PDA

View Full Version : Abraham Lincoln . . . was he a fraudulent politician like most others?



LR46
03-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Or was he just playing politics? "Sometimes we have to put (or attempt) sweeping change, even in difference to our own true beliefs, for the good of masses."

Interesting article on one of our greatest leaders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization

b756561
03-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Or was he just playing politics? "Sometimes we have to put (or attempt) sweeping change, even in difference to our own true beliefs, for the good of masses."

Interesting article on one of our greatest leaders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization

The winners write the history books and the North won that war. Therefore the history books have put everything about the North in a favorable light and everything about the South in a negative tone. hey, they won the war, they get to tell the story the way they want too.

ktCarl
03-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Ask GoOwls. I believe he went to school with him. :D

DrEdward
03-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Lincoln certainly faced some overwhelming challenges, some of which he decidedly contributed to. In his own time, he was not that popular of a leader, winning the Presidential election of 1860 with but about 39% of the vote. With that sort of rating, he would have to be a politician.

The use of the adjective "fraudulent" with the noun "politician" is redundant.;)

ktCarl
03-06-2011, 05:40 PM
:confused:
Lincoln certainly faced some overwhelming challenges, some of which he decidedly contributed to. In his own time, he was not that popular of a leader, winning the Presidential election of 1860 with but about 39% of the vote. With that sort of rating, he would have to be a politician.

The use of the adjective "fraudulent" with the noun "politician" is redundant.;)


But he was Honest Abe. :confused:

LR46
03-06-2011, 05:42 PM
Lincoln certainly faced some overwhelming challenges, some of which he decidedly contributed to. In his own time, he was not that popular of a leader, winning the Presidential election of 1860 with but about 39% of the vote. With that sort of rating, he would have to be a politician.

The use of the adjective "fraudulent" with the noun "politician" is redundant.;)

BINGO!!! But I like to be redundant and repeat things too! :rofl: Couldn't agree more! :yes:

the_phoenix612
03-06-2011, 11:41 PM
Does this surprise anyone? Even the abolitionists were racist, it was part of the national fabric at the time. There's only so far beyond contemporary norms a progressive can go.

slcdragonfan
03-07-2011, 07:53 AM
Does this surprise anyone? Even the abolitionists were racist, it was part of the national fabric at the time. There's only so far beyond contemporary norms a progressive can go.

Agreed. Even Teddy Roosevelt had his moment of shame down in Brownsville. You are a product of your times....

BackNBlack87
03-07-2011, 10:08 AM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/abraham-lincoln-portrait-crazy-******/

the_phoenix612
03-07-2011, 10:21 AM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/abraham-lincoln-portrait-crazy-******/
Please do not challenge the language filter. Unless you do it in the Avatars thread.

BDB
03-07-2011, 11:11 AM
The winners write the history books and the North won that war. Therefore the history books have put everything about the North in a favorable light and everything about the South in a negative tone. hey, they won the war, they get to tell the story the way they want too.

yea it's kinda hard showing pro-slavery in a positive light, in todays world where everyone's equal.

b756561
03-07-2011, 01:24 PM
The winners write the history books and the North won that war. Therefore the history books have put everything about the North in a favorable light and everything about the South in a negative tone. hey, they won the war, they get to tell the story the way they want too.
yea it's kinda hard showing pro-slavery in a positive light, in todays world where everyone's equal.

Way to go. You pull one thing out as if it was the only thing that happened during this time period. I spoke in general, you are speaking in specifics. I nor no one I know will even attempt to justify slavery for we most likely all agree with you on that issue. You won't defend it and neither will we. The history books talk about great things that happened in the North in conjunction with the war. Tell me, did absolutely nothing good take place in the South during this same time period or are you so blinded by race that you are not willing to admit that there are good people and there are bad people in every group, in every society? Using a wide paint brush to portray everyone along the lines you have arbitarily placed on them is very disingenuous. Go back and reread your history books. Do a little research. Check out the Constitutional Amendment that was almost added in 1860. It will be a little hard to find as things like that tends to get buried since it doesn't make the North look too good. After looking at which states approved this proposed amendment, then get back to me about things being shown in a positive or negative light.

LR46
03-07-2011, 01:32 PM
Way to go. You pull one thing out as if it was the only thing that happened during this time period. I spoke in general, you are speaking in specifics. I nor no one I know will even attempt to justify slavery for we most likely all agree with you on that issue. You won't defend it and neither will we. The history books talk about great things that happened in the North in conjunction with the war. Tell me, did absolutely nothing good take place in the South during this same time period or are you so blinded by race that you are not willing to admit that there are good people and there are bad people in every group, in every society? Using a wide paint brush to portray everyone along the lines you have arbitarily placed on them is very disingenuous. Go back and reread your history books. Do a little research. Check out the Constitutional Amendment that was almost added in 1860. It will be a little hard to find as things like that tends to get buried since it doesn't make the North look too good. After looking at which states approved this proposed amendment, then get back to me about things being shown in a positive or negative light. That's bdbdbdbdbdbd's golden shower (errrrr I mean rule). :rofl:

DragonFan0316
03-07-2011, 01:39 PM
Lincoln seemed to a bold leader. He broke with his power granted the executive branch as did many wartime presidents. As far as slavery goes, he saw it as a political hot button. He would have preferred it was someone elses problem. Faced with it though he appeared to make the right decisions. Just my opinion.

BDB
03-07-2011, 03:19 PM
Way to go. You pull one thing out as if it was the only thing that happened during this time period. I spoke in general, you are speaking in specifics. I nor no one I know will even attempt to justify slavery for we most likely all agree with you on that issue. You won't defend it and neither will we. The history books talk about great things that happened in the North in conjunction with the war. Tell me, did absolutely nothing good take place in the South during this same time period or are you so blinded by race that you are not willing to admit that there are good people and there are bad people in every group, in every society? Using a wide paint brush to portray everyone along the lines you have arbitarily placed on them is very disingenuous. Go back and reread your history books. Do a little research. Check out the Constitutional Amendment that was almost added in 1860. It will be a little hard to find as things like that tends to get buried since it doesn't make the North look too good. After looking at which states approved this proposed amendment, then get back to me about things being shown in a positive or negative light.


mmmmm nope. that was THE reason for the war.... states rights to decide on holding slaves. it's in the first paragraph of south carolina's succession....

also, i stopped reading after that first line.... cuz the rest, i'm assuming, is wrong since it prolly builds off your initial point.

b756561
03-07-2011, 03:39 PM
mmmmm nope. that was THE reason for the war.... states rights to decide on holding slaves. it's in the first paragraph of south carolina's succession....Didn't say nor imply it wasn't, but you didn't answer MY question. You slid right around it as if you didn't want to go there. Again, "The history books talk about great things that happened in the North in conjunction with the war. Tell me, did absolutely nothing good take place in the South during this same time period?"

also, i stopped reading after that first line.... cuz the rest, i'm assuming, There you go assuming. You know assumptions and opinions are like rear-ends, everyone has one and once again, yours stinks. :p is wrong since it prolly builds off your initial point.

:p

DrEdward
03-07-2011, 06:09 PM
mmmmm nope. that was THE reason for the war.... states rights to decide on holding slaves. it's in the first paragraph of south carolina's succession....

also, i stopped reading after that first line.... cuz the rest, i'm assuming, is wrong since it prolly builds off your initial point.

Despite what South Carolinians may think, not the entire South exactly agreed with them. Before Lincoln was even inaugurated president, seven states had already seceded from the Union - South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. That is, the deep South where the slavery issue was indeed of paramount consideration, at least among the political class in those states; probably more so with the traditional southeastern states than with Texas, but clearly an issue here as well. For the remaining slaveholding states of the upper South, slavery was not near the issue that it was for those who had already met in Montgomery to form the CSA. While it would be crazy to assume that slaveholding was not an issue in these border states, the institution did not play near the role it did in the economies of the deep South. The issue of state vs federal power, even outside of slavery, was a major deal among all the Southern states and, in fact, some of the more zealous governors in those states insistence on such very much restricted the subsequent prosecution of the war by the Confederacy, Georgia and North Carolina leaders come to mind right away.