Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Colt .45
That one "fact" sounds more like a political expediency.

Consider the facts. In the summer of 1864 the Republican National Committee actually asked Lincoln to step down so a new candidate could be chosen. That is how sure they were that the White House would be lost. It was thought it might improve his chances TO win, if he rescinded the EP.

He flatly refused.

If it is expedient to do things that will COST you an election, then Lincoln's actions were expedient.

What this incident says is that Lincoln was ready to take on all the responsibility for failed policy and failed war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, rather than surrender his moral position.

I don't see how you can honestly see it any other way.

Don't forget that Lincoln was the loser in many the election. No president had won re-election in over 30 years. He lost a close contest for the senate in 1858 (one in which he received more popular votes than his opponent). He fully expected to lose in 1864.

The log jam in afairs began to dissipate with the fall of Atlanta in September, and the people did sustain him; but the fact remains that he took a strong moral position prior to that.

Walt

16 posted on 04/12/2002 8:35:47 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
He lost a close contest for the senate in 1858 (one in which he received more popular votes than his opponent).

Irrelevant at best, total ignorance of the Constitution at least. You really are an Al Gore supporter, aren't you? And a pretty stupid comment, even considering your track record.

59 posted on 04/12/2002 10:36:29 AM PDT by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
STATIST PIG BUMP

Wlat you are just asking for a

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

==================================

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa

167 posted on 04/14/2002 4:34:26 PM PDT by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson