Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Party of Lincoln and Reagan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 12:42 PM
Original message
The Party of Lincoln and Reagan
It seems that many people including Democrats are beginning to say that the Republican Party of today is not the party of Lincoln and Reagan . I disagree. The current Republican is just like Lincoln and Reagan. Lincoln was a white supremacist segregationist. In a debate against Stephen Douglas he agreed with Douglas that black were inferior to whites and that blacks and whites should be segregated. Lincoln said the following:

"I have not purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which in my judgement will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality... I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position... I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments... that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, or intermarry with white people, nor of qualifying them to hold office."

Also, Lincoln had to be ordered/forced by the Supreme Court to reinstate Habeas Corpus. I contend that Reagan was probably a white supremacist and segregationist in that he was a Goldwater Republican and Goldwater was a segregationist. In addition, Reagan blow up the government as fast as he could and spent money like he was crazy. No pun intended. I do not have any quotes for Reagan that show his support for segregation or white supremacy except for his "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" comment. Therefore, there is no difference between the Republican Party of today and the Republican Party of Lincoln and Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good post.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 12:47 PM by Goldmund
It deserves a long conversation, and I'm kinda sick today and don't really have the stomach for it, but in general I think you are right. They only got better at it, more organized and more effective. I don't think they're genuine racists simply because I don't think that anything comes before money in their eyes, but they do pander to racist rednecks who are their base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree. Some folks seem to pine for the good ol' days when
republicans were republicans and conservatives were conservatives.

The fact is, the republican party has always been a huge, corrupt piece of shit dedicated to scamming regular Americans into giving up their freedom and equality.

The earliest US "ancestor" of the republican party was the Federalist Party, which was basically started by a bunch of corrupt rich folks, some of whom were monarchists, and who were dedicated to squashing the common man by rule of the economically elite.

The basic philosophy of the republican party has not changed since that time.

Never, ever trust a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Wrong on the Federalists as well
The Federalists certainly believed in the "rule of the aristocracy", but this was also a prime feature of the Enlightenment thought of this time, especially WRT the roots of many of our founders in the Freemasonry movement. It was believed that "men of virtue" would rise up naturally in society, and that these people were those best suited to rule. Actually, such a line of thought is not that much different from the Jeffersonian anti-federalists (later the Democratic-Republicans, which then split into the Democrats and the Whigs, and the Whigs evolved into the Republicans). The prime difference between the two schools of thought in this time was that the Federalists believed in a strong federal government and centralized economic control, whereas the Anti-federalists believed in diffusing power to the states and pure, unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. By "ancestor" of the republican party, I am referring to an ideological
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 02:15 PM by Zorra
and practical similarity, not a specific descendance from a political party. Certainly their were some differences on the surface, and the "ideologies" relative to the "practices" of the political "parties" at that time are somewhat open to interpretation.

IMO, Federalist "conservatives" were somewhat similar to modern republican "conservatives", and if you disagree, that's fine, and I could not tell you that you would be "wrong"; I am certainly not the absolute authority on this subject, although I do have a little bit of background with my BA in American History.

This encyclopedia article may be oversimplified and completely "wrong", but it does seem to support my view that the Federalist Party is in large part the "spiritual ancestor" of the republican party:

The second type of Federalist was essentially a conservative in the traditional sense, i.e., a supporter of the party of government (the Federalists originally controlled all three branches). More specifically, the term came to be associated with the policies of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury; these policies included the funding of the national debt, the assumption of State debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, the use of a light tariff and domestic incentives to encourage economic growth, strict neutrality in the French Revolutionary Wars, and the creation of a strong army and navy. Generally speaking, Hamiltonian policies were pursued in the Washington Administrations, and to a lesser extent, the Adams Administration

These Federalists were not a political party as that term is understood today; the Founding Fathers detested political parties as divisive "factions", and it is more appropriate to think of Federalists as holders of a political philosophy (cf. conservative, liberal) rather than an ideology. Federalist members of the US Congress voted according to their principles and conscience rather than along party lines or according to party dictates. Hamilton himself ghost wrote Washington's Farewell Address in 1797, wherein Washington famously warned against political parties.
snip---
The Federalists continued to be a major political party (again, not in the modern sense) in New England and the Northeast, but never regained control of the Presidency or the Congress (Adams had successfully packed the U.S. Supreme Court with Federalist appointees before leaving office). With the death of Hamilton in a famous duel with Aaron Burr and the retirement of Adams, the Federalists were left without a strong leader, and grew steadily weaker, despite such leaders as Timothy Pickering and Daniel Webster. Federalist policies favoured commerce and trade over agriculture, and thus became unpopular in the growing Midwest. They were increasingly seen as aristocratic and unsympathetic to democracy, and Federalists fiercely opposed the Louisiana Purchase on Constitutional principle.

Many Federalists (including Daniel Webster) later joined former Democratic-Republicans like Henry Clay to become first National Republicans and then Whigs (the precursors to the modern Republican Party). The name "Federalist" came increasingly to be used in political rhetoric as a term of abuse; one popular attack on Whigs was that they were really "Wigs", being nothing but aristocratic Federalists and Tories with powdered wigs and knee-breeches (cf. the Whigs' popular reference to Andrew Jackson as "King Andrew I"). Ironically, Jefferson's and Madison's Democratic-Republicans famously complained of having "out-Federalisted the Federalists" by purchasing the Louisiana Territory, chartering a larger national bank, and imposing much stiffer tariffs. On the other hand, some notable members of Jackson's own party, including future president James Buchanan, began their career as Federalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federalist_P...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. This post is pure rubbish, and DU at its most reactionary and partisan.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 01:15 PM by IrateCitizen
Lincoln was most certainly a virulent racist by today's standards, that much cannot be denied. However, by the standards of HIS day (the standards by which he should be judged), he offered far more in the way of progress on racial issues than any other major politician.

Did you note also that Lincoln was the first President to de-segregate the federal government? Did you also note that this policy remained in effect until DEMOCRAT Woodrow Wilson reversed it upon being inaugurated in 1913?

As an aspiring historian, it pisses me off to high heaven to see people making pronouncements such as this without any regard to the cultural context of the time in which these events happen. Furthermore, do we really want to place the record of the Democrats on race relations prior to the post-war period up as some kind of standard and pretend that the Republicans were in some way worse?

WRT Reagan, I'll give you that. But Lincoln would be cast out of the Republican Party if he were alive today. In fact, many of his views (especially regarding regulation of corporations and the position of labor in the nation) would even be cast out of the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Insightful post
"To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man's character
one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours."
- Mark Twain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks. It's a shame that politics is simply a "team sport" to some...
and that poor perspective often results in them making wild pronouncements that only serve in showing them as complete asses in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. What Wild Pronouncements
No it is not a team sport for me. I am upset that so many people are acting like Lincoln and Reagan were so different than the Republicans. What wild pronouncement did I make? You can go to your local library and get the book that has Lincoln in his own words. The things I printed were from Lincoln's own mouth. I did not make a complete ass of myself in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. This post simply proves your ignorance on this.
You can go to your local library and get the book that has Lincoln in his own words.

Once again, absolutely NO context as to the times in which Lincoln lived. Simply read his quotes, from the perspective of 2005, and that's all there is to it.

You many have not made an ass out of yourself, but you did come off as stunningly ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. That is Stupid
No I am not ignorant! You are the ignorant one. Has the defination of white supremacist and segregationist changed since then? What was the definiations different back then? There is no need for context. What the heck does 2005 perspective have to do with anything? A white supremacist is a white supremacist and a segregationist is a segregationist. So are we supposed to say that Lincoln was okay because most of the people of that time were white supremacists and segregationists? There is no need to look at his quotes through 1860 lens. That is a bunch of BS. He was a white supremacist and a segregationist. People try to make out that this guy was so great and was such a radical. The quotes from the original post prove that he was not. There is no need for context, he said those things and that is all that is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Then by your definition every president we have ever had prior to
1970 or so was a white supremacist. Your posts stink of ignorance. Do you think Hammurrabi's Code was barbaric because it advocated "eye for an eye"? It is by today's standards but back then it was a code that called for leniency. It meant that you couldn't go and kill someone because they stole from you. Context is EVERYTHING.

Also, post the name of the book you read. I suspect I already know who the author is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Context Nothing
If they said that blacks were inferior to whites then they were white supremacists. The definition of white supremacists has not changed. The book did not have an author it just listed the speeches and writings of Lincoln. The book was "Lincoln: The Complete speeches and writing of Lincoln"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. DId you only read half the book?
Or did you just not read the parts that didn't fit your agenda?

Context is EVERYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
55. Well? Every president WAS a white supremacist...
As was the whole country, and the legacy lives on today. (Still no 40 acres and a mule to make up for it.)

Is this shocking or something?

However, you guys are both right. You're talking past each other. Lincoln was a white supremacist. And very progressive for his time. Where's the contradiction? The Civil War was justly fought by the Union. Or it was the wrong way of solving a problem that would have solved itself years later when the Confederacy would have been forced to free them for economic reasons, perhaps with a better situation for the freed slaves by 1895. We should be able to consider all sides of such arguments with no need to lionize or condemn the long dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. I'm sure the slaves would have liked the "hey, slavery will end eventually
line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. That's not really the point.
Edited on Sat Apr-09-05 12:35 PM by JackRiddler
I could respond, "tell that to the casualties on all sides in the Civil War." You're blocking your thinking with simplistic comebacks.

Given how I place on the current political spectrum (and how I act) I have no doubt, had I been born in New York City 120 or 130 years earlier than I actually was, that I would have been among the active Northern abolitionists, against the Mexican War, appalled at Lincoln's equivocations on slavery, a probable supporter (or combatant) in the War itself, a supporter of Reconstruction in the South and the labor movement in the North, and an anti-imperialist after that.

So what? This doesn't prevent me or you from playing what-ifs today and attempting to imagine the long-dead from their own varying perspectives, as well as view them from our own later perch.

The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, but to get the southern states back in the fold after they reacted to the overall realization their system would ultimately lose by seceding. Slavery only became the issue towards the end of the war. Was the Civil War worth the price? What would the South look like today if the Confederacy had survived? Are you certain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. The Civil War was all about slavery. There would be no war
Edited on Sun Apr-10-05 02:55 PM by SemiCharmedQuark
if there were no slaves. Look at each states declaration of secession. Every one of them states slavery as the cause. States rights? Yes, states rights to own slaves. The southerners knew that as more states were created as free states, it was only a matter of time before they lost their foothold in congress and that slavery was a thing of the past.

And you can't say "I would be this way" because you would have grown up in a completely different environment. Lincoln was one of the only senators that fought the spot resolution of the Mexican War. And he was against slavery.

I hate this reconstructionist BULLSHIT. "The southerners were the victims" "The Northerners were the agressors" "Lincolkn was a tyrant"

Facts: The Civil War, by admission of BOTH sides, was about slavery. Period. The South left BECAUSE of the slavery issue. The North fought to get the South back, but they sure as hell weren't going to let them back as slave states. At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, Lincoln offered to compensate the slave owners for their slaves and end the fighting. The south refused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. In That Case
If you argue that here than your other posts about the Democrats who were racists are pointless. You could say the same thing about Woodrow Wilson, Jackson, or any other Democrat. However, for me it does not change Wilson is a white supremacist just like Lincoln is a white supremacist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Beautiful post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. By the Standards of His Own Time
I contend that in his own time he was a white supremacist and a segregationist. Did the definitation of white supremacist and segregationist change over time? Lincoln himself said that he did not believe that black were equal to whites. He himself said that he did not want blacks to marry or be on juries. As far as I know that is the definitation of a white supremacist and a segregationist. So did those definations change over time?

My post was not partisan. I only addressed Lincoln and Reagan because there are not people wishing to go back to the days of Wilson. As far as your comment about cultural context. People do not seems to care about cultural context when they leave out the fact that Lincoln believed that black were inferior to whites. Furthermore, the point of the post was not that Democrats were better on race relations it was that people always talk about Lincoln without mentioning some of the bad things he said, like the comments I mentioned above. As far as you comment on Democrats being judged on race relations before the post-war period. The Republicans do it every day. On any day they can they try to look a race relations in the Democratic Party before post-war period. Many times they use Lincoln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
45. Please...
Research "Thaddeus Stevens" and tell me Lincoln was a product of his time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's easy to rag on Lincoln while viewing him through...
...21st century eyeglasses. After all, he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Emancipation Proclamation
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 02:57 PM by erpowers
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the South. All Slave states that were in the North did not have to give up their slaves. In addition, there was little chance that the South would abide by the Emancipation Proclamation in that they had declare themselves a separate country. It could be argued that Lincoln signed the Emanicipation Proclamation to keep foreign countries that were against slavery from entering the Civil War on the South behalf in that if the war was about Southern independence foreign countries would intervene, but if the war was about slavery they would stay out of the war. As I posted in another post Grant's wife toured the South with a slave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Limited view.
Few slave states were in the North. And those that were would not have slavery for long since Congress would quickly abolish it. Hence the fight for slave states and free states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tomee450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I agree totally.
There are people who refuse to see Lincoln as he really was. He did not like black people, thought they were inferior to whites. He said that if the could save the nation without freeing the slaves he would do so. He had a confrontation with black leaders in the White House in which he let his negative feelings about blacks be known. The blacks came away quite disheartened. Lincoln thought that the races should not mix and wanted freed slaves to be removed from this country. Lincoln's own words clearly show that he did not hold blacks in high esteem. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only to weaken the south. The war was going badly for the Union army and freeing slaves in areas held by the confederacy was thought to be another way to hasten the South's defeat. Lincoln, was indeed a white supremacist.

As far as Lincoln just being a man of his times,I don't buy that. There were other men of his time, mainly in the north, who did not share his views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
52. Lincoln's concern was that the Border States: Missouri, Kentucky,
Delaware and Maryland -- each having a significant slave population, and each having mustered units to fight for the Confederacy, might have -- if included in the Emancipation Proclamation-- gone on to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy.

Thus, in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln named only those states that were in open rebellion against the Union -- the Confederate States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. The party of FDR and Wallace?
History is a tricky thing. How about Jackson and the Trail of Tears? LBJ and Vietnam? Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs? Clinton and Rwanda?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Or what about the party of Woodrow Wilson, a racist of the highest order?
Upon viewing a private screening in the WH of F.W. Griffiths' "Birth of a Nation", a blatantly pro-KKK movie that portrayed blacks as deviants lying in wait to rape and defile white women, Wilson remarked, "It was history like capturing lightning in a bottle.... My only regret is that it is so true."

Also, Wilson reversed the policy that LINCOLN had put in place de-segregating the Federal Government -- after he had made a campaign promise to address the concerns of African Americans.

And since the OP brought up the suspension of habeus corpus, it's important to mention that Wilson made it a crime to criticize the Federal Government during WWI, and it was his attorney general, Mitchell Palmer, that initiated the "Red Scare" with Wilson's blessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. Beyond the Point
It would have been one thing if I had argued that there were no racist in the Democratic Party, but I did not so your comments are beyond the point. However, Wilson's viewing of "Birth of a Nation" and his reaction to it is talked about and many people know that happened. It is possible that large amounts of people know about Wilson's other acts. On the contrary, I doubt that many people know that Lincoln made racist and segregationist statments. The point of the original post was that people claim that Lincoln and Reagan are different from the current Republican Party. If one looks at history and compares it to today they would find that they are not that different. Once again noone is asking for the Democrats to go back to the time of Wilson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tomee450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Abraham Lincoln
was no friend of black people. Nothing he did for them was done willingly but because of pressure. It was always about what was good for the nation, not about what was the right thing to do. I've read a lot about Lincoln. James McPherson book on blacks in the civil war was quite enlightening. All one has to do is read Lincoln's own words to get a clear indication of how he felt about blacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. They Were Wrong
However, they actually get critized for what they did. On the other hand Lincoln is made out to be this great radical. People never point out that he said the things that were in the original post. Also noone is wishing for those things to come back. I do not think those histories are as white washed as Lincoln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Some true quotes from Lincoln - read these and CRY YOUR FACE OFF:
Edited on Thu Apr-07-05 01:13 PM by HypnoToad
http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

"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."

"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."



Sorry, really seems to contradict your bigotry because he was just an "R". Times have changed since 1863. Anyone saying the above would be called a COMMUNIST.

(edit: Spelling :dunce:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Cry In My Face My Rear End
I did not make this post because he was a Republican. I do not like the fact that people are making out like Lincoln was just some radical of his time and completely pro-black. My quote of Lincoln was real also. Maybe if you actually read Lincoln's quotes on your own you would realize that on many occasions he talked about how he did not believe in the equality of blacks and that he saw no reason to end slavery. The quote that I printed was from a speech in Ohio in which Lincoln critized the editor of a newspaper for saying that he was against slavery. Even though I did not post it in the original post later in that speech Lincoln said he had no plan to end slavery. In many parts of that speech Lincoln pushed the editor to apologize for saying that he (Lincoln) was against slavery. In addition, you may want to know that when Grant and his wife toured the South Grants's wife has a slave with her. Finally, Lincoln would not be considered a communist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You are so anachronistic!
He was a radical for his time. And what he said to people so as not to damage his political career was not necessarily what he felt. He DID have intentions to eliminate slavery. His family never owned slaves and he always believed it was wrong.

The "lincoln was a racist" crap is always the same. It's always spouted for the same reasons too. The greatest reason is that people want to say Lincoln was a bad guy and that somehow the south was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Lincoln was a racist is not said to say the South was right. I pointed it out in that people act like Lincoln was just so anti-slavery. He was not as anti-slavery as many people claim he was. He was not radical for his time. If he were really against slavery he would have been willing to say that he was against it. On many occasions even in 1860 he said he had no intention of ending slavery. He tried to make a newspaper editor apologize for saying he (Lincoln) was against slavery. Does that sound like someone who is against slavery?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Well, if he had told the truth, he never would have been elected and
slavery would have persisted for another 100 years.

He told his close friends he hated slavery. He said that those who are for it should try it sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #28
59. I gave you some Lincoln quotes. Now it's your turn to prove your point.
So far you've only ranted with no quotes about the man you accuse. I'l listen to anything you say as long as you ultimately back up your POV with enough facts to prove it.

I've done my bit. You certainly haven't. Give us some quotes and a site link or two, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is so...misguided. So anachronistic.
How utterly anachronistic. Lincoln was LIBERAL in his day. He said what he had to to get elected and put forward his ideas to make them more paletable for the people. Not only that, he got more and more liberal as he went along! Habeus Corpus can be suspended in times of crisis. If the Civil War wasn't a crisis, I don't know what would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Then
Lincoln was not a liberal in his day. Also years before Lincoln Martin Van Buren push for an end to slavery. If that is the case why are so many liberals angry that Bush has Arabs stored on Cuba without charging them. It could be argued that we are in time of crisis right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. No...we are not facing mutiny now.
What crisis? Iraq NEVER posed a danger to us while the South was clearly hostile.

Lincoln was very much a liberal and it's sad that you don't know that. You mentioned Douglas. Why don't you post his positions? Or the positions of anyone else that ran against Lincoln?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Before Iraq
The Patorit Act and the detention of Arabs happened before the war in Iraq. Bush has claimed they are the result of the 9/11 attacks. I do not buy that, but if someone says it was okay for Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War because there was a crisis during that time cannot argue that the current detentions should not be happening. Bush has argued that some people from certain countries are hostile to the United States. I do not agree with this either, but if you are going to argue that the South was hostile then it can be argued that these countries are hostile and therefore these people can be kept with charges being brought against them. It was wrong to suspend Habeas Corpus then and it is wrong to do it now.

The point is not the men that ran against Lincoln. The point is that Lincoln agreed with Douglas on issues concerning blacks. In addition, in another post I mentioned that Martin Van Buren came out against slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. He suspended Habeus Corpus AFTER the South became rebellious
There was no doubt that there was a crisis.


There is no crisis with Iraq. They never had weapons it has been admitted that they never had weapons. The south was hostile because they armed themselves and rebelled. The were openly hostile to the north. How can you not see the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Not about Iraq
My post was not about Iraq. It was about other events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Difference: Bush has no proof.
WIth the South openly screaming hostilities at the North..I'd say that's pretty much proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Oh, also Section 9 of the Constitution says it may be suspended for
Rebellion. Clearly that is exactly what the Civil War was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Proof
I do not believe that Habeas Corpus should ever be lifted. However, if you want to argue about proof there were 19 people who flew planes into buildings. They all came from arab countries. It could be argued that that is enough proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. And they were all from Iraq right? Oh wait...
They were mostly from Saudi Arabia! A Country that we consider one of our allies. Damn...

Also, 19 people from different countries isn't a vast mutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Not Even About Iraq
Once again the post had nothing to do with Iraq. You keep wanting to go off course and not debate the issue. The issue is that Bush uses the idea of a crisis to suspend or weaken the right of Habeas Corpus. You cannot argue that Lincoln weakening or suspending Habeas Corpus because he believed there was a crisis and then say that Bush cannot do the same thing. It is wrong for Bush to do it now and it was wrong for Lincoln to do it then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. He didn't "believe there was a crisis" half the freaking country seceded
And it DOES come back to Iraq because a hell of a lot of detainees are not Saudis but Iraqis. That would be like Lincoln holding Mexicans without Habeas Corpus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tomee450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
61. Strongly disagree
Lerone Bennett is a very well regarded historian. His book, Before the Mayflower, has been widely read and is often used in high school classes. Bennett was greatly criticized because his last book destroyed the myth that Lincoln was such a champion of black people. Some people do not want to get rid of cherished myths. Bennett often writes about race and this is not something that many people like to discuss. Bennett is not the only author, writing about matters of race, who has incurred the wrath of historians and others. The white author who first wrote about Sally Hemming and Thomas Jefferson was viciously attacked for daring to tell the truth about their relationship. Bennett critics don't like what he has to say but he tells the truth. I've read a lot about Lincoln and long concluded that he cared little about blacks. He only helped them when pressured to do so.
It is not uncommon for black authors to be judged harshly. After all, there are many people in this country who still feel that blacks have inferior intellects and therefore, black scholars are not to be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tomee450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. People are just
so unaware of Lincoln's history. Two union generals issued an order of Emancipation of the slaves prior to Lincoln's proclamation. Lincoln overruled them. He only issued the Emancipation Proclamation when he thought it would benefit the nation, not because he was so eager to free the slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tomee450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. Sorry, Lincoln was no
liberal. Any complete reading of his words would show that. Lincoln did not want blacks and whites to live together, did not want them to marry. He told black leaders to their face how he felt about their community. When the leaders visited the White House, he told them point blank that he did not think the black man equal to the white man. He could have kept those comments to himself. Lincoln was known to go about making N----r jokes. Lincoln never did a thing for black people simply because it was morally correct to do so. He always had to be pressured. Black leaders at the time often expressed frustration with Lincoln and wrote about their frustration in letters and articles in black newspapers.

Historian Lerone Bennett stated in an Ebony Magazine article,
Lincoln was an opportunist, not an idealist. There was not, in his view, enough room in America for black and white people proposed a black exodusLincoln told the black men that it was their duty to leave (Bennett, 1968). Lincoln was not an abolitionist and favored states rights. He was also opposed to blacks having political power, the right to vote and be on juries. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me.

As a black person I certain am glad Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He should also be respected for holding the union together. However, there is no reason for him to be held up as this great champion of black people. He certainly was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
56. Lerone Bennett isn't very well respected for his work.
Look him up. It's sad. Not too much credibility.

Also, I have read his works. But he ALWAYS opposed slavery. Always.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Good Points
I like the way you stated things. I think you made very intelligent and controversial points about Lincoln and Reagan, two presidents whose records are often whitewashed in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes, Lincoln was truely a tyrant. Invaded the South and all.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. Lincoln's war
He did absolutely nothing to prevent war. Refused to talk to the Southern Delegates. His call for soldiers from Virginia helped push Virginia into the war against the USA. This at a time when he was told to get a Virginian to lead his armies. The fighting of the war is an unorganized mess from start to finish. Although every history book has tons of blame to pass around, never does the commander and chief get his share. He also spent up a huge national debt to fight his war. While he had limited military experience, he beat a soldier in his reelection campaign that was based almost solely on his war record. When face with the trouble of actually policing the land he conveniently tried to use executive authority to remove peoples civil rights. He kept his children out of most of the war until the end when civil outraged grew. While he was in general anti-slave owning. Like most republicans at the time he had no actual plan with what to do with the slaves once freed. Lack of planning, lack of delegation, protection of family he reminds me a lot of GWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Actually he held a council in which he offered to end the war,
compensate the slaveholders for their slaves. But the slave owners refused. They refused to accept conditions that did not include owning other people. So who's not willing to compromise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. As others have already observed, this post is bristling with ignorance.
Barry Goldwater wasn't a segregationist. For God's sake, he co-founded the Arizona NAACP, and played a major role in desegregating the Arizona Guard.

He voted for the previous Civil Rights Act, and then against the 1964 Voting Rights Act, in defiance of his Senate Leader, because he genuinely believed that it was a wrongful extension of federal power over private properties, an ideal that he clung to tenaciously throughout his career. I don't agree with him, but it's just stupid to say that he was a segregationist for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
53. Who exactly has cited Reagan as an example of a good Republican
as you seem to suggest some Democrats have done? Considering that he and his administration continue to stand as the prototype to contemporary right-wing politicians, I find it hard to imagine that any Dems would speak very favorably of him. You're certainly unlikely to find positive appraisals of him here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard anyone praise Reagan on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 22nd 2018, 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC