Is bush resembling lincoln?

Not many educated african americans, well ok 99% of educated blacks depsise lincoln (which is sadly more than despise the chimp). But wikipedia has an errie description of him.I'm just wondering how long before this turns into the siege (bruce willis, denzel washington)



In his effort to preserve the Union during the Civil War, which began at the outset of his presidency (See Coming of the Civil War), Lincoln assumed more power than any preceding president in U.S. history. Taking a broad view of the president's war powers, he proclaimed a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anti-Union activity, spent money without congressional authorization, and controlled the war effort.

Lincoln was a deft politician, emerging as a wartime leader who was skilled at balancing competing considerations, and adept at getting rival groups to work together toward a common goal. His leadership qualities were evident in his handling of the border slave states at the beginning of the fighting, in his defeat of a congressional attempt to reorganize his cabinet in 1862, and his defusing of the peace issue in the 1864 presidential campaign. Lincoln had a lasting influence on U.S. political institutions, most importantly in setting the precedent of strong, perhaps sweeping, executive powers in time of national emergency

i hardly think we can compare the civil war to this bullshit that bush dragged us into.

lincoln has his list of mistakes, but he also did a lot of good. the only mistake now is that poppa bush forgot to wear his rubber.

as it was shortly before the war? And i see the censorship going on, and in seattle the nutjobs that kept ripping off the hoods

The division and hatred that existed that caused the Civil War was the result of 20 years of brewing and growing resentment between the North and the South. Saying it was Lincoln's fault shows a great depth of ignorance, not to mention that it was SHRUB that caused all this divisivness.

That's what a Bushevik would believe, lock, stock and unquestioningly.

Not that I am speaking of anyone personally. But that IS what a Busheviks believe.

...as the Revolutionary War. Even then it was becoming clear that there were political and economic differences between the fledgling industrialization of the North and the agrarian nature of the South that relied on slavery.

They both write great speeches... I can't wait for Bush's Gettysburg Address....<sarcasm off>

that's all he's worth

THAT, sir, is an insult to the integrity of the penny!

srry, didn't have my Kool Aid yet:beer:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

With malice towards all
With charity towards none

---------------------

Luckily, Mr. Bush won't have a "second" inaugural. His first ionauguration was, of course, a fraud of historical proportions.

There is no national emergency other than the one Bush is creating through his arrogance and greed.

and was a "deep" thinker

Of course, Lincoln is also dead from the neck down.

If you have to pick a former U.S. president, * more closely resembles William McKinley.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:dA2SGfKwpw8J:hnn.us/articles/4576.html+mckinley+rove&hl=en
<snip>
McKinley was not the first Republican to attempt to build a new majority in the years 1876 to 1892. Benjamin Harrison, victor of the 1888 election, although he had a minority in the popular vote, worked with Republican Speaker of the House Thomas Reed of Maine to craft a new majority. Reed adopted strict rules in the House that earned him the nickname, “the czar” and gave him the power to get legislation through with lightening speed. The result was the “Billion Dollar Congress.” Lacking imagination and devoid of luck, the Republican majority in 1890 simply tried to buy their way to a new majority. A surplus created by the protectionist policies they avowed had come to be viewed by the public and pundits alike as a dangerous hoarding of money in the deflationary economy. Since the Republicans did not want to lose the protective nature of their tariff, they turned to the next best way of getting rid of the money, they spent it.

In the day before social security, medicare, and welfare, the biggest social spending in the Federal government was allocated to pensions for Civil War veterans. The Billion Dollar Congress increased this spending by 43 percent to include parents, widows, and children of veterans as eligible recipients for pensions. Next they tried to buy off the West and the Mountain states by enacting the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which required the federal government to purchase almost the entire output of the nation's silver mines. Reformers were wooed with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act designed to break up large business concentrations. Then Congressman William McKinley of Ohio revised the tariff by adding consumer goods, sugar, for example, to the free list, but adding farm products to the protected list and increasing rates on industrial products. Defense was not neglected as the navy budget was more than doubled. The first modern battleships constructed by the United States were appropriated during the Billion Dollar Congress.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Is that a typo? :wtf:

Are you insane? :wtf:

Despise the man who set them free? :wtf:

Simply put...I don't believe you.

2 choices here:

1) You have made a mistake of somekind, such as inserting Lincoln's name where "the KKK" should be

2) I can't say it or I'll get a warning from the Mods. But YOU KNOW, I KNOW, EVERYONE KNOWS what I can't say.

Oh, and while I'm not accusing you personally, your reason why "eduacted blacks despise Lincoln" (laughable in and of itself) is curiously similar to the reasons why Confdereates/Busheviks/Dittoheads/Brownshirts hate Lincoln.

Curious, isn't it?

Yep, I guess those Educated Blacks sure did hate centralized government power for the way it freed them from slavery, finally got around to securing the vote, stepped in to stop Freepers (like some people I know lurk here on DU, not that I am making accusations) from lynching and murdering them.

Yeah, African-Americans have SO MANY reasons to loathe Centralized Governmental Power.

odd that tyir reasons should be so identical to the Busheviks who hate them, isn't it?

Isn't it?

ISN'T IT?!?

I could write pages about this, but I'll limit to a couple of the basics.
First, Lincoln never took a position until he had thought it through thoroughly and, even if unpopular, could defend it logically. A cursory reading of the Lincoln-Douglas debates will demonstrate his INTELLIGENT understanding of the issues. Bush, by his own admission, "goes with his gut", period.
As for speeches, Lincoln (no speechwriters) wrote great speeches because he was able to take complex issues and put them in terms simple, uneducated people could understand. Bush's speechwriters take simple issues and dissemble and obfuscate them until noone knows what's really going on.
Excuse me, but this is a sore spot for me. The Republicans like to use Lincoln's image even though they have twisted themselves entirely out of his ideals and principles.

he said it himself. He would keep slavery if it would save the union. He thought blacks were inferior also. And i think thats what bothers so many of us who got an education, its almost a subconscious fuck you to lincoln.

"Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration."

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side."

"If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated."

"You here are freemen, I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people."

"But, even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours."



And what about what Mr. Lincoln said on September 18, 1858 in his debate with Stephen Douglas at Charlestown, Illinois:

"I will say then that I am not, nor have ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality...and I as much as any man am in favor of having the superior position to the white race."

nt

a couple weeks ago.

Yeah, I'll bet 99% of the Blacks who rushed to mob him despised him, too.

I think we've wasted quite enought time on nonsensical Red Herrings written by (COMMENT REDACTED TO PREVENT BANNING)rs, don't you?

Not that I am accusing you personally, but it is a standard tactic of the Bushevik Brownshirts to post unsourced lies repeatedly until they become "truth".

It is also a Standard Bushevik Brownshirt tactic to lie about who you are in order to gain false sympathy and "fly under the radar".

Not that I am speaking of you personally, but gosh, I sure would like to see some corroboration of those Lincoln quotes in support of freeing the slaves.

Ever visited the Lincoln Memorial? It's quite nicely laid out there. Of course, you probably won't find to many Busheviks there because 99% of Busheviks DESPISE Lincoln, though I'm betting you know that.

I am well aware of Lincoln's confused and sometimes flip-flopping vision of slavery vs. preserving the Union. I am sure you COULD NOT POSSIBLY be so unschooled in history that you weren't aware that for every quote you've made, if they are correct and truly Lincoln's, there is an equal and opposite quote.

Unlike the Bushevik Totalitarian Bootlickers, who say one thing and routinely did another, Lincoln's actions, however motivated truly, resulted in steps towards freedom (sadly unfufilled until the 60s and 70s and some say still not even now) for which every African-American I've ever met is grateful to some degree.

I've never met an African-American who despised Lincoln. Of course, I never met any Bushevik Tools either, such as Rev. Jesse Peterson or Ward Connerly, who are coincidentally, primarily funded by White Busheviks.

So, whattaya think, there, pal? I guess I just met all those people in the 1%, eh?

Maybe I'm lying like a Bushevik Lying Bootlicker? But then, what would you know about such things. My apologies for bringing it up.

Oh, and one last thing, even if Lincoln was a Seperatist (which I would have to see some believable source, Faux "News" corroborated by Rush and Haniity is as trustworthy as Soviet or Nazi "sources"...or perhaps Rev. Jesse Peterson's white-funded webstie lists them, corroborated by Rush and ward Connerly. Nope. same as the ChiCom press...lying, self-serving, not to be believed or trusted), he STILL wanted to free African-Americans prior to "seperating" them.

On the other hand. I just can't believe Lincoln was a full-blown seperatist I am going to treat your words exactly as if they come from the mouth of a Lying Bushevik until I see otherwise.

I await your links to credible sources, sir.

One must, however, consider the context of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for one, and the evolution of Lincoln's thoughts on race, for another.

If one carefully examines the various transcripts of the L-D debates (and these vary, depending on whether the reporting newspaper was Democratic or Republican) one will clearly see subtle, yet important shifts in phrasing and tone depending on what part of the state of Illinois he was in.

One of the quotes give was presented in a speech in southern Illinois, which held highly sympathetic views to the South and the institution of slavery, in large part because those who settled there came from Alabama, Mississippi, etc and held strong business ties with the southern states. (In fact, this area was at one time considered in danger of attempting to break from Illinois and join the Confederacy.) Lincoln was, first and foremost, a politician, and he was trying ardently to get elected. When debating Douglas in Southern Illinois, his comments were clearly directed towards trying to appease that section. When he spoke further north in the more enlightened areas, his comments on racial relations changed accordingly. (I can provide an in-depth analysis of these variations if anyone is interested, but I'll have to go dig out my volumes on the L-D debates.)

And, as mentioned, Lincoln's view of the status of blacks in society changed over time. He had always abhorred slavery, as anyone familiar with the multitude of his writings can attest, but he was never quite certain on the proper social relations between blacks and whites until well into the Civil War itself. Sadly, his life was cut short before this evolution could mature fully and receive expression in his own reconstruction policy.

Int he 1840's and 50's, it would be hard to find a white man who was truly sympathetic to blacks as people. There were some, but they were very few in number. Even some of the most radical abolitionists were seething racists or at the very least overly paternalistic, having bought into the pseudo-science that declared blacks were a "backward" race. (See George Frederickson's The Black Image in the White Mind for an in-depth analysis of this.

I'll stop there...

I believe I addressed some of that, not as well fleshed out as you, in my next post down from this one (I think).

In either case, to say that "99% percent of educated Blacks despise Lincoln" is absurd, nonsensical, and Orwellian.

Orwellian like a... well I can't say or I'll get banned.

You know what I mean.

"In the 1840's and 50's, it would be hard to find a white man who was truly sympathetic to blacks as people." How many white men even knew a black man in the 1850's? Did Lincoln?

In the context of the time Abraham Lincoln was a true and committed progressive.

Well, I suppose most Southerners knew a black person. Of course, they likely didn't consider that person an actual person.

Lincoln did know some blacks, though not well. (His wife's family had owned slaves, and IIRC Mary had a house servant at the time they met.) It was the relationship he developed with Frederick Douglass that made him reevaluate his opinion of the potential of blacks. He was able to admit, openly, that he had been wrong.

Yet another thing that makes him unlike Bush.

He was an abolitionist, but even most abolitionists, while they hated slavery and slaveholders, didn't want the black folks to come rubbing shoulders with them after they were freed. John Brown was different.

As a boy in the abolitionist settlement of Hudson Ohio, he saw his father renounce his membership in the church because the congregation disapproved when he brought a black family down to sit with them in the family pew. As a man he shocked and offended the abolitionist writer Richard Henry Dana by having black people join him at the dinner table and respectfully addressing them as "Mr. so-and-so" rather than by their first names. He also helped found a settlement for free blacks in New York state and lived with them and helped get them started on their farms.

And, of course, he was willing to sacrifice his life and his sons' lives for black freedom, and did.

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/lincoln/Abraham%20Lincoln%20on%20Race.htm


http://www.robertbreaker.com/honduras/pages/AbrahamLincolnquotes.htm


The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761526463/qid=1084920840/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8855263-1127118?v=glance&s=books

Before I go...from the Amazon website you linked to...

Customers who bought this book also bought:

The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy (Contributor) (Rate it)
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (Rate it)
Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kennedy, Bob Harrison (Rate it)
The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis, James M. McPherson (Rate it)
Was Jefferson Davis Right? by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy (Rate it)

Yep, I'll just bet they did.

Thanks again. That was a very telling set of links you gave me. very enlightening. Your quotes are correct.

Just mirepresented and misdirected and with a whole host of omissions, as RoyGBiv points out better than I could.

its just i tend to get indignant when talking about lincoln. I keep forgetting its not common knowledge thanks to the myth that surrounds him.

About the amazon books, the people most likely to buy this book, are ones whose world view it fits. Same goes for our books: Dude wheres my country

Customers who bought this book also bought:

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken (Rated)
Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America by LOU DUBOSE (Author), MOLLY IVINS (Author) (Rated)
Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country--And Its Time to Take It Back by Jim Hightower (Why?)
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke (Author) (Rate it)
The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century by Paul Krugman (Why?)

and buy _The Portable Lincoln_ from Viking Press. Then you can possibly rethink your conclusions.

conflicted stance.

You have kept civil so I shall return to being wholly civil. I must point out that I resent being painted as someone who "fell for the myth". Quite the opposite.

I do have a high opinion of him, though, and his Second Inagural Address (you might remember that he was killed before he could even begin to achieve what he said in that speech, and I believe he WOULD have at least partially lived up to 40 acres and a Mule, rather than the zero African-Americans got.

As far as the books go, you almost proved my point by missing it. Allow me to explain: I wasn't making the point which you countered at all. Yes, I know that door swings both ways, Left and Right.

My point is (and you seemed to reinforce it with this comment

About the amazon books, the people most likely to buy this book, are ones whose world view it fits.

You mean to say that you are an African-American who's worldview fits the book "Was the South Right?" Is THAT what you are saying, because it sure seems that way to me?!

You are definitely going to have to elaborate on your "world view comment" and how it relates to "your" Lincoln book.

Again, for all the world (and I apologize if this offends but I must speak it as I see it), you sound like a Confederate to my ears.

Have you ever watched the Dave Chappell Show and his skit about the Black KKK Guy? It's pretty funny. Dave's show is pretty damned funny if you haven't seen it yet.

But for all the world you speak like a Confederate, right down to the virulent hatred of Lincoln.

I'm a Union man. And for ALL Lincoln's human faults flaws and "moral impefections", he was a great man who paved the way for post-WWIII Egalitarian America that made us and our parents so rich, prosperous, and happy.

You know that word, don't you? Egalitarian?

You mean to say that you are an African-American who's worldview fits the book "Was the South Right?" Is THAT what you are saying, because it sure seems that way to me?!


I don't know to many african americans who bought the book. I recieved a free copy. This is usually just known once one gets to college. Kind of like the the hypocrisy of the founding fathers (slave owners--who wanted to be free)

Again, for all the world (and I apologize if this offends but I must speak it as I see it), you sound like a Confederate to my ears

No i'm quite left wing, maybe one step short of the radical left. And i'm a midwesterner with the thought process of a european.

Have you ever watched the Dave Chappell Show and his skit about the Black KKK Guy? It's pretty funny. Dave's show is pretty damned funny if you haven't seen it yet.

But for all the world you speak like a Confederate, right down to the virulent hatred of Lincoln.


Huge fan of the show, i believe its lcayton bixby lol. Most people if not all i know dispise him, and i think it has a lot to do with him getting so much respect as do the founding fathers.

I'm a Union man. And for ALL Lincoln's human faults flaws and "moral impefections", he was a great man who paved the way for post-WWIII Egalitarian America that made us and our parents so rich, prosperous, and happy.


He wanted to save the union, even if that meant maintaing slavery

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.... My paramount object in the struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery"

I don't give credit for accidental corollaries. I am not sure which america you live in, but we have the largest gap between rich and poor in the industrialized world. No universal healthcare, segregation still rampant, and getting back to 60's level. My parents were not rich, in fact my father had to struggle with 2 kids and 3 jobs to make it through college, in a time where he was banned from dorms, and even some classes. To many people look at it with a view of well he freed the slaves, i'm sure if he could have made a compromise he would have, and i just don't admire acidents.

this idea that "educated" people despise Lincoln?

Maybe at Bob Jones University...

I hear it's becoming a regular 1939 Heidelberg University down there for "government service".

Lincoln's MANY anti-slavery quotes, for you to continue to take the line that his ending slavery was "accidental" is disingenuous in the extreme.

I am VERY familiar with the famous Lincoln quote. Are YOU aware what a delicate position he was in, trying to stave off the Democrats and keep pressing the war forward to it's conclusion, thus freeing the slaves whether by accident or design.

And the VOLUMES of Lincoln's anti-slavery quotes to my mind show that perhaps the freeing of the slaves may be more by-design than you think, but Lincoln played up the "accidental" parts to hold the Border States and due to the strongly held racist beliefs by damned near EVERYONE, North and South, at that time.

But Lincoln's own words are listed below. In the face of that, your arguments are disingenuous.

And say what you will about Dreams Deferred, to which I would agree with much of it, undoubtedly, but without Lincoln, there is no Civil Rights movement. EVERYONE is a hypocrite to some degree. Haven't you noticed that yet?

I daresay that even a close examination of Dr. King's life would reveal infidelitites and other human frailties (loss of temper, occasional hypocrisy, etc.)

I understand the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and evn Dr. King were frail human beings with faults and hypocrisies.

But I hold each of them in the same high esteem regardless because the great people they were and what legacy they left us (for all IT'S faults and flaws).

Think about it. And, since you disingenuously cling to an argument already disproven by Lincoln's own conflicted words, you can reply to me, but I really don't think this converstaion is very productive anymore, now that you have begun to repeat demonstrably disproven arguments.

It was an interesting conversation while it lasted, although I still say you speak like Clayton Bixby (apologies if this offends, but you said you liked Chappelle's Show) or a Confederate.

The Kennedy Brothers, Thomas DiLorenzo, Walter E. Williams, Bob Harrison, and a few others whose names I can't recall off the top of my head are a pox on the scholarly community. Well, the Kennedy brothers aren't really scholars. They're just ... well I prefer to call them novelists because they write darn fine fiction.

James McPherson, one of this historians mentioned above and most notable for his book The Battle Cry of Freedom (hmmm...wonder why he called it that) is probably a bit ill that his book gets associated with other such "notables." He would in no way endorse the disparaging comments on Lincoln presented in this thread.

OnEdit: typo

Well said, sir!

:toast: :toast:

:toast: back at ya...

Book stores, for some ungodly reason, file the Kennedy Brothers books in the history section. The stores I visit often have a hard time keeping it that way. I make a point of moving them to the horror section, properly filed by author. :evilgrin:

Here's another of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's insightful works:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo3.html

<snip>
Tryanny Personified
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

During the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee John Ashcroft, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-O’Shea’s Saloon) threw a fit over a perfectly correct statement once made by Ashcroft regarding how the founding fathers advocated the Second Amendment right to bear arms because of their belief that a well-armed citizenry constituted yet another check on governmental tyranny. "What, us, tyrannical?" Kennedy bellowed. He then demanded that Ashcroft "apologize to the American people" for having made such an outrageous statement.

Senator Kennedy is perhaps the most important member of Congress because in incidents like this he reminds Americans of how truly corrupt, tyrannical, deceitful, and rotten to the core the US State has become. To Kennedy, murdering some 80 people, including several dozen children, with poison gas, machine gun fire, and flames in Waco, Texas, because they allegedly violated a minor gun control law (which is unconstitutional, of course) is not an act of tyranny.

An FBI sniper shooting a new mother holding her baby in her arms at her home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, right between the eyes because her husband allegedly violated a minor gun law is not an act of tyranny.

Murdering literally thousands of innocent civilians in three different foreign countries with cruise missile attacks just to deflect American media attention from Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial is nothing to be concerned about in Ted Kennedy’s mind.
</snip>

:eyes:

Oh, you could just knock me over with a feather!

</sarcasm off>

:puke:

...in chronological order:

"The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves."
--From the August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."
--From the June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160. (Stephens was the future Confederate vice-president).

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
--From the August 22, 1862 Letter to Horace Greeley

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth."
--From the December 1, 1862 Message to Congress

"And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."
--From the January 1, 1863 Final Emancipation Proclamation

"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional -- I think differently."
--From the August 26, 1863 Letter to James Conkling

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
--From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

"We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed."
--From the August 22, 1864 Speech to the One Hundred Sixty-fourth Ohio Regiment

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
--From the March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

One can see without much difficulty exactly what Lincoln thought of slavery, even as early as 1855. I sincerely hope this ends this particular discussion.

Those are good ones.

I was on the verge of digging out my Collected Works, but I really didn't want to sit here all night and type these things in.

Here are some more quotes:

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."
-- August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
-- August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
-- April 6, 1859 - Letter to Henry Pierce

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
-- December 1, 1862 - Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress

"If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."
-- April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
-- April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges

"We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed."
-- August 22, 1864 - Speech to the One Hundred Sixty-sixth Ohio Regiment

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
-- March 17, 1865 - Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment

http://www.topicsites.com/abraham-lincoln/quotes.htm

What do you say now?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:wtf:

Unfamiliar with this type of site? perhaps more comfortable in a linear enivornment like (COMMENT REDACTED)lic.com?

Cherry picking quotes which inaccurately depict Lincoln's position by the time of his second term displays a massive ignorance of a small and stunted mind. People who do this are neither educated nor intelligent, as proven by their own words and actions. Because of the apparent brain function impairment, such people are unlikely ever to be educated.

Since I think that Lincoln was the worst President this country ever had, I'd have to agree that there are some similarities. Both usurped power and both had to come up with new reasons to justify their wars. At least Bush* hasn't killed as many people - yet.

The biggest differences are that Lincoln was intelligent, a great politician and worked very hard.

...opinion that Lincoln was the "worst President this country ever had". Through force of will alone he saved the Union and eventually ended slavery. Any other President would be proud to have those items on his resume.

On the other hand, Junior has participated in a bloodless coup, has succeeded in ruining a once-vibrant economy, destroyed our good standing in the international community, and has pursued illegal wars based on intelligence falsified by his own people.

Lincoln wins this one hands down. No contest. No comparison.

It would also be quite easy to argue that Lincoln, by establishing measures that led to the abolition of slavery, actually improved the US's standing in the international community. Slavery was dying out everywhere in the world except Latin America -- and that's arguable -- prior to the American Civil War. We were a backward nation due to that alone, and Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, and other abolitionist warriors tried very hard to bring us up to the world's standard.

Bush? Well, he told the world to go screw itself, made us enemies we never had before, and has sent us reeling backward on a daily basis.

As you say, no comparison.

I don't list him as one of the best either though.

My main gripe at him is that he ran a purely regional campaign, when he knew the country was close to splitting. In the days before the Civil War, each party, the Whigs and the Democrats recognized the tension between regions. Every election, each party made a real effort to run a national campaign. If the presidential candidate was from the north, his VP was always a southerner, and vice-versa.

This even held in 1860. Stephen Douglas, the northern Democratic candidate found a southerner to run as his VP candidate. Breckinridge, the sothern Democratic nominee somehow found a northerner to run as his VP candidate. The Republicans broke recedent by running two northerners.

Also, during his long lame-duck period between election and inauguration, I fault Lincoln. It took six weeks for S carolina to leave the Union on Dec 20, 1860. At this time there were feverish meetings in Washington to keep secessions from happening. Senator Crittenden of Kentucky led a congressional committee of the best known senators, both Republican and Democratic in an effort to keep the union together. On the committee were the great names of the senate including Seward, Davis, Benjamin and Toombs. Jeff Davis, Robert Toombs and Judah Benjamin risked their personal careers by staying in Washington trying to stop secession while their constituents back home were preparing for secession. The committee came up with plenty of ideas, but since the president-elect refused to either meet with the senatrsd, or even give instructions to the Republican majority on the committee, its work was doomed.

The second wave of secessions took place from Jan 9- Feb 1, and the Confederacy was established with seven states.

At this point still, there was much Lincoln could have done though. The border states of N Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee had not seceeded. In fact, voters in Tennessee narrowly voted to not call a secession convention. Without those three populous states, the Confederacy could not be a functioning nation. In fact, President Davis, upon hearing of his election as Confederate president, had to travel through the USA to get the short distance from his home in Mississippi to Montgomery, Alabama because the rail lines between those neighboring states went through Tennessee. At this point, Lincoln should have been touring the border states with moderate politicians from those areas. Instead, he held rallies in the great cities of the north. It was left to his defeated opponent Stephen Douglas to tour the border states and plead for unity. Within a year, the schedule broke Douglas' health and he was dead.

It was at this point that Lincoln made his biggest blunder. After Fort Sumpter, he gave each state a quota of militia to call up for an invasion of the south. Aside from the absolute unconstitutionality of a president calling forth the militia, Lincoln's call forced the border states to choose sides, and Virgnia, Tennessee and N Carolina all left the union.

At this point the Confederacy was now eleven states, and with the key population centers of Virginia, Tennessee and N Carolina added, the county could raise legitimate sized armies to challenge the US on the battlefield. Also with those states went some of the US's most brilliant military leaders, Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, AP Hill, Richard Ewell, JEB Stuart and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

So, while I don't consider Lincoln a villian, I don't buy into the hero worship either. He completely mishandled a horrible crisis which ended up with Civil War. I do not think it was inevitable.

Thanks for hanging in so long if anyone is still reading at this point.

"The committee came up with plenty of ideas, but since the president-elect refused to either meet with the senators, or even give instructions to the Republican majority on the committee, its work was doomed."

****The President-elect had no power to do anything. Buchanon was still the President, and he should have been working very hard to ease the tensions...but he was nowhere to be seen.

"At this point, Lincoln should have been touring the border states with moderate politicians from those areas."

****Lincoln barely made it to Washington DC by traveling through Maryland by rail without being assassinated. What makes you think he would have survived a tour of the border states?

"Aside from the absolute unconstitutionality of a president calling forth the militia, Lincoln's call forced the border states to choose sides, and Virgnia, Tennessee and N Carolina all left the union."

****Lincoln was full aware of the fact that Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee were likely to secede. His call for troops from those states was a litmus test...which they failed.

"So, while I don't consider Lincoln a villian, I don't buy into the hero worship either. He completely mishandled a horrible crisis which ended up with Civil War. I do not think it was inevitable."

****Most, if not all, historians would argue with you on both points. There is no hero worship involved with calling Lincoln a great president...the facts stand by themselves. He stepped into a major conflict, not of his own making, that came to a boil. He still managed to hold the Union together and end slavery.

As early as the Revolutionary War, conflicts had begun to appear between the Northern and Southern regions of the fledgling country. Most of those conflicts centered around the very different economies of the two regions and the widespread practice of slavery in the South. Because of the disparities in population between the North and South, the North was gaining representatives in Congress at a much greater rate than was the South. The South had felt for quite some time that they were powerless in Congress and were being out-voted on nearly every issue. Too many issues and not enough time to overcome them.

I'll just make two responses.

1. If there's a major crisis on hand, and there's a committee of senators trying to avert the crisis, and the members of the president-elect's party won't agree to anything without a nod from the president-elect as to what he would agree with, or could live with, and then the president-elect says to them, "sorry, I can't give you any direction or opinion for another three months," then in my opinion, that's a cop-out. The president-elect can at least give direction to his own party during his lame-duck period, which back then was four months long.

2. Certainly not every historian would disagree with me, since I list myself among historians, or former historians at least.

Anyway, thanks for the long read, and comments.

...and Lincoln was no exception. And again, Buchanon was still the president...what did he do to try to avert the coming war?

As to your comment about historians, I was taught Civil War History by one of the best Civil War historians...James I. Robertson, Jr., who is still an history professor at Virginia Tech. My comments on the Civil War are always guided by what I learned from him, and they are very different from what I have read in posts in this thread. Here's his bio:

James I. Robertson, Jr.
<http://www.civilwar.vt.edu/jr/jr.html>

the fact that President Buchanon was among the nation's worst presidents. I don't know why that fact would inhibit the president-elect from giving direction to his party's congressional leaders who were asking him for direction in a crisis though.

Not knowing James Robertson, I'm also perfectly willing to concede that he is, no doubt a fine historian, and a fine man too.

I have my disagreements with him on military matters, specifically his opinion of certain Confederate generals. However, he is a brilliant historian.

And as I said, very cool. A friend of mine knows him and got him to do a very kind favor for me once. I was helping a girl in West Virginia with a history project she was doing for a state competition, and Robertson agreed to give her a personal interview. All the things this man has to do every day, and he still had time to help out a 12 year-old with a school project.

1) The selection of Hannibal Hamlin as VP.

First, Lincoln didn't choose Hamlin. The Republican Party did, at the convention. Seward, who had been considered the favored candidate for the Presidency, was actually considered the first choice for VP after Lincoln was selected to head the ticket. However, Seward's views were considered too radical, even for the VP slot.

Second, in the context of 1860, Hamlin was a "balancing" candidate. Lincoln was associated with Kentucky and Illinois, either western or southern states depending on one's perspective, and Hamlin was from the northeast. No candidate could have helped the Republican ticket in the deep South, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, so someone from the NE was a logical, geographically balancing choice. As a bonus, Hamlin was a former Democrat who had abandoned the party over the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was something many Northern Democrats considered a "compromise with the devil." He held appeal there as well.

Notably, when Lincoln had more say in the selection and as it was becoming a greater possibility that the Union would prevail in the war, Lincoln abandoned Hamlin during the 1864 election for precisely the reason you suggest he should have originally. His selection of Andrew Johnson was possibly the worst political mistake he ever made.

2) The "regional" manner in which the campaign was managed.

This had nothing to do with Lincoln except to the extent that his party's anti-slavery extension plank so angered Southerners that they literally subverted the electoral process to try to prevent Lincoln's election.

At this point in our nation's history, elections were not run at all like they are run today. Ballots were printed and distributed by the party structure itself, and in those locations where no party structure existed to manage this, no ballots for that party's candidate were available. Republican party workers did try to establish a presence in the South, but their efforts had long been abandoned after they were literally run out of town on a rail in the wake of death threats, being subjected to actual physical violence, etc. In the end, Lincoln was not on the ballot in ten southern states.

3) Faulting Lincoln prior to inauguration

I find this to be a disingenuous argument. If anyone is to blame for the inaction that took place as the nation tore itself apart, it was James Buchanan. In the real world of 1860, Lincoln may very well have been killed had he even attempted to set foot in the Southern states, and he wasn't much safer in the border states. After the embarrassment he suffered after the threats on his life just prior to his inauguration and the measures he took to keep his route and time of arrival in Washington secret, Lincoln abandoned such concerns. It cost him his life.

As for the various efforts in Washington to head-off secession, Lincoln had no place there. His party's interests were well represented with established leaders. Remeber, that it was his mere election, without any overt act on his part to assault southern interests, that was fueling the secessionist movement. Lincoln's presence at the negotiations would have been a hindrance. At this time, Lincoln had almost no political clout in Washington, and people like Seward and others really didn't want him around. It's hard to fault a man for not going where his own party didn't want him to go.

In addition, the Washington Peace Conference that took place as one of the last efforts to negotiate a settlement was a farce. None of the already seceded states were represented at the convention, so it is hard to imagine how any good could have come of it. It would be like trying to organize negotiations concerning North Korea, but with only North Korean dissidents residing elsewhere and South Koreans attending. It's a non-starter. Certainly some of the border-state Southerners that were there had ostensibly good intentions; they feared their states would serve as the battleground in case of war. Obviously, they were right.

4) Choosing sides and Sumter.

I do not have the necessary books handy to argue this effectively, and it's one of those things I have trouble discussing from memory. It's rather convoluted. However, there is ample evidence that the border states, particularly Virginia, were committed to secession prior to Lincoln's call for troops. In short, the call-up of the militia was not the final straw that brought the border states in. Rather, hardliners in the border states had been working feverishly in the interim to pull their states out of the Union, and the attack itself on Sumter provided the necessary push. The attack signaled that negotiations were over.


Finally, I don't worship Lincoln either, and there are certainly valid avenues for criticizing him throughout his career. However, very few of those more valid criticisms have been touched upon in this thread. One could certainly argue the merit of Lincoln's militia call, but I mean this literally; it can be argued. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.

I find this criticism odd?

You really think my criticism is insincere? After spending years studying this period, and coming to my conclusions, you read a post I made and declare my criticisms, not wrong, but disingenuous? That's pretty bold of you.

Anyway, the Crittenden Committee sat from Dec 22-27. You are right that none of the seceeded states were represented. Of course only one state had by then seceeded. The second state that would secede was well represented by Senator Jefferson Davis. It should be recognized that Davis, as well as Senator Toombs of Georgia and Benamin of Louisiana were putting their careers at great risk by staying in Washington to work toward a compromise to save the Union. All three of them were under tremendous pressure from their home states to come home and give up on the union. Credit should be given to these men for staying so long with an outstretched hand.

Senator Douglas of Illinois was also on the committee, and was also under great pressure trying to save the nation when you know he must have felt that if he had been elected, the crisis would have been averted.

The senator in the most unenviable position though was Senator Seward of New York. As the best known of the five Republicans on the committee, he was hit hard by an early procedural rule. The committee voted that no compromise should be brought to the floor of the senate unless it had majority support from the five Republican members. That was certainly a reasonable rule, as it was pointless to bring up a compromise that the new administration wouldn't support. It put Seward in an impossible position though as the incoming president refused to offer him any guidance or ideas. That left him unable to present any proposals, which doomed the proceedings and made Seward look ineffective.

Anyway, I believe Lincoln was very fortunate to have well known leaders from the deep south who were willing to stay in Washington long past when most of their compatriots had given up hope. I think Lincoln should havejumped on his good fortune and worked with them.

I also think he should have gone right through the border states holding rallies in pro-union strongholds and assuring the border states that he meant them or the south no harm. I believe leaders like Davis and Benjamin would have gone with him and lent him their prestige as long as there was hope of compromise. Honor and duty were bigger deals then than they are now.

I believe Lincoln mishandled the secession crisis badly. Part of the blame I believe is because he didn't personally know some of these men, and Washington worked on personal trust much more back then.

You can agree with my opinions or not, but they are genuinely mine.

Also, I disagree that the border states were going to secede anyway. I would argue the vote in Tennessee against holding a secession convention would be strong evidence of that. That was not a vote of the legislature by the way. It was a popular vote of the voters of Tennessee.

However, once Jefferson Davis was inaugurated President of the Confederacy, he sent perhaps the most respected intellect in the south, Alexander Hamilton Stephens to Virginia to coax that state out of the Union into the Confederacy. How did Lincoln counter this diplomacy? By demanding Virginia supply troops for the invasion of the south. True brilliance.

Well, yes, I find the argument itself disingenuous. I do not intend that as a personal reflection on you, i.e. an insult, which is how you seem to be taking it. I'm addressing your argument, which I believe places center stage an issue which requires context to maintain relevance. I would also certainly never suggest that your opinion isn't your own, and I can see that you arrived at it via your own train of thought. I respect that. I just happen to think it is based on flawed reasoning.

Having said that, the reason I find it disingenuous is in fact due to your apparent knowledge of events. To lay blame on Lincoln specifically for the failures of diplomacy during the secession crisis ignores entirely the events that provide context and reason for his actions, or lack thereof. Most importantly, it ignores Buchanan's role. He was, after all, the President of the United States, and he did absolutely nothing productive to help stem the tide of secessionist sentiment. You acknowledge this much but do not place it into the context of your argument. Buchanan didn't even discourage members of his own party from counseling in favor of allowing secession to take place. To lay that responsibility on Lincoln, who had no legal power at all, little political power, and wasn't, in reality, even elected yet, is, well, disingenuous.

Allow me to expand a bit. Your view of Lincoln during this time paints a picture that makes him seem uncaring and borderline incompetent. Lincoln was in fact involved, but he was in an extremely precarious position that in effect handcuffed him. You say at least twice that people were urging him to get involved with the crisis, and I should take a moment to acknowledge that this is true. However, this is not a complete statement. Those urging such action who actually had a positive intent were largely newspaper editorialists, minor party functionaries, and others who were not by and large heavily involved and thus ignorant of the internal politics at play.

In a private letter Lincoln stated, "I could say nothing which I have not already said, and which is in print and accessible to the public." As Lincoln biographer David Donald notes, this is a statement reflective of difficult circumstances. He had made his views well known, and those views were apparently fueling hardliners in the South to organize secessionist movements. How could reiterating those views help? He could not, and would not, retract his party's plank of preventing the spread of slavery nor of maintaining the federal government's authority to do so. Taking that debate on himself and reestablishing the position would do nothing but fan the flames.

Additionally, according to Donald, "Behind his silence lay a recognition of the weakness of his position. Though the Republicans had carried the election in November, not one vote had been cast for him personally. The presidential electors chosen in the election did not meet until December 5, and their ballots would not be officially counted until February 13, which Lincoln regarded as 'the most dangerous point' in the whole election process. Until that time he had no legal standing as a public official."

Put another way, Lincoln's silence on the issue was a practical, carefully considered political decision designed to prevent a usurping of the electoral process by those who might have seen his meddling in events without legal standing as positive proof of his intent to fundamentally alter governmental relations. Lincoln was perceived by the South as a radical, and it would, at the time, have been a radical course to inject himself into affairs of the state prior to his officially taking office. This highlights one arguable flaw in Lincoln's and other Republicans' thinking, to wit that latent Unionist sentiment in the South would ultimately prevail provided no overt action on their part tipped the balance.

Thurlow Weed, one of Seward's spokesmen, nearly demanded that Lincoln put aside any thought of placing himself on the public stage prior to the electoral count. Others like Joseph Meddil told Lincoln to ignore the "damned fools or knaves who want him to make a 'union saving speech . . . <You> must keep <your> feet out of all such wolfe <sic> traps.'" This is exactly what it was, a trap.

What Southerners all across the spectrum wanted was for Lincoln to assure them that there would be no change at all in the way the federal government approached the issue of slavery or slavery expansion. They wanted a reaffirmation of the Kansas-Nebraska Acts. They wanted the fugitive slave laws to be vigorously and federally enforced. They wanted no attempts to overturn Dred Scott. These were not Republican positions. Therefore, to address these issues, Lincoln either had to alter entirely his and his party's positions and acquiesce to Southern demands, or he had to reiterate the Republican position with arguments he had already given that had already inflamed the South. Neither possibility offered any potential for a positive outcome.

Your discussion of Southern attempts to reach compromise and Douglas' efforts is noted, but irrelevant. These people, despite the good intentions they may or may not have had, didn't want to deal with Lincoln.

And as for the inevitability of border state secession, as I said, I do not have the books handy, so I'll drop it. However, I will simply note the view I presented is largely accepted among Civil War historians who have written in the last 20 years or so. The internal machinations of hard-line secessionists were vicious and on-going throughout the crisis, and they, in fact, encouraged the Ft. Sumter assault as just the spark they needed to ensure success.

I take it you're familiar with Walter E. Williams, the Libertarian economist. Other than certain black, Marxist historians who approach the discussion using a different model and would not agree at all with Williams' conclusions, he's the only black scholar of note who would approach making the claims you make here. Notably, he has been soundly refuted as a sloppy researcher of history who is either utterly ignorant of the historical period he dissects when criticizing Lincoln, or simply a fraud.

And if this didn't come directly from Williams, you should be aware that it came by way of him. Williams implies support for the agenda of the League of the South, has written for Southern Partisan Magazine, and is quoted and admired widely by modern, so-called neo-Confederates who seek nothing more than a reestablishment of the status quo ante bellum.

Now, aside from my thorough contempt for Williams and his argument, I would like to point out that your assessment of the change in governmental institutions prior to, during, and after the Civil War is completely wrong. As any reputable political historian will tell you, the entrenchment of the larger role of the federal government in the daily lives of Americans took place in the late 19th century, specifically after the 1880's as the 14th amendment came to be interpreted by SCOTUS as applying to the treatment of corporations, effectively giving these entities the similar "equal protection" rights as citizens. Work from there.

Further, you are partially correct in implying that Lincoln set a precedent for the use of certain powers in a national emergency; however, the national emergency at the time, given the context of the times, is entirely different than what we might experience today and so is not directly comparable. Further, previous Presidents such as Madison, Jefferson, and Jackson had as much influence as Lincoln on the use of so-called emergency powers by establishing the Executive tradition of invoking certain powers not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Put simply, it was a process that built to the point at which Lincoln arrived, and in age of no telephones, airplanes, or cars, assembling Congress to meet the emergency he faced and thus adhere to the strict interpretation of the Constitution was impossible. Lincoln quite clearly saved the existence of the Union by his actions, these actions later being approved by Congress so as to make clear that they approved of them.

I could spend days on this, but for the moment I'll end this here by saying, simply, that your original premise for asking about a comparison between Bush and Lincoln is thoroughly false.


OnEdit: In your 99% calculation, are you including such people as John Hope Franklin, Leon Litwack, WEB Dubois ... shall I go on?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...when a certain poster has overstayed his or her welcome we should be able to PUBLICLY say so.

The battle between the NeoCons and the rest of the American political spectrum for control of this country is deadly serious and politeness needs to be done away with, IMHO.

Bush wasn't even elected. He is a sock puppet twit. You can only compare him to Grant I think.

"When Lincoln heard about Grant's drinking he said' "Find out what brand he drinks and give a case of it to all the other generals."

Bob Newhart

How do you think Bush would have handled the first day's disaster at Shiloh? Or the Vicksburg campaign? Or the siege of Chattanooga? Or the Overland Campaign?

Furthermore, Grant was a sensitive, humane and compassionate human being. And he could write. His memoirs, written as he was dying in great pain from throat cancer, are generally acclaimed as the greatest ever written by a military man.

Stop me when you see ANY resemblence to Bush.

FDR took way more power than either of these guys and he's not at all like Bush either

totally fallacious supposition, so what follows is based on this.

Where did you obtain this statistic you casually toss off as fact?


ps I assume you mean "despise" although your screen name indicates a fascination with arcana an that you might actually mean "depsise"

He was an utter racist who had contempt for African-Americans and did not think that they were the equals of whites, did not deserve the same rights, and thought blacks and whites should be seperated or blacks shipped off to Africa.

Gosh, who or WHAT deos that remind you of?

Bush's is about as smart as Lincoln after most of Lincoln brain was left on the floor of Ford's Theater.

(On edit) I just realized I better throw a postscript saying I think shooting anyone is a real bad idea. You just never know who might not understand a metaphor. Nobody is advocating violence of any kind with the above humorous metaphor.

Lurkers, is that clear enough?

:freak:

:dives under sofa:

On the other hand maybe you should. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would laugh Bush out of the White House if they saw ads trying to compare him favorably with Honest Abe.

That's the least of anyone ever elected.

It was 39.82%, which was actually rather remarkable considering he wasn't even available as a choice in ten states and there were four viable political parties contending, all of which received electoral votes.

Notably, in terms of electoral votes, he had more than all the other candidates combined.

reading level, and a deep lack of understanding of the principles this country was founded upon.

Other than that, I see no resemblance.

that's the only similarity i can think fo.

Things must be looking bleak for the trolls.

i was told this was a site where democrats and progressives were welcome to express unique and different views.

He Could Be

He's trying to bring slavery back with his economic policy.

George Lincoln Rockwell maybe, but not Lincoln.

or maybe, Corvair