Posted on 04/14/2005 6:40:53 PM PDT by kellynla
Whatever happened to the Spielberg movie about Lincoln?
It seemed to have fizzled.....
Please clarify that you are speaking for your own personal "south".
Don't forget to mention "shut down the Maryland legislature."
He can certainly speak for TEXAS, as far as I am concerned.......or have you forgotten that 70,000 Texans fought for Gen. Lee?
Look, I was not there to witness Lincoln do his deed, but I am reminded of Gorbachev when he faced many requests from some of his member states to be independent, he let them go without firing one shot.
You were there?
Imagine a newspaper in 1942 advocating violent resistance to the US government to support governments the US was at war with. Surely you don't think such a newspaper should have been allowed to remain in operation?
That was the situation in 1862, except that the US was much closer to being destroyed than at any time in the 1940s.
Or, if you prefer, imagine a 1969 in which violent armed Communist rebellion against the US government is underway. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans have already been killed. A newspaper in your town is publishing exhortations to join the rebels and to sabotage government efforts against it. Do you allow them to continue to publish?
Also, have you ever looked up how the founding fathers, those who wrote the Constitution, dealt with the "traitorous" Tories? They had a much sharper approach than Lincoln ever did.
I think those who object to Lincoln's treatment of oppositionists, which was certainly much gentler than Wilson's treatment of his opponents in WWI, do so primarily because they sympathize with their cause.
All I know is if Bush would ever do any of these things he will be castrated and then hanged.
Lincoln obviously had other motives in mind.....subjugating the South for one......
I have been looking for a list of Reagan's Presidential Pardons. I need to verify one that I heard about in my travels. Do you know of any such list online?
That is true to a point. If Lincoln had just allowed the South to leave, there would have been no war. The South seceded, they weren't trying to overthrow the US Government.
I've been to Ford's Theater many times.
Anybody have an opinion on what would have happened if Lincoln had been assassinated while the war was still on?
That is hogwash, and you know it. During the Vietnam war, we were losing thousands of soldiers, and 95% of our media were OPENLY against our government. During WWII, there was an Isolationist party that did not want us in the European war, and no paper was closed. Communists professors openly criticized our government and were never arrested.
as I said three times already, I did not live during that time. All I have here is comparison of what standard we are expecting from Bush, and that should apply to all other presidents. A dictator would arrest the oppositions!
If Britain and France had allowed Germany to conquer Poland, there wouldn't have been a war in 1939.
If the colonies had submitted to George III, there wouldn't have been a war in 1775.
If the US had allowed Iraq to keep Kuwait in 1989, there wouldn't have been a war.
The whole argument was about whether the South had the right to secede. Of course if they had not been opposed, there would have been no war.
The way I look at it, the right of secession is still an interesting subject. If the states still have that right, which I believe they do, in theory, if Hillary wins the next election, the red states can just secede....:)
And if they did indeed have the right of secession, then Lincoln was wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.