Posted on 05/02/2003 12:43:40 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
I am curious to see if any of these individuals think the same of their hero Abe Lincoln for his actions during the Mexican War. In fact, I will venture out and say that Lincoln's actions in that war, as demonstrated by the above speech, are a thousand times more appropriate as a comparison to the anti-war crowd of today than anything done by anyone supportive of the confederate side in the civil war.
For all practical purposes, Rep. Lincoln, during the Mexican War, was his own day's version of the pro-Saddam crowd: Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, Sheila Jackson Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee and their disreputable ilk.
And for all the Lincoln-philes who constantly throw out accusations of unpatriotic behavior, disloyalty, America-hate, and the sort at anyone who says anything positive about the south: check out your own dirty laundry before you attack us.
In 1848 Abraham Lincoln, then a U.S. Congressman, took to the floor of the United States House of Representatives at a time when America was at war with the ruthless and hostile Mexican dictator, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, to attack the president's war plans, denounce the war, and make an argument not only against that war but FOR that same dictator's fraudulent claim to Texas' sovereign territory.
Well...
Santa Anna seized dictatorial power in Mexico by overthrowing its 1824 Constitution, which was in many ways like the US one, void and making himself the government. Just the same, Saddam made himself the dictator and ruled as if he were above the law.
Santa Anna spent his first years in office using the military to oppress political dissent, murdering political opponents, and tossing opposition leaders in prison. Saddam did the same thing with opposition leaders in Iraq.
Santa Anna's dictatorship and oppression of political opposition sparked Texas to revolt in 1836 and also prompted several other uprisings in Mexican states, particularly along the Yucatan. Saddam's rule was marked with uprisings by the opposition groups he oppressed.
Santa Anna called himself the "Napoleon of the West" and made his fame using his armies to conquer and suppress others. Saddam did the same.
Santa Anna was an extremely brutal military leader. He had POW's lined up and massacred by the hundreds. Saddam had his POW's beaten and gassed.
Santa Anna built his army by forcing Mexicans into service at gunpoint. Saddam built his army by forcing Iraqis into service by holding guns to the heads of their families.
Santa Anna brutalized the peasants of his country, often rounding them up en masse and forced them into the servitude of his soldiers. Saddam rounded up Iraqis whenever and forced them into servitude as human shields.
Santa Anna liked to claim territory that he knew was not his, namely south Texas on the northern side of the Rio Grande. Saddam did the same, claiming Kuwait was his.
Santa Anna liked to send invading armies into neighboring countries as happened repeatedly to the Republic of Texas after its independence. Saddam liked to send armies into neighboring countries, like Kuwait.
...you know, stuff like that. They were/are both pretty wretched human beings.
Nice to know we weren't fighting a nice guy back then.
My impression is that the Mexicans are still oppressing their native populations. While my impression is that we mostly killed off ours, but are now mostly ignoring them.
I'd appreciate any light you could shed on another subject I haven't studied.
Who'd a thunk it? </sarcasm>
I always liked the line 'How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message!'
You'd think these moron neo-rebs would at least highlight the important parts of the text they provide. This is basically a ho-hummer.
Lincoln often took unpopular positions. The position he took on slavery was much at odds with most people of the day.
The "rough man" from Illinois in 1860.
Walt
Expect when it comes down to money apparently
Actually, Lincoln's position on the Mexican war enjoyed some support in his day - generally from the same regions that are hotbeds of the "peace" crowd today, or at least the east coast ones. Pro-Santa Anna congressmen/Pro-Saddam congressmen...some things never change.
...which makes it all the more offensive.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Then again, it is ironic that we would fight an America-hating dictator with a ship that is named after a guy who sided with another equally vile America-hating dictator in his own day.
Looks to me like he was demanding a very Clintonian president who clearly lied about the real Texas-Mexico border come clean on his reasons for invading Mexico. (Hint: Expansion of Slavery)
His other arguments don't sound at all like the arguments coming from the left today against Bush. They sound more like the venom spewed by your Lincoln-hating friends over at from Lou Rockwell.com.
So you think Texas' border with Mexico is at the Nueces River instead of the Rio Grande? Strange.
(Hint: Expansion of Slavery)
Now that's funny, especially considering that Lincoln said not one word against slavery in his speech.
His other arguments don't sound at all like the arguments coming from the left today against Bush.
They don't? You mean all of Lincoln's words about it being an "unjustified" war don't sound like Dennis Kucinich or Jim McDermott? Strange.
Looks like just the opposite. Our excuses for invading Mexico were no more justified than Saddams excuses for invading Kuwait. The Baghdad Bob's of that day were the greedy slavers who were looking for more land for expansion. It was pure agression.
The Mexican War was the only war in our history I would be willing to apologize over for being unjust.
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.