Friday, February 13, 2009

While watching TV yesterday, I heard the names "Obama" and "Lincoln" used in the same sentence a whole bunch of times. But people from all parties can draw inspiration from Lincoln. . He was a controversial Republican president who had to crush an insurgency. He was also a minor party candidate who was not on the ballot in every state, and he ended a failed, immoral economic institution that had been propped up by the federal government for decades.

8 comments:

Daddy said...

To form an informed opinion, consider going south and talk to regular folks there with family stories to tell about Abe's rule. I actually lived in the South for some time, and managed to engaged a few locals for a good chat. I was told of looting, mass murders, rapes, cities burned, orphanages, etc, etc. If one has to admire someone who worked as a POTUS, it's worth consider those who delivered great results, like George Washington or James Polk.

Robert Enders said...

You have a valid point. It's all a matter of perspective. A lot of Mexicans feel the same about Polk as Southerners feel about Lincoln. Every POTUS has done something that would be frowned upon by modern standards.

Daddy said...

And British royal family may feel bad about George Washington. But should we care?

Robert Enders said...

Indiana was always an abolitionist state. Should Hoosiers care about what Southerners think? Perhaps so, since a lot of Hoosiers are transplanted Southerners. For that matter, Lincoln was a transplanted Southerner.

It is clear that in some ways the old wounds from that terrible war are still healing. There were atrocities committed by both sides, and yet there were brave men on both sides. Everyone is entitled to their own heroes.

It may interest you to know that I support a state's right to peacefully secede so as long as that state supports the right of people to come and go as they choose. Individual rights trump the rights of both state and national governments

Daddy said...

From
http://www.city-data.com/states/Indiana-Armed-forces.html

War | Hoosiers
| Enlisted Killed
========================
Civil 200,000 24,000
WWI 118,000 3,300
WWII 338,000 10,000

Civil war was the bloodiest one, especially when a much smaller Indiana population is taken into account.

From http://www.city-data.com/states/Indiana-History.html

"Hoosiers showed considerable sympathy with the South in the 1850s, and there was considerable "copperhead" activity in the early 1860s. Nevertheless, Indiana remained staunchly in the Union under Governor Oliver P. Morton".

Morton, though seemed to be just a self serving opportunist, who did not mind slavery:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/mortonbio.htm

If you believe that 24K Hoosiers were killed for a just cause, and not for a business interests of the few, I'd have a bridge to sell you.

Anonymous said...

My grubber-mint school education taught me to revere Lincoln. One interesting note is that before his presidency people would use the phrase "the united States are" and after Lincoln "the United States is".
The point is Lincoln singlehandedly destroyed the union. He destroyed states rights. Lincoln was not a friend of individual rights.
UGH.

Robert Enders said...

Jeff Davis was not a friend of individual rights either. Nobody's perfect.

Daddy said...

JD has been neither a lawyer or drug, ...eh, well, alcohol dealer as Abe, but a west-point grad.
President James K. Polk offered him(JD) a Federal commission as a brigadier general and command of a brigade of militia. He declined the appointment, arguing that the United States Constitution gives the power of appointing militia officers to the states, and not to the Federal government of the United States.