Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abe, though like most politicians of his day was fond of quoting the Bible, could in no way be considered "extremely religious". He never joined a church or made any formal declaration of Christian belief even though he was raised in a "hard shell" Baptist family. As a young man he wrote a pamphlet that denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. This doesn't sound "extremely religious" to me.
You are right about him choosing war though. He deliberately provoked the CS government into firing on Ft. Sumter and even admitted it in black and white in a letter to Gustavus Fox.
And "Chicago" is right above also. Lincoln's life time political goal was to institute Henry Clay's "American System" which was nothing but a partnership between a strong central government and big business. His purpose was of course to use the resources (money) raised in the name of that government to enrich his political friends (and himself of course). He had to fight a bloody and unjust war that killed 750,000 Americans in order to do it but he got what he wanted (and we still live with the system today)
Yes, He was a Republican and would be one today if he was still with us.
You are off your rocker.
Lincoln told the south in advance that he would send food supplies in with no military supplies and this promise was kept. At the same time Jefferson Davis had asked South Carolina why they had already not fired yet.
The choice to the fire the first shot of the war was in the south's free hands and they chose it. They had already fired at the Union previously, but Lincoln drew a line in the sand on them not attacking the resupply effort or else war and they foolishly crossed it.
The south would have been better to not fire the first shot as the majority of the north was willing to avoid war until the south got aggressive. The letter you reference, you reference incorrectly, putting your own spin on it. He doesn't say he fooled the south, he says, resupplying the fort would help the cause of the Union.
What was Lincoln suppose to do? Let the south break off to protect their peculiar institution? How can any democracy survive, if whoever loses a fair election can just up and leave rendering the election pointless? How can the SC Declaration of Secession be justified by you, when EVERY single reason they give for breaking off is to continue the OPPRESSION of black people. The Document literally complains that some northern states are allowing their black males to vote, which elevates them to citizens...GASP!!!
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
My question is this: if Abe Lincoln were alive today, what contemporary politician is he most like? I'm guessing a rather mainstream liberal from the Midwest like Russ Feingold....or perphaps even Barack Obama
Well he lied, used government to force his opinion via the threat and use of force others into to believing what he did..so yeah he would be a statist liberal
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
My question is this: if Abe Lincoln were alive today, what contemporary politician is he most like? I'm guessing a rather mainstream liberal from the Midwest like Russ Feingold....or perphaps even Barack Obama
The mistake you are making is assuming that race is the be-all and end-all of politics. It isn't. Lincoln would not be a liberal today because he would not support public sector unions, universal healthcare, gun control, open borders, 50% tax rates, etc.
None of the important figures of history would be modern liberals because modern liberals have turned their backs on the founding principles of the nation. You can't simultaneously support a "living constitution" and also say that historical figures would be liberal.
Lincoln told the south in advance that he would send food supplies in with no military supplies and this promise was kept. At the same time Jefferson Davis had asked South Carolina why they had already not fired yet.
The choice to the fire the first shot of the war was in the south's free hands and they chose it. They had already fired at the Union previously, but Lincoln drew a line in the sand on them not attacking the resupply effort or else war and they foolishly crossed it.
The south would have been better to not fire the first shot as the majority of the north was willing to avoid war until the south got aggressive. The letter you reference, you reference incorrectly, putting your own spin on it. He doesn't say he fooled the south, he says, resupplying the fort would help the cause of the Union.
What was Lincoln suppose to do? Let the south break off to protect their peculiar institution? How can any democracy survive, if whoever loses a fair election can just up and leave rendering the election pointless? How can the SC Declaration of Secession be justified by you, when EVERY single reason they give for breaking off is to continue the OPPRESSION of black people. The Document literally complains that some northern states are allowing their black males to vote, which elevates them to citizens...GASP!!!
I may or may not be "off my rocker" but everything you say here is based on emotion and "conventional wisdom" and most certainly not fact. The "cause" that abe supported was WAR (in order to advance his economic agenda) pure and simple (and again he admitted as much in black and white, are you calling "honest abe" a liar?) And Btw way essentially what you are saying above is that lincoln didn't deliberately provoke the war (which is a demonstrable lie) and even if he did he did so for a "noble cause" (which is also a demonstrable lie using abe's own words).
Well which is it? You are arguing both sides of the point in question.
P.S. My "numbers" are not high by any means. The most recent scholorly research (using the US census numbers as a basis) gives an estimate of AT LEAST 650,000 deaths and possibley as many as 850,000. (I chose the middle number which is most likely) Yes I know the estimate of 618,000 was generally accepted for over 100 years. Nevertheless again you are relying on the "conventional wisdom" of politically correct court "historians" instead of facts.
He would be a liberal, no doubt. Lincoln was very supportive at the time on African American rights, women's rights, and immigrant rights. He was actually quite fond of the German and Irish immigrants that made up such a huge population of the North because they were almost entirely anti-slavery. I doubt he would have a problem with gay people. He had little ill will towards the president before him, James Buchanan, who was so totally gay.
Supportive of Black people's rights?
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
I may or may not be "off my rocker" but everything you say here is based on emotion and "conventional wisdom" and most certainly not fact. The "cause" that abe supported was WAR (in order to advance his economic agenda) pure and simple (and again he admitted as much in black and white, are you calling "honest abe" a liar?) And Btw way essentially what you are saying above is that lincoln didn't deliberately provoke the war (which is a demonstrable lie) and even if he did he did so for a "noble cause" (which is also a demonstrable lie using abe's own words).
Well which is it? You are arguing both sides of the point in question.
P.S. My "numbers" are not high by any means. The most recent scholorly research (using the US census numbers as a basis) gives an estimate of AT LEAST 650,000 deaths and possibley as many as 850,000. (I chose the middle number which is most likely) Yes I know the estimate of 618,000 was generally accepted for over 100 years. Nevertheless again you are relying on the "conventional wisdom" of politically correct court "historians" instead of facts.
He would be a Democrat today. As would Ike Eisenhower. 2 really good Presidents.
I can't help but wonder if the 2013 version of Eisenhower would be an independent rather than a Democrat or Republican, considering that he seems like the "independent type", and being an independent now is more popular than it was in the 1950's .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
Even Nixon would be considered as vile as they consider Ted Kennedy; after all, Tricky Dicky got us OUT of a war and WANTED health care for everyone.
Even by 1970's standards, "health care for all" was considered to be a liberal position, although not as far-out liberal as it's considered to be now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBruadair
Abe, though like most politicians of his day was fond of quoting the Bible, could in no way be considered "extremely religious". He never joined a church or made any formal declaration of Christian belief even though he was raised in a "hard shell" Baptist family.
Ironically, the earlier Presidents tended to be less religious than more recent Presidents. Most of the first six Presidents had Unitarian or deistic views; Fillmore and Taft were Unitarian, and Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no church affiliation.
Lincoln told the south in advance that he would send food supplies in with no military supplies and this promise was kept. At the same time Jefferson Davis had asked South Carolina why they had already not fired yet.
The choice to the fire the first shot of the war was in the south's free hands and they chose it. They had already fired at the Union previously, but Lincoln drew a line in the sand on them not attacking the resupply effort or else war and they foolishly crossed it.
The south would have been better to not fire the first shot as the majority of the north was willing to avoid war until the south got aggressive. The letter you reference, you reference incorrectly, putting your own spin on it. He doesn't say he fooled the south, he says, resupplying the fort would help the cause of the Union.
What was Lincoln suppose to do? Let the south break off to protect their peculiar institution? How can any democracy survive, if whoever loses a fair election can just up and leave rendering the election pointless? How can the SC Declaration of Secession be justified by you, when EVERY single reason they give for breaking off is to continue the OPPRESSION of black people. The Document literally complains that some northern states are allowing their black males to vote, which elevates them to citizens...GASP!!!
I may be "off my rocker" but if you really believe that the "Fox expedition" (to Sumter) was some sort of mission of mercy you are naive in the extreme.
Fox's task force as it was conceived (and deliberately leaked to the CS government) included four warships with an aggregate of 39 heavy guns 3 ocean going steam tugs with there superstructures reinforced against small arms fire and armed with boat howitzers (these of course intended as assault craft to land troops) and a large troop transport steamship. The force included an aggregate of over 1200 soldiers and sailors with around half intended as landing troops. Really sounds like a peaceful mission of mercy don't it?
By later war standards the Fox expedition was a small assault force but it was plenty large enough to provoke a war in 1861 which of course was ole abe's very deliberate intention.
I didn't say what abe was supposed to do. I'm saying what he DID DO. I didn't make an attempt to here justify secession or anything else either but YOU are trying mighty hard to justify "honest" abe's deliberate and even self admitted provocation or war. I take Lincoln's words (in his letter to Fox) to mean exactly what they say. If you don't then obviously it is you that is putting the spin on it (You are saying his words mean something other than what they mean in plain English).
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
PS I assume by saying my "numbers are high" you mean the 750,000 dead. This is a much more probable estimate than the long and widely accepted number of 620,000 that you seem to think is accurate. See this:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
.
