"if in pursuit of your destination you plunge ahead heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp ... what's the use in knowing true north?" VERY apt words in today's political climate...
Lincoln was America's greatest comeback of all time. The poor man lived most of his life in hardship, war, brokenhearted, tragedy and failure. Yet he had endurance and never gave up.
He had a hard life for sure and grew up in hardship. But he also created a thriving business, made lots of friends (seriously, a ton of friends) and his kids and wife loved him. Plenty of people don't get any of those things, even if they live 30 years longer.
@@jhl3653 that is a laughable statement. There is NO comparison between Trump and Lincoln in either temperament, leadership, conviction or ideology. The fact they share only the letter "R" is a sad tale of how parties evolve...and subsequently decline. One was a steward of the public welfare and an opponent of organized money in the context of a southern plantation aristocracy and its "patrician republic." Former President Trump is no more a champion of the working man or of the public welfare than an entrepreneur and robber baron of the Gilded Age was at their time. Trump has more in common with the notoriety or infamy of Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace than any average, let alone exceptional American president. Even my fellow Tennessean, President Andrew Jackson, was a more meaningful president with a vastly different contextual form of populism. It would be like comparing Louie Gohmert and Ted Cruz to statesmen like Daniel Webster and Henry Clay...it's embarrassing that the former sit in the same chambers as the latter. The fact that you think so is a testament to this dystopian age of disinformation and propaganda.
Lincoln's pragmatic countering of Steven's zeal is my favorite dialogue in this movie (and not for lack of competition.) Even that firebrand had to concede, however silently, that Abe had made a valid a point.
I Lincoln would’ve thought that was naïve to the extreme because people change their minds and you can do irrevocable harm in a hurry and be Yesterdays news for the rest of your life as a politician
Lincoln wasn't understood or appreciated while he was alive. It was really only after he was gone that he was recognized for the towering figure he was.
The great sadness in this scene is that Lincoln is right. Stevens’ radical approach eventually lost out to southern revanchism, reconstruction was prematurely halted, and the nation lost a hundred years of racial progress as the southern states established a version of virtual serfdom for its black citizens.
Lincoln and Stevens were two great men of their day driven by their convictions. Both were quick witted and brilliant. Stevens was known for his ability to devastate his opponents with a few words. Tommy Lee Jones does an admirable job of portraying Stevens. Lincoln was one of the few men who could truly hold his own with Stevens and actually persuade Stevens to reconsider his position. Had Lincoln lived, there can be little doubt that Reconstruction would have been much different.
In the argument over Reconstruction, Thaddeus Stevens' view of the matter proved to be the more superior plan of action. There would have been no Jim Crow for 80 yrs, if Stevens' approach had been adopted immediately after the War.
Unfortunately, Stevens' plan reeks of modern American nation building. Which has a pretty terrible track record. Confiscation of land from a percentage of the original instigators (the wealthiest) would've been tolerated by the South, but Stevens was right that the Union Army should've maintained a sizable public presence throughout the South and defended the black population with any and all means.
@@orboobleck5366 My man, we had a guerrilla war anyway & reconstruction failed anyway, or are we forgetting the white league and the kkk. Steven’s plans was better. It would have prevented the long struggle of pain that led to the civil rights movement and would have even prevented the racial unrest of today. EDIT: grammar
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons I would say this much. Sherman’s March cleared enough land for the freed slaves to prosper upon. Furthermore, given that those slaveholders had either fled or been shot, I do not think they’d be able to complain much. Furthermore, Georgia was in no position to complain any way and further clearing of land in the region, if necessary, would have been met with no more resistance than was already being experienced in the region.
At his heart...Lincoln was a politician. A good one. All the things he did in his time in office may have been inspired by his heart, developed by his mind, and guided by his faith, but they were accomplished due to his uncanny ability to always be the master politician. In any engagement.
The Man in the Suit If he was as great as you claim he was surely he could have ended slavery without a civil war. Like buying all the slaves a persuade southern states that slavery is an economic detriment to them. Finally before the war it can be pointed out that Lincoln endorsed policy regarding infrastructure contracts that improved him financially.
The South was bent upon treason from the moment Lincoln was elected in 1860, so there was zero chance that Lincoln could broker any kind of peaceful termination of slavery, especially after traitors opened fire on Ft. Sumter. So just stow that talk about how Lincoln could have ended slavery without a war. The South was determined to resort to war to hang on to slavery.
Stevens was wrong about strategy and pragmatic concerns. Lincoln didn't really disagree with him in terms of what he wanted to achieve, he just had a better understanding of what was practically possible, and how to convince people to actually agree to achieve what was possible. People who come across as moderate, who argue for compromise, are often misunderstood as being people who don't have strong values, but they are often just people with strong values who have more wisdom and knowledge when it comes to understanding what sorts of political goals are actually practically achievable, and how to achieve them. They understand that being completely open about their values can potentially be counter-productive to the goal of achieving wide-spread political support or compromise from other political parties or other interest groups. Furthermore, we should all be careful not to presume to know EXACTLY what the ideal ends or goals should be. We should always remain humble and open minded in terms of where our moral compasses are pointing, or what they ought to be pointing to.
@@ziraprod6090 Mostly true...Conservatives still don't get this. Back then, conservatives, moderates, and liberals were found in both parties. The conservative Democrats were the ones in the South who seceded...but you're right, modern day Republicans are almost all conservative or authoritarian, and only see the world in black and white.
@@grezgorztube I mean, your first statement is just flatly incorrect. At the end of the war, the government had the mandate and power to take Reconstruction in basically any direction. Major land redistribution of the type Stevens wanted was even implemented in a very limited manner by the generals in the field. Lincoln's initial weakness on the more stringent aspects of Reconstruction was made worse by his assassination and the ascension of Andrew Johnson, who was overtly anti-African American. Radical Reconstruction is what the country needed. The traitors needed to have their power broken, their land and wealth redistributed, and the new freed population needed to have their rights stringently protected by American troops. None of that was done, and even before reconstruction officially ended, ex-Confederates had taken control of the bulk of Southern land, Southern governments and were passing legal hurdles for Black enfranchisement. And it's not just African Americans that suffered; the Southern economy as a whole stagnated under the weight of sharecropping and the lack of economic development stemming from Jim Crow. America was set back decades by Lincoln's and especially Johnson's failures after the war. Stevens and the Radicals were absolutely right about what was needed after the war. In many respects Lincoln's legacy is helped by the fact that he didn't live to see the repercussions of the awful course he set on Reconstruction.
What a fabulous little scene! Today it is difficult to imagine two Americans, let alone two American statesmen-if only in a movie-debate so eloquently, authentically & intelligently. Unfortunately democracy is the idea that people get the leaders they deserve. Apparently Americans were more deserving in the 19th Century than we are in 21st.
Not to be “that guy”, but the United States is not, and was never intended to be a democracy. Democracy is destined to fail on a large scale, and fortunately the founding fathers were smart enough to understand that and created a Democratic Republic instead. The only thing preventing us from being what we were intended to be is an ignorant and easily distracted and misled electorate. So in a way, you are still correct. We don’t get the leaders we deserve. We get the “leaders” we are too stupid to keep re-electing after they make a career out of fundraising for the next election rather than actually legislating on behalf of the best interests of the people they are there to represent. Two words. Term. Limits. And make it illegal for former legislators to become lobbyists for at least 8-10 years after they leave office. The whole game is rigged and we keep allowing it to happen. We are better than that.
I can see just another old man embittered by modern times. Will you actually do anything about it, or whine until you're worm food (which judging by your white beard probably isn't too far off)?
I absolutely love Lincoln's usage of a metaphor(I think it's one, correct me if I'm wrong) to get Thaddeus to understand that they both want the same thing and that Lincoln is simply trying to show Thaddeus another, possibly safer and better path to their shared goal. I truly believe that Lincoln deserves the same kind of recognition and honoring that Washington and the Founding Fathers get. Lincoln gave us the chance to birth our nation anew, to put aside all the bloodshed and truly live up to the standards and ideals we set forth in our constitution. I actually pick up every penny I find because I can't stand the thought of Honest Abe being tossed aside and forgotten.
Tony Kushner was an avid researcher of these men and knew of the writing and accounts of them on these issues, He likewise, had excellent insight into Lincoln's rationale and choice of arguments from Lincoln's accumulated record, which was extensive and highly documented. While creative license is always a part of these interactions, knowing the stated positions of the participants and their tendencies in debate, allows one to conjecture with confidence that the themes and even the specific arguments are highly likely to have been pretty close.
@@eichelbergergary - As a screenwriter of historical stories, I think they key is to know the character of historic people enough to have them do what is consistent with how they would respond in that situation. That's more important than uniform details or getting exact quotes correct.
Sadly, he could never get elected even to local office in this shallow, form-over-substance world. Modern junk culture gravitates to the short attention span lowest common denotator.
this is exactly why Joe Biden is exactly the president the US needs right now, and for 4 more years. He has, and can, and will continue to lead us through the divisiveness.
I'm a "son of the confederacy". I have heard both sides my whole life. I believe my life has been better due to the preservation of the Union. And of my children. Scar my heart that today we would be 2 different countries. May one of us be speaking in German now? But we don't. The Civil War has a horrific event, no kind things can be said about it. But after, WE did something the world had not done. Jeff Davis, Gen Lee and all of them were not sent to Gulags. While mistakes were made, there was no lynch mob sent against the "Reb's". We are perhaps the first Civil War that did not vanquish the defeated. We are a remarkable people, with all of our flaws. This "kindness" fully manifested itself in the "Marshal Plan" after WW2. This is what we do. With all of our problems, we are still "the shining city on the hill." May God bless you all. And may God bless the United States of America. Boy could we use Abe Lincoln now.
What a bunch of bollocks. Perhaps if we had "vanquished the defeated" we would have spared ourselves 150 years of civil strife that cripples us today. Are you really going to compare the abortion that was Reconstruction to the Marshall Plan? The Marshall Plan was enacted AFTER punitive measures were taken against the surviving Nazi leaders and their enablers, along with the demilitarization of Germany. The political leadership of the South needed to be dismantled and rebuilt, but instead we absolved those involved and pretended like it never happened. And lo and behold, we traded the literal chains of slavery for the figurative chains of Jim Crow. And for what? To preserve the wealth and dignity of plantation owners that used Southern working class whites as cannon fodder to protect their right to treat black people as their property. It should have been working class whites forming those lynch mobs to string up the traitors who deceived them into war. Instead, they built statues to them. We don't need Abe Lincoln now. We needed him then. We needed a postwar leader that at the very least would listen to what people like Thaddeus Stevens were saying. But we ended up with Andrew Johnson instead, and we're all worse off for it.
Both of them are right. A more radical approach to ending slavery at the onset of the war would have been disastrous and lost the war before it even started. A tame and reserved approach to reconstruction would have been equally disastrous and rendering the victory so ineffectual as to make it all but meaningless. This country would be a lot better off today if Lincoln had been allowed to carry out the rest of his term and these two men could have charted a course for a long and meaningful reconstruction of the South with freed Blacks taking part equally. The era of Jim Crow and segregation might have been avoided. And I state with supreme confidence that the second the South re-elected Confederate leaders back into positions of power and those leaders openly endorsed the campaigns of terrorism conducted in the South by groups like the KKK, Lincoln would have had them all killed and their power structures left in ruin as they deserved.
@@nutsackmania I'm doing more than that. I'm reiterating Lincoln's point about the danger of an aggressive approach but also referencing what happened after Lincoln was assassinated and a more reserved approach actually produced bad results.
True, although Lincoln was so ill and worn out it would have been a miracle if he had survived his second term regardless of that fateful night at Ford's. It's one of the most fascinating "what if, and what might have been" moments from history.
The South essentially had no middle class, few schools and libraries and was dirt poor long before the war began. Stevens approach was desperately needed, and the fact that it wasn't seriously implemented condemned the south to another hundred years of poverty, ignorance and illiteracy.
While that all may be true, Lincolns point was completely valid. That kind of restoration after the war - even if Lincoln hadn't been assasinated and served out his second term - would have required total military occupation for years, possibly decades of at least parts of the South. With what? There's no way the war worn North would have been able or willing to pay for standing troops of tens of thousands of men - possible even hundreds of thousands - for years. And the men who had fought the war and were happy to still live wanted nothing else than to go home to wherever they came from. The whole point of the scene as I see it is that Stephens may have been morally right, but Lincoln saw the realities and limitations of the actual situation on the ground.
@@mateuszmattias No, Lincoln was out to lunch and Thaddeus correctly analyzed the situation. The cost of all those troops would have been unsupportable, but all those troops were not needed to keep former secessionists out of political power. Johnson destroyed the next 100 years of economic progress in the south by handing back all the lands and industry in the south to the traitor minority of southern oligarchs. As for Lincoln, he was a follower of Henry Clay and Clay's belief that the only workable solution was to send all people of color out of the country.
Stevens is often called a "radical," both in this movie and history, a term that conjures implications of naivety or excessive idealism. But this scene demonstrates that Stevens was, at his heart, a firm pragmatist in the pursuit of his ideals. He recognized that waiting for white people "to be ready" was a futile gesture, that the average white person would never voluntarily cede their elevated position in American society in the name of creating a truly just civilization. So, instead, he did what he could to seize this chance, and push as hard as he could to try and achieve his objectives while the moment potentially presented itself to not just try to end slavery, but to actually make a concerted effort to create economic and political justice for the formerly-enslaved while the country was perhaps willing to do it if they saw it as a chance to punish the South for their insurrection. Because he correctly judged that, if they failed to get it now, they might never get another chance...
"The people elected me to lead them, so I lead. You oughta try it." Against a man like Lincoln, those words have little meaning, but today? Damn, they cut deep.
I think Lincoln was the only pragmatist in this scene. Stevens is absolutely an idealist who had no chance of achieving his goals without tempering them as Lincoln insisted.
Absolute BULLSHIT. Stevens wanted to take literally everything from Southerners even though the vast majority of them had no slaves and did not approve of slavery. This AFTER the North had spent the first 80 years of this country's history subjugating the political and economic will of the South for its own ends. The North was the rich part of the country, not the South. He was going to steal land from a few hundred plantation owners... and a few million poor Southerners. Stevens was never concerned with "fairness" or sharing the country - he wanted to utterly destroy the South for daring to have its own political and economic ideas that did not conform to his will. After all, he didn't care about appropriating land from Northern slaveholders. He wrapped his desire for utter domination of his countrymen with the flag of abolition and pretended like he was a moral man. He was a monster and the one good thing I can say about Lincoln is that he opposed and prevented Steven's version of Reconstruction. Stevens would have merely created a new class of slave - the poor, disowned white Southerner.
@@danlorett2184 Hmm, interesting. Let's the check the opinion polls from the time to see what percentage of whites supported slavery. What's that you say? That wasn't a thing back then? Well then, I guess your "most whites opposed slavery" claim is horseshit. What's real is the 30% of white families that used forced human labor to profit from or live off. Or the hundreds of thousands of soldiers the south was able to call upon in its defense prior to conscription. I gotta say, if most white people in the South actually opposed slavery, they sure kept it a fucking secret. Also, why do you mention your absurd belief that whites in the south opposed slavery, then bring up Stevens wanting to destroy "economic and political ideas that did not conform to his will?" If you are referring to building your economic and political power off slavery, then didn't you just argue from the beginning that he was trying to destroy economic and political ideas that didn't conform to the will of most of the South as well? You can't have it both ways, you mook. Stop trying to dress up your romanticizing of one of the most vile, brutal slave societies in history (the antebellum south) as concern for the marginalized. Especially when you don't seem to give a shit about the truly marginalized of that time period, i.e., the human beings who were straight-up fucking ENSLAVED.
Abe Lincoln's spoken voice was never recorded, of course. But if there would ever be one actor (whose work consists of studying characters sometimes for years before the cameras roll) who'd come the closest to how the president sounded, it would have to be the brilliant Daniel Day Lewis.
I've read first person accounts that described Lincoln's voice as surprisingly high pitched for someone of his size, and I think DDL captured an element of that.
I still consider this to be one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. It's easier to play a fictional character - you make of them what you want. Portraying a historical figure with such authenticity.... with NO first hand reference to pattern or sound of speech, body language, or presence is a feat of genius. DDL achieved the closest thing I've ever seen to BECOMING the character you are portraying. It is mesmerizing to watch and I often found myself forgetting that I was watching an actor at all.
Stevens was a genius who was ahead of his time. Unfortunately in the 1860s, Human Rights for all was a little too far ahead. Lincoln was smarter. He believed in the same things, but he also knew compromises would need to be made to reunite America. However they both got what they want. Now in 2022 we are getting closer than ever before.
You want to think he was smarter. Germany Denazified and gave up their hatred of Jews faster than the south were willing to give blacks equal rights. The southern aristocracy should've been crushed under Grants boot and all lands confiscated from slave owners.
Then we would have had Poland and the Ukraine under the Nazis' or Ireland under the English. Unfortunately,there was no solution at the time and a squandered solution in ours.
@@BodhranBrian You’re telling me a military occupation of the south by the federal army to prevent racist terrorism from ex confederate soldiers, massacres, lynching, black codes, Jim Crow state governments, legal & polticsl disenfranchisement of black men, woman and children is SOMEHOW Nazi like. Wtf is wrong with you
@@johnhenry4844 You completely misunderstood the original message and my response. I will try to make it clear. Thaddeus Stevens was for a complete dismantling of what was left of the south,he wanted the southern people pauperized,land forcibly expropriated and the denial of political and civil rights for the white residents. PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THIS!!! "Reconstruction" under this punitive policy WOULD have led to guerilla warfare by the South and further escalating reprisals from the North. It was Lincolns vision of a non-punitive reconstruction. The ascension of Andrew Johnson and a more punitive and vitriolic policy together with his bitter racism sowed the seeds for the return of slavery in all but name. BOTH of their visions of Reconstruction could only rest on Federal bayonets and forcibly removing wealth and populations would have been similar in result to what I have said before. Hope it clears it up!
@@BodhranBrian 1860s white southerners worried about there civil rights……..lol And land forcibly taken from the slave owning, evil planter aristocracy sounds like a great thing to me. And if it means a couple years of civil war and more decisive action to crush Ex confederate terrorist groups then that is what should HAVE happened. Not leaving the free black men woman and children to the mercy of the ex confederates and a 100 years of lynching, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement Edit: Johnson didn’t go far enough or was to racist to be an effective reconstruction president, should have just occupied the south for decades until they became civilised.
Lincoln's point (he didn't say this, but it does capture the spirit of his disagreement with the Radical Republicans and Abolitionists) is that, what's the point of knowing what is morally good if in pursuing it you fail to achieve its aims? What is the point if you don't know how to get there? At that point, it's useless.
I think his point is that public opinion can change in a heartbeat. But he was elected and he had to do it the way he saw fit not according to the prevailing opinion.
They both have a point. But I side with Lincoln on this topic. Forcing change will not lead anyone to the promised land. Once force is used it becomes the standard action for tyrants tomorrow.
I can’t think of any other President who actually grew up poor. Lincoln was dirt-floor poor as a kid. Struggled as a civil serviceman. I read of Lincoln that he enjoyed the compensation offered for travel expenses when elected to Congress. It allowed him and his wife to visit Kentucky on the way to Washington.
@@wojciechgrodnicki6302 Also Truman: “You’re a Jew, David [Susskind], and no Jew has ever been in our house. Bess runs it, and there’s never been a Jew inside the house in her or her mother’s lifetime."
@@jebthegodemperor7301 The ironic part of Truman being less wealthy than most ex presidents and unemployed with no way to earn a living after he left the White House (other than his $112 per month Army pension) was that Congress couldn't just offer him a pension. It would have seemed like charity and embarrassed him, so the only other living ex president at the time (Hoover) also got the $25k pension starting in 1958 even though he was wealthy. He accepted it supposedly to keep from embarrassing Truman. In reality though, Truman was far from destitute. He had about $400k in bonds and cash when he left office and received $670k ($6.8 million in today's money) for his memoirs in 1955. In 1959, Truman reported his net worth as $1 million ($10.1 million in 2022 dollars) including partial ownership of the LA Rams.
Politics, when used constructively, is the action of using power and influence to foster positive change slowly. SLOWLY. And the changes have to be slow in order for the public to adjust, debate in society and regulate. And the debate of educated, sensible minds can lead the charge.
Concepts of constituency and those who depend upon you… you on them. The advocacy and realization of an imperfect world needing better. Heart breaking and affirming in so many ways. The pathways…. Making it a bit more digestible, and purposeful… there’s real strength in the courage of these acquisitions of understandings and linked to workable actions. #LoveEVICTShate
I love this scene. I find it worrying that so many people these days seek to emphasize uncompromising radicals like Stevens while de-emphasizing the more moderate - and more successful - Lincoln. It's a hard time for those repelled by the growing forces of ideological extremes.
"If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I'd do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I'd do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I'd also do that, too." - Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley
@@WeaslyTwin. Precisely so: he considered slavery utterly wrong. It is made very clear in his speeches and writings, say 2nd adress to the Cooper Institute.
@@WeaslyTwin precisely! I don’t know why people can’t seem to grasp that an elected person’s first duty is to the law and the people, not always what he considers right. The same people who condemn Lincoln for not being more tyrannical are the same who condemn people who want a moral society today. They are quick to say keep your personal views to yourself, but when it’s something they care about, they are more than happy to say the ends justify the means. Lincoln was very well versed in his duty, and his morality. Much of the powers of the president we m is today didn’t exist in his time, and he constantly pushed the envelope as much as he reasonably could. As history has shown, we have paid a great price for it. I’m not saying the reward wasn’t worth it, but Lincoln is a great example as to why these things should be done carefully and as calculated as possible.
In other words, he was saying that preserving the Union was the most important and primary goal. It was also the ONLY goal of the two within the constitutional powers and responsibility of the president. Although several states had abolished slavery within their borders by 1860, it was not yet prohibited by federal law. It was also a matter of practicality. If the US was greatly diminished or ceased to be, all other goals would have been impossible and moot. He was also a master at leadership by incrementalism, getting the people gradually used to one idea at a time. If you get out too far ahead of the people you're trying to lead, you may look back and find that no one is following you. He knew that a US president is not a monarch. His constitutional powers were extremely limited in that regard. The Emancipation Proclamation (in effect what we would call an Executive Order) was by necessity limited in scope to his war powers as commander in chief. He also knew that in using his executive war powers to issue the EP, he was by necessity conceding two points long held by the South but until then denied by the US government - the Confederacy was a sovereign belligerent nation, and slaves were not people, but property. The general abolition of slavery on a federal level, as opposed to an individual state level or by an executive order targeted against areas in rebellion, was beyond the powers of the president. It required a constitutional amendment approved by congress and at least 3/4 of the states.
To think, this is the same man who portrayed Bill the Butcher and Daniel Plainview ("There Will Be Blood"). You forget there's an actor there, and see only the character -- in this case, an actual historical figure, known at some level to all. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of our time.
1:26-1:39. Gold. And he's right too. Who gives a shit about the people's wants and what they're ready for. When it comes to civil rights, it's about justice, not popularity.
Stevens lol. Bruh, Congress regularly has a 13 percent approval rate yet far more than that are retained. The people might have elected you but that doesn’t mean sheet. Maybe they just like your whig. And that’s exactly why Lincoln’s point is so salient because with the masses you don’t realize you’ve crossed a line until it’s too late
Can you imagine anyone in Congress or the White House speaking like this these days? Or even understanding what these guys are talking about. They’re both right. They’re both wrong. And if no one on one side of the aisle is willing to work with anyone on the other side of the aisle what the hell is the point of even sending them there in the first place??
allies will rarely abide a discomfortable situation never taking it on the chin having no stomach, for even a drop of the experiences, the people they advocate for have lived with for their whole lives lots of Stevens', not enough Lincolns
No he’s not. Bernie nor any politician of our time is on par with Thaddeus Stevens. This is just more leftist sudo deification of Bernie as if he’s not another millionaire politician
WRONG! Thaddeus Stevens lived and loved Free Enterprise. He just wanted to make sure that Black Americans could own land and freely compete with other farmers in the North in the open and free markets. He DID endorse taking away land from people who used slave labor to cultivate their land. That might be the only similarity, but Thaddeus was no Communist.
Giant actors playing giant men. Wonderfully done.
"if in pursuit of your destination you plunge ahead heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp ... what's the use in knowing true north?"
VERY apt words in today's political climate...
One of the best put arguments against the blind idealism on both sides of the aisle these days.
an ossified compass is not a compass
Lincoln was America's greatest comeback of all time. The poor man lived most of his life in hardship, war, brokenhearted, tragedy and failure. Yet he had endurance and never gave up.
And unlike with other countries who suffered a civil war just as catastrophic as this one, there was no Lincoln to save them.
Only a man of many experiences can be a true politician
@Faugs U ok cletus
He had a hard life for sure and grew up in hardship. But he also created a thriving business, made lots of friends (seriously, a ton of friends) and his kids and wife loved him. Plenty of people don't get any of those things, even if they live 30 years longer.
America's greatest tragedy had to have been the murder of Lincoln by a bitter fool.
Lincoln was the perfect man at the perfect time to lead the country through its darkest time.
Not a “perfect” man but certainly the right one.
Just like President Trump. Far (FAR!!!) from a perfect man. But absolutely what we need right now.
@@jhl3653 There is no comparison, in anyway, between the two.
@@jhl3653 that is a laughable statement. There is NO comparison between Trump and Lincoln in either temperament, leadership, conviction or ideology. The fact they share only the letter "R" is a sad tale of how parties evolve...and subsequently decline. One was a steward of the public welfare and an opponent of organized money in the context of a southern plantation aristocracy and its "patrician republic." Former President Trump is no more a champion of the working man or of the public welfare than an entrepreneur and robber baron of the Gilded Age was at their time. Trump has more in common with the notoriety or infamy of Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace than any average, let alone exceptional American president. Even my fellow Tennessean, President Andrew Jackson, was a more meaningful president with a vastly different contextual form of populism. It would be like comparing Louie Gohmert and Ted Cruz to statesmen like Daniel Webster and Henry Clay...it's embarrassing that the former sit in the same chambers as the latter. The fact that you think so is a testament to this dystopian age of disinformation and propaganda.
@@brandonf24 Amen.
Lincoln's pragmatic countering of Steven's zeal is my favorite dialogue in this movie (and not for lack of competition.) Even that firebrand had to concede, however silently, that Abe had made a valid a point.
1:42 "The people elected me to represent them. To lead them. And I lead. You oughta try it."
The balls on Stevens to say that to someone like Lincoln.
I Lincoln would’ve thought that was naïve to the extreme because people change their minds and you can do irrevocable harm in a hurry and be Yesterdays news for the rest of your life as a politician
He wasn’t the greatest president in history…yet
@@Chris-0703 so true. Before he was the great man, Lincoln was just a man and a one-term Congressman at the same time as Stevens was.
Lincoln wasn't understood or appreciated while he was alive. It was really only after he was gone that he was recognized for the towering figure he was.
Perhaps not “balls” so much as “blinders”
The great sadness in this scene is that Lincoln is right. Stevens’ radical approach eventually lost out to southern revanchism, reconstruction was prematurely halted, and the nation lost a hundred years of racial progress as the southern states established a version of virtual serfdom for its black citizens.
Except not at all, Johnson let off too many Southerner and allowed reconstruction to be too soft. A firmer hand like Stevens was needed.
Steven's never got. Chance to have his full vision realized because Johnson was not on his side
Lincoln and Stevens were two great men of their day driven by their convictions. Both were quick witted and brilliant. Stevens was known for his ability to devastate his opponents with a few words. Tommy Lee Jones does an admirable job of portraying Stevens. Lincoln was one of the few men who could truly hold his own with Stevens and actually persuade Stevens to reconsider his position. Had Lincoln lived, there can be little doubt that Reconstruction would have been much different.
In the argument over Reconstruction, Thaddeus Stevens' view of the matter proved to be the more superior plan of action. There would have been no Jim Crow for 80 yrs, if Stevens' approach had been adopted immediately after the War.
@@dovbarleib3256 Instead there would have been unrest, a simmering guerilla war that lasted years.
Unfortunately, Stevens' plan reeks of modern American nation building. Which has a pretty terrible track record.
Confiscation of land from a percentage of the original instigators (the wealthiest) would've been tolerated by the South, but Stevens was right that the Union Army should've maintained a sizable public presence throughout the South and defended the black population with any and all means.
@@orboobleck5366 My man, we had a guerrilla war anyway & reconstruction failed anyway, or are we forgetting the white league and the kkk. Steven’s plans was better. It would have prevented the long struggle of pain that led to the civil rights movement and would have even prevented the racial unrest of today.
EDIT: grammar
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons I would say this much. Sherman’s March cleared enough land for the freed slaves to prosper upon. Furthermore, given that those slaveholders had either fled or been shot, I do not think they’d be able to complain much. Furthermore, Georgia was in no position to complain any way and further clearing of land in the region, if necessary, would have been met with no more resistance than was already being experienced in the region.
At his heart...Lincoln was a politician. A good one. All the things he did in his time in office may have been inspired by his heart, developed by his mind, and guided by his faith, but they were accomplished due to his uncanny ability to always be the master politician. In any engagement.
The Man in the Suit If he was as great as you claim he was surely he could have ended slavery without a civil war.
Like buying all the slaves a persuade southern states that slavery is an economic detriment to them.
Finally before the war it can be pointed out that Lincoln endorsed policy regarding infrastructure contracts that improved him financially.
The South was bent upon treason from the moment Lincoln was elected in 1860, so there was zero chance that Lincoln could broker any kind of peaceful termination of slavery, especially after traitors opened fire on Ft. Sumter. So just stow that talk about how Lincoln could have ended slavery without a war. The South was determined to resort to war to hang on to slavery.
Lincoln tried this. The South in large part refused this offer.
A true American
It's a bitter pill for Stevens to swallow but in the end what matters is getting the reform legislation passed.
Just cannot stop coming back to this scene…again and again…
Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones.... legends!!!
I just love Stevens look when Lincoln drops the mic, he knows how true Lincoln is. And Stevens isnt a person left speechless.
That is my last name, But i am not this man, Although i look more like Abraham lincoln then this guy,
But i do own a Tophat.
Stevens isn’t wrong. Neither is Lincoln. Life is complicated.
Stevens was wrong about strategy and pragmatic concerns. Lincoln didn't really disagree with him in terms of what he wanted to achieve, he just had a better understanding of what was practically possible, and how to convince people to actually agree to achieve what was possible.
People who come across as moderate, who argue for compromise, are often misunderstood as being people who don't have strong values, but they are often just people with strong values who have more wisdom and knowledge when it comes to understanding what sorts of political goals are actually practically achievable, and how to achieve them. They understand that being completely open about their values can potentially be counter-productive to the goal of achieving wide-spread political support or compromise from other political parties or other interest groups.
Furthermore, we should all be careful not to presume to know EXACTLY what the ideal ends or goals should be. We should always remain humble and open minded in terms of where our moral compasses are pointing, or what they ought to be pointing to.
Republicans STILL do not get this.
@@ziraprod6090 Mostly true...Conservatives still don't get this. Back then, conservatives, moderates, and liberals were found in both parties. The conservative Democrats were the ones in the South who seceded...but you're right, modern day Republicans are almost all conservative or authoritarian, and only see the world in black and white.
@@grezgorztube I mean, your first statement is just flatly incorrect. At the end of the war, the government had the mandate and power to take Reconstruction in basically any direction. Major land redistribution of the type Stevens wanted was even implemented in a very limited manner by the generals in the field. Lincoln's initial weakness on the more stringent aspects of Reconstruction was made worse by his assassination and the ascension of Andrew Johnson, who was overtly anti-African American.
Radical Reconstruction is what the country needed. The traitors needed to have their power broken, their land and wealth redistributed, and the new freed population needed to have their rights stringently protected by American troops. None of that was done, and even before reconstruction officially ended, ex-Confederates had taken control of the bulk of Southern land, Southern governments and were passing legal hurdles for Black enfranchisement. And it's not just African Americans that suffered; the Southern economy as a whole stagnated under the weight of sharecropping and the lack of economic development stemming from Jim Crow. America was set back decades by Lincoln's and especially Johnson's failures after the war.
Stevens and the Radicals were absolutely right about what was needed after the war. In many respects Lincoln's legacy is helped by the fact that he didn't live to see the repercussions of the awful course he set on Reconstruction.
@@rikk319 that’s Democrats.
This movie never got half of the recognition that it deserves. It was a great film on so many levels...
What a fabulous little scene! Today it is difficult to imagine two Americans, let alone two American statesmen-if only in a movie-debate so eloquently, authentically & intelligently. Unfortunately democracy is the idea that people get the leaders they deserve. Apparently Americans were more deserving in the 19th Century than we are in 21st.
Stevens was never anywhere near being POTUS, and the guy that replaced Lincoln was a degenerate racist.
H.L. Mencken once said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard".
Not to be “that guy”, but the United States is not, and was never intended to be a democracy. Democracy is destined to fail on a large scale, and fortunately the founding fathers were smart enough to understand that and created a Democratic Republic instead. The only thing preventing us from being what we were intended to be is an ignorant and easily distracted and misled electorate. So in a way, you are still correct. We don’t get the leaders we deserve. We get the “leaders” we are too stupid to keep re-electing after they make a career out of fundraising for the next election rather than actually legislating on behalf of the best interests of the people they are there to represent.
Two words. Term. Limits.
And make it illegal for former legislators to become lobbyists for at least 8-10 years after they leave office. The whole game is rigged and we keep allowing it to happen.
We are better than that.
I can see just another old man embittered by modern times. Will you actually do anything about it, or whine until you're worm food (which judging by your white beard probably isn't too far off)?
@@EmptyMan000lol one day you’ll be the whiny old person complaining about youth
"The the untempered version"-LOVE that line!
That was one of there greatest scenes in cinematic history.
I absolutely love Lincoln's usage of a metaphor(I think it's one, correct me if I'm wrong) to get Thaddeus to understand that they both want the same thing and that Lincoln is simply trying to show Thaddeus another, possibly safer and better path to their shared goal.
I truly believe that Lincoln deserves the same kind of recognition and honoring that Washington and the Founding Fathers get. Lincoln gave us the chance to birth our nation anew, to put aside all the bloodshed and truly live up to the standards and ideals we set forth in our constitution. I actually pick up every penny I find because I can't stand the thought of Honest Abe being tossed aside and forgotten.
Hat's off to the writer, who wrote this scene not knowing if it ever happened, and if it did, what words either man spoke.
Tony Kushner was an avid researcher of these men and knew of the writing and accounts of them on these issues, He likewise, had excellent insight into Lincoln's rationale and choice of arguments from Lincoln's accumulated record, which was extensive and highly documented. While creative license is always a part of these interactions, knowing the stated positions of the participants and their tendencies in debate, allows one to conjecture with confidence that the themes and even the specific arguments are highly likely to have been pretty close.
@@eichelbergergary - As a screenwriter of historical stories, I think they key is to know the character of historic people enough to have them do what is consistent with how they would respond in that situation. That's more important than uniform details or getting exact quotes correct.
Lincoln would be an ideal leader for today. Principled, judicious and above all good hearted.
Sadly, he could never get elected even to local office in this shallow, form-over-substance world. Modern junk culture gravitates to the short attention span lowest common denotator.
this is exactly why Joe Biden is exactly the president the US needs right now, and for 4 more years. He has, and can, and will continue to lead us through the divisiveness.
This movie is a master class in acting; Pros being pros. Outstanding.
100%!!!!
I'm a "son of the confederacy". I have heard both sides my whole life. I believe my life has been better due to the preservation of the Union. And of my children. Scar my heart that today we would be 2 different countries. May one of us be speaking in German now? But we don't. The Civil War has a horrific event, no kind things can be said about it. But after, WE did something the world had not done. Jeff Davis, Gen Lee and all of them were not sent to Gulags. While mistakes were made, there was no lynch mob sent against the "Reb's". We are perhaps the first Civil War that did not vanquish the defeated. We are a remarkable people, with all of our flaws. This "kindness" fully manifested itself in the "Marshal Plan" after WW2.
This is what we do. With all of our problems, we are still "the shining city on the hill."
May God bless you all. And may God bless the United States of America.
Boy could we use Abe Lincoln now.
What a bunch of bollocks. Perhaps if we had "vanquished the defeated" we would have spared ourselves 150 years of civil strife that cripples us today. Are you really going to compare the abortion that was Reconstruction to the Marshall Plan? The Marshall Plan was enacted AFTER punitive measures were taken against the surviving Nazi leaders and their enablers, along with the demilitarization of Germany. The political leadership of the South needed to be dismantled and rebuilt, but instead we absolved those involved and pretended like it never happened. And lo and behold, we traded the literal chains of slavery for the figurative chains of Jim Crow. And for what? To preserve the wealth and dignity of plantation owners that used Southern working class whites as cannon fodder to protect their right to treat black people as their property. It should have been working class whites forming those lynch mobs to string up the traitors who deceived them into war. Instead, they built statues to them.
We don't need Abe Lincoln now. We needed him then. We needed a postwar leader that at the very least would listen to what people like Thaddeus Stevens were saying. But we ended up with Andrew Johnson instead, and we're all worse off for it.
@@trentb3148 Well said
Both of them are right. A more radical approach to ending slavery at the onset of the war would have been disastrous and lost the war before it even started. A tame and reserved approach to reconstruction would have been equally disastrous and rendering the victory so ineffectual as to make it all but meaningless. This country would be a lot better off today if Lincoln had been allowed to carry out the rest of his term and these two men could have charted a course for a long and meaningful reconstruction of the South with freed Blacks taking part equally. The era of Jim Crow and segregation might have been avoided. And I state with supreme confidence that the second the South re-elected Confederate leaders back into positions of power and those leaders openly endorsed the campaigns of terrorism conducted in the South by groups like the KKK, Lincoln would have had them all killed and their power structures left in ruin as they deserved.
Teach the gospel
absolutely spot on. Watching this scene made me tear up thinking of the lost opportunity.
Are you like, recapping this clip for us or something?
@@nutsackmania I'm doing more than that. I'm reiterating Lincoln's point about the danger of an aggressive approach but also referencing what happened after Lincoln was assassinated and a more reserved approach actually produced bad results.
True, although Lincoln was so ill and worn out it would have been a miracle if he had survived his second term regardless of that fateful night at Ford's. It's one of the most fascinating "what if, and what might have been" moments from history.
Kudos to the many, many commenters who contributed concise, thoughtful, and insightful responses to the video. It was a pleasure reading them.
The South essentially had no middle class, few schools and libraries and was dirt poor long before the war began. Stevens approach was desperately needed, and the fact that it wasn't seriously implemented condemned the south to another hundred years of poverty, ignorance and illiteracy.
While that all may be true, Lincolns point was completely valid. That kind of restoration after the war - even if Lincoln hadn't been assasinated and served out his second term - would have required total military occupation for years, possibly decades of at least parts of the South. With what? There's no way the war worn North would have been able or willing to pay for standing troops of tens of thousands of men - possible even hundreds of thousands - for years. And the men who had fought the war and were happy to still live wanted nothing else than to go home to wherever they came from.
The whole point of the scene as I see it is that Stephens may have been morally right, but Lincoln saw the realities and limitations of the actual situation on the ground.
@@mateuszmattias No, Lincoln was out to lunch and Thaddeus correctly analyzed the situation. The cost of all those troops would have been unsupportable, but all those troops were not needed to keep former secessionists out of political power. Johnson destroyed the next 100 years of economic progress in the south by handing back all the lands and industry in the south to the traitor minority of southern oligarchs. As for Lincoln, he was a follower of Henry Clay and Clay's belief that the only workable solution was to send all people of color out of the country.
Their acting was amazing..
Can’t wait to use this clip in my classroom when I become a U.S. History teacher
Good deal
Stevens is often called a "radical," both in this movie and history, a term that conjures implications of naivety or excessive idealism. But this scene demonstrates that Stevens was, at his heart, a firm pragmatist in the pursuit of his ideals. He recognized that waiting for white people "to be ready" was a futile gesture, that the average white person would never voluntarily cede their elevated position in American society in the name of creating a truly just civilization. So, instead, he did what he could to seize this chance, and push as hard as he could to try and achieve his objectives while the moment potentially presented itself to not just try to end slavery, but to actually make a concerted effort to create economic and political justice for the formerly-enslaved while the country was perhaps willing to do it if they saw it as a chance to punish the South for their insurrection. Because he correctly judged that, if they failed to get it now, they might never get another chance...
"The people elected me to lead them, so I lead. You oughta try it." Against a man like Lincoln, those words have little meaning, but today? Damn, they cut deep.
I think Lincoln was the only pragmatist in this scene. Stevens is absolutely an idealist who had no chance of achieving his goals without tempering them as Lincoln insisted.
Absolute BULLSHIT. Stevens wanted to take literally everything from Southerners even though the vast majority of them had no slaves and did not approve of slavery. This AFTER the North had spent the first 80 years of this country's history subjugating the political and economic will of the South for its own ends. The North was the rich part of the country, not the South. He was going to steal land from a few hundred plantation owners... and a few million poor Southerners. Stevens was never concerned with "fairness" or sharing the country - he wanted to utterly destroy the South for daring to have its own political and economic ideas that did not conform to his will. After all, he didn't care about appropriating land from Northern slaveholders.
He wrapped his desire for utter domination of his countrymen with the flag of abolition and pretended like he was a moral man. He was a monster and the one good thing I can say about Lincoln is that he opposed and prevented Steven's version of Reconstruction. Stevens would have merely created a new class of slave - the poor, disowned white Southerner.
@@danlorett2184 Hmm, interesting. Let's the check the opinion polls from the time to see what percentage of whites supported slavery. What's that you say? That wasn't a thing back then? Well then, I guess your "most whites opposed slavery" claim is horseshit. What's real is the 30% of white families that used forced human labor to profit from or live off. Or the hundreds of thousands of soldiers the south was able to call upon in its defense prior to conscription. I gotta say, if most white people in the South actually opposed slavery, they sure kept it a fucking secret.
Also, why do you mention your absurd belief that whites in the south opposed slavery, then bring up Stevens wanting to destroy "economic and political ideas that did not conform to his will?" If you are referring to building your economic and political power off slavery, then didn't you just argue from the beginning that he was trying to destroy economic and political ideas that didn't conform to the will of most of the South as well? You can't have it both ways, you mook. Stop trying to dress up your romanticizing of one of the most vile, brutal slave societies in history (the antebellum south) as concern for the marginalized. Especially when you don't seem to give a shit about the truly marginalized of that time period, i.e., the human beings who were straight-up fucking ENSLAVED.
@@Robert-hz9bj Based and well put
Growing up in the same areas that Lincoln did, he nails the lower Midwest dialect
It also captures what first person accounts describe as Lincoln's surprisingly high pitched voice for a man of his size.
Growing up in the same era that Lincoln did, I agree.
This is my favourite scene out of any film ever made.
Abe Lincoln's spoken voice was never recorded, of course. But if there would ever be one actor (whose work consists of studying characters sometimes for years before the cameras roll) who'd come the closest to how the president sounded, it would have to be the brilliant Daniel Day Lewis.
I've read first person accounts that described Lincoln's voice as surprisingly high pitched for someone of his size, and I think DDL captured an element of that.
I still consider this to be one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. It's easier to play a fictional character - you make of them what you want. Portraying a historical figure with such authenticity.... with NO first hand reference to pattern or sound of speech, body language, or presence is a feat of genius. DDL achieved the closest thing I've ever seen to BECOMING the character you are portraying. It is mesmerizing to watch and I often found myself forgetting that I was watching an actor at all.
Two of the best actors alive. Would like to see them in some other works.
A master class of acting from two acting giants.
Stevens was a genius who was ahead of his time. Unfortunately in the 1860s, Human Rights for all was a little too far ahead. Lincoln was smarter. He believed in the same things, but he also knew compromises would need to be made to reunite America. However they both got what they want. Now in 2022 we are getting closer than ever before.
You want to think he was smarter. Germany Denazified and gave up their hatred of Jews faster than the south were willing to give blacks equal rights. The southern aristocracy should've been crushed under Grants boot and all lands confiscated from slave owners.
This scene is so brilliant, it’s hard to not geek out about it.
We've lived long enough to know now that the "untempered" version of reconstruction was what we needed after all.
Then we would have had Poland and the Ukraine under the Nazis' or Ireland under the English. Unfortunately,there was no solution at the time and a squandered solution in ours.
@@BodhranBrian what???
@@BodhranBrian
You’re telling me a military occupation of the south by the federal army to prevent racist terrorism from ex confederate soldiers, massacres, lynching, black codes, Jim Crow state governments, legal & polticsl disenfranchisement of black men, woman and children is SOMEHOW Nazi like.
Wtf is wrong with you
@@johnhenry4844 You completely misunderstood the original message and my response. I will try to make it clear. Thaddeus Stevens was for a complete dismantling of what was left of the south,he wanted the southern people pauperized,land forcibly expropriated and the denial of political and civil rights for the white residents. PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THIS!!! "Reconstruction" under this punitive policy WOULD have led to guerilla warfare by the South and further escalating reprisals from the North. It was Lincolns vision of a non-punitive reconstruction. The ascension of Andrew Johnson and a more punitive and vitriolic policy together with his bitter racism sowed the seeds for the return of slavery in all but name. BOTH of their visions of Reconstruction could only rest on Federal bayonets and forcibly removing wealth and populations would have been similar in result to what I have said before. Hope it clears it up!
@@BodhranBrian
1860s white southerners worried about there civil rights……..lol
And land forcibly taken from the slave owning, evil planter aristocracy sounds like a great thing to me. And if it means a couple years of civil war and more decisive action to crush Ex confederate terrorist groups then that is what should HAVE happened.
Not leaving the free black men woman and children to the mercy of the ex confederates and a 100 years of lynching, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement
Edit: Johnson didn’t go far enough or was to racist to be an effective reconstruction president, should have just occupied the south for decades until they became civilised.
“What’s the use of knowing true north?” Fuckin slammmmm
Great scene, in a great film, by 2 great actors, telling a great story
The screenplay for this is 👌🏼
When Lincoln talks about a compass at the end it almost sounded like he was describing GPS.
Lincoln's point (he didn't say this, but it does capture the spirit of his disagreement with the Radical Republicans and Abolitionists) is that, what's the point of knowing what is morally good if in pursuing it you fail to achieve its aims? What is the point if you don't know how to get there? At that point, it's useless.
Concerned Commoner I think he meant that GPS’s often drive people into lakes instead to them.
GPS is just clocks bro; it doesn't do anything other than tell you where you are.
@@nutsackmania
even a broken GPS is right twice a day
Two of the best actors ever!
I love the fact that Stevens said while he represents the people he doesn't give a God damn what the people want lol.
I think his point is that public opinion can change in a heartbeat. But he was elected and he had to do it the way he saw fit not according to the prevailing opinion.
Remarkable ,movie. Feels like a time machine.
I luv how he doesn’t react .. but responds pragmatically
I admire your zeal! I don’t like to be a copycat but that is the best and most polite way to tell a person that they’re crazy and wrong
No, that wasn’t it. Lincoln is recognizing that Stevens heart is in the right place, while trying to guide that passion to a practical solution.
Wow!!
Great clip thank you for posting.
They both have a point. But I side with Lincoln on this topic. Forcing change will not lead anyone to the promised land. Once force is used it becomes the standard action for tyrants tomorrow.
I can’t think of any other President who actually grew up poor. Lincoln was dirt-floor poor as a kid. Struggled as a civil serviceman. I read of Lincoln that he enjoyed the compensation offered for travel expenses when elected to Congress. It allowed him and his wife to visit Kentucky on the way to Washington.
Harry S. Truman was pretty poor I believe. He's the reason ex-presidents started getting a stipend from Congress.
@@jebthegodemperor7301 Didn't Truman invent a species of grain? He held patents. Plus he was a Col in the Army and a Judge in Missouri.
@@wojciechgrodnicki6302 Also Truman: “You’re a Jew, David [Susskind], and no Jew has ever been in our house. Bess runs it, and there’s never been a Jew inside the house in her or her mother’s lifetime."
"Poor" is relative, but there have been several who grew up poor even for their time and place. Lincoln was certainly one of them.
@@jebthegodemperor7301 The ironic part of Truman being less wealthy than most ex presidents and unemployed with no way to earn a living after he left the White House (other than his $112 per month Army pension) was that Congress couldn't just offer him a pension. It would have seemed like charity and embarrassed him, so the only other living ex president at the time (Hoover) also got the $25k pension starting in 1958 even though he was wealthy. He accepted it supposedly to keep from embarrassing Truman.
In reality though, Truman was far from destitute. He had about $400k in bonds and cash when he left office and received $670k ($6.8 million in today's money) for his memoirs in 1955. In 1959, Truman reported his net worth as $1 million ($10.1 million in 2022 dollars) including partial ownership of the LA Rams.
The D-bate
Politics, when used constructively, is the action of using power and influence to foster positive change slowly. SLOWLY. And the changes have to be slow in order for the public to adjust, debate in society and regulate. And the debate of educated, sensible minds can lead the charge.
Lincoln just DRANK.YOUR.MILKSHAKE!!!! HE DRANK IT UP!!!!
It's a good thing Lincoln didn't mention his 10% plan here
I’ve never seen Tommy Lee Jones get bodied in the talent category but it’s like watching a student act with their teacher
"Oh shit on the people. And what they want, and what they're ready for-"
Daniel Day Jones was 56 when they shot lincoln. Exact same age as Lincoln.
Thaddeus Stevens was way ahead of his time
1:22 *Words of wisdom for 2022 America!*
Lincoln drops the mic
Great scene.
Love this movie 🍿
GENIUS.
Two All-Timers in this scene
Right Movie, Wrong time
Two great actors.
Concepts of constituency and those who depend upon you… you on them. The advocacy and realization of an imperfect world needing better. Heart breaking and affirming in so many ways. The pathways…. Making it a bit more digestible, and purposeful… there’s real strength in the courage of these acquisitions of understandings and linked to workable actions.
#LoveEVICTShate
ADIJO MOST NA SOČI. AFRIKA TE POZDRAVLJA! RUSIJA IN KITAJSKA TUDI!
When Lincoln says “as [slavery] spreads out of the American south into South America” he’s referring to the concept of the Golden Circle
I love this scene. I find it worrying that so many people these days seek to emphasize uncompromising radicals like Stevens while de-emphasizing the more moderate - and more successful - Lincoln. It's a hard time for those repelled by the growing forces of ideological extremes.
True Moral Wisdom on Lincoln’s part.
Sometimes, you need a radical. Thomas Paine was as valuable to the Revolution as anyone, if only to give the rest an idea of what they didn't want.
"If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I'd do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I'd do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I'd also do that, too." - Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley
In a letter describing what he thought his official duty as President was. Lincoln as a man would have freed all the slaves immediately if he could.
@@WeaslyTwin. Precisely so: he considered slavery utterly wrong. It is made very clear in his speeches and writings, say 2nd adress to the Cooper Institute.
@@WeaslyTwin precisely! I don’t know why people can’t seem to grasp that an elected person’s first duty is to the law and the people, not always what he considers right. The same people who condemn Lincoln for not being more tyrannical are the same who condemn people who want a moral society today. They are quick to say keep your personal views to yourself, but when it’s something they care about, they are more than happy to say the ends justify the means. Lincoln was very well versed in his duty, and his morality. Much of the powers of the president we m is today didn’t exist in his time, and he constantly pushed the envelope as much as he reasonably could. As history has shown, we have paid a great price for it. I’m not saying the reward wasn’t worth it, but Lincoln is a great example as to why these things should be done carefully and as calculated as possible.
In other words, he was saying that preserving the Union was the most important and primary goal. It was also the ONLY goal of the two within the constitutional powers and responsibility of the president. Although several states had abolished slavery within their borders by 1860, it was not yet prohibited by federal law.
It was also a matter of practicality. If the US was greatly diminished or ceased to be, all other goals would have been impossible and moot. He was also a master at leadership by incrementalism, getting the people gradually used to one idea at a time. If you get out too far ahead of the people you're trying to lead, you may look back and find that no one is following you.
He knew that a US president is not a monarch. His constitutional powers were extremely limited in that regard. The Emancipation Proclamation (in effect what we would call an Executive Order) was by necessity limited in scope to his war powers as commander in chief. He also knew that in using his executive war powers to issue the EP, he was by necessity conceding two points long held by the South but until then denied by the US government - the Confederacy was a sovereign belligerent nation, and slaves were not people, but property.
The general abolition of slavery on a federal level, as opposed to an individual state level or by an executive order targeted against areas in rebellion, was beyond the powers of the president. It required a constitutional amendment approved by congress and at least 3/4 of the states.
the reality of politics. i'd like to think this is exactly how these negotiations went in real life.
Good counter-point by Lincoln at the end of clip.
Stanton and Chase at one point agreed that verbal arguments with Lincoln was like throwing water on a duck's back.
A great dialogue, as applicable today as n the 1860’s.
They are both right.
To think, this is the same man who portrayed Bill the Butcher and Daniel Plainview ("There Will Be Blood"). You forget there's an actor there, and see only the character -- in this case, an actual historical figure, known at some level to all. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of our time.
Bravo.
My most favourite scene ever.
Lincoln was the Cadillac of presidents...
Such a strong scene
2:41-2:46 How true today.
Tommy Lee Jones was brilliant in this.
Stevens wanted the American Promise NOW. Love it. Astounding scene.
01.39: fighting good and hard for the people without caring much about any of them lol
1:26-1:39. Gold.
And he's right too. Who gives a shit about the people's wants and what they're ready for. When it comes to civil rights, it's about justice, not popularity.
Said the fascist.
Whats great about this scene is neither man is wrong
Stevens lol. Bruh, Congress regularly has a 13 percent approval rate yet far more than that are retained. The people might have elected you but that doesn’t mean sheet. Maybe they just like your whig. And that’s exactly why Lincoln’s point is so salient because with the masses you don’t realize you’ve crossed a line until it’s too late
lincoln would certainly be one of my ultimate dinner party guests
Can you imagine anyone in Congress or the White House speaking like this these days? Or even understanding what these guys are talking about. They’re both right. They’re both wrong. And if no one on one side of the aisle is willing to work with anyone on the other side of the aisle what the hell is the point of even sending them there in the first place??
Should’ve listened to Thaddeus Stevens.
We should of went Steven's route.
allies will rarely abide a discomfortable situation
never taking it on the chin
having no stomach, for even a drop of the experiences, the people they advocate for have lived with for their whole lives
lots of Stevens', not enough Lincolns
Who dared dislike this video/movie?!?!
Leading and representing are two fundamentally different things, any politician that does not understand this should never be elected to represent.
Lincoln was moderate, a realist and pragmatic. Stevens was radical, an idealist and un-practical.
We should have gone with Steven's plan.
On the larger scale I obviously agree with you. But it's likely Steven's plan wouldn't work out without the precautions Lincoln took.
So damn good.
Thaddeus Stevens was the Bernie Sanders of his time.
Well, they're both from Vermont.
I just wish that Bernie had as strong backbone.
@911.Pravda.cz Bernie was bought. Simple as that.
No he’s not. Bernie nor any politician of our time is on par with Thaddeus Stevens. This is just more leftist sudo deification of Bernie as if he’s not another millionaire politician
WRONG! Thaddeus Stevens lived and loved Free Enterprise. He just wanted to make sure that Black Americans could own land and freely compete with other farmers in the North in the open and free markets. He DID endorse taking away land from people who used slave labor to cultivate their land. That might be the only similarity, but Thaddeus was no Communist.
@@dovbarleib3256 Lol, unfortunately neither is Bernie. He's just another right-wing liberal politician, like all the others.
omg, that's the tee shirt: "What's the use in knowing True North, if you sink in a swamp?" -C