Obama Should Read Some Lincoln Quotes To Kids

[Fletch XXX]

With everyone in a "Lets Love Lincoln" mood, I thought it would be great if Obama were to read some of Lincoln quotes from his famous debate in 1858.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, 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 forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

Id love to see Obama read that to a group of little inner city public school kids.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Lincoln was trying to get an unamendable amendment to the constitution that would allow states with slavery to have slavery forever.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Lincoln was trying to get an unamendable amendment to the constitution that would allow states with slavery to have slavery forever.

Yep, in light of all the Obama/Lincoln praise, its astounding to see these people glorify Lincoln. Its as if they have never read a book about him or did a report on the man... yeah yeah yeah he "freed the slaves" but did he want to? The answer has always been, no.

[BlackCrayon]

Sounds more like he is pandering to the masses like most politicians.

[dyna mo]

actually, current historians are taking a more realistic view on lincoln. fyi.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

Sounds more like he is pandering to the masses like most politicians.

He was... he knew he could never become President nor hold the Union together if he was seen as an abolitionist. Abolitionists were extremists in his time.

His words said one thing, his actions said another. Actions speak louder than words.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

Sounds more like he is pandering to the masses like most politicians.

Correct. This is also true of the Gettsburg address where he supposedly "freed the slaves".

[$5 submissions]

More facts on Lincoln: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html Dude also jailed a lot of people that criticized him in the press. He also refused to execute a ruling by the Supreme Court (Ex parte Merryman). He suspended one of the oldest rights people have against the government--Habeas Corpus.

Plus the Emancipation Proclamation was a gimmick--freeing slaves on territory he didn't control. The slaves were freed via Constitutional amendment.

[kane]

There is a lot of theory that the main reason for the civil war was that the south was going to succeed and there was nothing Lincoln could do about it so he started the war because at that time the majority of the money this country made was from tobacco and other crops and those were grown and controlled by the south so the North would have been screwed without the south. Lincoln included freeing the slaves as a way to encourage them to turn to the side of the north and help them out and it had nothing to do with freeing them so because it was the right thing to do.

not sure how true it is, but it is one of the ideas I have read recently.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

More facts on Lincoln: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html Dude also jailed a lot of people that criticized him in the press. He also refused to execute a ruling by the Supreme Court (Ex parte Merryman). He suspended one of the oldest rights people have against the government--Habeas Corpus.

Plus the Emancipation Proclamation was a gimmick--freeing slaves on territory he didn't control. The slaves were freed via Constitutional amendment.

While Lincoln was no saint, since he was just a man, Libertarian leaning economists like Thomas J. DiLorenzo (author of The Real Lincoln that the editorial you linked to is about) have a serious gripe against with him because they believe he spawned the enormous central government that we have today. Much of his version of history is revisionist, or at best, unbalanced. Let's not forget that Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote, in part because it was virtually impossible to vote for him in much of the Deep South, where his name was often not even on the ballot. The Constitution had been raped before Lincoln and after Lincoln, and the seeds for a powerful central government were planted at the very founding of the nation.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Yep, in light of all the Obama/Lincoln praise, its astounding to see these people glorify Lincoln. Its as if they have never read a book about him or did a report on the man... yeah yeah yeah he "freed the slaves" but did he want to? The answer has always been, no.

you=TARD. why do you think the South left the Union after Lincoln got elected? SLAVERY. Those against slavery overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln.

[kane]

Originally Posted by GatorB

you=TARD. why do you think the South left the Union after Lincoln got elected? SLAVERY. Those against slavery overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln.

It wasn't just slavery. There are many who believe that the south left the Union because they were the economic center of the country and they were tired of the North leeching off of their hard work. Slavery was part of it because slavery made that economic power possible, but they made so much money with tobacco and cotton that they felt they could be richer if they didn't have to support the North.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Before Obama's reign is over, Lincoln will be a whitewashed democrat. God bless the PR them demmies have.

[davidd]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Yep, in light of all the Obama/Lincoln praise, its astounding to see these people glorify Lincoln. Its as if they have never read a book about him or did a report on the man... yeah yeah yeah he "freed the slaves" but did he want to? The answer has always been, no.

Because most no one actually reads... they simply recite the sound bites and revisionist history that is handled to them.

Lincoln's motivations were to destroy/weaken state's rights and move massive amounts of power to a centralized government... he was successful.

Lincoln was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had... On the level of FDR and Wilson.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Yep, in light of all the Obama/Lincoln praise, its astounding to see these people glorify Lincoln. Its as if they have never read a book about him or did a report on the man... yeah yeah yeah he "freed the slaves" but did he want to? The answer has always been, no.

Well, they also glorify Christopher Colombus and he was a slave owning, murdering, rapist. They gave him his own day.

People are just fucking stupid and uneducated. Well, they are educated but usually don't go outside what they were "told" in school.

[kane]

History has a way of remembering the good things.

How many people do you know, yourself included, that look back on past relationships and remember mostly the good stuff about it. You don't remember all the times that other person drove you crazy or pissed you off or hurt you, but you do remember the great vacation you took with them or the great sex you had with them.

History is the same way. Lincoln was a man with faults, like anyone else and he did what he did for many different reasons. Many of them were probably not what we believe them to be today. But in the end the he did what he did and it worked so we remember him as the guy who was able to (forcibly and through war) hold the union together. There is no telling what this country would have looked like if he hadn't done this or if the North had failed. Might be good, might be bad, but it would be different for sure.

Regan is another he raised taxes and nearly bankrupted Social Security. He did a ton of terrible things as president. But we remember him as the guy who brought down the Berlin wall and crumbled Communism in Russia. And guess what. If 50 years from the now the middle east is a place of peace and democracy we will look back on Bush as the guy who got the ball rolling. We won't remember how he bankrupted the country or how he trampled on the rights of the citizens.

It's just human nature. It is why we tend to not learn from the past and continue to relive it.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by kane

It wasn't just slavery. There are many who believe that the south left the Union because they were the economic center of the country and they were tired of the North leeching off of their hard work. Slavery was part of it because slavery made that economic power possible, but they made so much money with tobacco and cotton that they felt they could be richer if they didn't have to support the North.

the Civil War wasnt over slavery, it was fought over textile industry, the mills, an cotton.

Slaves were in the mix, but anyone who thinks the civil war was about slavery has not read a real book about the war, and only recall revisionist "we won" history written in christian schoolbooks used in public schools.

the civil war was not fought over Slavery, as Lincoln said numerous times himself

The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune).

in fact, congress passed a resolution declaring the war was not fought for slavery

In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to “maintain the Union” (i.e., to force the Southern states back into the Union).

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/200...t_over_slavery

Lincoln declined, telling the Radicals, “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back” (Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 155; Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76).

And as many have said, if the south would not have seceded slavery would have went on as if nothing happened, slavery was not the cause of Civil War.