What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
117 Comments
- jsffive, on 07/05/2009, -21/+51The desperate ramblings of an idolater, trying to resolve the facts of history with the indoctrination that has poisoned his mind.
Yes Lincoln was a racist. At that time, most people in the United States were. That's a simple, uncomplicated fact. And maybe Mr. Wilentz wants to apologize for Mr. Lincoln's MANY instances of outright open contempt for the American black man, by saying that he was simply a politician, saying whatever a politician HAS to say in order to get elected, but that doesn't make the man admirable.
Truly admirable people, like Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Jesus for that matter, didn't feel the need to format and temper their words to suit the particular crowd to whom they were speaking. In fact, there's a name for doing such a thing: cowardice.
In some regards, I admire Lincoln too, but certainly not because he was some great emancipator... Perhaps we should reserve that term for the 38th Congress of the United States because after all, those were the people who actually proposed the thirteenth Amendment.
No, I admire Lincoln because he was the President who had the most lessons to learn.
Mr. Wilentz likes to mention that Mr. Lincoln switched his loyalties over to the Republican Party, but fails to mention that it was because his OLD party, the Whigs, was at that time, dead in the water. He also mentions that the Republican party was "anti-slavery", as if that were the ONLY issue upon which that party was based, but never mentions that the Republican party had revived an old plank from the Whigs, the creation of a central bank!
How's that working out these days?
It was Lincoln who spent twenty years of his political career, being a central banking hawk. And in the early months of the war, he tried to get a loan from the bankers in New York. When they tried to charge him 36 percent interest annually for those loans, Lincoln finally understood the arguments that his political opponents had been trying to tell him for decades: bankers are thieves.
His solution: the green back. It must have taken quite a lot of paradigm shifting for him to abandon the bankers who had supported his political career, but he had no choice. And if he had lived, he might have been remembered quite differently. He might have been remembered as being the guy that caused the Depression of the 1870's!
But I digress.
Ask yourself, if Lincoln can't be taken at his word for the many racist things that he is documented as saying (just read the fourth debate with Stephen Douglas for proof of this), because he was only speaking to the crowd in a cynical attempt at getting elected, then what exactly did he say that CAN be believed? - fooblah, on 07/06/2009, -8/+25@jsffive
1. Frederick Douglass the great, African-American abolitionist (who knew Lincoln) was NOT of the opinion that Lincoln was a racist. Frederick Douglass > YOU
2. You're judging a 19th century POLITICIAN through 21st century eyes.
3. Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus weren't politicians. Incidentally, there are also a lot of idiots who misunderstand these great men in precisely the same way you misunderstand Lincoln.
4. You're long-winded and, to be perfectly frank, not that interesting. - miamicat, on 07/06/2009, -2/+16Ghandi was a racist.
- DavidNiven, on 07/06/2009, -10/+24Lincoln freed the slaves in the South only for political and military purposes. He didn't free the slaves in the North. THAT should tell you something. Why Lincoln is held up as a great president is a mystery. The rights of States to govern themselves as sovereign entities died with the Civil War which was actually fought over States' rights, not slavery.
- michelsonmorley, on 07/06/2009, -1/+13Abraham Lincoln said - "..if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slave, I would do it. It was intended for the New York audience that was most pro-slavery in the North. The other quote, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality" is harder to justify. I believe Lincoln was just pandering to the audience. Lincoln supported a proposed Amendment in 1861 that the federal government had no authority to abolish slavery.
But he also stated, "This old Declaration of Independence... declares that all men are equal upon principle.... If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?" From other evidence, it appears that he wanted blacks to be free, but he did not think it was possible that they could coexist with our society, and so he supported black deportation. He was racist, but he also wanted blacks to be free. - DavidNiven, on 07/06/2009, -3/+13Yes, only in the South at first. The entire practice was abolished later, but not by Lincoln. The U.S. Constitution was eventually amended to outlaw slavery except as punishment for crimes; but, that was not Lincoln's doing really. He just declared it and took the nation to war against itself. Slavery was beginning to die out anyway. If abolishing slavery was really the objective, all Lincoln would have had to do was wait a few years. But, the Civil War was all about the power of the Federal government to rule over the States and dictate how they must exist and operate, particularly concerning taxation.
- MWeather, on 07/06/2009, -3/+13I'm fascinated at how well Asians do math, and how they drive too slow. I'm multicultural!
- MWeather, on 07/06/2009, -1/+10Essentially Lincoln signed a declaration saying all the slaves in the Confederate States of America were free. It's carried as much legal weight in the South as a declaration from the King of England. All non-rebelling slave states kept their slaves.
It was a way for the North to destroy the production capacity of the areas they captured, so if they were lost, there would be no labor there to continue the war effort. - Meltz014, on 07/06/2009, -1/+10Dugg for unnecessary comma
- smacksaw, on 07/06/2009, -0/+9I thought he was reviewing the book and commenting on it. Isn't that a sort of essay called a book review?
- Spid3y, on 07/06/2009, -3/+11When I first skimmed that I thought it said Abraham Lincoln, Hot or Not.
- archer104, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9Lincoln is fine I guess, but he couldn't hold a candle to George Washington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
- geoffg, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9yes
- PingoLingo, on 07/05/2009, -2/+9then came the shot?
- PeppermintPig, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8Ghandi
Peaceful resistance against authoritarians = Good
Trying to force unity between fueding groups = Bad (cost him his life)
Racism = Unfortunate and condemnable. - PeppermintPig, on 07/06/2009, -2/+9Unfortunately Lincoln never actually learned the problem with fiat currency, despite his wariness of bankers. The greenback upon introduction lost a third of its value against the metals it was supposed to be backed by, and it was clearly an effort to eat the costs of the war and pay off the soldiers less than they actually earned.
I think Lincoln's conscription of slaves and immigrants is also a blatant use of slavery, which contradicts the argument that his aim was emancipation. Many nations utilized conscription, of course, but the ethical principles of liberty and the value of freedom of choice have not lost their validity just because it 'happened way back when'. - JoeB4ever, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7I'm saddened that the public school system failed you so badly
- zoomaKabu, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7Lincoln presided over the single greatest cluster ***** in the history of the country. 620,000 people died. Civil rights where suspended. Lawlessness and murder of civilians was rampant. Thousands of people starved. Could it have been any worse under a different leader?
- smacksaw, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6Dude at that point we could just buy the book he's referencing.
- jsffive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6So... Mr Douglass was of the opinion that Mr. Lincoln was NOT a racist?
Why?
Was it perhaps because of the things that Mr. Lincoln SAID to him?
And hasn't it been shown, even in the tnr article above, that Mr. Lincoln was apt to say whatever was necessary to the whomever he was speaking to?
Indeed, HOW are we feeble minded folks of the 21st century supposed to judge such ideas as the "back-to-Africa" campaign, of which Mr. Lincoln was a strong advocate? And when opposition to this idea came from the freed American black men, he (again) changed his rhetoric, and proposed some place in Central, or South America?
Are you trying to imply that it's NOT acceptable to advocate it now, but WAS acceptable in Lincoln's time?
You are correct, Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus were NOT politicians... but do politicians get judged by a different standard than men who gave their whole lives to the cause of righteousness? Is that how things are supposed to be?
On your last point, I would agree. I DO tend to get long-winded. But short, pithy answers on matters of such import do not satisfy. In fact, they have all the earmarks of a person who would rather believe the INDOCTRINATION, and not the facts of history. - diggduggjoe, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7It is easy to buy into the Lincoln as hero crap. That is what they teach in schools nowadays.
As they said during Vietnam, you have to destroy the village in order to save it. Lincoln saved the Union by utterly destroying it.There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. The 10th Amendment says, if the Constitution does not define a power to the federal government, then it is left to the states and the people.
Since Lincoln, we no longer live as a republic. The Feds call the shots and the people have accepted being a democracy and voting themselves money from the treasury. Franklin warned us, as did Jefferson.
The mistake Lincoln made was thinking the Union was more important than liberty. None of the founders would have agreed with that. I suppose that federalists would even be shocked with the notion of the IRS, or going massively into debt like we have. Blowing up the third world to force them to be like us would not be a notion any founder would have accepted.
Lincoln could have reasoned with the south since slavery would have been a trade killer as most of Europe gave up the practice. All he needed to do was convince them of that future and then buy out all the slaves and free them, if that was his goal. However, that was not the goal. He chose "saving" the Union. - DavidNiven, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7Why make this about me, the messenger? Do you not have any constructive arguments...or do you simply whine about others with whom you disagree but with whom you are unable to argue?
Never mind. You don't have to answer. We already know what you'd say. - thebeginning, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7 He also was not a woman, or a cat.
This article left quite a few holes, that's for sure. - mah2cent, on 07/06/2009, -2/+8Abraham Lincoln used military conscription, suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned newspaper editors who dared to disagree with his prosecution of the Civil War.
- Presbyterian, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6Dude don't tell me you actually think Lincoln was an Abolitionist.
- smacksaw, on 07/06/2009, -9/+14The difference between racism and multiculturalism is that one sees fear and hate in race and the other sees diversity and fascination in race.
Noticing race or even talking about it doesn't make you racist. Saying racially-charged jokes, even in poor taste that play off of stereotypes doesn't make you racist. It might make you insensitive, but not racist.
A good post, but Lincoln was not a racist. - inactive, on 07/06/2009, -7/+12Lincoln hunted black male slaves for sport in The Appalachians with nothing more than a buck knife. He'd typically catch them, fight and get the best of them, and just when it seemed like he was going to deliver the death blow, he'd stop, drop the knife, and give the slave a long, hard kiss on the mouth. They'd just stand there, Lincoln stoic, the slave stunned, sharing awkward silence. Finally Lincoln would turn away and going home, leaving the slave to go free.
- DavidNiven, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5See for yourself:
http://www.slavenorth.com
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_ ...
Who needs the education now, dude? - thejackyl, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4That's true...
- jsffive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5P.S.
If one isn't allowed to judge a nineteenth century man by using 21st century standards, then how can ANYONE today be allowed to judge the slave owners of that time? Your argument is specious, because the ONLY reason why we read history is to judge people using the standards of the present day.
I mean, how can anyone LEARN from history, if we don't look back and say, "that was right, and that was wrong"? - Stinkylicious, on 07/06/2009, -4/+8I'm not smart enough for this *****.
- smacksaw, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4He wasn't 1,7 metres. They didn't even have the metric system back then!
- Akairenn, on 07/06/2009, -6/+10He's a great president because he managed to keep the Union intact through nefarious means, and did it in such a way that his PR - over a hundred years later - is absolutely *insane* :p
Also he had an excellent taste in hats. - darkened, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4And by saving the union, you mean starting a war causing the most massive genocide of American lives in all of history. It just shocks me that he is somehow idolized when he made more Americans die than I believe every other war we've been in combined, all in the name of "saving the union."
- keraneuology, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4The following proclamation by the President of the United States is published:
Whereas, there appears in the public prints what purports to be a proclamation of Major-General Hunter, in the words and figures following, to wit:
GENERAL ORDERS.—NO. 11.
HEAD-QUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOUTH, HILTON HEAD, S. C. May 9, 1862.
The three States of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, comprising the Military Department of the South, having deliberately declared themselves no longer under the protection of the United States of America, and having taken up arms against the said United States, it becomes a military necessity to declare them under martial law. This was accordingly done on the 25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible. The persons in these three States—Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida—heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free.
DAVID HUNTER, Major-General Commanding. ED. W. SMITH, Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
And whereas, the same is producing some excitement and misunderstanding,
Therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, proclaim and declare that the Government of the United States had no knowledge or belief of an intention on the part of General Hunter to issue such a proclamation, nor has it yet any authentic information that the document is genuine; and, further, that neither General Hunter nor any other commander or person has been authorized by the Government of the United States to make proclamation declaring the slaves of any State free, and that the supposed proclamation now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void so far as respects such declaration.
I further make known, that whether it be competent for me, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the slaves of any State or States free, and whether at any time, or in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the Government to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I can not feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field. These are totally different questions from those of police regulations in armies and camps.
On the 6th day of March last, by a special message, I recommended to Congress the adoption of a joint resolution, to be substantially as follows:
Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State, in its discretion, compensation for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system.
The resolution, in the language above quoted, was adopted by large majorities in both branches of Congress, and now stands an authentic, definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the States and people most immediately interested in the subject-matter. To the people of these States I now earnestly appeal. I do not argue. I beseech you to make the arguments for yourselves. You can not, if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. This proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. It acts not the Pharisee. The change it contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking any thing. Will you not embrace it? So much good has not been done by one effort in all past times as in the Providence of God it is now your high privilege to do. May the vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-sixth. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President— - emmeron, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3@spankaccount ... apt name...
The most annoying thing in the world is people posting anti- messages without using reason or logic. Make an argument, state your case, and feel free to point out issues with other arguments. Or STFU, annoying twerp.
To assume all people who are against fiat currency are pro-Paul is ignorant.
All apples are fruit, but that does not make all fruit apples. Learn some logic before you get out of the kiddie pool again. - analogkid01, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4You could say that about anyone, though.
- Stevo592, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3Dugg for fight club reference.
- jsffive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4He was a man who constantly changed his rhetoric.
In that regard, he was much like President Bush.
And you're right. Changing rhetoric doesn't necessarily make him a racist. But this quote from his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas does.
" While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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."
Not MY words... HIS. - DavidNiven, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3WWII was NOT about the Holocaust. It was about control and power. If it were about the Holocaust, then we'd have gone to war only with Germany in 1942 or so when first reports of concentration camps really started leaking out of Europe.
- FatAmerican, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4You forgot a good one:
“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
Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas, September 18, 1858 - schroeder, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Seriously, 1-800-ABCDEFG.
- HtomSirveaux, on 07/06/2009, -2/+4It takes two to tango.
- netant, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3And let me throw him a clue...
Lincoln was the leader of the Republican Party. - Richandler, on 07/05/2009, -7/+9Weren't we taught to actually cite sources and not just list a bunch of books related to the subject. Seriously! Especially before writing the essay. That is a dead give away he didn't do the assignment.
- TexanRudeBoy, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Look at how many Northern states ammended their state constitutions to specifically prohibit any black emigrants from entering their states to get a good idea of Northern attitude towards other races.
- jsffive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2From Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
Whatever the war may have BECAME after yet another change in rhetoric by Lincoln, it STARTED as war over collecting taxes.
It's been estimated that, of the $110 million in total revenue that the Federal government was collecting in those days, as much as 80% was coming from the south. Indeed, Ft. Sumter was a collecting base for TAXES! Follow the money, not the propaganda. - ZenMojo, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3He saved the children, but not the British children.
- postitnote, on 07/06/2009, -4/+6He was not his job. He was not how much money he had in the bank. He was not the car he drove. He was not the contents of his wallet. He was not his ***** khakis.
- netant, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Hasn't history taught you anything? Look at politicians today.
Look at WW II and the Nuremberg Trials. Find me a single politician in the accused bunch. (Yes, I am being facetious.) -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is