Nothing about the event in today's PI, though they did run this story two days ago. The Seattle Times, breaking from previous practice, does have this mildly interesting article on a Lincoln exhibit at the Museum of History and Industry. But you can learn more about Lincoln by reading some of his speeches. I'd suggest starting with his Second Inaugural, which ends with this marvelous paragraph.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
Good advice then, good advice now.
(For a brief discussion of some of his other famous speeches, see this 2007 post.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 12, 2008 04:32 PM | Email ThisOn the plus side: Lead the nation through the Civil War, preserved the union, abolished slavery.
But: White male, republican, suspended habeas corpus, hired alcoholic general, had members of legislative branch arrested in Capitol building.
The verdict: Clearly a 19th century Bushie. Let's get his face off the penny and five-dollar bill and replace it with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton.
Posted by: Steve on February 12, 2008 06:39 PMOne doesn't need to have been our past president or even an elected public servant to have our country honor him with a specific national holiday and a week of media tribute.
And I'm NOT referring to the guy from Nazareth.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 12, 2008 08:11 PMThe Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas Dilorenzo, 2002.
Lincoln kept the union together, but at the cost of 600,000 lives, and the very principles of the American Revolution of 1776. Every other nation on earth eliminated slavery without civil war, and slavery was on the way out anyway.
Lincoln cared more about his legacy than about the Constitution, and his actions were the first step in destroying the conservative doctrine of states' rights, eroding the protections of the Constitution, and leading to a dangerous concentration of power in Washington, DC.
Personally, he cared little about freeing the slaves. The Civil War was all about expanding the power of the fedaral government.
Sounds like a liberal to me.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2008 09:11 PMOn Topic- Lincoln was the greatest president that ever drew breath in this country and his memory is a national treasure (unlike the myths of Kennedy's camelot some hippie teacher taught you to believe in Grade/middle/High school). In life, Lincoln was the original Uniter.In death, he was the catalyst to mend the country after a bitter Civil War.
While Lincoln suspended habeus corpus amid internal national strife in 1861, he can't be blamed for the unlawful internment of 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans (62% of whom were U.S. Citizens) some 80 years later.......that was done by a Democrat....and let's not bring up the 220,000 Japanese civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki...again, a Democrat.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2008 09:22 PMhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese169.html
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2008 09:22 PMHe's been whitewashed through the years, to the point that few know the other side of the story.
History is written by the winners of wars, but the truth is usually more complex.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2008 09:26 PMhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27225
Do you know that Lincoln gave us the income tax? Thanks, Abe!
Here is an excerpt from the above interview with the author of "The Real Lincoln:"
Q: Racial equality. What is the deal with Lincoln on racial equality, or did he really care?
A: The story of Lincoln and racial equality is there for anyone who wants to read it. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, he said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He went on in the same speech in Ottawa, Ill., in 1858 to say that he was not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office and not to intermarry with white people. Also, he supported the Illinois constitutional change in the 1840s that prohibited the immigration of black people into the state of Illinois. And his career-long position on the race issue was colonization. He advocated sending every last black person in America back to Haiti, Central America, Africa ? anywhere but here. In his eulogy of Henry Clay in 1852, he said, "There is a moral fitness to the idea of returning to Africa her children ?" He repeated that in a message to Congress in 1862: "I cannot make it any better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Like you said, that's not what we learned in the history books in school.
Q: Didn't he once say in reference to the Negro that he didn't care? That his primary focus was to preserve the Union?
A: Right. There was a famous letter that he wrote to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. On Aug. 22, 1862, he wrote, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." That was his position. He did not launch a war because of slavery; he launched a war to destroy the secession movement.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2008 09:45 PMhttp://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=207&sortorder=issue
This one comes from that bastion of free market thought, the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2008 10:12 PMMay I remind everyone that Stefan has provided a public blog, where you can raise almost any topic that you like?
And I do hope Bruce Guthrie will take my advice and read some of those Lincoln speeches. (I may say more later after breakfast, but right now I feel too snarky.)
So now he needs to attack someone else.
Gezzzzz.
Hey anyone seen Duffie. I bet he's just crying in his beer right now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 13, 2008 06:20 AMFolks (who see this before it's blown away): when you talk about yourselves, only among yourselves, you can rest assured history repeats itself -- if you don't understand the refernce, you need to read more history.
Stefan...adios....those who don't want discussion deserve none. This is my last post ever on SP (pudge and Army will be glad)...but I only value discussion where discussion is valued. Not here, not with Stefan.
Bye.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 13, 2008 06:40 AMNot to mention that Bruce advocated the cold-blooded murder of President Lincoln in an SP posting several months ago, a position that should thoroughly discredit his objectivity and ability/willingness to reason, in a peaceful manner, with civilized people.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 13, 2008 06:57 AMGezzz kids!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 13, 2008 07:48 AMBefore you make a comment, or another comment, on this post, read the Second Inaugural. (Or another of Lincoln's speeches.) Then say something about Lincoln. Let me repeat, about Lincoln, not about the generous proprietor of this site, or about another commenter.
If you are not awed by the Second Inaugural, I will be surprised.
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 13, 2008 08:14 AMBut demagogues and dictators are famous for manipulating people via beautiful speeches.
It was George Washington who pointed out that government is not beautiful speeches, it is force. There is very little that is beautiful about it. And when it gets out of control, as it did when Lincoln ran the show, the government is a fearsome master. Washington was warning us about people like Lincoln.
Saltherring @15, what civility should be reserved for someone who causes the unecessary deaths of over 600,000 people, violates his oath of office by eroding the Constitution, and violating the principles of the American Revolution?
Most conservatives look to Wilson and FDR as the beginning of the end of the Republic. But I suggest that the first, real break with the principles of the American Revolution was with Lincoln's dictatorship.
I will not revere him. He was the beginning of the end.
His words may have been sweet, but his actions were toxic to the cause of liberty.
I don't care if you attack me, but the force of your argument will be stronger if you direct them to the facts I propose above about what Lincoln did. Has anything I have accused Lincoln of doing been wrong? I'd love to know.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 13, 2008 10:18 AMDo you think the guy who said this:
"This war is a nondescript.... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power... with seizing a country... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans.... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew."
...about the extremely popular Mexican-American war would support the Iraq war?
Posted by: Noble on February 13, 2008 11:38 AMIs this line in reference to Abraham Lincoln of the 1860's? or a prophetic vision of future historians assessing the presidency of a Barack Obama? I would submit the latter.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2008 12:22 PM