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

To: Non-Sequitur
I'm glad you don't agree with Charles Kessler on that.

I think DiLorenzo and others are trying to point out that Lincoln is not the "Honest Abe" we were all taught to believe he was. Nor was the Northern cause all love and compassion and greatness.

As to one figure in history personifying American principles more than another, doesn't James Madison represent what America is supposed to be all about better than Bill Clinton or Charles Manson? I think some figures definitely advocate American principles, while others advocate anti-Constitutional principles (like almost every politician alive today), or crime and lawlessness (like the Clinton mafia), or insanity (like Manson). Do I misunderstand what you were saying?

34 posted on 11/24/2002 5:49:20 PM PST by agrandis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: agrandis
Does James Madison personify it better than John Adams or George Washington. Does the Constitution personify it better than, say, the Declaration of Independence and if not then shouldn't Thomas Jefferson be up there as well? You get into the cult of personality and you miss the message in concentrating on the man.
35 posted on 11/24/2002 5:57:17 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: agrandis
I think DiLorenzo and others are trying to point out that Lincoln is not the "Honest Abe" we were all taught to believe he was.

But he was.

"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood

...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.

--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis

Walt

49 posted on 11/25/2002 3:20:40 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: agrandis
I think DiLorenzo and others are trying to point out that Lincoln is not the "Honest Abe" we were all taught to believe he was.

I guess there is a little money and noteriety in it, because it is not true.

Lincoln, odd as it may seem to you --was honest:

"But there were limits to what Lincoln would do to secure a second term.

He did not even consider canceling or postponing the election. Even had that been constitutionally possible, "the election was a necessity." "We can not have free government without elections," he explained; "and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us." He did not postpone the September draft call, even though Republican politicians from all across the North entreated him to do so. Because Indiana failed to permit its soldiers to vote in the field, he was entirely willing to furlough Sherman's regiments so that they could go home and vote in the October state elections -but he made a point of telling Sherman, "They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once."

Though it was clear that the election was going to be a very close one, Lincoln did not try to increase the Republican electoral vote by rushing the admission of new states like Colorado and Nebraska, both of which would surely have voted for his reelection. On October 31, in accordance with an act of Congress, he did proclaim Nevada a state, but he showed little interest in the legislation admitting the new state. Despite the suspicion of both Democrats and Radicals, he made no effort to force the readmission of Louisiana, Tennessee, and other Southern states, partially reconstructed but still under military control, so that they could cast their electoral votes for him. He reminded a delegation from Tennessee that it was the Congress, not the Chief Executive, that had the power to decide whether a state's electoral votes were to be counted and announced firmly, “Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to interfere in any way with the presidential election.”

"Lincoln", pp. 539-40 by David H. Donald

Walt

63 posted on 11/25/2002 6:38:32 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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