He chose a White Woman

[Gold Winger 9]

Alas, that's not the reality of the world today and we should only judge people by the times they live(d) in.

[DYB-Mike 10]

Gold Winger,

 

He also went on to say if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."

Lincolns prime concern was for the union and his words show his willingness to subordinate his beliefs to the union. Despite political posturing, Lincoln personally was never a supporter of slavery.

 

Who else is there? Abolitionists, slave owners, and their supporters.

 

Big government? Do you mean he should have let the Southern States succeed from the Union and be content with being the President of the Northern States of America?

 

YIS

Mike

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

"He also went on to say if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."

 

That's a non-starter. He was willing to do anything to preserve the union. He would have danced naked in DuPont Circle if it would have preserved the union.

 

" Do you mean he should have let the Southern States succeed from the Union and be content with being the President of the Northern States of America?"

 

Yes, he should have let the South secede (note spelling).

He still would have been President of the United States of America. Why would they have changed the name of the country?

 

 

[DYB-Mike 10]

Fscouter,

 

I hope youre not painting with too wide a brush.

 

For many mothers, the reality is that they have to work.

 

After many years of a single family income, my wife is looking into going back to work now that our youngest is in school for a full day. Her reason to go back isnt to pursue a career, but, quite simply, its harder to make ends meet and we can use the money!

 

Our kids are still young. Would we like to keep things the way they are? Absolutely, but you cant pay bills and send kids to scout camp with your desires.

 

Im sure self-centered, selfish moms are out there, but are they in the majority?

 

YIS

Mike

 

[DYB-Mike 10]

Gold Winger,

 

Because it wouldnt have been the United States of America any more. Well, I guess technically they would still be united states, but I guess it would also prove that the self evident truths of the Revolution that created the Union werent so self evident after all.

 

Thanks for assisting with spell check. I noted the spelling I used in several sources I had reviewed. I concede that spelling is not one of my strong points, but its nice to know Im not alone.

 

YIS,

Mike

 

[Gold Winger 9]

If Lincoln hadn't been a nut job, hell bent on having a massive war, sending thousands to die for an unpopular cause, who knows where we'd be today. Unpopular war? Remember the draft riots?

 

All those young men, not volunteers, who were slaughtered to prove his point. Their children and their children's children were never born.

 

Other than gangs, I don't know of many organizations that you join voluntarily and then can't leave. Gangs, if you do try to leave, they kill you and often your family as well as burn your house. Gee, that sounds like Lincoln, doesn't it.

 

 

[TheScout 10]

DYB, you are mistaken. President Lincoln suspended habeous corpus without the consent of Congress. Federal circut courts in Ex parte Merryman stated that this was unconstitutional and Lincoln ignored it.

 

You say how even the Tsar of Russia freed the serfs. Well that is great. But Lincoln was not a dictator and did not have the power to dispose of people's property in any way that he wished.

 

I don't understand why the colonies could secede from Britian but states counldn't secede from the United States. It smells of hypocrisy. Forcing a political community to stay together was not the dream of the American Revolution.

 

You also say,

 

"What has Obama done? Well, he voteded against Georges Iraq adventure, even when other Democrats fell for the WMD snowjob and our allies were calling for restraint. Thats reason enough for me."

 

I don't know how Obama voted against the 2003, he didn't take office until 2005.

 

You should check you facts before you write sir.

 

[Gold Winger 9]

"I don't understand why the colonies could secede from Britian but states counldn't secede from the United States."

 

One man's patriot is another's traitor.

[TheScout 10]

How things changed.

 

There was a time when men viewed liberty more than anything as the Founders abrogated their allegience to the United Kingdom which they loved to better secure their freedom.

 

Then Mr. Lincoln came decades later to play the part of King George as subjugate Southernors with much bloodshed who once more sought to form a new political community to better serve them.

[DYB-Mike 10]

Gold Winger,

 

If Lincoln hadn't been a nut job, hell bent on having a massive war, sending thousands to die for an unpopular cause, who knows where we'd be today. Unpopular war? Remember the draft riots?

 

The potential for bloodshed would still be there. We would have two countries instead of one, each competing for possession and/or dominance of the western lands. At some point the South would have experienced some sort of emancipation movement amongst the slaves themselves. Would it be bloodless? What if an organized delegation of slaves appealed to the Northern States of America for help?

 

Scout,

 

Me bad, you are correct. I was thinking of the speech against the war Obama made against the war just prior to the vote. I suppose you could say a speech is a lot different than a vote, but it still stands in contrast to what other Democrats did as far as the vote went.

 

YIS,

Mike

 

[talen333 11]

Who's to say that the father won't be taking care of the baby? I seriously doubt that he will be staying in Alaska with his wife in DC. My wife makes twice what I do, with our four kids I have always been the one to stay home with them when they were little. Nobody can tell me a father can't do that job anymore than they can say a woman can't do the job she wants. It has always been in the best interest of our family for me to be the one at home who's right is it to say what is best for the Palin family?

[Basementdweller 608]

Ohio

 

I could not find it on the national site but found it on numerous council and district sites.

 

http://www.grandtetoncouncil.org/

http://www.sfbac.org/

http://www.alapaha-bsa.org/

http://www.lincolntrailscouncil.org/

 

 

With the presidential election coming up in 2008, it is a good time to restate the BSAs long-standing policy regarding the participation of Scouts in political rallies and other political events.

Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers platform or in a conspicuous location where television viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.

Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply that the BSA favors one candidate over another. Strict observance of our long-standing policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.

Please notify your chartered organizations and unit leaders of this policy. Questions on the interpretation of this policy may be referred to David K. Park, national legal counsel, or the Marketing & Communications Division at ###-###-####

 

 

Despite my failure to find the reference on national, The policy is valid and indisputable.

 

They violated a national policy and there needs to be consequences. An apology would be a good start.

[DYB-Mike 10]

Scout,

 

In musing over the discussion concern Lincolns actions and the Civil War Ill admit that Gold Winger and yourself presented attitudes and information that I was not fully aware of and, while my own opinion may not have completely changed it certainly has given me some food for thought and Im appreciative of that.

 

It also caused me to remember an discussion we had a while back where you bemoaned the fact that traditional history (I believe I referred to it as one-dimensional) was no longer taught in schools and that modern history (warts and all) seemed to be concerned with presenting facts, including the viewpoints of indirect players on the historical stage, that worked to undermine our traditional views of historical events and personages.

 

Ill have to say the views expressed towards Lincoln and the Civil War by Gold Winger and yourself were nothing like what I was taught back in my traditional history classes in the 60s and 70s. Maybe the warts and all approach of modern history isnt such a bad thing in helping to achieve a fuller understanding of people and events.

 

YIS,

Mike

 

[TheScout 10]

Winners write the history. The Lincoln cult has been going on for quite a long time. Being assassinated tends to do much for ones historical reputation, look at Lincoln, Kennedy, or MLK.

 

I don't think the warts and all system is bad, but it is selectively applied with an agenda. One never hears of Lincoln's abuses, but is told over and over that Jefferson owned and had relations with slaves.

 

A good read is The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. Not without its bias, DiLorenzo is an avowed hard core libertarian but presents a scathing critique of Lincoln that is well worth the read.

 

[BadenP 93]

You know it is easy to look back at something that happened over 140 years ago and criticize, the fact is Gold Winger you were not there and really have little credibility in critizing Lincoln because you read one book written by another naysayer as yourself. The fact is that the southern states seceding was a violation of Constitutional law. If you took the time to read other more credible books about that time period you would understand that. The motivation given to the south by the British who wanted to see a war break out so they could have access to cheap cotton for their massive textile industry, and get another foothold in America if the south won the war, help run the Union blockade, and cause general chaos in our country. These promises that Davis was to find out were never to materialize.

 

You see GW the Civil War was not a domestic war but one of international involvement, Lincoln was dealing with other countries who had a vested interst in the south winning and undermining the USA. In addition all these promises of aid to Jefferson Davis by these powers, assurances by them that the south would win the war spurred them into a war they were not ready to fight and could not win. Lincoln I think as do most historians did the best job he could given the circumstances of the time and the potential threats to America's stability. So before you go on another witchhunt checkout the facts from more than one slanted side. Your critique of Lincoln is unwarranted, innaccurate, and outright UnAmerican.