Replies

The phrase "most of us" implies that "some of us" Americans don't feel that way.

Then you should have rephrased it to something like, "The majority of Americans are happy with the way things are going, in my opinion."

I've reviewed the history on this, and you've made no real attempt to prove my analysis wrong.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

Let me try an imperfect analogy. Let's assume I have gangrene. Left untreated it will kill me in short order. Antibiotics aren't working, so the docs cut off my leg. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to harshly criticize the doctors who saved my life because now I am a cripple?

Interesting analogy. Let me try to put it in context of the War of Northern Agression.

The USA was sick. The South recognized the sickness and attempted to remove itself from the infected area. But old Doc Abe interceded and refused to let the South cut out the infected areas thereby making the entire body of the USA sick and eventually killing the form of government created by the founders.

There. Fixed it.

I truly believe Lincoln was the only man who had what it took to save the USA from disintegration, and I am profoundly grateful that he did.

I have considerable respect for Walter Williams, but the column you point to is a considerable disappointment.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Of course Douglass accused Lincoln of wanting to do bad things. He was campaigning against Lincoln, that's what politicians do in campaigns. As I'm sure you realize, an accusation does not constitute proof of guilt, it is merely an accusation.

BTW, Lincoln and Douglass never debated in a presidential debate. Their debate was during a senatorial campaign in 1858. Also, Douglass fully supported Lincoln once he won the election. This doesn't seem likely if he truly believed Lincoln was an evil man.

I've never quite understood how those who believe Lincoln was a power-mad maniac manage to square this image with his actual life. He served a few terms in the state legislature, a single term in Congress, was unable to run for re-election because he stuck by principle rather than bowing to public opinion, then dropped out of politics entirely for almost 10 years. He didn't re-enter politics until he saw a looming threat that needed to be faced, the advance of the slave power and its threat to American ideals.

This is hardly the resume of a person focused entirely on gaining political power for himself.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Someone might want to point out to Williams that there were no presidential debates in 1860.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

And where do buffoons like you and Williams do your research on the rebellion.

Oh, and I fixed your picture for you.

Confederate kool-aid would be grey.