online dating service

Free Dating Site    

REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES
Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > A thread about Abraham Lincoln....      Mod Threads Home login  
Page 5 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 Author Thread: A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
 Two Hawks

Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 101
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/27/2008 11:15:27 PM
"Honest" Abe was anything but a good president. He was a tyrant, a scoundrel, a racist and broke many laws. But....I guess when you are "in charge" the laws don't apply to you? It is a known fact that when Booth put the bullet in Lincoln....many, many Northerners were happy about that. They didn't like Abe....especially the ones who had been put in prison without a trial because they had spoken out against the war.

As we all know...history is written by the winners. The North won the war, so naturally the pictures painted by writers will show that the North was right and the South was wrong. These pictures will also show Lincoln as the kind, just, honest person they want you to believe he was. DeLorenzo paints an entirely different picture of Lincoln. I highly recommend reading his book about Lincoln.
 CharlesEdm

Joined: 9/16/2006
Msg: 102
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 2:11:07 AM

I would also like to add to this that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. It was States rights and economy


Sure the right of southern states to have slaves, and run a slave based economy.

They put it directly into the Confederate Constitution after all. DeLorenzo is a standard historical revisionist. No better than holocaust denialists.
 Montreal_Guy

Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 103
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 6:24:52 AM
I don't think it's fair to paint Lincoln as a racist either. His views in today's world would certainly make him that, just on what he said on the public record. It's unfair to hold him to our standards today, and it does him a great disservice.

He was a man of his times, and wanted (above all) a united nation.

If people like Frederick Douglas could be close friends with Lincoln, and have the utmost respect for him, I really thing that this clears any doubt about his "racist" character.

It's very much like many men in the 1940's , who thought the idea of women being equal to a man preposterous. They just did not have anything to challenge that thought process, and grew up in a far different world.

I don't think you can say that in their time they were "sexist", because that mentality was the most common one. I think Lincoln's views on blacks were along the same lines.
 Two Hawks

Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 9:17:46 AM
Msg 102

There was more slave trade in the Northern States than there was in the Southern States because the Southern States were all economically challanged. The ratio of slave owners in the North was higher than in the South. The War of Northern Aggression was NOT fought for the South to preserve slavery. The writers of history would like you to believe that the war was fought "just to free the slaves", but this is NOT true. Southern rights and economy was the principal cause of that war. It was their coinstitutional right to break away from the union and that's what they did. That pissed Lincoln off, so he ILLEGALLY had the Northern Army march South an invade. He was NOT given permission from the congress to do that.

DeLorenzo is not trying to rewrite history. He's just telling the truth about it. Two of the biggest lies that came out of the War of Northern Aggression were 1. It was fought just to free the slaves. 2. The South started it. Wrong on both counts. Granted! The first shots fired were from Southern cannon, but they didn't start it. They were defending their homeland against invaders.
 Two Hawks

Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 105
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 12:53:21 PM
Msg 103

Lincoln NOT a racist? Any time and I don't care where or when it was, that someone refers to two groups of people as mongrel dogs...that, sir, is being a racist! It doesn't make any difference if it was 100 years ago, or 100 years from now. A comment like that makes the person a racist!
 arieann

Joined: 7/20/2007
Msg: 106
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 2:44:30 PM
Like all white people back then. None of them were racist, even KKK. They were people of their times.
 Montreal_Guy

Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 107
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 3:50:36 PM

It doesn't make any difference if it was 100 years ago, or 100 years from now. A comment like that makes the person a racist!


After having read quite a bit about him, I disagree totally. Frederick Douglas didn't seem to agree with you either.


I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

Fellow-citizens, whatever else in this world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time, time! is impartial, just, and certain in its action. In the realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time. Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.

Fellow-citizens, I end, as I began, with congratulations. We have done a good work for our race today. In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us; we have been fastening ourselves to a name and fame imperishable and immortal; we have also been defending ourselves from a blighting scandal. When now it shall be said that the colored man is soulless, that he has no appreciation of benefits or benefactors; when the foul reproach of ingratitude is hurled at us, and it is attempted to scourge us beyond the range of human brotherhood, we may calmly point to the monument we have this day erected to the memory of Abraham Lincoln.

Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln

Frederick Douglass
April 14, 1876
Delivered at the Unveiling of The Freedmen�s Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=39


Had he been a racist, I don't think Douglas would have given him the oration he did.

He essentially says what I said about him, that he was a man who shared the prejudice of his times, and whose first (and overwhelming desire) was to keep the country together. As President, that's certainly understandable.

Given the amount of death and destruction unleashed across the land when the country fractured, that was the cost he wanted to avoid paying - and that's understandable too.

In the end, he did what was right - and that's what counts. He did it when the time was right, and started African-Americans on their path to equality.
 Two Hawks

Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 108
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 1/28/2008 4:56:04 PM

He essentially says what I said about him, that he was a man who shared the prejudice of his times, and whose first (and overwhelming desire) was to keep the country together. As President, that's certainly understandable.


Keep the country together? The War of Northern Aggression did anything but that! It split the country....North and South. The Southern States had constitutional rights to succeed from the Union. And that's what they did. This didn't set too well with old Abe, so he ILLEGALY ordered the Northern Army to march South. Note I said ILLEGALLY. Since there was an organized Army...congressional permission had to be obtained to give that Army orders to march anywhere with the intent to invade. Old Abe ordered them to march WITHOUT congressional permission, thereby breaking a federal law. So therefore Lincoln was a law breaker.

Lincoln was also a tyrant. Under HIS orders....anyone in the North that spoke out against the war was immediately thrown into a federal prison without trial. Any newspaper, or magazine that printed an article against the war was immediately closed down and put out of business and the chief editor was thrown into a federal prison.

So say what you want about old Abe. He was NOT a good president!
 Montreal_Guy

Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 109
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/18/2008 1:05:53 PM
I just found some more interesting facts about the man, and realized I missed his birthday last week.....


Lincoln was the only President ever to obtain a patent. In 1849 he invented a complicated device for lifting ships over dangerous shoals by means of “buoyant air chambers.” Much to Lincoln’s disappointment, U.S. Patent No. 6,469 was never put into practical use.

The clutter in Lincoln’s law office was notorious, and a continual source of irritation to his partner, William Herndon. On his desk, Lincoln kept one envelope marked “When you can’t find it anywhere else, look into this.”

(I'm thinking of adopting this idea... )

Lincoln was the 1st major leader in our history to favor extending the vote to women.
In 1836–a full 12 years before the 1st woman’s rights convention had even convened–State legislator Lincoln gave an Illinois paper a statement endorsing “female suffrage.”

In 1858, Lincoln was so concerned that the text of his “House divided” speech be reported accurately, that even after he had given a copy of the address to reporters, he insisted on going to the newspaper office himself and proofreading the galleys.

( I guess some things never change, when it comes to the press.)

In 1842, Lincoln accepted a challenge to a duel from James Shields, the Democratic State auditor. Shields was furious over a satiric letter in a local paper. Actually, the letter had been written by Lincoln’s fiancee, Mary Todd, but Lincoln willingly took responsibility. Since he was given the choice of weapons, Lincoln, with typical cunning, selected broadswords–with his 6′4″ frame and his enormous arms, Lincoln had an insurmountable advantage over his disminutive opponent when it came to dueling with swords. Shields wisely decided to make up his differences with Lincoln and the scheduled duel failed to take place.

{Actually a good lesson in politics, almost as good as the "two walnut" one. )

It is well known that Lincoln used to pace the White House long past midnight during the years of the Civil War; what is less celebrated is his habit of imposing his insomnia on his overworked aides. Often, he would keep his young personal secretary, John Hay, awake, listening to the funny stories that Lincoln loved to tell. (”Without these stories I would die,” he once said.) On one occasion, according to Hay, “he read Shakespeare to me, the end of Henry VIII and the beginning of Richard III, till my heavy eyelids caught his considerate notice and he sent me to bed.”

After the death of his son Willie, Lincoln was persuaded by his wife to participate in several seances held in the White House. The President was deeply interested in psychic phenomena and wanted to communicate with his dead son. Once Lincoln reported that he had attended a seance in which a piano was raised and moved around the room. It was the professional opinion of the mediums who had worked with him that Lincoln was definitely the possessor of extraordinary psychic powers.

Lincoln took his dreams seriously. On one occasion he wrote to his wife to be watchful with their son Tad because Lincoln had experienced an “unpleasant” dream. On the day of his assassination, April 14, 1865, he was so troubled by a dream that he actually discussed it at a Cabinet meeting. He told his colleagues that he had seen himself sailing “in an indescribable vessel and moving rapidly toward an indistinct shore.” Even more explicit was a dream that he discussed just a week before he was shot. In his dream, Lincoln awoke, and walked through the silent White House, following the sound of sobbing. When he came to the East Room, he saw a catafalque draped in black. “Who is dead?” Lincoln asked. A military guard replied that it was the President.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/12217?cnn=yes
 freedombaby

Joined: 6/18/2007
Msg: 110
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/18/2008 3:16:44 PM
There's a theory that the civil war did not need to be fought. If Lincoln would have waited, slavery would have gone by the wayside within 20 years. Britain had outlawed slavery and was fighting it in Africa (Where blacks sold thier own people into slavery) and they battled it on the High seas. Also, Brazil had outlawed slavery which was a stop off point for slave ships. It was falling by the wayside. I realise that the civil war was fought because of the division in the union. But, one of the causes for the division was slavery. Just like if we had a civil war today, there would be many reasons, Abortion, illegal immigration, racism, classism, the war, etc. pick an issue. But, ultimately history is controlled by those who teach it. Teachers and the media would pick a reason that matches thier political views, then harp about it till the people believe it. It's the same with Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln appears as a saint because those who teach, want him to appear to be a saint, for thier own political and social purposes. Lincoln was like any other president, he had good things and bad, he was president at a very interesting time and responded in the way he saw best. Some love him, some hate him. It's fun to wonder what would have happened if we had had a different president.
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 111
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/18/2008 5:41:39 PM
Lincoln did attempt to resolve the issues without going to war once he took office. He even approved of a constitutional amendment that would forbid the Federal Government from abolishing slavery.
Several states had already seceded, however, by the time he took office.

The abolishion of slavery was sought by Lincoln only after the war had begun, as a means to economically weaken the the south.

Lincoln did clearly oppose slavery, though, and more than that had a keen mind for politics. Arguably, he had one of the most challenging terms as President to date (imagine taking office with seven states already having declared that they are no longer part of the union).
 HappyDenise

Joined: 9/13/2007
Msg: 112
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:03:01 AM

Lincoln was also a tyrant. Under HIS orders....anyone in the North that spoke out against the war was immediately thrown into a federal prison without trial. Any newspaper, or magazine that printed an article against the war was immediately closed down and put out of business and the chief editor was thrown into a federal prison.

So say what you want about old Abe. He was NOT a good president!


At that time and place, that was actually a smart thing to do. You may believe it makes him a terrible President, but he probably would have never had the fortitude to preserve the union.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 113
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:40:41 AM

he probably would have never had the fortitude to preserve the union.
You mean fortitude to violate the state rights of the south. Remember, the south didnt want to be part of the union. The president should not force his wishes on the people, by putting them in prison. If that was the case, you must think it would be acceptable to put gay right protesters in prison if the president does not want homosexuality in this country.What about war protesters of today, should they all be sent to prison because they want the USA out of Iraq. Obviously, Bush wants to be there, these protesters are against his wishes.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 114
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:06:45 AM
Sure the right of southern states to have slaves, and run a slave based economy.

They put it directly into the Confederate Constitution after all. DeLorenzo is a standard historical revisionist. No better than holocaust denialists.

There was a whole lot of crap in their constitution, not just slavery.
On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. The warbegan a year earlier. If Lincoln was so against slavery, why did he not sign this bill before the war or as soon as he went into office.
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 115
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:08:10 AM

You mean fortitude to violate the state rights of the south. Remember, the south didnt want to be part of the union.


The states do not have the 'right' to secede from the union. Look at it as a contract. The states are under contract with the union... they can't just up and leave without all affected parties agreeing to the terms.
 CharlesEdm

Joined: 9/16/2006
Msg: 116
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:36:11 AM

You mean fortitude to violate the state rights of the south. Remember, the south didnt want to be part of the union. The president should not force his wishes on the people, by putting them in prison. If that was the case, you must think it would be acceptable to put gay right protesters in prison if the president does not want homosexuality in this country.What about war protesters of today, should they all be sent to prison because they want the USA out of Iraq. Obviously, Bush wants to be there, these protesters are against his wishes.


Feel free to indicate the stated right to succeed for states within the US constitution.

The rest? Crap, we judge the morality and practicality of actions based on the time they occured. Homosexuality is still illegal in some states, and people are in fact arrested for the activity. I suspect their are Republicans who would happily put peace protestors in prison if they could, they just know it would be politcal suicide.
 ranger58

Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 117
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 8:48:33 AM
Aw talking policies with a liberal who re event history to his own liking.
"Lincoln saved America. He was a dynamic leader." Over 600,00 Americans were killed to keep one country instead of two great countries. I'm thinking it had to do more with money.
"FDR's policies kept America's economy rolling along from 1941 to 1981". I thought it was the war, and military build up that got us out of the depression. That was about 8 years after FDR took office.
"The average GDP growth rate in the 1980s was 1%, the average growth rate for the prior 40 years was ~ 3%. The 90s, under Clinton boomed. The only lean years were under Reagan. Bush Sr. did a pretty good job overall as well."
Maybe since you were so young at the time, but President Reagan brought us out of a bad recession that the Carter rule got us into. President Reagan also rebuilt the military after being gutted by Cater. His policies also brought down the Communist government of Russia. Doing this while fighting with the dems Congress. The "Clinton boom" did not start until after the Republicans too control of Congress, or did you forget. The big reason for Bush Sr. loosing was because he tried hard to please the dems in Congress, instead of doing what President Reagan showed him.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 118
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 9:14:42 AM

Homosexuality is still illegal in some states

Actually, I got this from standing dumn laws in North Carolina that still exist.

If a man and woman who are not married to each other live together "lewdly and lasciviously" they can be fined $1,000 and be sentenced to up to 60 days in gaol.

This 200 year old law is still exist, but I have never heard of it being enforced. This law does not mention 2 men/women living together in the same way. so, it is illegal to be straight, not homosexual.. This is from my silly side. Weather being gay is legal or not was not my question. You avoided it. Abe Lincoln punished anyone who apposed the war. I ask if people should be sent to prison for opposing the president if he disapproved of homosexuality, or if current anti-war protesters should be sent to prison. You are attempting to avoid answering the question by changing the subject to if I think being gay is right or wrong. I will answer that. I dont care who screws who. 1000 men/women can have one big bed to do whatever they want, I dont care. I just dont think Lincoln should have sent people to prison for opposing him. He violated their constitutional right to express themselves.
 Wookie50

Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 119
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 11:54:01 AM

Aw talking policies with a liberal who re event history to his own liking.


There is a lot of that going around. Lincoln didn't have much choice after the South attacked the union at Fort Sumpter. Unemployment and poverty did go down under FDRs first two terms. Google it. The recession was under Reagan. Even the high inflation blamed on Carter was happening in Ford's time.
 ranger58

Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 120
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 1:19:23 PM
[Lincoln didn't have much choice after the South attacked the union at Fort Sumter. ]
Actually it was just what President Lincoln wanted. He never could have started the war with out the south firing first. So, the south play into his hands. What a great politician.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 121
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:51:08 PM

the South attacked the union at Fort Sumpter.

The north invaded. Why shouldn't a country fire on an invading country?
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 122
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:33:57 PM

Unemployment and poverty did go down under FDRs first two terms.

Of course it did. There was nowhere else for it to go.


The recession was under Reagan. Even the high inflation blamed on Carter was happening in Ford's time.


Carter was a train wreck. Everyone knows that. Even one of the most liberal of liberals (Ted Kennedy) was so disgusted with him that he refused to let Carter's nomination in 1980 go unchallenged.
Carter left Reagan with double digit inflation, 1% GDP, and 21% 'prime' interest rates.
Reagan pulled us out of that mess, which is why so many Republicans want to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.

If it makes you feel any better, Reagan started his political career as a Democrat...


Lincoln didn't have much choice after the South attacked the union at Fort Sumter.


True.


The north invaded. Why shouldn't a country fire on an invading country?


False.

Northern forces weren't even assembled until the attack on Fort Sumter took place.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 123
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:44:48 PM

Northern forces weren't even assembled until the attack on Fort Sumter took place.

So, a country should wait until the enemy has fully assembled before defending itself? That don't make sense. The north should not have even went there. Am I just missing your point?
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 124
view profile
History
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 6:01:50 PM
Yeah... the U.S. forces (or Union forces, if you prefer) were already in South Carolina when it seceded from the Union. They didn't 'invade'.

Sure, they could have left their post and fled north... but they chose to hold their ground. That's what prompted the attack.
 LeahMarie

Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 125
A thread about Abraham Lincoln....
Posted: 2/19/2008 6:05:06 PM

Sure, they could have left their post and fled north... but they chose to hold their ground. That's what prompted the attack.

When a country tells you to get out, you should get out. As you say, they refused, so they started it.
Page 5 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > A thread about Abraham Lincoln....