Review: Lincoln (2012)

Stephen Spielberg's "Lincoln" is an excellent recruiting tool for Southern Nationalism
Stephen Spielberg’s “Lincoln” (2012)

District of Corruption

Is there anything new to say about Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln?

In my opinion, Lincoln is an excellent recruiting tool for Southern Nationalism. There are times when the movie almost seems like a Hollywood cartoon of the Southern Nationalist worldview.

Lincoln opens with a horrific battle scene. The White Republic has disintegrated. United States Colored Troops wearing the Union blue are bayoneting helpless Confederates. In the end of the scene, the film zooms in on a black soldier with his boot on the face of a drowning White Confederate soldier.

After the battle, Lincoln congratulates the superior black soldiers in person for slaying all the inept White Confederates. They pepper him with questions about the persistence of racism and segregation in the Union Army. Two White Union soldiers then give a rendition of the Gettysburg Address.

Right from the outset, I knew that I was going to be treated to another comic book version of Abraham Lincoln. There is no evidence that Lincoln ever personally met with U.S. Colored Troops on the battlefield or that he would have been serenaded with the Gettysburg Address which didn’t take on its present historical importance until the twentieth century.

The whole plot of the film revolves around an angelic Lincoln using his political skills – lying, dissembling, and bribery – to personally engineer the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment before the Confederacy can surrender and the ex-Confederates return to Congress and block the abolition of slavery.

In order to do this, Lincoln must convince conservative Republicans led by Francis Blair that he seeks peace with the Confederacy, temper the rhetoric of the Radical Republican wing led by Thaddeus Stevens, and win the support of twenty racist lame duck Democrats while keeping the Confederate peace commissioners at bay.

None of it is true:

“It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used “means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment,” the theme of the Spielberg movie, “his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . .”

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment “if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene (emphasis added). “One New Jersey Democrat,” writes David Donald, “well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled “A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry”).”

By the way, some people will be disappointed to learn the real Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a “vampire hunter” either.

In the Spielberg movie, Lincoln the atheist is bathed in light as church bells ring and Washington erupts in celebration after the House of Representatives passes the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln’s son Tad is a negrophile obsessed with glass negatives of slaves. This is also pure fiction.

The Confederates exist mostly as props in the background of this insufferable Judeo-Yankee morality tale: as piles of dead bodies, as bayoneted victims of righteous black soldiers, as peace commissioners intimidated by glowering black soldiers. The one exception is Vice President Alexander Stephens who is given a handful of lines toward the end of the movie.

In his confrontation with Lincoln, Alexander Stephens asks “how many hundreds of thousands have died during your administration” and “have you conquered us with ballots” and asserts “your democracy is held together by bayonets and cannonade.” Lincoln responds with another incomprehensible abstract digression into the true meaning of “democracy.”

The Yankees we encounter in Lincoln unwittingly conform to the traditional Southern stereotype: moralizing fanatics who use violence to force the real world to conform to their insane abstractions, corrupt party hacks gorging themselves at the trough of federal patronage, and negrophiles who will tolerate any evil so long as they can bask in the approval of smiling, helpless black people.

After Ulysses S. Grant informs Lincoln that he believes the Confederates genuinely want peace, Lincoln cites Euclid to demonstrate the existence of human equality (in reality, the Ancient Greeks enslaved their barbarian inferiors like the Confederates) and telegraphs a message to Grant to continue the war.

At the end of the movie, Thaddeus Stevens is shown taking the actual bill that abolished slavery home where he presents it as a gift to his black housekeeper before the crawls into bed with her. Earlier in his meeting with Lincoln, the same vindictive, bloodthirsty Stevens described his Carthaginian plan to strip the Confederates of all their property and repopulate the defeated South with free negroes and righteous Yankees.

Much of the conflict in Lincoln centers on the rivalry and infighting between the Northern sub-nations in the Republican-controlled Congress: conservative Republicans who come from Union Greater Appalachia and Copperhead Democrats from Union Greater Appalachia and New Netherland oppose the Thirteenth Amendment and support a negotiated truce with the Confederacy.

Fernando Wood of New York City and George Pendleton of Ohio accuse Thaddeus Stevens and the Black Republicans of conspiring to “niggerize” America. They accuse Stevens of believing in literal racial equality and predict that abolition will inevitably lead to women’s suffrage and all kinds of other evils. The House erupts in outrage and Stevens is forced to humiliate himself and dissemble to pass the bill.

Stephen F. Hale nailed it in his letter to the Governor of Kentucky:

“But, it is said, there are many Constitutional, conservative men at the North, who sympathize with and battle for us. That is true; but they are utterly powerless, as the late Presidential election unequivocally shows, to breast the tide of fanaticism that threatens to roll over and crush us. With them it is a question of principle, and we award to them all honor for their loyalty to the Constitution of our Fathers. But their defeat is not their ruin. With us it is a question of self-preservation — our lives, our property, the safety of our homes and our hearthstones — all that men hold dear on earth, is involved in the issue.

If we triumph, vindicate our rights and maintain our institutions, a bright and joyous future lies before us. … If we fail, the light of our civilization goes down in blood, our wives and our little ones will be driven from their homes by the light of our own dwellings. The dark pall of barbarism must soon gather over our sunny land, and the scenes of West India emancipation, with its attendant horrors and crimes (that monument of British fanaticism and folly), be re-enacted in our own land upon a more gigantic scale.”

The late presidential election of 2012 shows that nothing much has changed in 150 years and the stakes are exactly the same as they were back then.

In “Can White Northerners Say “No” To Black Run America?,” I wondered aloud if White Northerners were capable of voting for two Yankees over our present negro government. In “The 2012 Election: A Verdict on White Nationalism,” we found out that White Northerners were no more capable of stopping Obama than Fernando Wood and George Pendleton were capable of defeating the Thirteenth Amendment.

The “tide of fanaticism that threatens to roll over and crush us” is still emanating from the Northeast. There are still outnumbered conservatives like Wood and Pendleton fighting a rear guard action behind Union lines against the same fanatics who are desperately trying to sink “our sunny land” beneath the dark pall of Third World barbarism.

Fernando Wood’s “Emperor Abrahamus Africanus the First” has been reincarnated as Barack Hussein Obama. In 1860 and 1864, the White majority in New England voted for Abraham Lincoln. In 2008 and 2012, they turned out again as a solid phalanx for Barack Obama.

Spielberg’s Lincoln is a useful reminder of what happened to us when we made the original mistake of creating a “White Republic” with the Northeast: Richmond in flames, our economy destroyed, negro soldiers bayoneting dead Confederates to the happy tune of “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

America has now failed twice. Lincoln is the latest film that shows White Southerners exist in this Union only to be denigrated and destroyed. It is time to secede and create something new.

Note: OD will also be reviewing Django Unchained.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Re: “there are many Constitutional, conservative men at the North, who sympathize with and battle for us (…) as the late Presidential election unequivocally shows (…) With them it is a question of principle, and we award to them all honor for their loyalty to the Constitution of our Fathers. But their defeat is not their ruin. With us it is a question of self-preservation (…) If we fail, the light of our civilization goes down in blood”:

    It is not a mere “question of principle” for those at the North. It is a question of self-preservation and threat to put out the light of civilisation for everyone.

  2. Those at the North may not have been aware of it then (that the “Change” was a threat to their own lives and civilisation) but beleaguered conservatives “at the North” of the present day are aware that it is such a threat and not a “mere issue of principle.”

  3. After the battle, Lincoln congratulates the superior black soldiers in person for slaying all the inept White Confederates.

    A classic Spielberg trademark.

    In the The Last Days he has a bogus reunion of black US soldiers (that allegedly liberated Jews form the labor camps) and the liberated Jews and there a big group hug.

    The debunking movie The Last Days of the Big Lie points out this big lie (see 40 min to 1:10hr)

    The Last Days of the Big Lie – 2:03 hr

  4. The South was not part of a White Republic; it was a racial caste system much like ancient Aryan India.

    Racial caste systems are very bad for white people as we too easily succumb to Universalism of one form or another and Brown Out.

    I ask a very straightforward question: why didn’t Southerners return blacks back to Africa before the War? In retrospect it seems like the logical thing to do. Is it something like why the GOP opened the southern border and shipped manufacturing overseas?

  5. I’d say the critical point is Spielberg specifically choosing black soldiers to bayonet the confederates. There will be an awful lot more of that Django Unchained kind of incitement from here on out.

  6. Afterthought says:

    The South was not part of a White Republic; it was a racial caste system much like ancient Aryan India.

    Apparently, they haven’t forgotten their Aryan roots and are trying to get back to them (i.e. be more white) ………..

    “Whitening cream: Fair deal for India’s women?” July 2012

    But expectantly, this isn’t cool with the leftists who are anti-white by default wherever they may be found.

  7. 1.) There are more manufacturing jobs in the South than ever before. Specifically, the Sunbelt has benefited from the demise of the industrial unions and automobile industry in the Midwest.

    2.) The South voted against the Immigration Act of 1965, the IRCA amnesty of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, and every version of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform.

    3.) In the South, citizenship and voting rights was based on whiteness, whereas that was not the case in New England.

    4.) Guess what? It was the Northeast, not the South, that succumbed to universalism in the 1860s and 1960s.

    5.) Blacks were not a problem in the South before abolition.

    6.) Finally, it was an absolutely terrible idea to create a “White Republic” with people who valued religion, class, ideology, power and other things more than their commitment to “whiteness.”

    If we could do it over again knowing what we know now about Yankees, would we create a “White Republic” with these people? I doubt it.

  8. Gosh, y’all are so mean to SPIEL- burg!!! (Lit., “Town of Spin.” Now, how many here DO NOT BELIEVE this is even a real name?)

    Not that he could help it!!! Why, countless stories exist of how, at Ellis Inlet, people had their sweet names changed, willy-nilly, because el-stupido-rube-americans could not say them properly!!!

    And the u.s. is NOT EVEN HIS “home country!!!” AND he’s a dual national. So, why SHOULD HE KNOW anything about His-story? (and isn’t that what feminists have us call it anyway).

    Apparently, the cruel Ellis Inlet intaker-rubes felt Spiel-burg sounded better that Shtik-burg. He was lucky in that, right?

  9. Shtik-bergermeister. Golden-shtik. Shtikel-stein. Some of these really have a ring to them. So, it was probably a close call.

  10. There is currently a very obvious top down orchestrated push to drive home the Lincoln and FDR myths. It is undoubtedly because the next phase of Americanism is going to be based on the correct view of these two presidencies. The conclusion we are to hold by acceptance of such propaganda is that absolutely anything, anything at all, is acceptable behavior for our government. We have democrat, we have republican, we have unity at any at all costs, we have slavery to bankers, we have Jewish and black ascendancy, we have world interventionism. At this very moment, we can assume that anyone currently pushing this hogwash is an enemy of the state. The next step in our fight is to openly and aggressively counter any mouth that pushes this remything. It doesn’t even matter if your counter is factual, only that these reptiles are countered. When they are attempting to guide us by these myths, it is our duty to tear them down. Do not let them cement this status quo. It will be the end of us.

  11. Or every Western “progressive” is at wits end because everything they touch except their gilded personal lives is turning to crap. Its fine to live the high life but if they even glance outside of it they see FAIL.

    Sure this idiot Spielberg is living the high life, but his children literally must not make the wrong turn off the California freeway system, if they do they are dead. And they own it.

    These people like the BRA are a joke.

  12. why would the South return negros to africa before the war? the negro was not a problem then but a money making machine. afterthought normally your pretty smart but that question shows a fundamental lack of understanding. and the two things are not related

    I think the line about their being good pro liberty yankees in 1860 is horseshit. if there were that many, why didn’t they open up a second front on lincoln?

  13. Afterthought says:
    “I ask a very straightforward question: why didn’t Southerners return blacks back to Africa before the War? In retrospect it seems like the logical thing to do.”

    The US did repatriate blacks to Africa before the civil war, we created the country of Liberia for this very purpose. If anything, southern slave holders were the reason not enough were repatriated. They didnt want to lose their property, so only free blacks were sent back. Which is rather unfortunate, because if a black managed to obtain his freedom then presumably he was on the right side of the bell curve. So thanks in part to the southerners, we kept the reprobate.
    “First ideas of colonization
    As early as the period of the American Revolution, many white members of American society thought that African Americans could not succeed in living in “their” society as free people. Some considered blacks physically and mentally inferior to whites, and others believed that the racism and societal polarization resulting from slavery were insurmountable obstacles for integration of the races. The young politician Thomas Jefferson was among those who proposed colonization in Africa; relocating free blacks outside the new nation.”

  14. Thanks for wading through that filth. Now I never have to see it. What do we expect in a world where “Brutus” is a dirty word? This Lincoln cult is tyrannical. I call on all good men to start crossing out his face on the 5 USD note if they don’t already. God bless you, JWB.

  15. Slavery was outlawed around the world everywhere without a war being fought except in the US. If Lincoln was such a great president and politician why was it that he had to have such a horrific war that killed more than 600,000 people. Answer: Lincoln was not a great president. He was an outlaw and in a more civilized world he would have been tried for war crimes along with Sherman and Grant.

    The jews are turning all of their hatred for Christmas, Christ, and Christians loose this time of year as they do every year at this time. I love it. The jews go absolutely crazy at Christmas. Those bloodsuckers burst in to flames at the very sight of a cross.
    We still got the White killer Jamie Foxx coming on Christmas Day.

    But, I must admit, the jews are such a high enemy that most Christians just love those jews.

  16. The movie was directed by a Zionist anti-white activist, written by Zionist homosexual anti-white and anti-Christian activist and has numerous Jewish and other Hollywood anti-white activist staring in it. They took the script from the Lincoln worshipper Kearns….do we really think this type of movie wouldn’t be exactly what it is…anti-southern and anti-white.

Comments are closed.