded that the Davinci Code be changed, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or those off the wall hit pieces of that Valarie Plame movie and the Sarah Palin one?
  
  Report this comment
walnutportconservative
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:08am
What difference does it make. From this point forward, the truth needs to be told. We need to find out how and why this happened. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- engineerairborne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:18am
  For once I agree with a politician, this is half the problem with our education system, we are teaching our kids a perverted version of history and they grow up not understanding the real world they live in. Ask yourself why do we have a national Holiday for a guy who did not find america, and was nothing more than a murderer and slaver?
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:39am
  Engineer: rerighting history. “Nor be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process
  
  Life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
  
  Report this comment
- walnutportconservative
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:44am
  I believe books were burned at some points in history, so that history could be re-written, or erased?
  
  Report this comment
Tregonsee
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:02am
Now, if they will only set the record straight about Senator Gore, Sr. Jr at his nomination in 2000 claimed that his father lost his seat for voting for the Civil Rights Act. Wrong. He voted against it. Look it up.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
love the kids
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:59am
They will probably stop showing the movie and refuse to run it, just ask David Barton what happens.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dadsrootbeer
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:59am
They may have voted to stop slavery but were part of the democrat creation of the KKK.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- walnutportconservative
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:47am
  Dad,
  Plugs Biden spoke out against being enslaved “In Chains”. Are you sure you are talking about Dems?
  
  Report this comment
Temporal
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:56am
Where was this guy when the Administration was blaming a non-existent movie for the murder of a U.S. Ambassador? Did he write the President demanding a correction?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:05am
  He was in the shower with Barry ( getting his debreafing )
  
  Report this comment
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:55am
Hidden signs in another movie? I bet you Connecticut votes FOR slavery this time around. All Democrats representing Connecticut this time around.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:58am
  They voted for BHO in November, so to me they did vote to enslave We The People
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:25am
  We only (I am one of 50 Conservatives here in the NUTmeg state) voted to enslave Actual Taxpayers. The other 93% of Takers voted to ride the gravy train.
  
  Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:38am
Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process by law.
Not war.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ares338
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:30am
Democrats change history all of the time…..what difference does it make now?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ExO
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:28am
Dem Congressman and History
LMAO…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:35am
  Spielberg should do a movie about the history of democrats so the Congressman can deny that his party founded the KKK ,Jim Crow,segregation,lynchings,the death of MLK,and fought against civil rights down to the final filabuster.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:04am
  NAUGHTYCAL, Good idea, maybe Spielberg can remake “Birth Of A Nation. Since the original premiered inside the Woodrow Wilson White House, it could run in the 0bama White House….LOL, that really would be funny.
  
  Report this comment
- jettson
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:55am
  They will never hear you. They do not think like that. The truth is George McClellan was a major general during the American Civil War and the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1864. He would have ended the war. At that time slavery would have still existed.
  
  Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:27am
Joe Courtney is worried about something that happened 138 years ago. What the he!! Are we paying him for? He needs to concentrate on the now problems. Not a movie.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:21am
Sounds like the administration is rewriting history again.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:19am
First time Hollywood made a mistake. Huh
Lincoln was responsible for the killing of 620,000 Americans. What kind of hero is that? Oh one like Obama will be. A mass murderer

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- engineerairborne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:39am
  Beg your pardon, but when the South seceded from the Union, and elected there own President they where no longer American’s. War is a brutal and horrible affair, that sometimes must be conducted in order to protect what is most dear to us. Lincoln is one of the greatest leaders ever, and to put him in the same Category as Stalin, Hitler and Pol-Pot only goes to show your ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- Quencher
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:40am
  I agree that Lincoln gets far more credit than he deserves. His only excuse for the Civil War was “To Save the Union”. Later to be called the “Man who Freed the Slaves”. I wonder if Obama will be regarded as the “Best President” if he is able to kill all the population that his Communist Doctrine is planning to kill? And what excuse will be used to justify Obama’s new position as “Best President Ever”. History seems to be a tool that is used to praise the positions of the particular group that happens to be writing the book and to put down any contrary facts that do not agree with the political position of the writer.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:00am
  @ enineerairborne: The south was still America, where do you think the south is? Asia?
  “Lincoln is was one the greatest leaders ever” guess you think Obama and his division is great too.
  A real leader doesnt turn brother against brother. How does he. The south knew what was coming after the election and had the balls to do what they felt was right. The war wasn’t all about slavery
  
  Just look at then and the division now. You have showed me your true ignorance.
  Airborne I doubt it.
  
  Report this comment
- engineerairborne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:05am
  MMMM so when the seceded and elected there own president and called them selves the Confederate States of America they didn’t leave the UNION? twist it any way you want, these States declared themselves no longer a part of the Union. You don’t get to redefine history to make your argument, that is something I would expect from the current White House.
  
  Report this comment
- AGreyGhost
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:26am
  Engineer, it sounds as though you have been airborn for quite sometime, though not alone in the upper atmosphere. Lincoln was was a mass murdering traitorous terrorist that should have been brought before justice, charged with those crimes, found guilty and summarily hung by the neck until he was DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. He properly belongs exactly in the same page of history as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and a few more. Unfortunately you and many others have used Spielberg’s and others of his ilk to claim their knowledge of history as gospel when nothing could be further from the truth. The South were no longer Americans!? Where is it really where you people get off at? The North didn’t fight for the freedom of the Black man. They fought for the freedom from the Black man and the dissolution of the Union to create just exactly what Obama is working for now. A fundamental transformation of the US, aka an Empire. Though you may be perfectly innocent as so many others are of the real Lincoln, you’ll not get my pardon because of it. Like so many of our young people these days are lead around by the Marxist and Socialist in every school from elementary to college, it’s no excuse. Our children are separated at 5 by the Empire now because it takes both parents working to pay the gas and light bill, What we have left is Leftist Hollywood Unicorn ranchers ‘educating” our kids. You think thats something to be proud of? Try getting off the horse now and then and walk yourself in a wh
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:32am
  enineer: read what you said originally moron. You said “they were no longer Americans”
  America is a continent. North and south. Get a map and look.
  Seceeding from the union did not move them from the continent. You don’t get to redifine history either just to make your argument. I never said they didn’t leave the union.
  read your statements before posting stupid statements
  Airborne. Were you a palistinian paratrooper in 1967. Lmao engineer do you drive a choo choo
  
  Report this comment
- engineerairborne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:44am
  It is people like you two that make the world look at Conservatives as whack-jobs. Lincoln held this country together, and was the first president to truly demand that the line ALL MEN ARE created equal mean all men. I have severed 21 + years for this country with 4 overseas deployments, Spealberg and the liberal agenda do not define my history, nor does the Amerika confederate wannabees like you. Was Lincoln perfect no, but no President has been, at least he had the guts to stand on his principles and do what had to be done.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 8:54am
  Greyghost good post. The election of Lincoln split the country so he could save the union.
  Only a progressive could justify tearing something apart just to say I fixed it, while killing 620,000 in the process. War crime trials would have been in order if he weren’t made into a myrter
  
  Report this comment
- DZ-015
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:10am
  Dublinthewagons: There are people today who think we are arrogant for calling ourselves Americans, because there are many other countries in the Western Hemisphere whose inhabitants could claim that title. This is not true. Mexicans and Canadians are not Americans because there is only one country on earth with “America” in its name. Citizens of the USA, Mexico, and Canada are all North Americans if you consider the continent where all three countries are located (Except for Hawaiians who reside in Oceania). During the civil war there were two countries with America in their names, and residents of both considered themselves to have claim to the title. We were all Americans then, and we remain that way now. So you were right after all.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:13am
  Engineer: “lincoln held the country together” his election split the country so therefore he did not hold it together. He reunited it with the cost of 620,000 lives.
  You served 4 tours. Good for you. Some grunt had to clean the latrines.
  I didn’t get to use them much as I was in a forward A camp, as a major. Now ret.
  Love your loose term of ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- jungle J
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:15am
  AGreyGhost…you may be somewhat correct but hate defines you.
  
  Report this comment
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:15am
  Agreed, like a true progressive Lincoln waged war on a people that chose a different path. I don’t agree with slavery, and as a southerner would like to think it would’ve been abolished in the south without a war.
  
  Report this comment
- Bamabelle
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:17am
  @Engineerairborne History may be written one way by Americans who came out of the civil war but I tell you that the south lived it a lot more than the north did. I grew up believing that Lincoln took away state’s rights and that we had no choice but to defend ourselves. Slavery was a byproduct of that fight. I still believe that in my heart. I bet people don’t even know that in Vicksburg, MS for example, they didn’t even celebrate July 4th until 1980. Also, They don’t close for president’s day but that they do close for Robert E. Lee’s Birthday. At least that is what they did when I lived there in the 80s. It may have changed since then. Vicksburg was one of the cruelest battles of the war were their citizens were left to starve because they would not give up their city. This is only one story on hundreds of Thousands of stories and did they blame the south for their problems? No! They blamed Lincoln. Now, their children’s children blame Lincoln. Don’t just dismiss these people. They suffered. They didn’t forget. Now it seems to be happening again with state’s rights. Obama as Lincoln..you betchya!
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:44am
  @bamabelle: so right. Burned homes & crops. Raped and murdered women and children. A lesson never forgotten except for the guilty. I am truely believe we are heading down the same path with Obama. Only the borders will be different, and maybe the outcome. I think slavery would have played out on its own, in time. There is more racial tension in the north than south. Lincoln didn’t solve that problem only the needless killing of fellow countrymen. Justice was served via J.W.Booth
  Time to move on.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Engineer
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:01am
  @DUBLINTHEWAGONS, your name is Mudd…..
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:06am
  engineerairborne
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:39am
  Beg your pardon, but when the South seceded from the Union, and elected there own President they where no longer American’s.
  =========================
  
  Ever read the Declaration of Independence before?:
  
  ———————
  “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
  July 4, 1776
  
  Are you attempting to say that King George IIII had every right to murder the American colonists in the aftermath of their secession from the crown of England?
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:15am
  Engineer, I’m not going to talk smack to you or talk down to you. I’m going to ask you to please go do your own research into Lincoln and the Civil War. It is not what the liberal revisionists have rewritten history to be. He didn’t care about slavery. He wanted a whole nation, by any means necessary, not because of principle but because of money. He wanted the money and assets in the south. The south seceded because of high tariffs and over encroaching federal govt. Most of the nation didn’t even care about slavery. The abolitionist movement was very very small at the time. Near the end of the war, the north was actually losing. Lincoln was losing support from the people and the international community. Slavery became the rallying cry because it was a cause du jour. It also got support from Europe who then put their support behind the north. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, the 1st amendment and used federal troops against American citizens, among many other things. He was a tyrant. He used public sentiment to get what he wanted. He was not the honorable man “history” made him out to be.
  
  History is written by those who win the wars. History is full of liars.
  
  Report this comment
- AceOfHockey
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:24pm
  The South’s secession was illegal in Lincoln’s eyes, and I believe rightfully so, because they were trying to institute a new government on a false premise. KID, you were quoting the Declaration of Independance, but it goes on to say…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
  its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
  Lincoln’s presidency meant their eventual end to their institution of slavery, and that was only destructive to their “right” to enslave people, of which there is no right, not to their life of liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:43pm
  jungle J
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 9:15am
  AGreyGhost…you may be somewhat correct but hate defines you.
  ________________________________________________________
  
  Do you understand the true nature and source of that “hatred”. The South and its history have been defined by the hatred of others. Same folk who have convinced everyone that the nation is more important than its principles. Same folk who currently call anyone having a conservative viewpoint of any stripe “Confederates” (recent Jesse Jackson quote).
  
  The “hate” that defines the South and its symbols, has been levied upon us by those claiming to be “progressive’ and abandoning the true principles of our Constitution. What is called the “Civil War” was the first successful Marxist revolution on the planet, and has been ongoing in the 150 years since. Marx himself penned numerous articles and letters attesting to the fact. Including a congratulatory letter from Marx to Lincoln himself upon re-election, which was cordially answered.
  
  The real “hatred” levied upon us, is because no others in the history of our nation since 1776 – actually stood up against Washington DC and proved we’d still die for those founding principles. We have been demonized by the real haters so the “soft revolution” could continue without question.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:29pm
  Unrecon: I find your posts fascinating and agree with them up to a point. I find it disturbing when driving through S. Carolina on the backroads and find a 20×30 ft advertising billboard with a Confederate flag stating “never forget”. As an avid historian I appreciate the recognition given to individuals who fought bravely for the South: as a “Yankee ” with several ancestors who fought for the north, it disgusts me. A small yet significant detail. I have visited many Civil War battle fields both in the North and the South. I have never once been asked by employees of the fields in the north, specifically Gettysburg, if I was a Yank or a Reb. I have been asked EVERY single time by employees, usually privately funded employees in the south what my affiliation and interest was. It has gotten quite apparent that attitudes change immediately. I have also heard rumors that the Sons of the Confederacy refuse to participate in events with the Sons of the Union vets organizations. I find this disturbing. I was incredibly disturbed at one battlefield in North Carolina to discover that the owner of the property on which most of this particular battle took place managed to, place a port o potty within ten feet of a DAR monument and a monument dedicated to a Michigan regiment. It was VERY obvious it was done on purpose. There is a tremendous amount of animosity exhibited by Southerners to their Northern neighbors. Personally I will never travel through S.carolina again.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 4:01pm
  Strawberry,
  
  I appreciate your tone, or at least the way I’m interpreting it. I understand your frustrations, because we’ve been subject to the same as southrons. I’ll explain. But I want to preface that with my own genealogy. Being in a border-state, I have both sides represented from local folks – not the wide north/south distances most enjoy.
  
  My Union ancestors were large slaveholders/landowners. In fact, they served in units organized by a man named John M. Fraim – the second largest slaveowner in his Ky county. Fraim not only organized them, but won a contract to supply the Union for the duration of the war (with slave labor). Most of these men’s holdings also furnished Fraim – you get the picture.
  
  My Confederate ancestors were small, indpendent farmers and businessmen. Not poor or illiterate by any stretch of the imagination, but did for themselves with their families. Only one owned slaves, and was 1/200′th of the total ownership of my Unionists. The official narrative of the war just does not fit ANY of my history at all. That’s not everybody’s history, but its mine.
  
  Nowhere on any battlefield does this strike me harder than at Stone’s River. Where both sides of my ancestry clashed at McFadden’s Ford. The 9th Ky USA was decimated by the 28th TN CSA. Which was fighting for slavery? Fraim’s 9th Ky or the 28th TN? These two regiments knew each other intimately, some were brothers and brothers in law.
  
  Continued….
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:15pm
  Strawberry, Pt 2.
  
  I have been to Stone’s River several times over the years. Attempting to reconcile with myself such great tragedy. In those years I read the interpretive displays, and they echoed the magnitude of the tragedy. I must say a good balance of causes was represented and the issue of slavery was present, but very well placed in the overall argument. To put it as concisely as I can, the displays had the correct things each was fighting for up front and gave hope that we were reconciled and restored with proper credit where it belonged. I think thats all us southrons have ever wanted, credit for what we had right and the ability to learn from what was truly a mistake. We’ve never enjoyed that.
  
  Lately, and most likely the crux of your unpleasantness – all those displays were overhauled just prior to the Sesquicentennial. Rather than any other cause, only ONE is listed and the whole of the southron experiance is equated with that cause. There is no other consideration than slavery. The general tone is that of the Confederates representing nothing but evil and everything Un-American. On the other hand, nothing but a complete whitewash of anything associated with the Union. The interpretive video at Stone’s River says explicitly, “The southern army fought solely for the continued bondage of african americans”.
  
  Is there a growing animosity? Yes.
  
  cont.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:50pm
  The animosity between the SCV and SUV is a product recent “revisions” of the narrative. The SCV is not happy with the new role of American Nazi, when most of us know full well that 95% of our Confederate Army ancestors, owned no slaves at all – and never would. We’re specificly not happy when the constitutional arguments of our ancestors are playing out correct right before our eyes in the present.
  
  Add upon this the current political conversations that invest everything “wrong” with america in both the historical and current south. We’re hearing this from both the lefties and righties. The Republican establishment seems bent on demonizing us in every context right along with Charley Rangel and Jesse Jackson.
  
  All of this, added to a 25 year continual assault on anything southern whatsoever. Everything uniquely southern has been demorilized, demeaned, marginalized and almost willfully defined as savage. We are taught to hate ourselves in our own schools, I can’t imagine how much hatred against us is taught outside the south.
  
  We’re tired of being beat over the head, specificly when we have been correct about 90% of our claims and have suffered physical and cultural genocide for the effort. A cultural genocide that has been ramped up expoentially over the past few years. Beaten over the head and sick of alleged “conservatives” who come down here for support – with baseball bats to continue the bludgeoning.
  
  Yes, animosity. Well deserved I’d say.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 12:15pm
  AceOfHockey
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:24pm
  Lincoln’s presidency meant their eventual end to their institution of slavery, and that was only destructive to their “right” to enslave people, of which there is no right, not to their life of liberty.
  ==============================
  
  That is sheer idiocy……
  
  1. The original U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right to slavery (long before Lincoln was ever even born)
  
  Did the original 13 States practice slavery?…..Indeed they did…
  
  So, what you are really saying (without realizing it) is that George Washington thought that King George III was a threat to end slavery in the American colonies and that this is why Washington fought the American Revolutionary War…
  
  You don’t really believe that do you?
  
  Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:12am
All part of Obama’s “War on Connecticut”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:22am
  Well you know what she said;
  
  “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:27am
  Morning EAST, LOL!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.