Was Lincoln a Racist?

[WestCoast]

aye
aye
allya talkin bout Tiger?


 

 

[Bakes]

It look like TT and Bakes in a lil dogfight here. I won't attempt the get into the American history debate. I watch a fair amount of news. I just want know if I wasn't paying attention or something.

When was the first time you ever hear about Obama ? For me it was in 2004 ; this was before the Dems National  Convention.It was on some political talk show on a Sunday morning. I imagine people who follow Illinois politics would have heard about him earlier.

... and even in Illinois they ent hear about him before 2000, lol

[truetrini]

show me where I said that his views brought the nation to war!

Ah guess ah "masters" in US History doh necessarily mean yuh could read and remember...

... His views were polarising and brought the nation to war!

It is painfully clear by you feeling the need to post about me being "lawyer" and "in law school" that something bunning yuh.

me eh go lie...it burning a little, yuh know how much I wanted to be a lawyer..yuh biatch

[Bakes]

show me where I said that his views brought the nation to war!

Ah guess ah "masters" in US History doh necessarily mean yuh could read and remember...

... His views were polarising and brought the nation to war!

It is painfully clear by you feeling the need to post about me being "lawyer" and "in law school" that something bunning yuh.

me eh go lie...it burning a little, yuh know how much I wanted to be a lawyer..yuh biatch

Doh worry... when ah establish mih Toco practice yuh could come clerk fuh mih 

[truetrini]

show me where I said that his views brought the nation to war!

Ah guess ah "masters" in US History doh necessarily mean yuh could read and remember...

... His views were polarising and brought the nation to war!

It is painfully clear by you feeling the need to post about me being "lawyer" and "in law school" that something bunning yuh.

me eh go lie...it burning a little, yuh know how much I wanted to be a lawyer..yuh biatch

Doh worry... when ah establish mih Toco practice yuh could come clerk fuh mih 

is ok, I eh wukking for mo lawyer who does wear panty

[Bakes]

is ok, I eh wukking for mo lawyer who does wear panty

Well lucky fuh you then yuh woman stop wearing panty whenever she come over... I deputize she long time, yuh could just take orders from she just as yuh done doing arready 

[truetrini]

200 years on, Lincoln mesmerizes the nation
As Washington marks anniversary, even tiniest relics command reverence


Image: Abraham Lincoln
National Archives / Getty Images File
Portrait of 16th United States President Abraham Lincoln. (1809-1865)
 View related photos

updated 4:12 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 10, 2009

WASHINGTON - His bloodstained clothes, stovepipe hats and goatskin boots have been saved. The bed and mattress on which he died have been kept, along with the things in his pockets the night he was slain, and the dime-size bullet that killed him.

After he expired, his body was transported across the country so people could see him one last time. Then, decades later, he was exhumed, and his coffin was cut open to make sure he was really there.

As Washington prepares to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth Thursday, Abraham Lincoln is venerated as a national saint -- part man, part myth.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The remaining bits of him, locks of hair and pieces of bone among them, are sacred. Things he said or wrote are cherished. But he's still a mystery. "He's approachable and unreachable at the same time," said historian Harold Holzer. Lincoln said he detested slavery but would maintain it to save the Union. He spoke often of religion yet never joined a church. At the peak of his prestige, he was silenced by assassination.

"He compels us to learn more, but there's always something we're not going to get," Holzer said.

It is all part of the country's unique obsession with the martyred president who is perceived, historians say, as the epitome of an American: Born of the wilderness, near Hodgenville, Ky., and self-schooled by candlelight. He grew to be the savior of the Union, the foe of slavery and then was sacrificed on Good Friday night of 1865.

Physical traces
On Thursday, ceremonies marking Lincoln's birthday will be held at his memorial on the Mall. Ford's Theatre, where he was shot by actor John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, will stage a gala public reopening after a multimillion-dollar renovation. And Congress will salute him in the Capitol Rotunda, where his body once lay in state on a pine board bier, which we have also saved for 144 years. Even now, almost two centuries after his birth, physical traces of him are everywhere.

The Chicago Museum of History maintains a Lincoln Relics Registry that includes a comb, bed and the two half-dollars said to have been placed over his eyes after he died.

Louise Taper, the renowned California Lincoln collector, recently sold part of her holdings for an estimated $20 million to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum, in Springfield, Ill. "I still have tons more," she said. "There's something magic about him."

"I'm obsessed," she said, noting that she once owned one of his stovepipe hats and his bloodstained gloves from Ford's Theatre. "I have a Lincoln sculpture garden. I'm totally hooked."

Such is Lincoln's grip on the country that the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission estimates that 16,000 books have been written about him since 1865.

Even President Obama has been touched: He used the Lincoln Bible at his inauguration last month and had replicated part of Lincoln's pre-inaugural train journey to Washington.

"We identify with -- and grasp at -- the story of redemptive opportunity," Holzer said. "The crystallization of the American dream is what makes it so attractive."


There are, for sure, flaws in the saga, he said. Some critics have argued that the war, and all its expense and carnage, might have been avoided. Others criticize Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which declared only a portion of the country's slaves free, and there are those who say he went too far in suppressing dissent in the North.

But all the critiques, Holzer said, "have yielded to this essential story of possibility."

Frank J. Williams, the recently retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island who also has a vast collection of Lincolniana, said, "We want to think that he's a reflection of ourselves and the best that we can be."

Lincoln also embodies what Williams called the American "right to rise" -- the idea that "if you wanted to be someone, you could be," he said.

Two hundred years after his birth, almost a century and half after his death and 26 presidents since his assassination, none has been his equal.

He was "absolutely" the country's greatest president, Holzer said, "and that's validated in every poll of professional historians and ordinary Americans. He had the hardest job of all and did it triumphantly."

[truetrini]

Yet he is a curious-looking hero. He stood 6-foot-3 inches tall (or 6-4, depending on whom you ask). He had a shock of thick, dark hair, a big nose, huge ears and a cheek blemish, and he grew a beard after a little girl wrote that it might make him look better.

"There was something very unusual about him, about his physiognomy, about his body constitution," said Marc S. Micozzi, former director of the National Museum of Health and Medicine in the District, which displays pieces of Lincoln's skull, his hair and the ball fired from Booth's single-shot derringer.

In the 1990s, scientists debated the possibility of extracting DNA from Lincoln's remains to see whether he had Marfan syndrome, a genetic disorder that could account for his lanky physical appearance. The project faced technical, political and ethical obstacles and was shelved.

But last year, a California cardiologist, John G. Sotos, published a lengthy book suggesting that Lincoln might have had a more serious genetic disorder, MEN 2B. It might have accounted for his looks and even been killing him.

Sotos said that although "interrogating" Lincoln's DNA still remains some distance off, the concept is potentially crucial.

"If a historian found a letter that Abraham Lincoln wrote which said, by some miracle, 'I have been diagnosed by the doctor today as having MEN 2B and . . . wish this fact never to be known' . . . the historian would absolutely publish it," Sotos said. "Does it matter if that letter is written in English or in nucleic acid?"

Such curiosity is not new.

On Sept. 26, 1901, a boy named Fleetwood Lindley was summoned from school by his father to see Lincoln. The president had, of course, been dead for three decades. But his coffin had been dug up and moved multiple times over the years, more times than any other president's, according to historian Thomas J. Craughwell.

In 1876, it had nearly been stolen by grave robbers who wanted to hold it for ransom. The crooks had sawed open the massive white marble sarcophagus and dragged the 500-pound cedar and lead coffin part way out before being foiled by authorities, Craughwell said. The coffin was moved among several different hiding places around the tomb over succeeding years, at one point under a pile of lumber. After a 14-month reconstruction of the tomb, it was moved one last time.

At the behest of Lincoln's son, Robert, the president was going to be placed in a massive underground vault lined with a steel cage and encased in concrete so he could never be disturbed again.

But before this happened, the officials hesitated. Robert was not present. Partly haunted by the attempted grave-robbing and partly wanting a farewell look, the locals decided to see whether Lincoln was really in the coffin, Craughwell said.

Joseph P. Lindley, one of the tomb's unofficial guardians, sent for his 13-year-old son, who hurried from school on his bicycle.

Shortly before noon, according to an old account, two plumbers cut an oblong opening in the coffin, and Fleetwood Lindley and 22 others gazed on Abraham Lincoln's face.

All said it was unmistakably him. The shock of hair, the blemish, the whiskers. He was real.

Three days before he died in 1963, Fleetwood Lindley, then 75, recalled the moment to a reporter from Life magazine.

"I was not scared at the time," he said. "But I slept with Lincoln for the next six months."

[truetrini]

I know that bakes has a great knowledge of US History, but I could read.

So here are some more tidbits from Lincoln I gleaned from some books I have read about him.

In his August 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races" and that "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

"Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro,"  dis is from de same speech "is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

"Free them and make them politically and socially our equals?"  "My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals."

In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.  Who is dese inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called mongrels . . ."

For all he life He was ah strong advocate for the deportation all black people in America to Africa, Central America, or Haiti ("the is what he emant by colonization") and he was ah member of the American Colonization Society.  "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said when eulogizing   Henry Clay in 1852.  A decade later, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, he say, "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."  As Joe Sobran has remarked, Lincoln’s position was that black people could be "equal" all right, but not here in the U.S.

Lastly for now at least:

Lincoln was a big time suppoerter of de  the Illinois constitution!  That Illinois constitution did prohibit de emigration of black people into the state; he also did support the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived free blacks of any semblance of citizenship or economic freedom.

In his First Inaugural he support ah proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery; and he give BIG supporter to de Fugitive Slave Act which coerced the Northern states to round up runaway slaves and return them to slavery.

 He did denounce slavery in principle, as did most political, military, and business leaders of the era. But as historian Robert Johannsen explained in Lincoln, the South, and Slavery, his position was opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility to the abolition movement.

[truetrini]

Bakes it is amazing yuh cyar ever be wrong and admit it eh?

http://illinois.edu/calendar/Calendar?calId=2011&eventId=106513&ACTION=VIEW_EVENT

Over the last century and a half, Abraham Lincoln has become one of the most enduring symbols of the United States. While Lincoln's presidency polarized his contemporaries, over the years his stature has only risen and he is now embraced by Americans of all political persuasions. Several myths associated with Lincoln have contributed to his ever-growing popularity: "Man of the People," a "Self-Made Man," the "Savior of the Union," and "The Great Emancipator." These collective memories have demonstrated the enduring strength of United States nationalism, defined the attributes of a model U.S. citizenry, and offered the promise of racial transcendence. The "Myths of Lincoln Film Series" will explore these mythologies and their legacy in the cinematic representations of Abraham Lincoln over the last 70 years.

Taken from Lincoln Bicentennial, Public Engagement series University of Illinois

And from is own Presidential Museum

Lincoln may have been a polarizing figure during his presidency, but his death created a vast emotional response in a country whose people suddenly wanted to "get close" to Lincoln and to "hold on" to the security and leadership he represented. As a result, they collected and saved as souvenirs some of the objects he had touched, some fascinating, others strange. Here you can see some of these objects and read their stories.

HIST 498: Myth, National Memory, and the United States in the Age of Lincoln

Instructor: Brandon Mills University of Illinois
Semester: Fall 2008

Over the last century and a half, Abraham Lincoln has become one of the most enduring symbols of the United States. While Lincoln’s presidency was very polarizing both before and after his death,

Imagine these History teachers daring to argue with what YOUthink about Lincoln!

The audacity!

Honest Abe. The Rail Splitter. The Great Emancipator. The Buffoon. In his lifetime, Abraham Lincoln elicited many nicknames, most positive and some decidedly unflattering. Lincoln was a polarizing figure,  This from McPherson...one of THE great US Historians!

And from the Abraham Lincoln Institute!

he was a polarizing figure. ...

[Bakes]

I know that bakes has a great knowledge of US History, but I could read.

So here are some more tidbits from Lincoln I gleaned from some books I have read about him.

In his August 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races" and that "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

"Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro,"  dis is from de same speech "is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

"Free them and make them politically and socially our equals?"  "My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals."

In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.  Who is dese inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called mongrels . . ."

For all he life He was ah strong advocate for the deportation all black people in America to Africa, Central America, or Haiti ("the is what he emant by colonization") and he was ah member of the American Colonization Society.  "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said when eulogizing   Henry Clay in 1852.  A decade later, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, he say, "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."  As Joe Sobran has remarked, Lincoln’s position was that black people could be "equal" all right, but not here in the U.S.

Lastly for now at least:

Lincoln was a big time suppoerter of de  the Illinois constitution!  That Illinois constitution did prohibit de emigration of black people into the state; he also did support the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived free blacks of any semblance of citizenship or economic freedom.

In his First Inaugural he support ah proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery; and he give BIG supporter to de Fugitive Slave Act which coerced the Northern states to round up runaway slaves and return them to slavery.

 He did denounce slavery in principle, as did most political, military, and business leaders of the era. But as historian Robert Johannsen explained in Lincoln, the South, and Slavery, his position was opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility to the abolition movement.

Well if you could read then maybe you can search thru these posts and find where I said that Lincoln was this great egalitarian.  In fact all I said was that he wasn't a racist... there's a difference in believing that your race is better, and treating people negatively, or oppressing them because of some perceived racial superiority.

When you find proof that he was a racist please feel free to share.


As for me "cyar ever be wrong and admit it"... you need to get a life fella, seriously.  I cyah believe you taking this thing so serious to be getting up at de crack of dawn  and having ah running soliloquoy with yuhself all in effort to prove Bakes wrong.

[pecan]

...  I cyah believe you taking this thing so serious to be getting up at de crack of dawn  ...

I once hadda a girlfren named Dawn. I wonder if she is de same gyal TC getting up with?

[truetrini]

I know that bakes has a great knowledge of US History, but I could read.

So here are some more tidbits from Lincoln I gleaned from some books I have read about him.

In his August 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races" and that "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

"Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro,"  dis is from de same speech "is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

"Free them and make them politically and socially our equals?"  "My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals."

In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.  Who is dese inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called mongrels . . ."

For all he life He was ah strong advocate for the deportation all black people in America to Africa, Central America, or Haiti ("the is what he emant by colonization") and he was ah member of the American Colonization Society.  "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said when eulogizing   Henry Clay in 1852.  A decade later, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, he say, "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."  As Joe Sobran has remarked, Lincoln’s position was that black people could be "equal" all right, but not here in the U.S.

Lastly for now at least:

Lincoln was a big time suppoerter of de  the Illinois constitution!  That Illinois constitution did prohibit de emigration of black people into the state; he also did support the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived free blacks of any semblance of citizenship or economic freedom.

In his First Inaugural he support ah proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery; and he give BIG supporter to de Fugitive Slave Act which coerced the Northern states to round up runaway slaves and return them to slavery.

 He did denounce slavery in principle, as did most political, military, and business leaders of the era. But as historian Robert Johannsen explained in Lincoln, the South, and Slavery, his position was opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility to the abolition movement.

Well if you could read then maybe you can search thru these posts and find where I said that Lincoln was this great egalitarian.  In fact all I said was that he wasn't a racist... there's a difference in believing that your race is better, and treating people negatively, or oppressing them because of some perceived racial superiority.

When you find proof that he was a racist please feel free to share.


As for me "cyar ever be wrong and admit it"... you need to get a life fella, seriously.  I cyah believe you taking this thing so serious to be getting up at de crack of dawn  and having ah running soliloquoy with yuhself all in effort to prove Bakes wrong.

I never said you said he was a racist, yuh say he was fighting on de good guy side..bull shit talk!

funny yuh did say he was not polarizing....but yuh eh mention nutten about that eh?  wax on wax off breds.

Yuh whole initial post was shit!

[Quags]

Ok soca fan did some research and you were kinda rite ,them slaves woulda kill every motherf**ker if ,Lincoln didnt free them  .The English even say come fight for them in the Revolution for freedom and men was going lol .The slaves was even out numbering the whites  ,mine u this was before Lincoln eh ,but still shit woulda hit the fan ,and they woulda bun down the states 

[Bakes]

I never said you said he was a racist, yuh say he was fighting on de good guy side..bull shit talk!

funny yuh did say he was not polarizing....but yuh eh mention nutten about that eh?  wax on wax off breds.

Yuh whole initial post was shit!

1. In his latter years was Lincoln on the side of the Abolitionists or was he opposed to the Abolitionists?

2. Were the Abolitionists the "good guys"... or were they the "bad guys"?

If the answers to the above questions is "yes" then the only logical conclusion to reach is that Lincoln fought on the side of the 'good guys'.  I'd love to see you and yuh "bull shit talk" argue otherwise.



3. You are right and I am wrong.  I am wrong to say that Lincoln was not polarizing, because clearly there was no middle ground, there was pro-slavery/secessionist and anti-slavery/pro-union camps.  Lincoln was staunchly in one camp, his opponents staunchly in the other.  To his opponents he was polarizing.  If I cared enough I'm sure I could google you up some links that say Lincoln was not polarizing.   But yeah, I was wrong to say that he wasn't polarizing... I realize now that nothing less than that statement will give you the sense of accomplishment that's so sadly missing from your life. 

Of course a more nuanced read of the situation would reveal that it's not that black and white.  To many Republicans (or just many whites in general) Barack Obama too is a 'polarizing figure' and 100 years from now, removed from the proper context I'm sure some solitary, sad, menopausal 'adult' will find himself holed up in front his computer arguing to all who'd listen (and even those who would not) that Obama too was a polarizing figure.

[truetrini]

I never said you said he was a racist, yuh say he was fighting on de good guy side..bull shit talk!

funny yuh did say he was not polarizing....but yuh eh mention nutten about that eh?  wax on wax off breds.

Yuh whole initial post was shit!

1. In his latter years was Lincoln on the side of the Abolitionists or was he opposed to the Abolitionists?

He was never on the side of the abolitionists.  He freed slaves so that they could stike terror in the hearts of the white men who once owned them.  The abolitionists ahd a completely different reason for wanting to see slaves freed!  As I mentioned before he thought blacks to be inferior, abolitionists proclaimed all were equal in the eyes of God...try googling Quakers!

2. Were the Abolitionists the "good guys"... or were they the "bad guys"?

Definitely good guys, Lincoln was never an abolitionist....nor did he share their views on blacks!

If the answers to the above questions is "yes" then the only logical conclusion to reach is that Lincoln fought on the side of the 'good guys'.  I'd love to see you and yuh "bull shit talk" argue otherwise.

{b]Obviously the answers to the above are no!  so tis you who doth wax lyrical shittiness of the highest grade![/b]



3. You are right and I am wrong.  I am wrong to say that Lincoln was not polarizing, because clearly there was no middle ground, there was pro-slavery/secessionist and anti-slavery/pro-union camps.  Lincoln was staunchly in one camp, his opponents staunchly in the other.  To his opponents he was polarizing.  If I cared enough I'm sure I could google you up some links that say Lincoln was not polarizing.   But yeah, I was wrong to say that he wasn't polarizing... I realize now that nothing less than that statement will give you the sense of accomplishment that's so sadly missing from your life. 

what is sadly missing is your penchant for always being correct and never yielding even when you see the evidence of your stupidity before your yampeed eyes!  His own party and many in the North saw him as polarizing....you need to google something showing that he was not polarizing...and show the entire world that they need to revise history to suit your shit!

Of course a more nuanced read of the situation would reveal that it's not that black and white.  To many Republicans (or just many whites in general) Barack Obama too is a 'polarizing figure' and 100 years from now, removed from the proper context I'm sure some solitary, sad, menopausal 'adult' will find himself holed up in front his computer arguing to all who'd listen (and even those who would not) that Obama too was a polarizing figure.

Actually Obama is a unifying figure as evidenced by his massive popularity ratings, but a more nuanced view eludes you...Lincoln was never accounted for being anything but polarizing during his inaugurals.  But the wannabe lawyer in you makes you want to argue and spin!

I'm sure some solitary, sad, menopausal 'adult' will find himself holed up in front his computer arguing to all who'd listen (and even those who would not) that Obama too was a polarizing figure.

Leave West Coast out of this, he ahs made no remaks thus fat biatch

[truetrini]

1.  Abraham Lincoln rode roughshod over people's rights, suspending habeas corpus (Article 1 of the Constitution gives that power solely to Congress, not to the President) and jailing political opponents, the most prominent of whom was Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, for example.

2.   Consider the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln, a lifelong opponent of slavery, nevertheless emphasized that the president had no power to interfere with slavery in states where it already existed. This was true: the Constitution, for better or worse, gave the president no such power.

3.   Lincoln unilaterally marshaled troops and suspended habeas corpus in Maryland, Congress ratified these steps when it reconvened. And he admitted that some violations of civil liberty were contrary to the law. He did not argue--as some successors have--that constitutional protections are simply suspended during wartime, or that the "wartime Constitution" somehow differs from the written document he was sworn to uphold.

4.  The 1850 Act, which Congress had passed in an effort to avoid Southern secession, was hugely unpopular in the northern states because it required local law enforcement officials to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves.

5.  In April 1864 the Senate, with Lincoln’s support, adopted a 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery everywhere.  So was the Emancipation proclamation legal as it seized property from its legal owners?

[Bakes]

1.  Abraham Lincoln rode roughshod over people's rights, suspending habeas corpus (Article 1 of the Constitution gives that power solely to Congress, not to the President) and jailing political opponents, the most prominent of whom was Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, for example.

2.   Consider the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln, a lifelong opponent of slavery, nevertheless emphasized that the president had no power to interfere with slavery in states where it already existed. This was true: the Constitution, for better or worse, gave the president no such power.

3.   Lincoln unilaterally marshaled troops and suspended habeas corpus in Maryland, Congress ratified these steps when it reconvened. And he admitted that some violations of civil liberty were contrary to the law. He did not argue--as some successors have--that constitutional protections are simply suspended during wartime, or that the "wartime Constitution" somehow differs from the written document he was sworn to uphold.

4.  The 1850 Act, which Congress had passed in an effort to avoid Southern secession, was hugely unpopular in the northern states because it required local law enforcement officials to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves.

5.  In April 1864 the Senate, with Lincoln’s support, adopted a 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery everywhere.  So was the Emancipation proclamation legal as it seized property from its legal owners?

How come yuh didn't include the other bullshit charge that Roosevelt suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus during WWII along with the rest of this shit as well?


... you accuse me of being a "wanna-be lawyer", I wonder where you got your law degree from?

[truetrini]

 On October 23, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, D.C. for all military-related cases. Article I of the Constitution say this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln's actions were taken in response to riots and local militias during the early stages of the Civil War. Lincoln ignored the ruling of the US Circuit Court against his order.

His protege U.S> Grant also suspended the writ of habeas corpus but h had the justificationa nd legal right to do so.

As for other presdents acting illegally, I am unsure f these guys did I but I think that they did.


Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, as was his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Franklin Roosevelt used executive orders in 1933 to close all American banks and force citizens to turn in their gold coins and, in 1942, to intern American citizens of Japanese descent for the duration of World War II.

 In 1951, Harry Truman used an executive order to seize strikethreatened steel mills to prevent shortages that would endanger "national security."

 Richard Nixon used executive orders to impose wage and price controls in 1971.

And I hink congress had nutte to do with the setting up of the dept of homeland security

[Bakes]

First off let's deal with your first post... you made a bunch of conclusory statements with substantiating them, meaning (for folks scoring at home), you stated that Lincoln violated several laws but didn't explain what the exact nature of the violations were.  I wanted to give you a chance to clarify... now I see you back-pedalling furiously.

1.  Abraham Lincoln rode roughshod over people's rights, (a) suspending habeas corpus (Article 1 of the Constitution gives that power solely to Congress, not to the President) and (b) jailing political opponents, the most prominent of whom was Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, for example.

What 'rights' did he ride "roughshod" over?

(a) Article I does not exclusively grant the power to suspend the habeas corpus to Congress... I know because I happen to be reading it now from the copy of the Constitution that I have sitting on my desk.  Congress has the power to Lay and Collect taxes; To Regulate Commerce; To Spend; To Declare War; To Govern Treaties; and Foreign Affairs.  Congress additionally has the power to "make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).

Nowhere, in any of Congress' enumerated powers does it say that Congress has the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.  Google is your librarian... if you can find where that power was vested in Congress then by all means make your case.  It was very much within Lincoln's executive powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus it just was never done before because it was never necessary before. 

(b) You would have to come better than Vallandingham to substantiate your charge that Lincoln jailed his "political opponents" willy nilly.  In fact while Vallandingham was a frequent critic of Lincoln's abolition policies (of course you say Lincoln was no abolitionist... but what do I know, I'm only a wanna-be lawyer while you graduate cum loudly from Google University Skool of Law), Lincoln never jailed him.  Maybe you should change yuh name to Trinity Cross-referece instead... learn to fact-check what yuh google sources telling yuh dey Mr. Masters in US History.  Vallandingham was jailed for violating an existing law prohibiting support for the secessionary states by General Burnside... Lincoln had nothing to do with it.

2.   Consider the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln, a lifelong opponent of slavery, nevertheless emphasized that the president had no power to interfere with slavery in states where it already existed. This was true: the Constitution, for better or worse, gave the president no such power.

Ah see yuh back off this one below, saying how now yuh "unsure"...lol

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President didn't have authority to interfere with slavery?  Article II expressly states that 'Executive Power' is vested in the President.  The responsibility of every President is to enforce the laws of the land.  Congress makes laws, the President enforces them.  Slavery was illegal... Congress just chose to look the other way and allow it because the Southerners were powerful enough to keep it that way until power started to erode just before the Civil War.  The Bill of Rights guarantees to every individual the right to liberty... Lincoln, whatever you think about his motives, was the first President to enforce that when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  The Declaration of Independence states that all men are born free, and that freedom is reinforced in the Bill of Rights.  He was enforcing the law of the land.

3.   Lincoln unilaterally marshaled troops and suspended habeas corpus in Maryland, Congress ratified these steps when it reconvened. And he admitted that some violations of civil liberty were contrary to the law. He did not argue--as some successors have--that constitutional protections are simply suspended during wartime, or that the "wartime Constitution" somehow differs from the written document he was sworn to uphold.

This is true, Lincoln was not a proponent of the saying  "Inter armas silent leges"... but neither was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus illegal.  If you pay close attention you'll see that it could only be suspended during acts of Rebellion.  So tell me again Mr. I Speak Authoritatively on US History... when between 1791 (when the Constitution was ratified) and 1861 was there an act of rebellion under which such suspension was applicable?  Right.  So Lincoln was the first President to have to deal with in insurrection, therefore he was the first to properly invoke those powers.  This was "proper" because like Congress, the President too has 'war' powers. 

Another example of this was when the US denied habeas corpus to a group of US-resident German saboteurs (see Ex parte Quirin).  Unlike what you so unintelligently claimed the other day, Roosevelt never suspended habeas corpus... habeas corpus was denied the saboteurs because they were "enemy combatants"...rings a bell?  Enemy combatants at the time could rightfully be denied the right to be brought before a judge and instead be tried by a military tribunal.  This was the rationale behind Bush's Guantanamo policies.  It wasn't until Rasul v. Bush that the Supreme Court extended the right of habeas corpus to non-citizens; and not until Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that citizens who were enemy combatants were extended the same right.  So in short what Lincoln did was in fact very much within his Constitutional powers.

4.  The 1850 Act, which Congress had passed in an effort to avoid Southern secession, was hugely unpopular in the northern states because it required local law enforcement officials to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves.

5.  In April 1864 the Senate, with Lincoln’s support, adopted a 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery everywhere.  So was the Emancipation proclamation legal as it seized property from its legal owners?

#4 has nothing to do with the discussion so I won't bother addressing it. 

As for #5...

There was no "illegal seizure" of property because that "property" for one was never "seized" by the government.  Quite the opposite in fact, 'it' was freed.  Secondly, that "property" was being held illegally... as per Shelley v. Kraemer US courts cannot enforce illegal claims.  But again, what I know... I's juss ah "wanna-be lawyer".

[Bakes]

Now for this nonsense...

On October 23, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, D.C. for all military-related cases. Article I of the Constitution say this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln's actions were taken in response to riots and local militias during the early stages of the Civil War. Lincoln ignored the ruling of the US Circuit Court against his order.

His protege U.S> Grant also suspended the writ of habeas corpus but h had the justificationa nd legal right to do so.

Already addressed above.


As for other presdents acting illegally, I am unsure f these guys did I but I think that they did.


Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, as was his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

You sounding like a broken record now... either that or yuh getting senile because yuh starting to repeat yuhself.  Already addressed.

Franklin Roosevelt used executive orders in 1933 to close all American banks and force citizens to turn in their gold coins and, in 1942, to intern American citizens of Japanese descent for the duration of World War II.

The internment was challenged in Korematsu v. United States and Roosevelt's decision was upheld.  This decision was later repudiated by the Supreme Court and as we all know, the Japanese-American's who were illegally imprisoned were given reparations.  What many don't know that is Roosevelt was given false information leading to the adoption of the internment policy.  The then US Solcitor General deliberately suppressed reports by the FBI and Military that the Japanese-Americans represented no risk.  Without this report the threat was exaggerated... and it's with all this post facto evidence that apologies were made, convictions (in Korematsu's case) vacated and reparations paid.

In 1951, Harry Truman used an executive order to seize strikethreatened steel mills to prevent shortages that would endanger "national security."

Yes, Youngstown Sheet Co. v. Sawyer- he overstepped his constitutional authority.

Richard Nixon used executive orders to impose wage and price controls in 1971.

Nixon was within his powers due to the economic emergency.

And I hink congress had nutte to do with the setting up of the dept of homeland security

Homeland Security is an Executive Agency... the powers of the Executive lies exclusively with the President, Congress has no say in these agencies, except in the appointment of the Agency heads.

[truetrini]

YOU KNOW ALL MY KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM GOOGLING RIGHT..AND YES WHILE i AM A HISTORIAN YOU ARE A WANNABE LAWYER.  Yuh have any facking law degree?  Until yuh graduate, pass de bar and get admitted by some hick state yuh is ah f**king wannabe!

Frederick S. Calhoun, the Chief Historian for the United States Marshal’s Service, at the Department of Justice, recently wrote a 200 year history of Federal Marshals, entitled, The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989 (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. 1989). This historical study gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, in the early days of his administration. The warrant was to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, following his opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman (May, 1861). The account is found in the chapter entitled, "Arrest of Traitors and Suspension of Habeas Corpus." It was taken from the private papers of the Federal Marshall, Ward Hill Laman, at the Huntington Library in Pasadena:

Taney’s opinion seriously embarrassed Lincoln and his advisers. Southern sympathizers and Northern opponents of the war praised Taney as a partisan of civil liberties standing alone against military tyranny. Taney’s opinion exacerbated the delicate situation in Maryland, a border state yet undecided in its commitment to the Union. According to Marshal Lamon, "After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice." Lincoln issued a presidential arrest warrant for Taney, but then arose the question of service. "Who should make the arrest and should Taney be imprisoned?"

It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. Laman then recalls that "Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing Lamon to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders."

Lincoln has several democratically elected members of the Maryland House of Delegates arrested and imprisoned, without a trial, for having secessionist sympathies.

Lincoln suppressed free elections. In 1861, Maryland was still undecided as to secession or neutrality in the war. The legislature had discussed convening in Annapolis to discuss the matter. Lincoln threatened to have the town bombarded if they did so. As such, the legislature decided to meet in Frederick. To prevent this, Lincoln ordered that only Unionist members of the legislature be allowed to attend. Members of the pro-secessions Peace Party were to be prevented from attending, by arrest if necessary. As a result, the members of the Baltimore contingent of the legislature were arrested, as were the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May. Those who made their way through and voted for the Peace Party were subject to arrest, and many had their ballots tossed.

Lincoln suppressed free speech. Lincoln declared martial law in many parts of the North, under which he had thousands of anti-war demonstrators arrested for the protesting. Moreover, Lincoln censored telegraph communications from both the North and South. Lincoln denied mail delivery to newspapers, such as New York’s Daily News, Brooklyn Eagle, Freeman’s Journal and the Journal of Commerce, which opposed his policies. Other newspapers were censored, such as the Chicago Times, Dayton Empire,Baltimore Gazette,Philadelphia Evening Journal,New Orleans Advocate,Wheeling Register, and Louisville Presbyterian, just to name a few. And several others has their offices and printing facilities destroyed by federal soldiers.

[truetrini]

Yes by virtue of giving the military the right to arrest and try civilians as soldiers Lincoln was directly responsible for the arrest and deportation of Clement L. Vallandigham.

It is true that lincoln was unaware of his arrest, but when he learned of it he had the man banished to the Confederacy!

illegal actions by the president!

As for Vallandigham, Lincoln charged that he was encouraging desertions from the Union army. "Must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts," Lincoln asked, "while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"


BUT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT LINCOLN BECAUSE YOU TAKE A SEMESTER COURSE IN SOME OBSCURE LAW SCHOOL.

STEUPS!

"Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling."

That led to the subsequent arrest of Justice Taney!  And they called George W Bush a bully!

[Bakes]

YOU KNOW ALL MY KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM GOOGLING RIGHT..AND YES WHILE i AM A HISTORIAN YOU ARE A WANNABE LAWYER.  Yuh have any facking law degree?  Until yuh graduate, pass de bar and get admitted by some hick state yuh is ah f**king wannabe!

Frederick S. Calhoun, the Chief Historian for the United States Marshal’s Service, at the Department of Justice, recently wrote a 200 year history of Federal Marshals, entitled, The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989 (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. 1989). This historical study gives a detailed account of an arrest warrant, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, in the early days of his administration. The warrant was to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, following his opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman (May, 1861). The account is found in the chapter entitled, "Arrest of Traitors and Suspension of Habeas Corpus." It was taken from the private papers of the Federal Marshall, Ward Hill Laman, at the Huntington Library in Pasadena:

Taney’s opinion seriously embarrassed Lincoln and his advisers. Southern sympathizers and Northern opponents of the war praised Taney as a partisan of civil liberties standing alone against military tyranny. Taney’s opinion exacerbated the delicate situation in Maryland, a border state yet undecided in its commitment to the Union. According to Marshal Lamon, "After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice." Lincoln issued a presidential arrest warrant for Taney, but then arose the question of service. "Who should make the arrest and should Taney be imprisoned?"

It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. Laman then recalls that "Lincoln gave the warrant to him, instructing Lamon to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders."

Lincoln has several democratically elected members of the Maryland House of Delegates arrested and imprisoned, without a trial, for having secessionist sympathies.

Lincoln suppressed free elections. In 1861, Maryland was still undecided as to secession or neutrality in the war. The legislature had discussed convening in Annapolis to discuss the matter. Lincoln threatened to have the town bombarded if they did so. As such, the legislature decided to meet in Frederick. To prevent this, Lincoln ordered that only Unionist members of the legislature be allowed to attend. Members of the pro-secessions Peace Party were to be prevented from attending, by arrest if necessary. As a result, the members of the Baltimore contingent of the legislature were arrested, as were the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May. Those who made their way through and voted for the Peace Party were subject to arrest, and many had their ballots tossed.

Lincoln suppressed free speech. Lincoln declared martial law in many parts of the North, under which he had thousands of anti-war demonstrators arrested for the protesting. Moreover, Lincoln censored telegraph communications from both the North and South. Lincoln denied mail delivery to newspapers, such as New York’s Daily News, Brooklyn Eagle, Freeman’s Journal and the Journal of Commerce, which opposed his policies. Other newspapers were censored, such as the Chicago Times, Dayton Empire,Baltimore Gazette,Philadelphia Evening Journal,New Orleans Advocate,Wheeling Register, and Louisville Presbyterian, just to name a few. And several others has their offices and printing facilities destroyed by federal soldiers.

Ah "historian" who sits at home all day and night on his fat ass trolling the internet for the intellectual stimulation sadly lacking in his pathetic unfulfilled life. lol

Fella your pathetic attempts to impugn my education are laughable... and you know it.  But I'm not one to denigrate community colleges, even halfwits have a right to higher education.  Ad hominems aside I'll address the fantastic bullshit yuh trying to foist on the forum.

First of as a 'historian' I'm surprised that you'll take this specious account of this 'arrest warrant' story and run with it as though is gospel fact.  Wha'ppen yuh google sources didn't tell yuh that the authenticity of that document is in question?  There is only one contemporaneous account of the existence of such a document and that's from Ward Hill's biography of Lincoln following his death.  Since yuh claim yuh's such ah "Lincoln expert" yuh should know how disparaged and discredited a character is Ward Lamon Hill... but me ent no historian, I'z juss ah wanna-be lawyer, lol

Next... fuh ah 'historian' yuh have ah real tenuous brand ah understanding fella...

"Lincoln has several democratically elected members of the Maryland House of Delegates arrested and imprisoned, without a trial, for having secessionist sympathies."

Yuh realize that sympathizing with secessionist to this day is a treasonable offense, right?  Not sure if yuh aware of it... but it says it right there in Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution, treason is a crime.

As for the rest ah that stuff about suppression of rights and thiefing newspaper mail and thing... more conclusory pronouncements.  But what I saying, you's de official Lincoln expert arung these parts (ah guess allyuh Lincoln experts not too much in demand deez days), we should take yuh word fuh it.

[Bakes]

Yes by virtue of giving the military the right to arrest and try civilians as soldiers Lincoln was directly responsible for the arrest and deportation of Clement L. Vallandigham.

It is true that lincoln was unaware of his arrest, but when he learned of it he had the man banished to the Confederacy!

illegal actions by the president!

So by your own admission Lincoln was unaware of the arrest... yet earlier yuh state big and bold that he

jail[ed] political opponents, the most prominent of whom was Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, for example.

So Lincoln jail him without knowing he was jailing him den... eh jokey revisionist historian?  Maybe he jailed him by accident den? lol.

As for Vallandigham, Lincoln charged that he was encouraging desertions from the Union army. "Must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts," Lincoln asked, "while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"

Ah notice yuh cyah come up with ah explanation showing why Vallandingham and the rest of the rebel sympathizers couldn't be jailed for treason... wha'ppen yuh google button break or what?

BUT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT LINCOLN BECAUSE YOU TAKE A SEMESTER COURSE IN SOME OBSCURE LAW SCHOOL.

STEUPS!

I see yuh PMSing causing yuh brain tuh fog up... never said I know more about Lincoln... what I DID say is that where Lincoln and the law is concerned I know a great deal more than you will ever know.  And yes, my one semester course in my li'l obscure law school is one semester more than you have Perfesser... so until yuh earn some law school credits on yuh impressive google transcripts... hush yuh over emotive nanny.

"Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling."

That led to the subsequent arrest of Justice Taney!  And they called George W Bush a bully!

Again... when was Taney arrested Mr. Lincoln's left nutsack?  Oh, right... it never happened 

Yuh talking about Merryman now... ah know yuh slow, keep de riddim.  Merryman was a secessionist.  Secession was a treasonable act.  Fort Sumpter was bombed in April 1861 (meaning the Civil War had already started).  Merryman was arrested in June for supporting the rebel forces... ready fuh it... that equals treason.  Article I expressly states that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended during times of rebellion.  Civil War= rebellion.  The issue of citzen enemy combatants and habeas corpus was unsettled at the time of the Civil War... infact it wouldn't be settled for another 144 yrs, until Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which I mentioned above. 

Yuh latch onto de Taney story like it mean sumting... Taney was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but his ruling in Ex Parte Merryman carried no authority because it was still subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, Taney ruled over the matter as a Circuit Court judge.  In short he was wearing two hats... and de smaller Circuit Court hat couldn't compel Lincoln without a ruling from the higher Court...which is why Lincoln properly disregarded the shit ruling.  Only the Supreme Court could rule with finality on the question and the court was not in session.  But I ent too sure bout dat... so dey tell mih in mih li'l obscure law school.

See... ah nice thorough, well-thought out response.  Ah notice yuh ent try and refute de rest ah what ah say above, because yuh know yuh can't.  Instead yuh trying hard to discredit me and my education... which youself know is nonsense.  I ent de smartest but is ah 'bright school' ah gradeeate from so yuh know yuh cyah try dat.  Next time tuh yuh Midol and focus on addressing the issue, not de opposition (dai's ah ole Panday trick), doh get mad... get educated.

[truetrini]

WHAT MADE SECCESSION A TREASONABLE ACT?

tHE us cONSTITUTION?

tHE SAME ONE THAT WAS WRITTENA ND ADOPTED BY SECCESSIONISTS?

STEUPS

I am not trying to discredit your education, you were the one to tout your education and attempt to discredit mine.

You say that I am not refute the 'rest'  please.

You have not addressed half of my points.

Lincoln broke the law, you say he did not.

You jump down Bush's throat and Lincoln was the precedent setter.

Please!

[Deeks]

TC and Bake,
                    This is one of the most stimulating and intellectual debates despites the few invectives thrown at one another. Keep it going though.If  TT needs new politician I would certainly recommend all yuh. The one thing about Lincoln setting a bad precedent for habeus corpus and as it relates to Bush. Rightly or wrongly Bush used the fear of terrorist threat which indeed happen on 9/11 to suspend rights. But Lincoln was facing a genuine split of the country. And the country did split and had one of the bloodiest cicvil wars in history.Is this a case of "the ends justifies the means".

[fishs]

show me where I said that his views brought the nation to war!

Ah guess ah "masters" in US History doh necessarily mean yuh could read and remember...

... His views were polarising and brought the nation to war!

It is painfully clear by you feeling the need to post about me being "lawyer" and "in law school" that something bunning yuh.

Two budding congressmen lol

[Bakes]

WHAT MADE SECCESSION A TREASONABLE ACT?

tHE us cONSTITUTION?

tHE SAME ONE THAT WAS WRITTENA ND ADOPTED BY SECCESSIONISTS?

STEUPS

So what de ass does that say?  Because they self adopt the law they should be allowed to break it??  Since dey knew exactly what the law states then they shouldn't quarrel when dey get jail fuh breaking it.

I am not trying to discredit your education, you were the one to tout your education and attempt to discredit mine.

Fella you's ah kinda c**t or what?  Yuh real practising hard Mr. Revisionist Historian.  YOU is de one who felt de need to start talking about yuh "Masters degree" like some fukkin li'l chile bragging how dey daddy car nicer.  So I had to remind you that I ent just talking out my ass I going to school and learning juss as well.  I never said what form of education it was but yuh felt the need to talk about me being wanna-be lawyer and denigrating the school I attend.  Real li'l boy thing.  I know what I know and I never shy to share it... but one thing you never see me do is talk about oh I graduate from dis or dat school or I have dis degree or training fuh dat degree.  Dai'z imbecile talk... but it fits you.

You say that I am not refute the 'rest'  please.

You have not addressed half of my points.

What points did I NOT address?  I even took my time and put numbers and colors next to every point so that it would be easier fuh yuh to follow along.  And apparently yuh still lost.  Feel free to show the points I didn't address and I'll shoot dem down just like I did the rest.  I not trying to act like I know everything, but one thing you cannot argue with me is the application of the law.

Lincoln broke the law, you say he did not.

You jump down Bush's throat and Lincoln was the precedent setter.

Please!

What law did Lincoln break?  I did NOT just say he didn't break the law, I explained what the law is and showed how his actions were legal.  I jump down Bush throat because Bush is ah damn idiot bordering on ah criminal.  He too facking dunce to understand the foreign policy issue he was drowning in so he allowed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al to hijack the facking political process and lead the country into a deadly, costly, disastrous war.  If Bush was a bit more pragmatic and level-headed he would have listened to voices other than the ones constantly singing the war chant in his ears... voices like Colin Powell and Dick Armstead who were advocating diplomacy.

Don't even try and compare Lincoln to Bush.

[WestCoast]

I jump down Bush throat because Bush is ah damn idiot bordering on ah criminal.  He too facking dunce to understand the foreign policy issue he was drowning in so he allowed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al to hijack the facking political process and lead the country into a deadly, costly, disastrous war.  If Bush was a bit more pragmatic and level-headed he would have listened to voices other than the ones constantly singing the war chant in his ears... voices like Colin Powell and Dick Armstead who were advocating diplomacy.

Don't even try and compare Lincoln to Bush.

ya go have CC and HalfBaked coming in here and cuss ya for putting dong day country eh


serious: this is a damn good history lesson .... Thanks