Why Do Liberals Love Lincoln?

[beretta391]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

[rckirby]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

Lincoln, unfortunately, is way over rated. People connect him with freedom of slaves.

People need to educate themselves.

He wasn't so against 'slavery' as he was against state's rights.

Seems there are some of us still fighting that same battle today.

[electricianron66]

They love Lincoln because he was a Republican.

[hben]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

I would like to know if we can go back and change all the history books to show that Lincoln was a Democrat rather than a Republican? Oh, the Democrats, Communists and Marxists are the only ones allowed to do that sort of thing? Ok then, nevermind. :shifty:

[tislaw]

OMG, mine eyes deceiveth me........:eek:

Could it really be? Hmmmm?

[margaretms]

You expect logic from a liberal. Sorry, only emoting.

Your namesake had a sharp take on Lincoln and "emotional utterance":


His talent for emotional utterance was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fire-works—the hollow rodomontades of the era. But in the middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost badly simple—and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered today. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

I love Mencken's use of the totally characteristic, totally glittering word "rotomontade" in a sentence right before he refers to the way Lincoln "purged his style of ornament." Like Samuel Johnson, Henry is always interesting and fun to read, even when he's wrong.

[Safiel]

Why do Liberals love Lincoln???

Why do many prominent Conservatives sing the praises of FDR???

Both interesting questions.

Indications of defective thinking on the part of both movements.

[margaretms]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

BTW: there's a fine tradition on the left of people who aren't so enamored of Lincoln. Edmund Wilson and Gore Vidal come to mind.

[clearcarbon]

Why Do Liberals Love Lincoln?

"It's a puzzlement!"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/clearcarbon/kery/Obma/bama_Linc300.jpg

[thomasereese]

I don't know why Liberals love Lincoln. After all, Lincoln took away choice (choice to own slaves or not) and liberals love choice, especially when you are playing with other people's lives.

Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent was the grandfather of the pro-choice movement. Liberals should make him their spokesperson. Douglas was all about choice, just read his speeches.

If the both of them were alive today, Lincoln would be pro-life and Douglas would be pro-choice.

[Death Star]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

Kickass! How you doing?

[PheonixOps]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

I don't "love" Lincoln.............................

What states in the North still had slaves after the Civil War???

[hailreagan]

Lincoln read his Bible every night ...........liberals should hate that.

[PheonixOps]

Why do Liberals love Lincoln???

Why do many prominent Conservatives sing the praises of FDR???

Both interesting questions.

Indications of defective thinking on the part of both movements.

It's funny because I hear some prominent conservative/republican talk show hosts, refer to the Republican party as........drum roll please.........
The Party of Lincoln...............

[JQR]

Lincoln, unfortunately, is way over rated. People connect him with freedom of slaves.

People need to educate themselves.

He wasn't so against 'slavery' as he was against state's rights.

Seems there are some of us still fighting that same battle today.

HAHAHAHHA
You are the one who needs educated.
Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories, understand the territories not states.
Jefferson himself proposed a similar bill that lost by a single vote.
It had nothing to do with states rights, unless you believe secession is a state right, which it isn't.
Show me one of the founding fathers who were at the constitutional convention that stated or wrote that the constitution allowed a state to leave the union independently.

Madison didn't, neither did Washington, Franklin, Hamilton or Wilson. I have offered this challenge many times on this board but none has ever taken me up on it.

Even the anti-federalists didn't, they knew there was no going back once the constitution was approved, and it was one of the reasons they vehemently opposed ratification.
But perhaps with your extensive "education" you can prove otherwise.

[ChaosControl]

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

We have a winner!
He grew the federal government to unheard of levels.

[JQR]

I don't "love" Lincoln.............................

What states in the North still had slaves after the Civil War???

None of them did.
The post was incorrect, some of the southern states that didn't leave the union like Maryland had slaves until the constitution was amended but no states north of the Mason Dixon line had slaves before or after the war.

[JQR]

We have a winner!
He grew the federal government to unheard of levels.

Yes, he grew the government so much that he no longer allowed southern states to allow slavery. How terrible!

[margaretms]

I don't know why Liberals love Lincoln. After all, Lincoln took away choice (choice to own slaves or not) and liberals love choice, especially when you are playing with other people's lives.

Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent was the grandfather of the pro-choice movement. Liberals should make him their spokesperson. Douglas was all about choice, just read his speeches.

If the both of them were alive today, Lincoln would be pro-life and Douglas would be pro-choice.

Did Lincoln ever speak or write about abortion during his lifetime? It was already becoming an issue in the U.S. But it occurs to me that in considering the question of abortion in the 19th century and earlier, we might have to apply different moral standards.

[margaretms]

It's funny because I hear some prominent conservative/republican talk show hosts, refer to the Republican party as........drum roll please.........
The Party of Lincoln...............

I see this too, although not as often as I used to when I first came to these forums. Republican or not (and the GOP was certainly the "Party of Lincoln" for a long time), it seems that people on the American right would be more coherent if they picked a progenitor like the fiery John C. Calhoun, whose selected writings have been published by the Regnery Press as part of its "Conservative Leadership Series."

[JQR]

I see this too, although not as often as I used to when I first came to these forums. Republican or not (and the GOP was certainly the "Party of Lincoln" for a long time), it seems that people on the American right would be more coherent if they picked a progenitor like the fiery John C. Calhoun, whose selected writings have been published by the Regnery Press as part of its "Conservative Leadership Series."

????
Calhoun was a racist slave-owning democrat, he is the last person Republicans should emulate.

[margaretms]

????
Calhoun was a racist slave-owning democrat, he is the last person Republicans should emulate.

Take up the issue with people like Russell Kirk, who devotes much of a chapter in his foundational book (cited around here) The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot to Calhoun's place in the conservative tradition, as well as the conservative Regenry press (publisher of writers like Anne Coulter and Newt Gingrich), which includes Calhoun's speeches and writings in its "Conservative Leadership Series." I didn't invent the tradition; I just cite it. Calhoun is a go-to guy for states' rights and other arguments, for example. In any case, the party label is irrelevant.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Lincoln, unfortunately, is way over rated. People connect him with freedom of slaves.

People need to educate themselves.

He wasn't so against 'slavery' as he was against state's rights.

Seems there are some of us still fighting that same battle today.

Is Lincoln a Democratic or Republican here today? I can never keep up.

[PaleoPaul]

Because he's the only Republican they can actually like...

[PaleoPaul]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?
Interesting tidbit: Not even all the slaves in the South were free...pretty smart man that tyrant was, getting to be championed as a "freer" whle not doing a whole lot of "Freeing."

[thomasereese]

Did Lincoln ever speak or write about abortion during his lifetime? It was already becoming an issue in the U.S. But it occurs to me that in considering the question of abortion in the 19th century and earlier, we might have to apply different moral standards.

What I mean is that Lincoln helped the slaves have a chance at a life. Even though many considered slaves as property and not human beings. During those times, the slave owners told people to mind their own business (like pro-choice people do). Slave owners wanted to avoid doing "labor" too.

Stephen Douglas was all about letting each state have their choice of whether to have slavery or not.

It is the same argument then and now.

[JQR]

Interesting tidbit: Not even all the slaves in the South were free...pretty smart man that tyrant was, getting to be championed as a "freer" whle not doing a whole lot of "Freeing."

First off your statement makes no sense. "Not all the slaves in the south were free." Of course they weren't, how could they be if they were slaves?

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln declared all slaves in the rebellious territories as being free. Those states being in a state of rebellion, he was legally allowed to under constitutional war powers granted to him.
However, the southern states that did not leave the union, as president he could not free them without a constitutional amendment.

[JQR]

Take up the issue with people like Russell Kirk, who devotes much of a chapter in his foundational book (cited around here) The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot to Calhoun's place in the conservative tradition, as well as the conservative Regenry press (publisher of writers like Anne Coulter and Newt Gingrich), which includes Calhoun's speeches and writings in its "Conservative Leadership Series." I didn't invent the tradition; I just cite it. Calhoun is a go-to guy for states' rights and other arguments, for example. In any case, the party label is irrelevant.

I don't doubt you, however, Calhoun is not a good person to follow. I am a Republican and from that period I prefer Henry Clay or even Webster over Calhoun.
Calhoun was a fool and his beliefs should be relegated to the trash heap of history.
As for Coulter and Gingrich, all I can say they are not the intellectual stalwarts they believe they are.

[margaretms]

I don't doubt you, however, Calhoun is not a good person to follow. I am a Republican and from that period I prefer Henry Clay or even Webster over Calhoun.
Calhoun was a fool and his beliefs should be relegated to the trash heap of history.
As for Coulter and Gingrich, all I can say they are not the intellectual stalwarts they believe they are.

No problem--believe it or not (this is hannity.com, after all), my aim wasn't a cheap insult to conservatives or Republicans or Calhoun. It just seems to make more sense to me (intellectually, if not politically) for people on the right to claim Calhoun rather than claim Lincoln.

[ddye]

Lincoln read his Bible every night ...........liberals should hate that.
The Cliche Police are here and they'd like a word with you.

Doug

[PaleoPaul]

First off your statement makes no sense. "Not all the slaves in the south were free." Of course they weren't, how could they be if they were slaves?

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln declared all slaves in the rebellious territories as being free. Those states being in a state of rebellion, he was legally allowed to under constitutional war powers granted to him.
However, the southern states that did not leave the union, as president he could not free them without a constitutional amendment.
"Freed" but of course you knew that.

[JQR]

No problem--believe it or not (this is hannity.com, after all), my aim wasn't a cheap insult to conservatives or Republicans or Calhoun. It just seems to make more sense to me (intellectually, if not politically) for people on the right to claim Calhoun rather than claim Lincoln.

I disagree, both intellectually and politically Calhoun is not one we should be looking to.
I am of the belief that people like Calhoun liked having slaves and slavery and used the states rights argument as an excuse to preserve their favored institution.
I think for the right wing, Jackson would be better than Calhoun.
Jackson certainly was not a "big government" guy, favored a strong executive branch, destroyed the Bank of the U.S. and was a war hero.

[Mike88]

Is it because he supposedly freed the Slaves?

The North still had Slaves after the war.

Or is it because he trashed the Constitution like Obama is trying too?

You and I both know the answer to this. Lincoln took power away from the states and centralized total power in teh federal government. This opened the door for the travesties of the 20th century such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.

[JQR]

You and I both know the answer to this. Lincoln took power away from the states and centralized total power in teh federal government. This opened the door for the travesties of the 20th century such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.

What power did he take away from states other than the right to allow its residents to own slaves?

[BigGuy]

Maybe because he laid the foundation for the road towards white guilt which, lets face it, is why the Obamessiah was elected in the first place.

[diamond dave]

None of them did.
The post was incorrect, some of the southern states that didn't leave the union like Maryland had slaves until the constitution was amended but no states north of the Mason Dixon line had slaves before or after the war.

There were slaves in the north before the war...you were not serious were you?

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery.

http://www.slavenorth.com/

[who]

There were slaves in the north before the war...you were not serious were you?



http://www.slavenorth.com/
The North had by and large abolished it decades before the start of the war.

There was no institutionalized slavery.

I'm thinking the poster was referring to just before the war. (But I could be wrong, can't speak for him)

(And there were a few in NJ, - I think it was like 18 or 19) not listed as actual slaves, but a form of grandfathered servants - all over the age of 60, mostly women, as I recall.

[hatman]

I never thought I'd see the day when people start trashing President Abraham Lincoln.

Welcome to the forum.

[beretta391]

Why do Liberals love Lincoln???

Why do many prominent Conservatives sing the praises of FDR???

Both interesting questions.

Indications of defective thinking on the part of both movements.

I do not love FDR. He gave us the "Raw Deal" instead of the "New Deal".

[beretta391]

None of them did.
The post was incorrect, some of the southern states that didn't leave the union like Maryland had slaves until the constitution was amended but no states north of the Mason Dixon line had slaves before or after the war.

New York and Mass both did. Reading is fun.

[beretta391]

What power did he take away from states other than the right to allow its residents to own slaves?



To succeed.