jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) (05/16/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
I just read in a posting discusing the presidents
and rating them from 1 to 10.
Lincoln 10 this is the reply to that elevational number.
Lincoln is highly over rated, he only freed the slaves!!!!
Lincoln not only freed the slaves, but made the first steps
to create a country as we now know it. What was Lincoln saying in the
Gettysburg address...My definition is......................................
The nation was born in 1776. And we are fighting a civil war so painful
and distructive. But this war, and the deaths of our sons are not in vain.
That the war will bring a new and better country before our eyes.
where the rights of all are reconized, for our children and so on .....
Of course this is a very liberal translation of the address.
But thats about all it really said, anyway, I not posting this for that point.
Lincoln was fighting not only the south during the civil
war. He has a major part of the population of the north against many of his
ideas as well. What a terrible existance his last years must
have been. Stories of the pain he went through watching the dead and
wounded enter Washington are so touching in their fatherly fashion.
The nation as the war approached it's end came to love
Lincoln in a way that has never been repeated.
No president has ever aged as much in 4 years as Lincoln did.
He said himself " I am here to save the union, after that my workis done".
He fought against all to acheve(sp)his goal.
To that, every american can proudly say.
I say THANK YOU Mr. LINCOLN
Im glad Seward wasn't in that office !!!!!!!
Jack Stanley (201) 292 3199
If you are interested in some of this please E-MAIL
or call.tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/18/86)
>I just read in a posting discusing the presidents >and rating them from 1 to 10. > > Lincoln 10 > >Lincoln is highly over rated, he only freed the slaves!!!! OK, the Devil's advocate will now speak. I give Lincoln a -10 (thats NEGATIVE 10). Why? He was a naive idealist in the "tradition" of Wilson and Carter. These unrealistic idealists have done more harm than the most venal and corrupt politicians I can think of. What did Lincoln do? He started the USA down the road to centralized tyranny by destroying states rights. His politics resulted in millions of casualties and utter destruction of the South. So he freed the slaves. They would have been freed anyway after a short period of time. And we still don't have justice for blacks more than 100 years later. Just a more subtle form of exploitation. To hell with moralists who want to take power for themselves so they can impose their morality on the rest of us. Up with the dignity of the individual, down with the worship of the state.
d@alice.UucP (Daniel Rosenberg) (05/18/86)
You're kidding, right?
Lincoln may have said even bad things about black people,
but he wasn't exactly trying to destroy the rights of the
individual.
--
# Daniel Rosenberg (CE) @ AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
# disclaimer: These opinions are necessarily mine, not my employer's.
# UUCP: {ihnp4 || research || allegra}!alice!d AT&T: 201/582-9428 (work)citrin@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Wayne Citrin) (05/20/86)
In article <5483@alice.uUCp> d@alice.UUCP () writes: > >You're kidding, right? >Lincoln may have said even bad things about black people, >but he wasn't exactly trying to destroy the rights of the >individual. >-- Lincoln did take a number of actions which may be considered anti-civil rights, but these may be explained as extraordinary measures taken during wartime. Particularly, Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus and arrested the Maryland state legislature just before the legislature was about to debate a secession resolution. To do anything else would have been suicidal, as Maryland was likely to seceed and the capital would have been surrounded by enemy territory. This incident is (or has been until recently, I've heard about efforts to get it changed) commemorated in the Maryland state song, with references to the "Northern despot." Perhaps someone at Hopkins or UMD could supply the details. Anyway, any attacks on individual liberties by Lincoln were nothing compared with those of succeeding administrations during the Reconstruction period. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/22/86)
In article <13847@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: >To hell with moralists who want to take power >for themselves so they can impose their morality on the rest >of us. Up with the dignity of the individual, down with the >worship of the state. And what is the "dignity of the individual", and why is that so important? Do I see a creeping moral value here? I sure do. How dare you want goverment to impose your moral value of "individual dignity" on the rest of us? :-) Exiting sarcasm mode, it should be obvious from the above that whatever the form of goverment, it is the imposition of *some* set of moral code upon everyone. And, in any pluralistic society, there will be people who disagree with it, thus making the law an imposition on those people. You think that the principle of States' Rights was more important than a faster (you claim only marginally faster, which I know of no evidence for) freeing of the slaves. Talk about an imposition on the dignity of the individual for some abstract morality! That just about takes the big one. Ken Arnold
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Mr. Atoz) (05/22/86)
Of course, you neglected to mention Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, and jailing of journalists who wrote in opposition to his policies and actions. And we ran Tricky Dick out of office for just lying.. Lincoln was probably the best politician to ever take the office, however.
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (05/22/86)
citrin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) writes: >Lincoln did take a number of actions which may be considered anti-civil >rights, but these may be explained as extraordinary measures taken during >wartime. Particularly, Lincoln suspended the right of habeas >corpus and arrested the Maryland state legislature just before the >legislature was about to debate a secession resolution. To do anything >else would have been suicidal, as Maryland was likely to seceed and >the capital would have been surrounded by enemy territory. [...] Isn't it funny how many rights get taken away during "wartime", "emergencies", and the like (ofttimes never to be restored). It sounds like you are arguing that the State inherently finds the rights of its citizens to be a threat and a burden, that the State will suspend those rights to "protect" itself, any time its leaders see fit. Whatever happened to our constitution? Arresting them because they were "about to debate a secession resolution", indeed! I can see it now: "Well you see, your honour, he was going to be thinking about burglarizing my house, so I shot him." >Anyway, any attacks on individual liberties by Lincoln were nothing compared >with those of succeeding administrations during the Reconstruction period. This is a condemnation of the man, not a defense of him.