[Ditto]

Or maybe I just don't buy Lincoln's argument that our country was venerable to attack from foreign entities because we were divided.

I have read a lot of history of the Civil War and I don't ever recall Lincoln making that argument. In fact, a number of years earlier, he made just the opposite point that the US need not fear a foreign invasion and if we were ever to fall, it would be from within.

But honestly, is there any good reason I should have to qualify my opinion?

Well, I suppose if you are operating on 'liberal logic' just 'feelings' would suffice. But in a conservative forum where we tend to vigorously debate issues, it's more or less standard to be able to back your opinion with some elements of logic based upon fact.

This generally isn't a 'touchy - feely' bunch around here.

[Niteranger68]

Well, I suppose if you are operating on 'liberal logic' just 'feelings' would suffice. But in a conservative forum where we tend to vigorously debate issues, it's more or less standard to be able to back your opinion with some elements of logic based upon fact. This generally isn't a 'touchy - feely' bunch around here.

Did somebody really important die and make you arbiter of all opinions? Seriously, I made a statement (not to you) that the Copperheads were unwittingly closer to right than today's anti-war movement and pasted a copy of The Real Lincoln for effect. You made comments about the author (see #25) and suggested that I would believe Michael Moore's description of President Bush. Based on that, I don't really see how you are in a position to preach "logic based upon fact" without committing a few fallacies in the process. We apparently don't share the same view of Lincoln and the Civil War....learn to live with it.