Whoa... just because some propaganda video says something doesn't make it right.

People need to stop acting like revisionist historians and just look at the damn facts.

Lincoln was a conservative jerk and that's what made him great.

First of all - I didn't know copying and pasting was a proper rebuttle. Silly me, I assumed you might actually try to have an original thought instead of mealymouthing. Why don't you type a response, Patrick? More than one person is now waiting to hear your argument.

Secondly - Lincoln's homosexuality is not only overwhelmingly dispelled by most scholars, it is based on the work of one man who claims that because Lincoln slept in the same bed as another man, he was a flaming fairy. So obviously, those who have had to share a bed with a sibling, or a parent, are gay, by this logic.

Thirdly - There is absolutely zero fact to back up the "argument" presented by those people, that Lincoln "would've supported homosexuality" etc, even in their own video. It is one persons (warped) interpretation of Lincoln's psyche, of which we know relatively little. However, he was a religious man, and, not only that, a moral one, so it seems unlikely that he would support "homosexual and abortion rights," especially since there is no evidence (again) to back up this claim.

Fourth - I had to PM you. I didn't want you to leave us hanging here, I desperately want to know how Lincoln was a liberal in your own words and with facts to back it up.

Warmest Regards,
DJ

Lying about Saddam's Link to 9/11

...So just because some video says he would've, he would've?

It explains quite a bit when we examine his fondness for the "facts" in Michael Moore's "films."

"Flaming fairy?" :rolleyes: It is things you say, such as that, that I never take what you say seriously or care to respond to.

Well Pat really showed you didn't he DJ! Lincoln was liberal because...a video said so!

But why, Patrick? I am desperate to know how Lincoln is a liberal! And I can't watch it on a video screen, I need to hear it from you!!! Otherwise, we're all going to think that, gosh darn it, you just can't support what you say!


For such a great future journalist, he hasn't done one iota of fact-based research. Copy+paste doesn't count in the real world, Pat. Just for your future reference.

Sincerely,
Double-J

A smiley face is also not a proper citation, just so you know.

Best,
DJ

Patrick, mellow out man; take words in context. Just reply with something orginal. Stand behind what you say, have a sense of humor and the world will be a better place.

I don't buy into self esteem crap, so be an adult and don't act like somebody hurt your feelings.

And remember to relax and take it easy...

-Lincoln imposed the first income tax.
-Lincoln also passed higher tariffs.
-Lincoln created the first system of national banks.
-Was accused of being an 'infidel' and often called an atheist for his views on religion. Quote: "The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-Emancipation proclamation.
-Lincoln's domestic policies included support for the Homestead Act. This act allowed poor people in the East to obtain land in the West.
-Homestead Act also made it easier for immigrants to move to America.
-During the war, $500,000,000 worth of war bonds were issued to help boost the economy.
-Believed that blacks and whites were intellectually equal.
-Endorsed full political rights for blacks.
-Supported intermarriage between the races.

I don't think the emmancipation proclimation is really a good issue on which to judge Lincoln's modern political leanings. It was something that was used as means to an end; to help end the Civil War. Other issues you raised (income tax, war bonds, national bands, tarriffs) were also linked to the war.

Your other examples are another story, they demonstrated that Lincoln was socially (as opposed to politically) liberal. I too believe he was. However, I would consider myself to be the same way, but politically I am very conservative. So if anything, would say Lincoln had Libertarian leanings.

The emmancipation Proclamation was more of a way of punishing the South for the war. It did not end slavery, it only outlawed slavery in southern states that were rejoining the union.

True, but as others have mentioned, it was to keep money flowing into the Union, especially since half of it was now gone into its own confederacy.

This certainly isn't to say that the income tax is validation Lincoln would support liberal ideas. The Presidents who also were supportive of national taxes were:

James Madison - Sales Tax (War of 1812) - Federalist
Andrew Johnson - Tax on Tobacco/booze - Unionist/Democrat
Woodrow Wilson - 16th Amendment - Democrat
FDR - Witholding Tax on Wages - Democrat

But, also, the congresses of these Presidents didn't necessarily coincide with the politics of the CIC.

This isn't anything particularly new, or liberal. James Madison had been a Federalist since before the Constitution was written, and approved the Second National Bank during his administration. Certainly nothing specifically liberal about this idea.

Again, this isn't something exclusively democrat - in this case, the Civil War created the necessity for government funds, namely to pay the military and keep the government working.

What President hasn't been called something along the lines of "infidel" by his detractors?

And one particular quote is easily matched with another.

"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular." - Abraham Lincoln

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong." - Abraham Lincoln

I'll quote myself. Lincoln was a free-soiler, and is quoted many times saying that while he disagreed with slavery, he felt it was his Presidential duty, bound by the constitution, to preserve slavery where it was legalized. Lincoln himself, while disagreeing with slavery, was powerless to stop it if he wanted to preserve the Union. Only after the states had ceded did Lincoln free the slaves (and only in states he didn't control, so border states that hadn't ceded weren't included, namely: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia).

It wasn't necessarily poor people, it was farmers, especially those who would be displaces after the Civil War. Not only that, but the Homestead Act served as a means to populate and expand West. I'm not seeing how this makes one liberal - why would helping the poor define one as "liberal" or "conservative." If I was President, I would want to help the poor. It doesn't stand along party lines, imho.

Ok...we still have war bonds to this day. We had them in WWI, and WWII, and in Korea, and in Vietnam, and you can still buy them for the current Iraqi war. How does this imply liberalism? Lincoln, as mentioned in about 4 other subjects, needed to raise funds for the Union, which lost half of its economic base when the South secessed.

Is this liberal or simply progressive? Even if he did think this was so, he still would've kept slavery intact if he thought it would have preserved the Union, and he has said this more than once.


Again, if the Union could have been preserved otherwise, he would have kept the system the same. Why wasn't this made so in the North, where Lincoln had control? Lincoln, if nothing else, was an excellent politician. He knew where his bread was buttered. Of course he would say that he would endorse equality for blacks. On the other hand, he also said that he would preserve slavery.

A quote or citation would help for this one, since I can't remember any in my Lincoln books regarding this particular subject.

So did quite a few people. Hell, Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave. It wasn't something out of the question.

This would be another one where source would be helpful.

---

Kudos on civil debate.

Best,
DJ

My history is a little rusty in parts, but didn't Alexander Hamilton begin a National Bank as part of his economic system bashed by Thomas Jefferson for being unconstitutional.

DV Alexander Hamilton Started a national Bank in 1781 I want to say, but it was only 1 bank it was not a system of banks. It was up for recharter in 1801 and Madison was against it but thats as far as I know.

It was actually one of the centerpieces of the Federalist (Hamilton, Madison) versus Anti-Federalist (Jefferson) debates in the early history of the United States.

If you want more info, I highly suggest reading "The Federalist Papers," which were written by Madison, et al.

Mmm, to clear it up, Alexander Hamilton and Madison disagreed about the national bank. Madison thought it was unconstitutional. However, in his presidency, during the war of 1812, Madison approved the second national bank.

The Federalist Papers are by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Give credit where its due.

And no one has refuted my version on Lincoln, which is only swelling my ego...

Well he did say et al, Mad Johnny.

Mmm, to clear it up, Alexander Hamilton and Madison disagreed about the national bank. Madison thought it was unconstitutional. However, in his presidency, during the war of 1812, Madison approved the second national bank. [/b][/quote]Double-J I'd have to look back through my notes but I am almost positive Madison didn't have any real feelings about the Bank, I think it was Jefferson who was against the bank but as we both know if Jefferson decided he didn't like Madison then Madison wouldn't like Madison either

Mmm, I corrected that, I had forgotten he had opposed the bank originally. I knew he did eventually approve a bank during his tenure, so I got my facts mixed a bit (for shame).

Yeah yeah, et al....

Go Publius!

I'm studying stats right now but if you are a history major you know more than me, but I remember something about Madison trying to recharter the bank earlier but I don't remember why

I have more fun listening to how many ways my Professor can say how whipped madison was by Jefferson (although not intentionally by jefferson I don't think)

I don't know, good 'ol TJ was pretty kinky

It's extremely reassuring to me to continue to see threads like this one. Bush can't run again, yet it seems that rather than start working on something that resembles a real platform and a competent agenda (or at least come up with ideas that would at least contribute to solving the real problems in this country [whomever is responsible for them]), the Bush-haters/certain Democrats here would opt to do the same thing they've been doing for the last 6 years: blame Bush and his administration for everything from Adam & Eve to the poverty in Fantasia. (Gosh, that was a long sentence!) Heck, even bashing Cheney for a hunting accident is fair game (I don't recall Carter's rabbit attack getting this much attention...Guess the reporters must've gotten the story in time and couldn't complain, huh?) That clearly shows me what I've known for much longer than 6 years: The Dems have no real platform, competent agenda, or any real solutions. Just the same ol' "Bush blows!" diatribe. I feel really good about a Republican (or even an intelligent independent) winning in '08! Keep it up, Bush-bashers! You really give me a warm, fuzzy feeling!

I'd love to respond, Snake, but to tell you the truth this is getting plain tiring.

I read your post, had some thoughts that, in writing, would at least equal the length of yours (including a very long sentence or two ) and address all of the points that you made, but I'm really starting to just get sick of this whole thing and I'm just too tired at the moment to bother.

None of them really pressed any of my buttons, they were just more of the same.

And whatever I said would just be more of the same from me.

I mean, what's the point already, anyway?

Maybe tomorrow.

VERY well said, Snake!!

Although there is ONE thing the Dems have, that may have momentarily escaped your thoughts.

They have Howard Dean.



Apple

Gee, plaw, now you know how I feel! But then again, that is precisely what I'm saying. Two sides, totally polarized, although I'm willing to bet even you and I could find middle ground on some things (we have on a rare occasion or two in the past). And that's again my point. You see, I couldn't care less about defending Bush (he's a big boy, as his ol' man said, and can fend for himself), but many of his ideas I do go along with. I just find it funny that all some folks can think (?) to do is holler about how "Bush sucks" but contribute little or nothing as to how everyone could find a little middle ground. Hey, believe it or not, I'm all for it. And yeah, there are issues on which I would be willing to give a little ground.

There's nothing wrong with a little prez bashing once in a while (underscore once in a while). Lord knows Clinton gave me plenty of cannon fodder! But at least I have offered some ideas of how things could've been better handled (and yes, so have you, even though I didn't necessarily agree with all of 'em, nor you with me). But certain folks who just seem to have nothing else on their minds except getting critical to the point of trivial hilarity tire me out. Not 'cause I "love Bush," but because I, too, get 'sick' and 'tired' (to borrow your terminology). I bet if I posted a poll and asked, "How Would You Run the Country?" it would simply degenrate into another opportunity to dog Bush (and I think you'd even agree with that). No new ideas, no agenda, no nothing...save, "Bush sucks!" It's kind of like watching everyone complain about prices to a ballgame, but rather than make suggestions, they had rather continue insulting the guy in the ticket booth...over and over and over. Makes a lotta' sense.