Obama As The New Lincoln

[Matt Collins]

From the History News Network:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/124779.html

​

 

[Stary Hickory]

Maybe he will slaughter 600,000 Americans too. We have so much to look forward too.

 

[squarepusher]

Maybe he will slaughter 600,000 Americans too. We have so much to look forward too.

3 million, inflation adjusted

 

[Bucjason]

I think Obama is more like the new Jefferson Davis since he has deemed us all the new "degenerate sons of ham" and has sentenced us all to our justly deserved eternal servitude ...

 

[phill4paul]

3 million, inflation adjusted

lolz!

 

[Working Poor]

is Obama a republican?

 

[A. Havnes]

As in, Obama will start a new civil war? Maybe this time the rhetoric will be, "It's for the children!" instead of, "It's to liberate the slaves!"

 

[Matt Collins]

As in, Obama will start a new civil war?

A new civil war? I was unaware that there was an old civil war

 

[nate895]

3 million, inflation adjusted

Actually 6,200,000, (620,000*10) inflation adjusted, but with the advent of new military arms, probably in the tens of millions.

 

[TortoiseDream]

3 million, inflation adjusted

lol

 

[A. Havnes]

A new civil war? I was unaware that there was an old civil war

I was referring to the Civil War, not a current one. Bad wording on my part.

 

[nf7mate]

You must be talking about the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[fisharmor]

You must be talking about the War of Northern Aggression.

+1

Calling the war of 1861-65 a civil war is part of the problem.
Every civil war before and after that war was over control of an existing territory.

The 1861 war was not over control of an existing territory. The confederate states already had control over their territories, and they tried to leave the union peacefully.

It's not even totally accurate to call it a war for independence, since legally there was no reason to assume the confederate states had no right to secede.

I suppose "War of Northern Aggression" is the best common use name, but I'd be more in favor of "War of Northern Conquest". That way it frames the discussion with the fact that the south was trying to mind its own business.

 

[Aratus]

personally i was more inclined to see barack obama as the dr. woodrow wilson of
our generation although he's someone who went to harvard insted of princeton!

 

[Matt Collins]

I was referring to the Civil War, not a current one. Bad wording on my part.

But there hasn't been a civil war in this land ever to my knowledge

You must be talking about the War of Northern Aggression.

Well, like Iraq, there was no real declaration of war, and if there was one, it was illegal. That's why referring to it as the invasion and occupation of the Union Army would be fairly accurate.

+1

Calling the war of 1861-65 a civil war is part of the problem.
Every civil war before and after that war was over control of an existing territory.

The 1861 war was not over control of an existing territory. The confederate states already had control over their territories, and they tried to leave the union peacefully.

It's not even totally accurate to call it a war for independence, since legally there was no reason to assume the confederate states had no right to secede.

I suppose "War of Northern Aggression" is the best common use name, but I'd be more in favor of "War of Northern Conquest". That way it frames the discussion with the fact that the south was trying to mind its own business.

Exactly. The most unbiased and obective label for that incident was "The War For/Against Southern Independence"


.

 

[Aratus]

folks was our war jist only jeff davis's Ego takes on honest abe's Id as
andy johnson's Super-Ego speechifies and only temporarily is on
the seeming good side of thaddeus steven's venom & bile???

 

[Aratus]

dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit dangit

we all is ahhh rehashing all the ole 1800s lawwwhhhhhrrrrss again???

 

[Aratus]

ahhhhhhh is bein' quite civil
about something a tad civil...

 

[pico]

The big difference between these 2 presidents is that Abe Lincoln did not go to DC to fundamentally change things. His policy developed as armed conflict was going on. The slavery issue was something to develope as a political necessity for him.

Obama, on the other hand, has been speaking of his changing of DC and the nation since he was running for president. We all know his policies are much farther left than the norm.

 

[Aratus]

potus barack = pure hot air = DNC and gameplan

a new lincoln = a very old nixon = our modern g.o.p...?

teddy roosevelt = teddy kennedy + franklin roosevelt?

senator byrd = ranking senator = god's will writ in d.c?