Posted on 02/05/2005 6:30:51 PM PST by quidnunc
December 21st, 2004 — The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), with Carrier Air Wing Two (CVW-2), underway in the waters of Western Pacific Ocean. Abraham Lincoln's Carrier Strike Group Nine (CSG-9) was the first to be used in the Surge Role in support of the Chief of Naval Operations Fleet Response Plan. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Patrick M. Bonafede (041221-N-1229B-066).
NOT TRUE.....
What I personally want, as most so-called "NEO'S, (your name, not mine) is the TRUTH be told. The TRUTH is that the "Lost Cause" was an honorable one, that slavery was an issue, but not an issue to most who fought for the South, and that Abe Lincoln WAS NOT the wonderful person that some try to make him, that his usurpation of the Constitution, in the name of stopping a "rebellion" was'nt justified, and that a large majority of our present day problems are due to HIS actions, destroying the government of the states. We are the TRUE conservatives. THE WAR IS OVER. The ISSUES, except slavery, are STILL not put to rest!
free dixie,sw
Among other subjects, you have spent almost four years on FR with your mental m..t.rb....n on such subjects as who started the war.
Since you always fall back on the Supreme Court as the master of everything in its domain, you obviously know that in several cases, the Supreme Court set the date of the beginning of the war with Lincoln's call to blockade Southern ports on April, 19. 1861.
If that does not suffice, the Confederate government set the beginning between the capture of Ft. Sumter by Federal forces and the appearance of the armed Star of the West.
So, knock that around for a while.
How could the Federal forces 'capture' something that belonged to them in the first place, and which was under Major Anderson's command?
Not to the point.
You have a point?
I just noticed your tag line. You are obsessed, aren't you?
I don't get the part about #3.
In your warped view of history, who is worse bin-Laden, Hitler, Stalin or President Lincoln?
Today civil war in America is viewed as inconceivable unless there was a total economic meltdown triggering chaos in relation to an organized civil war by well armed seditionists.
Right now I believe there is a classic visible case of someone advocating sedition which is the left over hippy looking Colorado professor who called the victims of 9-11 'nazis', and he stated America 'deserves more 9-11's'. This creep should be tired for sedition since he favours the overthrow the United States government, coupled with additional acts of mass slaughter of American citizens through broad based Islamic terrorism!
The most that will probably happen to this despicable thing is the board of regents will publicly fire this rat bum, while [also] secretly setting him up with another position through contacts in leftist academia so he can brainwash additional gullible little twits.
Back to President Lincoln; I can not comprehend how one & a half terms of the 16th President from 1861 to 1865 can be blamed for the large majority of our present day problems are due to HIS action. President Lincoln brought an end to the Civil War, was attempting to heal the nation as a whole and if anything, he may have been far too lenient with Confederate insurrectionist leaders. The man's life was snuffed out, not allowing for his full place in history, as happened to President's Garfield, Kennedy & McKinley.
Anything pertaining to promoting or maintaining slavery, no matter the country or region is in no way honorable". If the Confederates had won the Civil War slavery would not have ended in 1863-1865. How can we justifiable blast the slavery being perpetrated by Islamic fanatics, or the slave style systems of communist North Korea, or the labour/slave camps of Red China, Soviet Russia & Nazi Germany, and not realize the same evil existed in our own nation prior to 1865?
When you state "We are the TRUE conservatives" I hope you are not excluding me simply because I differ on issues pertaining to the Civil War or old Abe?
Here is a listing of some of the most eerie similarities between the lives of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, both assassinated.
Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Lincoln was elected President in 1860. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Lincoln's wife lost a child while living in the White House. Kennedy's wife lost a child while living in the White House.
Both were directly concerned with Civil Rights.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to the theater. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln who told him not to go to Dallas.
Lincoln was shot in the back of the head in the presence of his wife. Kennedy was shot in the back of the head in the presence of his wife.
Lincoln shot in the Ford Theater. Kennedy shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford.
Both were killed on a Friday.
Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was known by three names, comprised of fifteen letters. Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was known by three names, comprised of fifteen letters.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and fled to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theater.
Booth was killed before being brought to trial. Oswald was killed before being brought to trial.
Lincoln's successor was Andrew Johnson, born in 1808. Kennedy's successor was Lyndon Johnson, born in 1908.
NO....I am not implying you are not a conservative.
Abraham Lincoln was the first President to rule by virtue of "Executive Order", even when his orders were contrary to the Constitution. By destroying States Rights, he started our government down the road that brought us where we are now. Our Government is corrupt, ignores the Constitution, when it thinks it needs to, and blackmails the states into doing it's will.
That is why most of us who decry the treatment of the South, feel the way we do. We don't wish to secede unless we can't reform this country. And most of us still believe the right of secession is still around.
On the home-front a remaining major concern is the severe risks of al-qaida moles simply strolling across the Mexican border, blending in with everyone else illegally entering.
Going back to Lincoln, the nation was being threatened, "Executive Orders" are required in times of civil war. After we were viciously attacked on 9-11 sweeping new laws took effect, and once again, in times of war drastic measure are sometimes an absolute necessity.
In relation to reforming the nation/government. It's tough when the Dems play partisan politics with tax issues and worse, even national security.
The next severe challenge is just around the corner with the upcoming showdown to prevent Iran's wacko terrorist tyrants from using nukes. Yet there are and will be leftist politicians which will throw every conceivable road block directly in the path for resolving the Iranian problem. Meanwhile the enemy is rapidly gaining additional offense nukes.
Domestic squabbling on issues related to the history of the Civil War, regardless of the position anyone takes, in the near future will take a far backseat, once the next counter-jihad phase of the greater Gulf region dominates our country's headlines again.
In the case of the WBTS, the South wasn't being an aggressor. If Lincoln had simply withdrawn troops from Ft. Sumter, there would have been no war. He knew this. He was determined to have his way, and states be damned. And NO executive order should violate the Constitution.
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.