Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

As Heard on Beck Radio: Unbelievable TV Interview — Woman Describes Losing Her Dog…and then he emerges from the Rubble!

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)

JimDavey
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:56pm
Oh, my goodness! We must bring Spielberg to task on this at once! Our poor Liberal lemings rely 100% on movies for their general education and as the main resource of factual material for their rambling on-line arguments. Wait till Holder hears about it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
butthedd
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:41pm
A movie got it wrong and added a slant… that is diabolical!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
spfoam1
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:38pm
What Rep. Joe Courtney is really saying is that cockroches are a good thing as long as they are spreading their filth in someone elses house.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Big Mick
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:31pm
I don’t expect any more logic or cogency from Yankees and Federalist Tyrants.
I do expect more from Glenn, The Blaze and Most of you on this thread.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ISeeDanger.com
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:16pm
“He asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate”………. how much did that cost?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Big Mick
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:15pm
People’s, especially Glenn’s, Cognitive Dissonance (to the point of Clinical Grade Denial) continues to boggle my mind. I got a new perspective on all this at Duke Divinity when we dealt with The American Church during this period—”Divided Church Divided Nation”–can’t remember author.
Has ANYONE ever addressed, COGENTLY, the Incredible Logical Stretch no TORQUING, no WRENCHING OUT OF SOCKETS! of “Conceived in Liberty and Dedicated to the Proposition that All Men are Created Equal…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the Earth” and “PERPETUAL UNION!?”
WHY should Lincoln’s Administration, much LESS the UNION, be conterminous with “The Republic” and “The Constitution” much LESS “government of, by and for the people”?
On what POSSIBLE COGENT grounds did the Yankee BIGOTS reach the conclusion–and they DID–that they were preserving “Liberty” and “Gov of the people” from Tory Southern Aristo TRAITORS and REBELS? THEY didn’t really give a ratsaz about Slaves–Lincoln himself did not “If I could preserve THE UNION, by keeping all slave I would do it”!
No! It’s “The Perpetual Union”=”The Nation”=”The Republic”=”Gov of the People”=”Liberty”.
A FAUX use of the Transitive Property if ever there was one.
Cont.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:27pm
  By any legitimate COGENT reading of the ACTIONS of the mid 19th Century, all “spin” and revisionism bracketed OUT, Lincoln Trashed the Constitution, Trashed the Vision of the Founders, Trashed the PRINCPLES of a REPUBLIC of SOVEREIGN STATES, TRASHED ANY concept of “Limited” FEDERAL Government, TRASHED the Declaration of Independence and ANY LEGITIMATE concept of “Government OF the PEOPLE, BY the People, FOR the People”. Yeah Sherman’s March to the Sea, and Sheridan’s down The Valley were SOOOO “for the people” of “The Valley” and Georgia. That’s why they Burned their Homes, Destroyed their Livestock and Livelihoods, and HUNG whomever they chose.
  Any LOGICAL reading of the Historical Record says Lincoln was a TYRANT, all those who used Federal Military Force to DICTATE an end to Secession Tyrant ENABLERS and Wannabes.
  Whether or not Slavery had any place, was an evil that had to be destroyed for the Vision of the Founders to be Fulfilled, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! THAT was a struggle for a DIFFERENT venue. “Freeing the slaves–a revisionist SPIN” in no way LEGITMATES Federal Abrogation of GOD ENDOWED UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, and the CORRUPTION of The Constitution and The Republic created SOLELY to PRESERVE those rights. To Abrogate Southerners’ Rights to “Free” others is STILL Immoral and Tyranny!
  Cont.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:30pm
  There is no doubt in my mind that The Founders and All Revolutionaries v1.0 would have SHOT “Honest” Abe on site, given what he did, and all his bigoted enablers too.
  Thus to speak of The Founders and Lincoln in the same breath of Moral Equivalence is an EVIL LIE!
  
  Report this comment
strawberry411a
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:13pm
ENCINO “mom”. You are an evil EVIL person(s).

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
strawberry411a
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:12pm
Kind of tired about the “states rights” argument over the civil war. Jefferson predicted the Civil War OVER SLAVERY 40-50 years before it happened. So we can all pretend but the fact of the matter it was fought over commerce: i.e.SLAVERY.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:38pm
  Nothing like ignoring what people OF THE TIME SAID, eh Strawberry?
  Or are you arguing that Jefferson was a Prophet and his take Ex Cathedra on something 4 decades after his death is more accurate than what the participants say about what they thought they were doingl Do NOT confuse and conflate CAUSES, with MOTIVES! Do not confuse and conflate EFFECTS with OBJECTIVES! I utterly reject your attempt to assign Marxian Economic MOTIVES and OBJECTIVES to people whose GUTS and HEARTS were SWAYED by OTHER THINGS.
  If there WAS an “economic” motive here it is in the Northern Industrial Interests and questions of Black vrs Irish immigrant Labor Costs. It has to do with TRADE more than SLAVERY. Slavery is an EMMOTIONAL, MORAL, RELIGIOUS issue at bottom. It BECOMES the “bloody shirt” but the AIM was “TO PRESERVE THE UNION”. ALL else ain’t even good bullsheite, lacking the balls to be bull and the substance to be sheite. Making it Heifer Methane.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:41pm
  Sorry you won’t convince me otherwise. I have debated this with many many stronger proponents of the South’s “cause”than this website. The facts are the facts. The South started the war literally and figuratively in Carolina and the North finished it. To look at the South 150 or so years later, one can see the end result of an economy based on laziness and slavery. So go ahead and type but it doesn’t change a thing.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:43pm
  ..by the way, even LEE changed his tune after the war. Check it out. Suddenly it became a states rights issue…prior to the was it was his country right or wrong..his country being Virginia.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 6:12pm
  Laziness and slavery?
  
  So, we’re still lazy?
  
  Sorry I wasted so much time responding to you. You bastards can’t keep your true colors hidden for long.
  
  See you on the battlefield, Billy Yank. You’re working yourself up into a righteous yankee frenzy, to be the tool of the leftists once again.
  
  Pity history has to repeat over and over again. You’ll be one of those who usher in the Marxist dream that your ancestors initially enabled. Can’t let a good West Point education go to waste, we gotta have continual war to make use of it, right? Who better than to terrorize those lazy southrons? Right?
  
  There really is no possible reconciliation between us. Never. We’re learning our lessons well.
  
  Molon Labe. We know the price – you don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 1:00pm
  No you misinterpreted my meaning. This is where it gets confusing. The claim that less than 1percent of the south owned slaves is then contradicted when the absolute truth about the slave owning way of life is exposed. If it wasn’t about slavery why get upset when even Southern non slave owning men were as fed up as everyone else with the elitist “lazy: attitude of the welthy. Your anger over something that should be seen quite plainly is uncalled for. The slave culture was one of “laziness”..it does not mean that the Southern men were lazy . In fact quite the opposite. But as usual you have jumped to conclusions and followed up with threats of mayhem and violence. I think I understand why it is not possible for the Son’s of the Union and the Son’s of the South will never get a long. Good luck Johnny Reb. By the way Kentucky was a Border state because she got fed up with anyone..North or South ..telling her what to do.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 1:10pm
  …I think the one worked in to a frenzy is anyone but me brother.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 3:41pm
  I understand you perfectly. “…when the absolute truth of the slave culture is exposed.” What absolute truth? The absolute truth as your own apologists have penned it, is what you mean. I’ve read those “extrapolations”, and they don’t even address census records showing the majority of southern men having their own independent households, 5 kids or more, anywhere from 40-100 acres, and working their land with thier own family absent slavery. It also assumes that the only desire of a man was to “own” another human being, when these men had already passed the halfway mark of expected longevity at 21 years of age and acheived more real wealth than most can today – with no slave labor. What the “extrapolation” assumes is that every thing they produced or used to produce was in support of slave labor. Absolutely false.
  
  So, if we should “extrapolate” lets use Abe’s own words in his second “state of the union”, 1862.
  “It is no less true for having been often said that the people of the South are not more responsible for the original introduction of this property than are the people of the North; and when it is remembered how unhesitatingly we all use cotton and sugar and share the profits of dealing in them, it may not be quite safe to say that the South has been more responsible than the North for its continuance.”
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 6:11pm
  I agree. You made my argument for me. The vast majority of the South were not slave owners, were not fighting for slavery….but it does;t change the fundamental fact that despite this, the North and South fought and the fundamental issue was slavery…..if you want to phrase it as states rights then fill in the blank….states rights to own and sell slaves.. I guess I can’t get as emotional about the issue. Yes I had relative fight in the War…on both sides contrary to what you may have assumed…but it was a decision they made…not me. The Civil War destroyed the South and it has never recovered. I definitely didn’t mean to upset you so. You would be amazed at my family history despite your “allegation: of Reconstructionist Yank. My wife is also a relative of General Joseph Johnston and one of the more notorious cavalry fighters in West Virginia. So I can claim birthright to many different aspects of this war. But the fact remains. You can be proud of brave ancestors but you and I didn’t fight the war and it does no good to keep the wounds open over 150 years later. So long Johnny.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 8, 2013 at 12:39am
  I’ll leave you with a quote from Jefferson Davis, made after the question of slavery was well settled.
  
  “”…the principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
  
  He was exactly right, and we’re both living in that “another” time. Those “old wounds” will never heal, because they have never been reconciled as they should have. The “form” of current dissent with government, that I’m assuming we actually agree on, is the basis of Davis’ prophetic quip. In my mind, that is the ultimate tragedy – we failed to learn and apply the appropriate lessons over the past 150 years. The nation chose myth over fact – and we’re going to pay for it.
  
  So long Billy.
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:52pm
There is no worse form of slavery than the child sex slave industry right in everyone’s back yard in every city We need to fight to free the children from abuse and misery. People need to move on from the past mistakes and help people today.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
madbeachdave
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:47pm
This guy looks like Mr Burns from the simpsons

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
red_white_blue2
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:12pm
another license that was taken with the film is that the vote was not close, and there was no back room meetings. It passed with 70-80% approval of the 200 congressmen at the time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ADarkSkinAmerican
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:44pm
Such inaccuracies have caused black Americans to believe it is the Republican party that is the racist party. In fact, it has been the Democrat party that is racist and still is. History shows it was the Republican congress, when in the majority, that passed laws to eliminate slavery. The Democrat congress in the majority would undo those laws to promote slavery. Even today, this administration has put policies in place to produce dependency on the government thereby promoting slavery. They want to control and dictate our lives. Wake up folks, indeed they are trying to change history little by little. How many people are familiar with the nation’s history when it comes to our government?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ironeagle
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:30pm
You can’t trust a Progressive like Spielberg to do an accurate historical work without injecting the politics of progressivism into it (Saving Private Ryan was a historical fiction…an anti-war novel put in actual historical context). Lincoln is the same…little of that political arm-twisting portrayed in the movie was real.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ceefour
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 12:06pm
Any good democrat knows it was the democrat party who fought Abe Lincoln and nhis Republican party in the war to free the slaves..and it was the democrats who fought the conservative Republicans to give equal rights to the blacks. Don’t forget the Klan…they were all Republican….just read your history books.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rochrealtor
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:28am
Now he knows what we’re to putting up with. I hope he will look into his liberal school agendas and fix Connecticut!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Guitar Master
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:18am
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
From THE REPORTER
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Walked out of this movie after 20 minutes. The director had an obsession with D.D. Lewis’ profile. Yes, Lewis’ profile does resemble Lincoln’s, however, it seemed nearly every shot of Lewis was a profile shot. The movie was dark with a lot of unimportant dialogue. All in all, the movie was a bomb. Of course, the Academy will award it several awards because of the topic matter and director’s credentials. All in all, not worth the price of admission

In the year 2013 does it really matter how CT. voted? I think not. Rewriting history is ongoing so what’s new?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
WCJ
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:16am
Most Connecticut men, like other Union soldiers fought the war to save the Union not to free slaves. When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation the North suffered its highest desertion rate of the war. Ulysses S. Grant did not even free his slave until the 13th amendment was ratified.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TarheelFlyer
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:15am
CHUCK7884, Do some more research…Lincoln kept the South out so they couldn’t vote? Could of had something to do with a WAR that was going on when the amendment passed the House and Senate? Do you understand that Georgia was the state that made the amendment ratified for the US Constitution? Lincoln didn’t keep them from voting on the bill….secession did.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tigress1
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:14am
Thank you Blaze!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
no1hd
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:10am
Memphis is despicable. We have a black racist woman, can’t stand anything white but her ****/wig is blond and straight and carries herself like she’s a white goddess-not black. Has been jailed and charged with domestic assault, involved in falsifying records to get a drivers license that was taken for DUI. In my mind is trash to the max.
The rest of the state , central to East is Conservative and a fantastic place to be.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 1:33pm
  Your post is in response to a discussion started about what’s going on in Memphis the past few days.
  
  That discussion has been erased and your post got thrown to the last page. It will always be at the end because the “moderation” of an entire discussion does that here.
  
  I’ll try to re-post my contribution to that discussion – but doubt it’ll be shown. Beck/Barton are rabid anti-Forrest and anti-Confederacy and will never abide by the inconvienient truths they’ve lied against.
  
  Just thought you deserved to know what happened. The “Truth” does not live here, same ol’ agenda driven crap that seems to exist on both sides. The only thing they agree on (left and establishment right) is “The South Must Die”.
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 2:38pm
  I also have a strong interest in Forrest…not because of any political agenda or his part in the Southern rebellion but simply because he is without a doubt the best Cavalry commander in history and I like his style of warfare: complete. Ft. Pillow tarnished him as did his affiliation with the KKK . I have heard the usual arguments for the establishment of the KKK during Reconstruction. I am also aware that their goals in 1868 were completely different from those of 1928. But the fact of the matter is it is a touch subject and rightfully so. One has to remember that for the WEST POINT grads of this period they swore an oath to the Constitution…and they broke it. I admire Lee for his character and chivalry but even his own family were disgusted when he broke his oath to the USA. Forrest was just a straightforward excellent combat leader.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:04pm
  Strawberry,
  
  You said the operative thing, “oath to the Constitution”. The direction of the government under Lincoln and the Radical Republicans was anything but “constitutional”. The nation and the principles that founded it are very distinct. Lee nor Forrest were traitors to the Constitution. No constitutional scholar of the period prior to the WBTS would have agrued against their interpretations. The book by Rawle on the Consititution was the West Point text at the time, Lee adhered to those principles – as did most of his West Point associates.
  
  None of the Confederates swore an oath to the United States, but the Constitution thereof.
  
  I’ll admit that even I have had some trouble reconciling the two concepts in the past. Sadly, events unfolding before my eyes in our current time are clarifying the situation. I will not choose some nationalistic mythology over the concrete wisdom of the Constitution. The heart wrenching decisions my ancestors had to make, are becoming all too present for me. However, I’ve made my choice. Like them, I hope I do not have to act on it – but will if required.
  
  Something you should know about Forrest, I have a newspaper you should read.
  http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045160/1875-07-06/ed-1/seq-1/
  
  Another link, to Forrest’s actual words, including an interview given during the height of Tennessee’s unrest in 1868.
  http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=085
  
  Report this comment
- strawberry411a
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:11pm
  Yes I have read it. Most don’t know that Forrest became a Christian a couple of years before his death….and he credits his wife and mother for their prayers. Forrest had the interest of the South in mind after the war..he wanted it rebuilt and strong. But it was almost a lost cause. Having gone to school in the South almost 40 years ago it is a sad sad drive for me to see what it has become.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 5:20pm
  Strawberry,
  
  Tell me what you see? I see a big difference in 40 years myself – lifelong resident and native son.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 4:10pm
  If you want to discuss slavery within its proper economic context of a centralized system of production, then lets have at it. There I would agree with both you and D’Toqueville. However, we’d also discuss the northern penchant for subsidy and its ramifications on both centralizing and misallocation of resources, as well as the anti-competitive monopolies they became.
  
  If we’re going to throw around such terms as “lazy” in comparison with these economic models, lets not pull punches. At the time of the war, the northern industries, agriculture, and shipping were existing soley on “bounty” as it was called then, subsidy is what we call it now. This allowed them to be lazy and complacent in their business, not living in the real world of economic cause and effect. Rather than adopting anything to make them more competitive, they whined to the government for relief. The entire northeastern merchant fleet lived off this “bounty”. No such payments existed in the south – with the exception of the sugar industry. Which, happened to be owned by NY interests and was exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation – even though those regions were never under Union control throughout the war.
  
  Why would the non-slave owning southern classes suddenly want to separate from the US, if it were not for slavery? The US government had finally succeeded in crossing every line of demarkation in the south with every class.
  
  cont.
  
  Report this comment
- UnreconstructedLibertarian
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 4:33pm
  The slave-owning class of the ante-bellum South were the leaders. They were the only ones who had the resources to lead, both in time and money. the balance (not unlike society today) were too busy producing and going about their business. The same could be said of the northern industrialist classes. The main difference between the electorates of the time, non-leading classes, was their relationship with government.
  
  With the exception of Lousiana’s sugar industry, owned by northern industrialists, the balance of southern enterprise enjoyed zero “bounty” from the government. Their only association with government was in paying duties and tarriffs against their imported goods. Northern industrialists, shippers, and merchants well informed their wage-slaves of the gov’s importance to their wages. Northern wool and ag production was subsidized, southern was not. All of this is summarized in Georgia’s declaration of secession.
  
  Non-slave owning southrons were not happy. Hadn’t been happy since the 1830′s. Huge crowds followed the “Fire-Eaters”, much of their talk was Constitutionalist and anti-Federalist. All it would take for the entire south to mobilize would be for the leader class to get on board. That happened in 1860. Its notable that the upper south completely rejected the slave issue as a cause, but fell into line when Lincoln’s unconstitutional war actions and impending tarriffs proved their worst fears.
  
  It was all about money.
  
  Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 11:10am
Bad link above. Here’s the right one:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/feb/05/memphis-city-council-to-review-four-plans-to/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thequeenbee
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:56am
Unfortunately, many people get their information from movies. If they see it in a movie, it must be true. History started to become erased in the 70′s with the introduction of ‘diversity’. Children are not taught basic civics, geography and American History. The state run media and hollywood have been willing participants. My children who are in their 30′s really have no idea as to the evil of socialism and communism. And so it is by design because we are living in it right now. It has been a slow steady march since the late 60′s.Too many people are just going with the flow like lambs being led to the slaughter. People are becoming enslaved by all the bennies and government goodies without realizing the trade off is their freedom.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jdmarston
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:38am
I am used to Memphis doing this stuff–erasing history is par for the course here. I have ancestors who fought in the Civil War on the Confederates side. They never owned a slave in their lives–they were poor dirt farmers who disagreed with the Federal government and did not want them “invading” their homes. Ignoring their history is a disservice to us all. The Civil War was a complicated mass of conflicting opinions–erasing the existence of the “losing” side does no one any good!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Taylor808018
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:39pm
  Yay! JD! Absolutely right…a lot were worse off than slaves with Masters that treated them well. (Yes, I know some were not treated well). I have no respect for Lincoln because of the outright lies and reasons for the War of Northern Agression. When those poor farmers went off to the war to protect what little they did have, Lincoln agreed to send Sherman and others through the South with “total war.” If that was done today, liberals would be screaming foul. Yet, they don’t understand why the South has remained poor for so long. Now today that they have taxed and trashed their own Yankee land, they come South and drive up real estate prices and make deals with present day carpet-baggers to get prime land ( a lot from TVA that was taken in the 1930′s). Everyone gets to have their culture but the South. For most, it did not include slavery. My mother’s family were share croppers and worked very hard – God-fearing people. Today, after having overcome that we get to pay for a lot of lazy bums to sit on their butts (black and white) and take our money given to them by Obama.
  
  Report this comment
fastgen1
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:25am
OMG people, how did you not notice that Spielberg is doing his damnedest to change history. History according to the Hollywood elitists. How do people not notice Spielberg’s jewish slant on everything he does. It is the “World according to Speilberg”…..Want to be scared, the jewish press has been writing and publishing our schools text books since the 50s, HELLO out there, wake up!!! Google it……

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BacktotheFounders
Posted on February 6, 2013 at 10:21am
Who was Francis Scott Key? He wrote “The Star Spangled Bannner” while he was imprisoned on a British ship. Who was Scott Key Howard? He was the grandson of Francis Scott Key and editor of a newspaper in Baltimore MD, who was, along with many others, imprisoned at Fort Layette NY, in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln for exercising his right of free speech by expressing sympathy for the Southern position. To read about the conditions in this prison, google “Portals to Hell; Military Prisons of the Civil War Excerpts Page 3.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

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.