Jocelynne, you stated "And now to the third principal reason for the 'no' vote, and 'Lincoln'. Spielberg's biopic has President Lincoln struggling to ensure the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, while at the same seeking an end to the Civil War. In endeavouring to persuade his cabinet and officials of the necessity for the Thirteenth Amendment, he says: 'We cannot go forward on the international stage carrying with us the scourge of slavery.'".

If you are going to use a Hollywood film to justify your view perhaps you should consider this:

Lincloln had almost nothing whatsoever to do with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, contrary to the main story line of Spielberg’s movie. As a fact, when asked by genuine abolitionists in Congress if he would assist them in getting the Amendment passed, Lincoln refused. (He did struggle mightily, however, to try to get a first Thirteenth Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, passed in 1861 that would have enshrined slavery explicitly in the U.S Constitution).

Many of the "facts" portrayed in the movie are false. It's no wonder some people believe that the word "cinema" is a combination of "sin" and "enema."

Perhaps you should consider where you obtain your sources of reference and justification for an argument before putting pen to paper, afterall you are a Barrister and your world is supposed to be based on facts.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of your post, Geoff of Perth, you might like to revisit this one:

>>...after all you are a Barrister and your world is supposed to be based on facts<<

The day that a barrister's world is based on facts will be the day that their entire profession comes crashing down around their ears.

Their world is founded entirely upon fabrication. Their disregard of what you and I would consider "truths", in favour of a neatly-turned obfuscation, or chasing a non-sequitur down the rabbit-hole of cross-examination, is legendary. At $6,000 a day, you don't want to get tied down to reality, after all.

And imagine, for a moment, that you had to choose for your court defence between a barrister that dealt only in facts, and one who had won their last ten cases, which would you select?

Just saying.

Pericles I agree totally with what you say.

I did however state the words "supposed to be based" so I guess I did manage to qualify it somewhat, foolish me!

Geoff