Abraham Lincoln

Have we moved on past Honest Abe's thoughts?

if you're referring to "we" as America


well then i'm afraid "we" have

Stupid Abe - doesn't he know to keep his nose out of people's personal lives? Just focus on the fiscal issues, Mr. Lincoln, and maybe you can lead this "Republican Party" you think you're going to create to success. Mind your own business about the slave thing.

Abe was a RINO - after all he wanted to grant citizenship to all those Africans who came here illegally.

They didn't come here illegally, they were brought here legally.

Does anyone get a joke on this board?

(there's lots of "jokes" on this board)

I only understand this one:

A guy comes home screeching his car into the driveway.

He runs in the house and yells to his wife, "honey, I won the lottery, pack your bags".

She asks "what should I pack for, the beach or the mountains?".

He yells back "I don't care, just get the heck out!".

lol

That's is funny Peepers.

So, Straw, did you forget to put the "I was joking about this" emotion face?

Do you?

I don't get it!

You are very good at broad sweeping generalities, and misdirected analogies.

::scibbles notes::

Sorry, I forgot that the only way a joke can be presented is with an emoticon.

Uh...ok.

::shreds notepad::

I think Abraham Lincoln was right.

Fixed.

How dare you contradict the Christian extremists: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Discipleship/lincoln_cannots.aspx

But there is no contradicting Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker

wiki wiki wikipedia is "the source for all sources"

So, this was not AL? Oops, didn't realize that if it wasn't him (not clicking your links, sorry).

Alas, I agree with the commentary, regardless as to who said it.

Do you?

Yes I agree with them, they just were not from Honest Abe.

http://www.illinoishistory.gov/facsimiles.htm

Since the commentary contradicts everything the far left stands for, I am going to guess no.

The Republican Party was started in Wisconsin in 1854. Lincoln was not actively involved in politics at the time, i.e, holding or running for office. He had previously run for office as a Whig. He was considered a staunch Whig. While he was instrumental in bringing the party early victories and forming a platform, the party existed without him.

Lincoln had one primary goal during his administration - to save the Union of states. While he agreed that slavery was morally wrong, he was willing to leave it alone if he could save the Union.

"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 cannot recommend enough reading Lincoln's writings, quotes and speeches. He had a natural gift with words and an incredible sense of humor.

A couple of things you may not know about Lincoln:

He didn't take to the campaign trail and "run" for President. At that time candidates were nominated and those nominating them did the campaigning on their behalf. For a man to go out and actually ask for votes was considered unseemly. Stephen Douglas was the first to do it in 1860 and only won Missouri.

When Lincoln and Douglas were touring Illinois and presenting their series of debates, they travelled together and often slept in the same bed in hotels. They had no "entourage" or handlers. It was just two guys going from one city to the next and making public appearances.

^^^^ good, informative post

<----- hasn't read much of Lincoln's writings...


but i will now

Wasn't he the first to use income taxes????

Lincoln's high point was the Gettysburg Address. He single handedly changed the direction of the nation with one short speech.

Lawrence Taylor forever changed the linebacker position.

Mr. Pepeers constantly changes the direction of BOL threads.

Sorry, my knowledge is often limited to the NFL network, Seinfeld and The Office.

Well, I like The Office and I sometimes like Seinfeld. Two out of three ain't bad.

And yet, he supported the 13th Amendment, guaranteeing that a Democrat would follow him in office as a result. Oh, wait...

Lincoln's administration was the first to implement an income tax on the average man for the first time at the federal level to help pay for the Civil War.

However, Jeff Davis beat him to it and implemented the tax in the Confederacy prior to the U.S. version.

Andrew Johnson was, when elected VP, a member of the National Union Party, not a Democrat. National Unionists were Lincoln-loyal Republicans and War Democrats and "Anti-Southern" Dems. The anti-Lincoln faction in the Repub party were called Radical Republicans and they nominated explorer and failed military man John Fremont as the Republican candidate for Pres in 1864.

Essentially, yes, Lincoln was a Repub and Johnson was a Dem and they ran together on the same ticket in 1864 and won. Talk about reaching across the aisle.

FWIW, Johnson was the first U.S. President to be impeached.

Quite frankly, Lincoln's approach to the slavery question was to use it as a tool. If he retained the Union, he didn't care if slavery was abolished or embraced. When the Confederacy looked like they might receive official "nation" status recognition from the European nations, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in an effort to make the war about abolishing slavery. Since most European countries had outlawed slavery years before, it suddenly made the southern states tainted. Slavery existed legally until 1866 in a handful of states, until the 13th Amendment was ratified by the states. (Mississippi ratified it in 1995, btw.) Without the 13th Amendment, we might still have slavery in the United States.

Of course, he supported the 13th Amendment. He had avoided a much longer, possibly much larger war, by abolishing slavery by Presidential proclamation. He wanted it to stick.

I question the taste of your "joke" about Lincoln being succeeded by a Democrat. Lincoln's succession was predicated on his assassination, not the election of a Democrat by popular vote.

Not true.

Question the taste of the joke if you want (the joke is at JJ's expense, not Lincoln's); at least I'm not besmirching the man's legacy.

I don't think this issue is quite as cemented as firmly as you indicate.

There are plenty of conflicting stories and quotes about Lincoln's true feelings regarding the question of slavery and race. I don't know that anyone is able to completely separate fact from fiction with this regard, especially when you consider Lincoln was a master politician and knew how to communicate to reach a political objective.

The reason it is unclear what Lincoln's stance was is because he did play to both sides at various times. Thus, the entire topic was a political tool, just as today's politicians choose sides on a topic and then change their mind when it appears public opinion is shifting.

I've been in this debate before and have watched others from the sidelines. I feel comfortable with what I've said.

Slavery and race are seperate topics. Especially at this time in our history. Even some of the most ardent abolitionists were absolute racists. By a modern standard, nearly everyone in the 1860's was a racist, for that matter.

Of course you aren't.

You should be a politician. You contradict yourself.

I'm not "besmirching" Lincoln at all. I'm also not falsely attributing quotes to the man. I have nothing but respect and admiration for President Lincoln. His humor can be as sharp as a knife and his speeches can reduce you to tears. He was exactly what this country needed when it needed it.

^^^^ Doesn't get sarcasm, apparently.

Yes, the issue was used as a political tool, but it was more than that too. I'm not talking about public opinon, it shifts like the wind. I'm talking about objective historical research. New historical information does come to light and historians can gain more objectivity as the world moves further away from the moment. Of course, that can go both ways too. Smart people realize that history is not just about facts and dates, it is also about social and physcological issues too.


Me too and I feel comfortable with what I've said.


American slavery and race may be different topics, but they are dependent upon each other. I agree with things being different today than they were in the 1860's. I wasn't trying to suggest that Lincoln was racist, but only that his opposition to slavery and thoughts on racial equality are complicated and should not be reduced to general statements.

On the other hand, one of the worst presidents in our history was an outspoken racist. I'm talking about Woodrow Wilson. (But Wilson's election was Teddy Roosevelt's fault.)

Ahem. Again, the joke is at JJ's expense, not President Lincoln's. Try to keep up, if you're going to be critical.

I have to disagree with that. The further you get from the moment an event occurs, the less objective you become and the more reliant you become on dates and data. You can read primary sources and gain some insight, but at some point, as society transforms, you begin to lose conceptual understanding of the psychology of the participants, the results of peer pressure, social pressure, political and religious beliefs, etc. The primary sources only give you a small percentage of participant's perspectives on the events and they may even contradict each other in how they see the end results.

Trust me, I do a lot of historical research. And I read the results of others' research. I recently read a series of forum posts between two guys who are noted historians on Confederate uniforms, both having over 20 years experience as professional historians and having published books on the topic, and they couldn't have disagreed more about whether or not civilian pattern sack coats were common in the Army of Northern Virginia in 1862-63 or not. Same data, same resources, different conclusions. It is a minor topic and there are tons of military records and images to support both positions, it just comes down to how you interpret the information.

And, Joker, if you are quoting me in your response, why do you think I'm following your jokes with JJ? I think you are talking to me. If you want to talk to JJ, respond to his posts. Leave me out of it.

OK.


What I'm talking about is how the assination of President Lincoln immediately elevated him to martyr status and if anyone had anything legitimately negative to say about him or his performance as President it was immediately washed away. If you don't believe me, be sure to read Walt Whitman's poem, "O Captain, My Captain." After his assassination Lincoln was practically worshipped and most people could not be objective if they tried.



Yes, primary sources are invaluable to historians. But a historian also has to understand the times in which a person or event lived and was shaped. I agree, that gets very difficult. I also understand the competition, peer pressure, and general paranoia that someone will steal ideas from another in the field of professional historians.


You've just made my case that you cannot say with certainty that your positions on Abraham Lincoln's views on American Slavery and race are ironclad, MJ. You can see that, can't you?

Interesting discussion. My daughter recently got her masters degree in history and she has enlighted me a great deal on the world of "professional historians." I must say, as a result, I look at many things differently now.

I don't care if you're following my jokes with JJ or not. All I'm saying is, exercise a little judgment, and assume that when someone starts his post with the phrase, "stupid Lincoln," there might be a little more to it. If you want to figure it out, fine. If you want to ignore it, fine. If you want to be obtuse, and post as if the statement was made without any hint of sarcasm, fine. Your choice.