New Book on Lincoln's Racial Views

[KG_Soldier]

http://www2.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/new-bo ... ews-030411

[Baldwin]

Now you see!

[Braxton Bragg]

Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner? 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwIiSvy ... dded#at=12

[Braxton Bragg]

Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner? 1
Well here it is a myth busted at long last!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plwIiSvy ... dded#at=12

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Hi.

Figures, the Fox channel....

[KG_Soldier]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... views.html

Here you go Mike: for those of you who do not like Fox, here's a different source for the story.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... views.html

Here you go Mike: for those of you who do not like Fox, here's a different source for the story.

Before I can post my opinion on this, I will have to read the book in it's entirety, and even then the book has to offer me more than one source for me to come to a final conclusion on the subject.

You also have to take into account the day he was living in, the turmoil your country was in, and the pressures of being in office at that time would put on anyone. I'm not making excuses here for him, all I am saying would you like your entire life summed up by what you may have said in one given moment?

For myself, I would have to gather all the material published on Abraham Lincoln (newspapers, personal journals etc), and keep in mind the situation he was living, and I bet you, I would in the end come to a decision that would make me think, "you know he did the best he could under those circumstances, and he is not a bad guy after all"...then again, he is only a human being, full of flaws...

Thanks KG_Soldier.

[Little Powell]

Our own Larry Tagg wrote a great book on Lincoln called "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln". It talks about how hated Lincoln was by a lot of people.

[Kerflumoxed]

It has been common knowledge for quite some time that Lincoln had supported the American Colonization Society's efforts to provide resettlement opportunities for free blacks and emancipated slaves overseas including present-day Liberia. Basic History 101.

J

[Willard]

Our own Larry Tagg wrote a great book on Lincoln called "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln". It talks about how hated Lincoln was by a lot of people.

None of this is really earth shattering and of course this will lead now to another debate on why the South was the victim of northern aggression at the hands of the big bad Mr. Lincoln. So before we get there, I am jumping in now before we make our way down the road of "lost cause" apologists, states rights and revisionist history.

Of course all this revisionist history and "lost cause" theories neglect the facts at hand. The states rights issue was precipitated by the economic disparity caused by the issue of slavery. The reliance upon slave labor in the south created both a southern economic and political powerhouse in the early years after our country's founding. In many respects, all aspects of political life and our nation's expansion, from 1789 until the outbreak of the war, were monopolized by the need for the south to maintain its political dominance in the Union (through the Senate and the Supreme Court) by perpetuating the expansion of slavery and slave states into the Union.

The issue of states rights was a straw man argument used then and now in an attempt to justify the morally abhorent practice of slavery. In many respects, the institution of slavery, with the advent of the industrial revolution, became an anchor on the common man in the south. The overwhelming majority of whites in the south did not own slaves and were willingly manipulated by the southern aristocracy into fighting a rebellion under the guise of states rights. Instead, what they were actually fighting for was an economic system that favored the southern elite at their own expense, as large plantation and slave owners could make huge profits and unfairly monoplize the market by eliminating labor costs through slavery.

Those that call the ACW a "second American revolution" fail to see the inconsistency in such a position. The first revolution was fought to eliminate the rule of the colonies by a hereditary aristocracy and implement a social/economic/legal/political system that endeavored, albeit imperfectly, to protect all men regardless of their status and birthright. This "second American revolution" is nothing of the sort - if anything it was a counter-revolution aimed to re-establish a social/economic/legal/political system that clearly favored the elite southern aristocracy at the expense of the majority of whites and all the slaves. The only thing they were missing was re-establishing a monarchy - however after 5 years of Jeff Davis, many southerners probably thought wasn't so far off!

The idea of anything noble associated with the act of seccession is pure BS. The only reason the southern states rebelled was because after dominating the national political scene for over 70 years, they decided to pick up their ball and go home like a spoiled brat. All was well for 70 years when they were in power, but when events changed after the election of 1860 they decided that was no longer the case. Kinda funny how the Democrats are pulling this same BS in Wisconsin now in an attempt to subvert the democratic process and the will of the people through sophmoric stunts...

Anyway, I think General Grant sums it up quite nicely:

In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,--"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,--"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.