Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is What a President Looks Like
Townhall.com ^ | February 21, 2012 | John Ransom

Posted on 02/20/2012 7:52:28 PM PST by Kaslin

In an era that lives by self-promotion- an era that takes someone like Donald Trump seriously as a presidential candidate- Presidents' Day is a day to remember that greatness still resides in what one does, not what one claims to be.

That is why Abraham Lincoln will always belong to every age. Because Lincoln was not just a great president; he may have been one of the greatest men that this country has yet produced. His rare combination of self-confidence and humility produced the archetype of "the American, this new man," who is still universally admired.

While many of our heroes have lost their gloss, Abraham Lincoln still shines brightly for many Americans because there is so much to learn from his life.

Lincoln was once criticized over the publication of a private letter he sent to an actor because it dared express Lincoln’s opinion on William Shakespeare. Although Lincoln did not write the letter for public circulation, in those days it was common for private letters to end up in the newspapers.

Lincoln was well-read in Shakespeare. It was evident in the fluidity of much of his writing that he got some of his short, Anglo-Saxon style from Shakespeare. While Lincoln would never match the volume of the Bard, in his own way, Lincoln’s contribution to American letters ranks probably just below Mark Twain’s own accomplishments.

“The novelist William Dean Howell’s claim about his friend Mark Twain,” writes literary biographer Fred Kaplan, “that he was the ‘Lincoln of our literature,’ can effectively be rephrased with the focus on our sixteenth president: Lincoln was the Twain of our politics. Since Lincoln, no president has written his own words and addressed his contemporary audience or posterity with equal and enduring effectiveness.”

Critics, however, thought it pretentious for a man without any formal training in “literature” to express opinions about Shakespeare.

As a consequence of elitist criticism, Lincoln gave us this enduring gem, precisely balanced on the pen point of Shakespearean grace: “I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Indeed, during Lincoln’s life he was ridiculed over his origins, (from a log-cabin); his looks (he described himself as “homely”); his lack of formal education (he was mostly self-taught); his wife (who could be quite arrogant, aggressive, and at times clinically crazy); and a great deal besides.

Probably no President dealt with as much abuse as Lincoln. Yet throughout his life Lincoln rarely struck back at his critics. He maintained, instead, a firm confidence about who he was, avoiding all pretense of superiority even when he knew he was right.

“What a sharpshooter’s bead he could draw in one sentence,” the Chicago poet and Lincoln biographer, Carl Sandburg said in The Wit and Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Edition.

Sandburg relates that once Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward- who was hoping to win the presidential nomination that Lincoln wrangled for himself- offered to put a Lincoln dispatch to the English government “couched in more diplomatic terms.”

Then," said Secretary of War Stanton, "came the demonstration. The President, half wheeling in his seat, threw one leg over the chair-arm, and, holding the letter in his hand, said, 'Seward, do you suppose Palmerston will understand our position from that letter, just as it is?'

"'Certainly, Mr. President.'

"'Do you suppose the London Times will?'

"'Certainly.'

"'Do you suppose the average Englishman of affairs will?'

"'Certainly; it cannot be mistaken in England.'

"'Do you suppose that a hackman out on his box will understand it?'

"'Very readily, Mr. President.'

"'Very well, Seward, I guess we'll let her slide just as she is.'

The lack of artfulness helped Lincoln turn critics, like Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and Secretary Seward from scoffers into supporters.

“Executive force and vigor are rare qualities,” Seward wrote his wife. “The President is the best of us.”

In 1855 Lincoln was hired to represent Cyrus McCormick who was claiming patent infringement against a defendant. In addition, McCormick retained a number of better established lawyers from the eastern US, including Edwin M. Stanton. As the trial commenced in Cincinnati, the other attorneys ignored Lincoln, shutting him out of the case with Stanton going so far as to call Lincoln “that damned long armed ape,” within his hearing. Lincoln swallowed his pride and watched the trial from the courtroom with other spectators.

When McCormick later sent Lincoln a check for his services on the case, Lincoln returned the check explaining that he really hadn’t done anything to earn it.

When the client returned the check to Lincoln and insisted that he cash the check, Lincoln again swallowed his pride and cashed the check despite his grumbling about the “rough” treatment he got from Stanton. But he never struck back at Stanton. In fact, in Stanton he recognized administrative qualities that could be useful to him

That’s why Lincoln later picked Stanton to become his Secretary of War after the resignation of Simon Cameron, a crooked politician from Pennsylvania. At the time of his selection Stanton was still an avowed critic of Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to overlook this because of Stanton’s superb managerial skills. As their relationship matured Stanton became one of Lincoln’s warmest admirers.

Stanton was in the room when Lincoln died, just across from Ford’s Theatre. Stanton gave Lincoln the most fitting of all epitaphs upon his passing: "Now he belongs to the ages."

I still can’t read those words without awe at the full measure of devotion that Lincoln continues to give our country.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 02/20/2012 7:52:37 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Lincoln certainly did not waffle on the question of whether it’s constitutionally permissible for states to abandon the union. But some rednecks (and I say to all rednecks: be proud of that neck) and Southrons [sic] even yet beg to disagree with what went down. The fact that chattel slavery based on kidnapped slaves and racial bigotry was heavily tied up in the economies of a lot of the South doesn’t make them look all that good (and I would wholeheartedly agree with theologians who aver that the South was cruising for a divine bruising on that matter and that the Civil War was probably it), but Lincoln being less than totally altruistic didn’t free the Northern slaves together with the Southern ones but waited. It is a checkered history. Still, it’s sad that the Republican party in the Land of Lincoln is a faint shadow of its old idealistic self.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 8:01:07 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

and today SNL would be doing skits on how ugly he was...The MSM would be doing story after story on his crazy wife....and he would never win


3 posted on 02/20/2012 8:04:25 PM PST by skaterboy (Hate=Love....Love=Hate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Moonman62

The Civil War certainly became a bigger issue than just “quit shooting and give us back the Federal property and then go your way in peace.”

Fremont was a child molester... who knew.


5 posted on 02/20/2012 8:18:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Lincoln being less than totally altruistic didn’t free the Northern slaves together with the Southern ones

But he did try to promote a plan of compensated emancipation in the Union slave states which was rejected.

6 posted on 02/20/2012 8:22:13 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy
and today SNL would be doing skits on how ugly he was...The MSM would be doing story after story on his crazy wife....and he would never win

True, but consider this really odd coincidence: somebody has decided that Abraham Lincoln would make for a good action hero and they are spending a lot of money to do so:

Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter

Official Trailer (released last week)

Comes out in June of this year. Seems silly as hell, but they are making it serious. Johnny Cash's spoken Revelation bit from 'The Man Comes Around' in the the trailer helps sell it.

I loathe Fox and anything associated with Rupert Murdoch, but I'm going to have to see this one on opening weekend.
7 posted on 02/20/2012 8:23:00 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Sounds better than Twilight


8 posted on 02/20/2012 8:30:28 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I disagree with the characterization of Lincoln as “humble.” People of great intellect are never really humble. For example, Lincoln was once asked about why he almost never read newspaper accounts of the war. His answer was along the lines of “Why should I? I know more than they do.”

I think that in Lincoln’s case the humble bit was a clever political ploy.


9 posted on 02/20/2012 8:33:18 PM PST by OldPossum (ou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
When I cry for this nation which is our “Constitution and Bill of Rights”, Mr Lincoln tops that list. The loss of states rights has done as much damage as allowing people to vote who do not pay taxes. Lincoln was not a great President. Not even close. He nearly destroyed the greatest nation God has allowed to exist in 1865. Today the absence of states rights may still doom us and will be the scumbag Lincoln's true legacy.
10 posted on 02/20/2012 8:46:03 PM PST by liberty or death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberty or death

Lincoln nearly destroyed the Union?

What do you think would’ve happened if the Confederacy had succeeded?

France almost conquered Mexico in 1863 (cinco de Mayo) as it was.

North America would look just like South America, a collection of poverty-stricken 3rd world hell-holes. None of us would even be here now.


11 posted on 02/20/2012 8:54:45 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Ouch!


12 posted on 02/20/2012 8:55:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: liberty or death

It was the 16th and 17th Amendments more than all else combined that eviscerated states rights.


13 posted on 02/20/2012 9:00:37 PM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Sounds to me like he was just telling the truth. He WOULD know more about the war than the press.


14 posted on 02/20/2012 9:06:44 PM PST by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Sounds like a great double-bill with Iron Sky, if it could be arranged.

I’d escape reality for long afternoon or evening to see those.


15 posted on 02/20/2012 9:18:48 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn; OldPossum
Sounds to me like he was just telling the truth.

Lincoln spent many, many hours in the telegraph office in Washington getting the latest info from his commanders in the field. There was very little the press could have added.

16 posted on 02/20/2012 9:18:48 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


Our generation's Lincoln
17 posted on 02/20/2012 9:30:08 PM PST by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thank you. A nice read on President’s Day.


18 posted on 02/20/2012 9:35:29 PM PST by starsstripesflags
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
It was the 16th and 17th Amendments more than all else combined that eviscerated states rights.
Exactly! Enacted by President Woodrow Wilson!
19 posted on 02/20/2012 9:39:22 PM PST by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

I disagree that “people of great intellect” are “never really humble.” I think intellects have their fair share of pompous asses and salt of the earth people just like every other group or category of folks out there.


20 posted on 02/20/2012 9:42:39 PM PST by starsstripesflags
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberty or death
When I cry for this nation which is our “Constitution and Bill of Rights”, Mr Lincoln tops that list.

Mr. Lincoln, in many, many, speeches made it clear that this nation is the Declaration of Independence. That's why it was four score and seven, not three score and sixteen.

Or as he said in Independence hall in 1861:

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.

The men of 1776 knew that slavery was wrong, and violated the principle of the Declaration. In Jefferson's first draft, he include this language indicting the King for slavery in america.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Lincoln knew Jefferson has a slave holder but did not hold that against him writing:

All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

Lincoln understood that the Constitution was a compromise but also the best way to implement the principles of the Declaration given the political circumstances that the country faced. He intended to enforce even those provisions he felt violated those American principles e.g. the fugitive slave laws. From his inaugural:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

But he also in the same address made a power argument against secession.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

21 posted on 02/20/2012 9:50:27 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: starsstripesflags
I disagree that “people of great intellect” are “never really humble.”

Hmm.. Well, I happen to have great intellect and I'm the most humble person in the entire universe.

22 posted on 02/20/2012 9:54:00 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Agreed.


23 posted on 02/20/2012 10:22:30 PM PST by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

GMTA


24 posted on 02/21/2012 12:10:58 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My favorite Lincoln story involves him defending a railroad (I think Illinois Central) against a steamship company whose riverboat had hit a railroad bridge, caught fire and sank. The steamship company’s argument was that river traffic had the right of way, that the railroad owed them a boat, and that they couldn’t build any more bridges. Lincoln showed that the boat was improperly piloted and won the case, in effect laying the track for the intercontinental railroad (a pet project of his while in the White House). He presented his client with a bill for $2000, a princely sum at the time. The railroad said his services should be nowhere near that expensive, and that he should go back and check his records. He did, and submitted a bill for $5000 along with a notification that he was suing them for nonpayment. He won that case as well...


25 posted on 02/21/2012 12:22:00 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjcsux
The President has very little to do with constitutional amendments, and the 16th and 17th were both passed by congress prior to Wilson taking office. The 16th was ratified before the Wilson presidency and the 17th only a month after he took office.
26 posted on 02/21/2012 12:29:46 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn
He WOULD know more about the war than the press.

Probably, but not necessarily, communications being what they were. His propaganda may have been more accurate, maybe not. Generals have a tendency to put their best foot forward as well.

27 posted on 02/21/2012 12:41:59 AM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Brokered Convention Ya betcha))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Moonman62; 2ndDivisionVet; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

Neither I nor goggle have ever heard about John C. Fremont being a pedophille.


28 posted on 02/21/2012 12:46:18 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stormer
The 16th was ratified before the Wilson presidency and the 17th only a month after he took office.

Just as there is now, there was treachery afoot. There is reason to doubt that either amendment was really ratified, they were so to speak deemed to be ratified.

Now we all know that archived records can not be tampered with at all, so I suppose we could look it up unless some one stuffed the records in his shorts and left the archive with them. {:-)

29 posted on 02/21/2012 12:50:46 AM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Brokered Convention Ya betcha))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Goggle=google

And only one “l” in pedophile.


30 posted on 02/21/2012 12:56:02 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Yeah the Senate would be just lovely if only the career politicians in State legislatures got to elect Senators.


31 posted on 02/21/2012 1:00:32 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; Impy

Frémont was a pedophile ? What ? You want to cite some specifics ? Or are you referring to him meeting his future wife, Jessie Benton, at 15 and marrying her at 17 ? Hardly unusual for the era.


32 posted on 02/21/2012 2:11:25 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy

AMEN!!! The Media would DESTROY him, and he would NEVER be elected....NEVER!


33 posted on 02/21/2012 3:48:59 AM PST by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I came up empty too


34 posted on 02/21/2012 3:58:21 AM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot; stormer; rockrr
itsahoot: "Just as there is now, there was treachery afoot.
There is reason to doubt that either amendment was really ratified, they were so to speak deemed to be ratified."

Both amendments were certainly "deemed" to be ratified by the Wilson administration, which enacted many laws supporting the Progressive agenda.

Here are the key points to remember:

  1. The "Progressive Era" began under Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, so there is no doubt it was a "bi-partisan" effort.

  2. But Democrats like Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt embraced the explosion of Federal power allowed by the new income tax, growing the government from 2% of GDP under Teddy Roosevelt to 3% under Wilson (before WWI) to 10% under Franklin Roosevelt (before WWII).
    Today's Federal government is 25% of GDP and Democrats acknowledge no upper limits on its growth.

  3. Most of the "blame Lincoln for everything" talk we hear comes from Southerners who wish us to understand that the South stood solidly against such evil as we see, and if Lincoln had just let them secede in peace, all would be well with the world today.
    Of course that's all nonsense.
    In fact, the Solid South solidly supported Progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and many others including Adlai Stevenson.

So don't blame Lincoln for everything wrong, and don't let Southerners get away with washing their hands of all responsibility for today's conditions.

35 posted on 02/21/2012 5:05:48 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Impy

In 2010 the Tea Party movement took more gains in state legislatures than in Congress.

Voters before 1913 and the 17th Amendment knew their votes in state elections mattered to US Congressional elections and were thus more involved at the state level. The states thus reflected more the will of their voters; now it does not matter so much what the state does. Hence, states are irrelevant to national elections and and states rights have suffered as a result.

As it is now voters do not know their US Senators and large money interests are what elect US Senators.

With repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments (the 18th is already repealed; all were passed in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, an arrogant condescending academic from Princeton who knew better what the little people needed), with repeal the states would once again be relevant to US national elections and local politics would become much more important to state voters; as well as repeal of the 16th would constrain Congress to work with states to raise direct taxes, thereby drawing in more participation of voters at the state level.


36 posted on 02/21/2012 6:37:16 AM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; RygelXVI; ...

You must think I was being sarcastic. No no, If was unsure of my position before you’ve surely taken the veil from my eyes, I genuinely think it would be lovely if the scumbag who has been State House Speaker since before I was born stuck his State Attorney General daughter in the Senate for life.

And it would have been lovely for the people of Arkansas to have kept their wonderfully unpopular Senator Blanche Lincoln for another 6 years.

And it really would be swell for Massachusetts Republicans to know in advance that they have zero chance to elect a Senator. Instead of that dastardly RINO Brown they’d have gotten a nice democrat shill, probably a member of the “royal” Kennedy clan to keep “Teddy’s seat” where it belongs.

Oh and Utah, it would have nifty if the legislature got to reelect establishment backed RINO Bob Bennett, it was so unfair that the people rejected him so hard that he didn’t even make the primary ballot.

And Lindsey Graham (don’t you just love him?), what a load off his mind, the poor bastard might have a primary next election, I’m sure he’d rather just the old bulls in the State legislature rubber stamp him for another 6.

And then all these wonderful Senators will vote to reduce the federal government because the liberals and RINOs in the state legislatures will insist upon it for some reason that only makes sense to people on psychotropic medication.

Reducing the electorate for an extremely powerful legislative body from the entire voting population of the state to a couple hundred politicians, people who know what they are doing! It would take idiots like me completely out of the equation since only patriotic “state’s rights” democrats ever even run for the legislature in my neck of the woods.

If I could repeal one amendment it would be the 17th. I’m with you 1000% FRiend. Why advocacy for this critical reform is confined to a few dark corners of the internet instead of being front and center in the national dialogue is a great mystery to me.


37 posted on 02/21/2012 7:16:20 AM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn; ALPAPilot

Perhaps I chose the exact wrong quote from Mr. Lincoln. It was just the first thing that came to mind. It was an obvious observation but was indicative of Mr. Lincoln’s attitude toward not only the war but many other things as well.

In one biography one of his two assistants is quoted as saying that he and his comrade knew Lincoln intimately and that the man was in no way humble. He thought exceptionally highly of his intellectual abilities.


38 posted on 02/21/2012 8:10:04 AM PST by OldPossum (ou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Please note that all donations
at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!


Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

39 posted on 02/21/2012 8:31:30 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Impy; HiTech RedNeck; 2ndDivisionVet; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

My apologies. I had my post removed.


40 posted on 02/21/2012 9:03:24 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
This is what a President doesn't look like:


41 posted on 02/21/2012 9:05:13 AM PST by Syncro (Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president--Virtual Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Out of curiosity, were you confusing Frémont with some other 19th century politician (or military leader)? If so, with whom?


42 posted on 02/21/2012 9:32:22 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Those that study American history know that it was not nepotism in statehouse politics in the appointment of US Senators that caused the movement for the 17th Amendment. Rather it was the gridlock in statehouses that left some states without US Senators. And that is fine by me, because if a state is reflecting the indecisiveness of its voters, then it is best that they sit it out until they decide which way to go. But voters around 1913 were duped into thinking that a more ‘democratic’ means of elections would be best.

1913 was all about the 16th Amendment (federal tax without pesky state politics aligned for apportionment), the 17th Amendment (make sure statehouses were taken out of the equation for federal tax policies) and the 18th Amendment (a red herring to take attention away from the import of the 16th and 17th by concentrating voter angst on a social issue). This was all engineered to create more centralized federal power and to diminish that of the states.

The fact is that now US Senators are bought and paid for by money interests inside and outside a state. The voters usually have no clue as to who it is they are voting for and will most often vote party line. The exception is the Tea Party who research and characterize Senate candidates especially RINOs. But even in that they fail (e.g., Scott Brown).

Democracy (mob rule; two wolves and a chicken deciding what’s for dinner) is not a good form of government. A republic (rule of law versus rule of mob) is historically much more preferable.

Here in Washington State as in California, large urban populations elect US Senators. These populations are heavily union-influenced and vote democrat party line. If the state legislature were involved, then at least the state senate which is more representative of rural areas would allow those rural voters to have a voice as to who represents the state at the federal level. As it is now, the large liberal progressive union-controlled urban voters decide who shall be the state’s US Senator.

Most voters today don’t usually know well the candidates for state attorney general, and even less about judges that run for election. The bizarre idea that a relative is going to be appointed to the US Senate without the approval of the state legislature is unrealistic. It might happen but it would be easier to do using the 17th Amendment today where the voting public votes party line without really knowing the character or background of the candidate.

So your specious argument notwithstanding, your creation of a bogeyman of some state speaker appointing some idiot relative to the US Senate, does not address that there is nothing preventing said speaker from supporting such idiot relative in a general election and having an easier time albeit more expensive for getting them in the US Senate.

The issue is not about how bad characters get into the US Senate whether via statehouse or general public, it is about who the Senator answers to, an urban public controlled by progressives or a statehouse that better represents conservatives.


43 posted on 02/21/2012 10:22:10 AM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I was assuming this meant he took a very young bride or something of that ilk — a matter that was not considered as grave at the time as it is now.


44 posted on 02/21/2012 10:40:22 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I call it “gargoyle” - for obvious reasons ;-)


45 posted on 02/21/2012 11:48:00 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
So don't blame Lincoln for everything wrong, and don't let Southerners get away with washing their hands of all responsibility for today's conditions.

Thanks for the great stats, but I don't think I dissed at all. Just are an observation on the two amendments which I doubt were really ratified.

There were many legitimate criticism but it was not my intention to give a positive spin to them. There is not profit in wishing for what might have been.⚐

46 posted on 02/21/2012 12:08:00 PM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Brokered Convention Ya betcha))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Send over 600,000 Americans to their deaths and save the “union”, or destroy the Constitution and Republic... why choose? I can do BOTH! Lincoln did not abolish slavery and had no desire to do so. He had no Constitutional jurisdiction with which to prevent the lawful secession of eleven U.S. States. He was a puppet of “big rail,” the prevailing corporate interests of his day.

This is the guy that gets credit for being the great emancipator? Give me a break. The winners write the history.

Abraham Lincoln Quote
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
by:
Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President

Source:
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)


47 posted on 02/21/2012 12:25:12 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy

Lincoln never winning would be a very good thing. 600K less dead Americans and slavery was on it’s way out anyway. Don’t forget he slept with men, but the libs love that stuff so that would have been a plus.


48 posted on 02/21/2012 12:28:15 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: liberty or death
Photobucket
49 posted on 02/21/2012 12:35:25 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

same ole same ole...yawn.


50 posted on 02/21/2012 12:40:51 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson