The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
A highlight of the nationwide Lincoln Bicentennial celebration is this unprecedented documentary on the life and legacy of the man widely considered one of the best - and most enigmatic - presidents.
It addresses many of the controversies surrounding Lincoln about race, equality, religion, politics, and depression by carefully interpreting evidence from those who knew him and those who study him today.
On April 15, 1865, John Wilkes Booth, a famous actor and Confederate sympathizer, fatally shot President Abraham Lincoln at a play at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. The attack came only five days after Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his massive army at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, effectively ending the American Civil War.
i have never read so much dumb nonsense by so many people. please read history, study, learn, and be quiet.
Well, I had to turn it off after six minutes. Here we have a pandering paean to the first absurd theory of a "lone gunman". I have no doubt that this documentary will NOT discuss the question why the bodyguard who was supposed to be outside the door to Lincoln's loge at the theatre was not there to stop John Wilkes Booth. No, from the very beginning this documentary is intensely focused on the personal pyschology of one participant in the assassination, so it is clear that they will not be looking beyond that to look at any of the real questions. Oh, and by the way, they start out saying that Lincoln was the first U.S. President who was assassinated, which is also subject to question...unless you believe that eating strawberries and ice cream ever killed anybody...
he killed vampires
Your missing the whole point. Even had the South triumphed at Gettysburg the war was not ending until slavery did. Even had the North been forced to accept some type of truce/peace that did not include abolition, the war would have inevitably started once again. Unless the South abolished slavery on its own, there would have been continued tensions, skirmishes and the such until the issue was settled. While it was not the only reason for the civil war, it was the one reason why the war was going to be fought to its inevitable conclusion, be it after Gettysburg or 100yrs in the future. Slavery is a indefensible moral position and as such would have eventually lead to the Souths downfall, civil war or not.
Lincoln wrote on numerous occasions that any peace that did not abolish slavery was not acceptable. Lincoln recognized and wrote about the fact that slavery was an issue that threatened to tear the country apart had the nation remained divided on it. To think Lincoln did not recognize this is naive. While you are correct that many in the South saw nothing wrong with it (obviously) the general sentiment in the North was rapidly growing to oppose it. And yes slavery is both a moral and economic issue (free labor implies that).
This is r*tarded. The reason for the civil war was not slavery. Emancipation was an issue and played a major factor to the outcome of the war, but was not the causal reason for the war. The reasons were purely economical. Like almost every war ever fought.
Purely economical. Purely economical to have slaves do the hard work to make millions for the lazy South. Not to mention, continue being hypocrites to the good ole "all men are created equal" "freedom" mantra crap they spewed.
I love it when nitwits comment on history lol. Look the South was ALWAYS going to lose the civil war, period the end. They were holding a morally indefensible position (slavery) that every real civilized nation in the world abhors. Lincoln understood that this practice would have to be abolished, it was a matter of how. The south was right about one thing, every proposal that Lincoln put forth before the war was geared towards heading to that eventual goal. The Souths unwillingness to bend or compromise lead to the war and once the war started Lincoln understood it could not end until the South surrendered. To accept anything less would be to invite an ongoing conflict for decades to come. The US would have been subjected to regional warfare for year and years after any truce. As long as slavery was in play, conflict would have occurred. Lincoln did what he had to do to during the extraordinary circumstance of a civil war. This nation is blessed that he had the fortitude, strength and will to be strong and swallow the hard pill so that subsequent generations would not have He got it done and for us to hold him accountable for the mess that this country is today is ridiculous. That belongs to presidents who came long after he was assassinated.
The popular reason for the South to lose is slavery. You're looking at it from a modern perspective where civilized society now abhors such inhumanity towards man, however in the 1850s civilized society in the South saw nothing wrong with the use of slave labour. Broad statements like the South was inevitably going to lose because of slavery are just plain wrong. Slavery may have been a major cause of strife, however Lincoln's decision to attack Virginia is what propelled Lee and other West Point graduates to abandon the North and defend their people from what they saw as a tyrant.
Slavery is just the popular reason, and incorrect one at that. The South lost because General Lee lost his right-hand during the war, in what turned out to be a casualty from friendly-fire, with the death of Stonewall Jackson. This loss, combined with a war of attrition and fateful Battle of Gettysburg led more to the downfall of the South than any morally indefensible position.
There were millions of Americans who abhorred inhumanity back then. The slave owning class, which controlled the government of the southern states, weren't part of those millions.
and abe lincoln was an agent for the foreign banking cabal.. his family "jewed it out" in hingham ma.. until they could put their fed reserve in place.. But first he needed the whole nation to bow to their manifesto of communism.. i mean.. suspension of habeaus corpus, shutting down news papers attacking every single amendment of the constitution... Abe was one of the three anti christs for sure. lincoln was wholly possessed by satan. He was even into male on male sodomy. Everything about the man was evil, the more i find out about him the more demonic i realize is he really was.
He was a foreign agent AND a vampire killer.
BTW, using "greenbacks" is something foreign banking cabals would hate.
nakor420 said it best. My only difference is, I'll watch this anyways. I know Lincoln was truly assassinated because of his greenback dollar which threatened world (by world I mean the Rothchild's) wealth. Any president, or person, who stands up against centralized banking and the old wealth is subject to assassination attempts and slander
yup those zionist ashkenazi international bankers are destroying the planet.. and whats funny is they push all the "save the planet" programs.. lol they are so predictable it's sad.. why the rest of the population is so ignorant to how they operate is beyond me.. i mean they make money out of nothing.. then fund both sides of everything so they always retain power and never lose.. it's RIDICULOUS!
David why would the south fight against the greenback? It's clear that slavery was not the cause and even the movie admits that but it does not lay out the real reason for the war. Just as they don't teach why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor!
Why must Lincoln always be glorified as the second coming of christ? The man was an outright tyran. As Booth said, "Might makes right".
This is a flawless doc. The music, the imagery, the quotes from the people involved, the intelligent, unsensational narration, all combined to nearly make me cry.
A fine documentary; utilizes beautiful photography which is expertly captured, employs top historians and writers on the assassination (Swanson), Lincoln (Kearns Goodwin, Wolf Shenk), and the Civil War (McPherson), and despite some minor inconsequential inaccuracies presents as much as is needed to understand the event and its milieu. Certainly recommended.
When you insist that a documentary that's clearly been thoroughly researched has an "inaccuracy" it makes you responsible for pointing them out. Otherwise these "inaccuracies" are simply the opinion of a name on the internet. So, if its not too much to ask, could you share these inaccuracies cuz i would really like to know.
G'day Doran and welcome to SeeUat Videos mate. You're quite correct, but the guy you asked, Andy, hasn't posted here on SeeUat Videos for 2 years by the looks of it. (you can click on his avatar to see) You'll probably not get an answer unfortunately.
I am going to watch this to be informed.
I'm not even going to watch this cause I know it will only be full of lies and deceite, even if not on the part of the film maker. I'm casting off the wool held over my eyes and waking up to the lies. The Lincoln assasination is but one chapter in a long running war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyrrany.
Read The Secret Terrorist by Bill Hughes, you'll get your answers
Very well done documentary, but it is much more about Booth than Lincoln.
well, it is called 'the assasination of Lincoln' not 'lincoln', none the less it is quite interesting
I was reacting more to the description of the movie than the movie itself. Of course, I would expect a discussion of the assassination to be about Booth. Thanks for your comment, it helped me to clarify.
nah.. now if you wanna be a stickler for capitalization mr smarty pants it's actually..The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. jjjjack***!