Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln

[dbackjon]

One of the Great ones!

Thank you for saving this great country of ours!


Proud to call you a neighbor!

[danefan]

Honest Abe.

Hmm....my mom got me a really nice framed print of Lincoln as a young lawyer. Its the painting that sits over the mantel in the White House dining room (see below). Perfect for my office, but I'm too lazy to bring it on the bus.



Now I can't wait to here from all you "historians" how Abe was really a big douchebag.

[ASUMountaineer]

[kalm]

And it's been downhill for the republicans ever since.

[bobbythekidd]

Douchebag.

You happy dane?

[danefan]

Douchebag.

You happy dane?

Yup. Thanks

[OSBF]

strictly for the entertainment value, i wish citipup was still around for this thread

[BlueHen86]

Penny for your thoughts.

[GannonFan]

Way to go Abe!!!! Still the best we've ever had!

[OL FU]

citdog sent me an email.

Abe Lincoln, the great tyrant who started the war of northern aggression on the free and independent peoples of the southern states of the confederacy, is roasting in hell besides his drunken general Grant and the war criminal Sherman. He was a man who completely abrogated the constitution by imposing his will on those that wanted nothing more than to be left alone. The heroes of the south who fought so valiantly to defend the rights of their nation and to proudly stand with other sovereign peoples of the world are vindicated by the torment that the dishonest Abe feels in the afterlife. Mr. Lincoln’s war used slavery as a pretext simply to subjugate the south. The dictator of the north created the monster federal government that still torments today. And you who wish him well in his tortuous state in hell, are little more than ignorant wretches that have bought into the half truth history books that are shamefully taught in our broken federally sponsored public schools.

And OL FU is a scalawag.

Happy Birthday Abe

[BlueHen86]

citdog sent me an email.

Abe Lincoln, the great tyrant who started the war of northern aggression on the free and independent peoples of the southern states of the confederacy, is roasting in hell besides his drunken general Grant and the war criminal Sherman. He was a man who completely abrogated the constitution by imposing his will on those that wanted nothing more than to be left alone. The heroes of the south who fought so valiantly to defend the rights of their nation and to proudly stand with other sovereign peoples of the world are vindicated by the torment that the dishonest Abe feels in the afterlife. Mr. Lincoln’s war used slavery as a pretext simply to subjugate the south. The dictator of the north created the monster federal government that still torments today. And you who wish him well in his tortuous state in hell, are little more than ignorant wretches that have bought into the half truth history books that are shamefully taught in our broken federally sponsored public schools.

And OL FU is a scalawag.

Happy Birthday Abe

Good stuff.

[Pwns]

Way to go Abe!!!! Still the best we've ever had!

How can you say that about a president that was responsible for more death than Truman, LBJ, George W. Bush, and any other POTUS in US history. And all for the second-most unjustified war the US government was ever involved in. He was a POS and wasn't a leader.

[CitadelGrad]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

[GannonFan]

Way to go Abe!!!! Still the best we've ever had!

How can you say that about a president that was responsible for more death than Truman, LBJ, George W. Bush, and any other POTUS in US history. And all for the second-most unjustified war the US government was ever involved in. He was a POS and wasn't a leader.

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

[OSBF]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

still trying to justify owning human beings like livestock

[GannonFan]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

Of course, that just glosses over all the other details of what transpired in Missouri during that time and also assumes the question of legitimacy favors the legislature you apparently favor. However, Missouri was murky then and even with the benefit of hindsight from today it's still murky now. I seem to remember the seccessionist government calling the earlier formed government "vacant" and appointed their own officers - not very democratic on their part either.

Both sides had their faults in Missouri - to call the situation so clear that you can definitively say one side was legitimate and the other side wasn't is pretty cavalier towards the facts. And really, the main point that came out from the War was that it settled the question of whether a state could simply remove itself from the Union if it so desired. The war decided that they can't.

[BlueHen86]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

Of course, that just glosses over all the other details of what transpired in Missouri during that time and also assumes the question of legitimacy favors the legislature you apparently favor. However, Missouri was murky then and even with the benefit of hindsight from today it's still murky now. I seem to remember the seccessionist government calling the earlier formed government "vacant" and appointed their own officers - not very democratic on their part either.

Both sides had their faults in Missouri - to call the situation so clear that you can definitively say one side was legitimate and the other side wasn't is pretty cavalier towards the facts. And really, the main point that came out from the War was that it settled the question of whether a state could simply remove itself from the Union if it so desired. The war decided that they can't.

Agreed, and probalby for the better of all involved. Imagine the political tensions if the USA and CSA had split into two separate countries. Every european power would play them against each other for political gain.

Also, what was to stop states from leaving the USA and or CSA?

[Benne]

Abe Lincoln sent the bluecoats to Jefferson City, MO to prevent the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Missouri from convening to vote on secession. When the legitimate government was forced to flee to Arkansas for the duration of the war, Lincoln installed his own government in the state capitol. Lincoln wasn't a tyrant at all, was he?

Of course, that just glosses over all the other details of what transpired in Missouri during that time and also assumes the question of legitimacy favors the legislature you apparently favor. However, Missouri was murky then and even with the benefit of hindsight from today it's still murky now. I seem to remember the seccessionist government calling the earlier formed government "vacant" and appointed their own officers - not very democratic on their part either.

Both sides had their faults in Missouri - to call the situation so clear that you can definitively say one side was legitimate and the other side wasn't is pretty cavalier towards the facts. And really, the main point that came out from the War was that it settled the question of whether a state could simply remove itself from the Union if it so desired. The war decided that they can't.

Is there a way to slow down the clap besides penecilin?

[ASUMountaineer]

How can you say that about a president that was responsible for more death than Truman, LBJ, George W. Bush, and any other POTUS in US history. And all for the second-most unjustified war the US government was ever involved in. He was a POS and wasn't a leader.

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

Wrong.

As for the rest, who cares? Over and done with.

[GannonFan]

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

Wrong.

As for the rest, who cares? Over and done with.

Really? So in your opinion secession was a clear and absolute right of the states? Wow, considering the contemporaries of the day, from the Constitution in 1787 all the way up to the Civil War couldn't agree on a clear and absolute answer to that question, then I guess the only reason we had the Civil War was because you were born too late to interject your clarity and stop it?

[ASUMountaineer]

Wrong.

As for the rest, who cares? Over and done with.

Really? So in your opinion secession was a clear and absolute right of the states? Wow, considering the contemporaries of the day, from the Constitution in 1787 all the way up to the Civil War couldn't agree on a clear and absolute answer to that question, then I guess the only reason we had the Civil War was because you were born too late to interject your clarity and stop it?

Wow, a little testy today aren't we GF? Calm down Nancy, opinions are like assholes, we all have one. That is my opinion, and there's quite a few others that share it. So, (going by your post) I guess it's your opinion that Lincoln had the right to invade the South and wage a war against the South over the lack of clarity of the question? If only you had been born early enough to explain that to the CSA.

But, to answer your question: 1) yes, my opinion is it was a clear and absolute right of the states, and 2) yes it is a shame I wasn't there to interject my clarity and stop it--I could have saved the country without as much bloodshed as your hero.

[Pwns]

How can you say that about a president that was responsible for more death than Truman, LBJ, George W. Bush, and any other POTUS in US history. And all for the second-most unjustified war the US government was ever involved in. He was a POS and wasn't a leader.

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

Because Lincoln could have done absolutely nothing to stop the war? And slavery could not have possibly been ended without violence even though many human rights movements succeeded without it?

And it's easier to argue the legality of the secession than it is to argue the legality of jailing reporters who criticizing you, stomping over the sovereign authority of Missouri and Maryland, and suspending Habeas Corpus.

[BlueHen86]

Really? So in your opinion secession was a clear and absolute right of the states? Wow, considering the contemporaries of the day, from the Constitution in 1787 all the way up to the Civil War couldn't agree on a clear and absolute answer to that question, then I guess the only reason we had the Civil War was because you were born too late to interject your clarity and stop it?

Wow, a little testy today aren't we GF? Calm down Nancy, opinions are like assholes, we all have one. That is my opinion, and there's quite a few others that share it. So, (going by your post) I guess it's your opinion that Lincoln had the right to invade the South and wage a war against the South over the lack of clarity of the question? If only you had been born early enough to explain that to the CSA.

But, to answer your question: 1) yes, my opinion is it was a clear and absolute right of the states, and 2) yes it is a shame I wasn't there to interject my clarity and stop it--I could have saved the country without as much bloodshed as your hero.

I think the reality was that the states could not be allowed to seceed, even if there was no agreement one way or the other on their right to do it. I think the end result would have been 50 countries instead of 1. If you let one state out, you have to let them all out. Everytime a state didn't agree with the central government it could leave. At some point prior to 1861 the states sold their souls to the devil so to speak and there was no turning back.

In a way the United States is kind of like Cosa Nostra and the Hotel California.

[GannonFan]

Sure, Abe Lincoln, all by himself, brought about the Civil War.

As for justification, hey, that's been answered for more than 100 years now - it was to hold the US together as a single nation. Secession was never a clear right of the states and the war settled the question once and for all.

Because Lincoln could have done absolutely nothing to stop the war? And slavery could not have possibly been ended without violence even though many human rights movements succeeded without it?

And it's easier to argue the legality of the secession than it is to argue the legality of jailing reporters who criticizing you, stomping over the sovereign authority of Missouri and Maryland, and suspending Habeas Corpus.

Well, certainly Lincoln could've stopped the war, but that would also have been his acquiesing to the states leaving that seceeded before he even took office. So sure, he could've avoided the war, but the seceeding states could've avoided it too by not leaving. There were about a million different decisions and actions that led to the War - Lincoln's was just one of the last in that chain.

As for slavery ending without violence, well, the war didn't start with the goal of ending slavery - that was just what the war morphed into. Sure slavery was a huge reason why the war happened, irregardless of the stated intentions of either side. But how do you think it would've ended if not how it did? And what human rights movements have succeeded without vioence? Certainly many haven't risen to the level of violence that the Civil War did (although the Civil War was never solely a human rights "war") but I can't think of any movment (women's suffrage, Civil Rights movement, etc) that didn't have some violence associated with it.

And as for the legality of secession versus the legality of the other things you bring up, the difference is the discussion over the legality of secession could and did take place for 70 some odd years prior to the Civil War (i.e. times of peace) - the legality of jailing reporters, states' sovereign rights, and habeus corpus took place in the time of armed conflict - surely you can see the difference, no? Doesn't make it right, per se, and it doesn't excuse it from criticism later, but in times of war some rules are not absolute.

[Ibanez]

Honest Abe.

Hmm....my mom got me a really nice framed print of Lincoln as a young lawyer. Its the painting that sits over the mantel in the White House dining room (see below). Perfect for my office, but I'm too lazy to bring it on the bus.



Now I can't wait to here from all you "historians" how Abe was really a big douchebag.

He was a total douchebag and committed the same mistakes and blunders that Bush repeated. I'm glad the USA is together, but he was not a person to be honored. Look to his speeches and actions as president. He was not a good person. Must've been the sphyllis.