It is a consensus among historians that Jefferson did have an intimate relationship with his slave, proof of which a DNA test in 1998.

Nakruh on November 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Well, if that Lincoln movie doesn’t invent a gay love interest for Abe, Gay Obama will cast himself into his mineshaft full of dingleberries and DROWN.

Just think, that marvelous, Princeton Law School-trained Maroon mind lost to the ages. Alas! Alas!!!

Status Monkey on November 16, 2012 at 8:56 pm

There is DNA evidence that a male Jefferson had a baby with a Hemmings but no proof it was Thomas Jefferson. He had several brothers IIRC.

Pinandpuller on November 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Twilight sounds atrocious and I am embarassed that members of my family were excited to see it.

Homercles82 on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Even though there is no DNA evidence, the nature of the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson – his taking her to Paris and all – is what makes it exceedingly likely. There is no evidence that Jefferson’s brothers had any relationship with Hemings whatsoever – when Jefferson most certainly did – and so no one would have ever proposed that one of Jefferson’s brothers was the father except for the purposes of protecting Jefferson’s reputation. (From what I don’t know however, as it is well known that the landed gentry used their female slaves for sexual gratification, and there is nothing that suggests that Jefferson would have been above that behavior. And no, there was no birth control back then to speak of).

“The Blacks took this and ran with it.” That is a lie, Lexi. The Sally Hemings thing was commonly spoken of in the black community long before the DNA test. As a matter of fact, those were what motivated the DNA tests to begin with. There is no reason to go about claiming as if it couldn’t have happened, as plenty of slaveowners did it. It is precisely why young, healthy attractive slave women like Hemings – who by the way looked eerily like a younger version of Jefferson’s wife! – were so expensive to begin with. It wasn’t due to the economic value that they produced with their labor in the fields, if you know what I mean.

Gerald on November 16, 2012 at 10:54 pm

It was not Jefferson’s DNA but his brother

dave on November 17, 2012 at 5:44 am

A group of prominent academics did extensive research on this, and all but one concluded that it was not Jefferson, who did not travel to Paris at the same time as Sally. Sally was assigned to look after Jefferson’s daughter in Paris. She did not live with Jefferson, but with the daughter at a religious school. At another point, when Hemmings did become pregnant by a Jefferson male back in the US, it was likely the idiot brother or one of his sons. Jefferson was old and ill at the time.

Adam on November 17, 2012 at 6:54 am

Thank you SOOO. Much for your movie take. For real your movie reviews are one of the best reads on the net. Would LOVE to see you writing an entertainment blog ( we need a blog written for us that isnt big Hollywood) keep up the great work.

ceannrua on November 17, 2012 at 9:35 am

Black soldiers did not yell at Lincoln. The blacks loved Lincoln. His son was not fascinated with the glass plates with black faces etched into them; come one, who would etch black faces in glass plates at that time in history?

While Jim Crow came to DC after the war(Washington, DC was a segregated city up until about the mid 1950’s, and portions remained segregated into the early 1960’s), it is doubtful that blacks (called negroes or coloreds then) would have sat together.

Thaddeus Stevens was an ass. He was anti-slavery, but treated his white factory workers and indentured servants worse than slaves. It is doubtful he had a relationship with his housekeeper. Thaddeus Stevens’ abuse of the South led to the Southern resentment against blacks.

The average white Southern soldier did not own slaves; only about 10% of the whites in the South could afford a slave, who actually filled the jobs poor whites could have had. The average white Southern soldier was fighting for his state, and not for slavery. When people asked about your citizenship in those days, you did not say “I am an American.” You said, “I am a Virginian” or “I am a Pennsylvanian.”

The first state to threaten to secede was South Carolina in 1830, when a pro-slave president (Jackson) was in office. The issue was high tariffs, which were choking the South.

While slavery was one major issue, it was far from the only issue, but it became more important as the war went on.

Sounds like a movie I can miss. In fact, I miss any movie made by or starring self-hating liberal jerks.

Jonathan E. Grant on November 17, 2012 at 10:26 am

Lincoln??? Make me laugh so hard I throw up.

Let’s see, where to start?

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
Confederate General John B. Gordon

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862

“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.

They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”
Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, in Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

And then there;’s GENERAL ORDER 11, 1862 – Lincoln’s main man Ulysses S Grant’s order to expel all Jews in his military district – Tenn, MO and Kentucky.

Lincoln?

(can’t type the next comment)

Jack on November 17, 2012 at 10:46 am

It is certainly true that during Reconstruction, when most Southern whites were barred from holding office or voting, the blacks who were in Office were puppets of the North, and the North set about plundering the South for the next 100 years.

Hence, when union leaders from the NORTH came down to the South, they were met with hostility, as many Southerners still do not trust the phoney Northern liberals, and with good reason. After all, while the Northern libs were trying to integrate the South, most of their own neighborhoods were lilly white. As MLK said, “Chicago is the most segregated city in the United States.” And you know what? It still is largely segregated.

Jonathan E. Grant on November 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

… book about Lincoln by known plagiarist and liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin…

I like Doris Kearns Goodwin’s warm and cozy little spots on the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer; she reminds me of wool sweaters on snowy days and crackling fires, and I’d like to take a nap in her lap after eating a big bowl of hot oatmeal while she quaintly & colloquially explains American history.

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

“Did Black soldiers who fought for the Union really lecture Lincoln and essentially yell at him because they weren’t free? Although in those days, anyone could easily approach the President and tell him of their problems (we see more of that, later on in the movie), I wonder if Blacks would feel free to tell the President off in that day and age. ”

Film critic John Simon wryly noted, about the 1995 movie “Jefferson in Paris” (in which Nick Nolte preposterously plays Jefferson), that one conceit of the movie — having the black slave Sally Hemmings (with whom Jefferson had sexual relations) be the assertive one in the relationship — was highly implausible and likely historically incorrect — though, of course, politically COrrect.

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Debbie, I may actually spend money on the Lincoln movie. Almost always I depend on Netflix so that I can terminate a movie at any time and send it back. Even great movies involve one annoying aspect: moviegoers.

I finally rented the first three Twilight installments, based on your review of the first one. The first one was ok; the second and third were atrociously boring and dumb. The writers didn’t even respect the the usual vampire rules of logic whereby vampires become stronger over time. After ditching that, the writers couldn’t even be consistent, as the most powerful “governing” body (residing in an Italian small town) are in fact extremely old.

I guess we are expected to believe that the relationship between age and vampire strength is quadratic. Yeah.

skzion on November 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Debbie, read any Civil War book by Shelby Foote or Bruce Catton..2 of the best historians on that time period in my view.

Jesse Wininger on November 17, 2012 at 7:56 pm

By the way, John Wilkes Booth’s father was a kind of New Agey nutcase who claimed to find inspiration in the Koran (among a whole kit & kaboodle of other things).

Hesperado on November 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Good reviews Debbie as always. Do you still do your reviews on Mike Church’s show? Just asking. As far as my comments, Debbie thansk because you watch and report on Hollyweierd crap so that we don’t don’t waste our time. There is no way I would watch a movie made about Obama, er, I mean Lincoln directed by that bum Steven Shillberg. This douche has been an Odumbo jockstrap holder since day one. It’s also really a shame that Daniel Day-Lewis has turned out to be just co-writer Tony Kushner a self hating, anti-Israel Jew. But to also support the terrorist group Hamas is the height of idiocy. I wonder how those two maggots feel about what has been going on in Israel lately. When I found out that my favorite girl on PeeonBS Doris Kerns Goodwin was also involved in this film that just raised the scumbucket level to a new high. This plagiarizing butt munch could write a good story if her life depended on it. I’d rather go and purchase that bloviating blowhard O’Reilly’s dumb book “Killing Lincoln” than sit through crap by Shillberg. Oh who am I kidding O’Really can join the others and go sniff Oblamo’s vapor trail.

Ken b on November 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Doris Kerns Goodwin…I discount anything with that name attached. Wonder if she got a mention of the Boston Red Sox in the movie? Another one of Imus’ idols.

Kent on November 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm

Good review on the Lincoln film, I went to see this one Friday Afternoon. My question to you is how do you know how Lincoln sounded? There are no recorded audio clips of him speaking.

I will say Daniel Day Lewis looks JUST like Lincoln in this movie, and plays the role very well. I see him being nominated for an Oscar in this role.

I went to a screening of A Late Quartet, wow was that movie painful to sit through. That’s two hours better spent watching paint dry, BOOORING!!!

trewsdetroit on November 19, 2012 at 9:51 am

I heard good ol´ Honest Abe doesn’t do that well in theaters.

Jaws on November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am

Thanks Debbie, I do use your reviews as a filter to decide on what I would watch. Thanks again.

jake49 on November 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm

I saw the Lincoln movie over the weekend. Not on purpose, but by the fact that Skyfall was sold out. Here are some observations:

One thing I can say is that it was long. Much longer than I think it needed to be. They dragged the issue regarding abolition throughout the entire movie. For the most part, it was about the amendment, not Lincoln at all. There were many funny moments, some of which delivered by a very fat looking James Spader (that may have been artificial padding…or not). Spader played on of the “lobbyists” trying to swing democrat votes to abolition. Oddly, I felt as if the Republicans in the movie were played very favorably by the actors. They seemed less annoying and had much stronger backbones, while the Democrats seemed to be spineless, whiny, and annoying. They were often put down by their political opponents more deftly and with acerbic wit. IMHO, Tommy Lee Jones stole the movie in his ridiculous wig and cutting dialog.

Day-Lewis DOES look a lot like Lincoln and I suppose he sounds like him too…based on all the other actors that I’ve seen portray the president. Either Day-Lewis is very tall, or the other actors chosen for the other parts are short. They only actor that came close to Day-Lewis in height was Grant and even he didn’t see him eye to eye. Plus he stooped the entire movie. I think that was historically accurate, as Lincoln had bad posture.

Be aware that the first 5 to 10 minutes of the movie is a battle scene cut from the same cloth as “Saving Private Ryan”…Civil War style. Kinda violent as it is all hand to hand combat. But there probably the same amount of blood as an average “Walking Dead” episode. Also annoying was the ending, which made absolutely no sense to me. It seemed as if after Lincoln was killed, they had to figure out a way to end the film. Dumb.

I wouldn’t have decided to see it had I not been able to get into the Skyfall show.

Best,

John

HokieCon on November 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Wonder if slavery in Lincoln is a metaphor for Obama care? Don’t think I’ll bother actually watching it to explore this possibility because although DD Lewis is a good actor his political sympathies are the same as V Redgrave and all the rest of that set and I’m bored of their dramatizations. Would encourage anyone who wants to watch it to obtain the free copies all Hollywood libs in their heart of hearts believe you’re entitled to.

Frankz on November 20, 2012 at 2:01 am

P.S. Meant the abolition of slavery is a metaphor for the introduction of Obama care just in case what I wrote didn’t make sense.

Frankz on November 20, 2012 at 2:42 am

We are watching this movie today on DVD. It seems to be historically accurate and picks up the look/feel of the times.

Certain things are omitted. The 2nd inauguration speech was not brief as portrayed. Andrew Johnson’s inauguration prior to Lincoln’s was disastrous and played heavily on events following the assassination.

Thaddeus Stevens was extremely ambitious for political power. Tommy Lee Jones seems to have played him well. Stevens figures prominently in American history. (I have often thought Newt Gingrich a modern analogy of Stevens.)

Lincoln’s government and congress were filled with scoundrels. He had to walk a tightrope of conflicting interests that constantly moved with the flow and ebb of the War.

I thought Day-Lewis (for all his personal shortcomings) did a good job of displaying the anguished deliberations Lincoln is known to have had. When I heard Sally Fields was playing Marry Todd Lincoln, I thought: “Of course! Who else?” Sally Fields kinda looks like Mary Todd Lincoln. (You might have mentioned Fields’ role in “Not Without My Daughter” when talking about some of the anti-Israel members of the cast. Not sure of her views on Israel, but I doubt she’s very popular with Muslims.)

Still, my favorite actor who portrayed Lincoln remains Gregory Peck. Perhaps that is because of Debbie’s note on Day-Lewis’ views. More than likely, it was Peck’s own persona that gave his brief portrayal of Lincoln (on a made-for-TV movie no less) a great sense of historical dignity.

There is NO Santa Claus on March 31, 2013 at 1:52 pm