The Messianic Qualities of Abe Lincoln

Just an observation: How come when a southerner wants be critical the early presidents, it's acceptible, but when a person from California wants to do the same, the repercussions are being referred to as "tainging the good name of the founding fathers/great leaders", etc. Kinda hypocritical. Not at all directed at you, Dr Bob, just venting.

 

I used to think as others that Abraham Lincoln was a great president. But now I know that he was not. And it is clear from what Mr. Lincoln said that he was not anti-slavery. He invaded the CSA only because he did not want to lose those States from the Union.

 

I too was raised to believe that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents that our country had ever had. I believed this up until I got into high school and started do research for myself. I recently read Thomas J. DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, this book is a great eye opener to the "myths" that I was taught and the facts that were conveniently skipped over during the very short time they spent teaching us about Lincoln and his launching the decline of our Constitutional Republic and the War for Southern Independence.

 

I would agree, and would add Bush to the list, as he will go down in the history books as bringing about the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR.

 

I will follow this with avid interest, regrettably I will not be putting in tuppence worth as what I know about these guys you could put on the head of a small pin.

 

There seem to be only 3 types of US presidents.

-the boring (?) passive type (Ford, Eisenhower, Coolidge)
-the misguided (?) activist (Wilson, Lincoln, FDR)
-the embarrasing anekdote magnet (Harding, Clinton, Carter, Bush junior, Reagan, JFK)

 

rsr
"you could cram everybody in the world into those three categories,"
''
Maybe not everybody, but certainly all leaders of government, what makes the observation interesting is the balance between the 3 types in different countries.
Despite my country's reputation for Socialism, most of it's PM's in the last century have been passive types. There have been 2 activists and maybe 3 anekdote magnets.
The Dutch like their PM's boring, the Americans prefer the flamboyant types.

Lincoln is a great president because he succeeded in changing the US greatly. That doesn't make him a saint though. On the other hand pusheing the country in a direction certain boardmembers don't like, doesn't make him a monster either.

 

Lincoln "succeeded in changing the US greatly", but he changed it in a direction that the Founders never intended. Lincoln was a racist and used slavery and The Emancipation Proclamation as a political gimmick to get support and to demonize the South. Lincoln will forever be remembered as the Great Emancipator. But he was also the Great Centralizer, whose policies did much to undermine the decentralized, federal system established by the Founders.

 

"But he was also the Great Centralizer,"
''
Putting the USA on the road to worldpowerdom.
Without Lincoln the US would now be closer to the EU than to the modern US.

 

Lincoln was the first president to enact law in America at the end of a Bayonet.

Thanks ------Bart

 

I don't know about that, Mormons and Indians got the law enacted upon them by bayonet prior to lincoln's election.

 

I don't look to Lincoln as some great hero like many people do. I do have tremendous respect for him in not allowing the terrorists to control the South.

 

Definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Does the Scripture command us to take up arms to provoke a fight, or does it allow us to defend ourselves?

The south wasn't defending themselves, as they were but a part of a greater whole. There were NOT sovereign states joined in a NAFTA-like agreement. They were ONE nation with many parts.

The USA was like the nation of Israel. It was One nation with twelve tribes.

Had the south won, anarchy would still be the rule.

No Bob, it isn't a matter of growing up. The south fits the dictionary definition of terrorists.

 

The Southern states wanted to peacefully secede from the Union, but Lincoln used his military to use force or violence with the intention of intimidating or coercing the Southern states to stay in the union.

Why was it ok for the original thirteen colonies to forcefully secede from England, even though this was in clear violation of British law, but not ok for the Southern states to peacefully secede from the Union, even though the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, even though three of the original thirteen states specified in their ratification ordinances that the people of those states reserved the right to resume the powers of government, and even though Thomas Jefferson said he would allow a state that wanted to separate to do so?

Wasn't Lincoln's own Secretary of State, William Seward, correct when he said, a few months before the North invaded the South, "It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use forcesubjugate the South"?

[ May 30, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: NetPublicist ]

 

The south wasn't another government people! It was a part of the whole and wanted to splinter the USA through terrorism-minded leaders. The USA was successful in removing those who wish to lead the south into anarchy.