F. Hollister, I did not call you and Triliberty Ron Paul followers. I said that you were caught up like pebbles in a brook. When you were attempting to voice your opinions about Lincoln and the Civil War you were almost being drowned out by the silly voices of the Ron Paul followers. I am also glad that the efforts of those who dislike Mr O'Reilly and this book seem to have failed miserably. Last time I checked the book is #2 on the NYT Bestselling Non Fiction list, and has Three stars here on Amazon. So much for the attacks.
Alan, I think you're judging Ron Paul by his internet supporters and it's unfair. Everyone sucks when they sign on to the internet. I don't know why... but it's true. Think about it. You've been arguing for weeks with a spaz. You suck and he sucks; at least online. I love Ron Paul. He opened my eyes about a lot of things I thought I understood but didn't. People get excited about him because what he says is sooo American and what we get in school, media and everywhere else is so un-american anymore. They don't know how to handle it. It's like when you're a kid and you learn about Santa. You feel betrayed and a bit angry before you get used to it.
And about Lincoln.... you really need to read the DiLorenzo's stuff. You won't see Lincoln or the "war of northern aggression" (as the south calls it) the same ever again.
I thought about your question, "could you imagine living in a divided America?" Honestly, I can't really imagine how it would be much different. I hardly ever go further than 15 miles from my house and every time I left the country, it wasn't really much different than going to Ohio. Also, it occurred to me that America has been divided since the start of the Union. Canada and Mexico have never been part of the USA and no one cries fowl.
It's "fun" to be from a big country, but it doesn't really matter and it's not worth the price we've had to pay for it. Think of how much we've lost since the civil war. All we got was a neat-o feeling about being in a nation that goes from sea to shining sea?
Slavery could and would have ended without the war. The war really had nothing to do with slaves. It wasn't even an idea until '63 I believe. It's like believing "they attack us because we're free." Can you imagine if people still think that in 150 years? My God, I hope they have more sense.
Julius Caesar is still talked about and was even popular in his day but look what he did. He crushed the Republic and ushered in the Empire that starved her people for the next 400 years. It's very similar to Lincoln.
I respect a good conqueror like Alexander or Caesar, but you have to know what you're respecting and it's not their goodness. Lincoln was a conqueror.
M. Hawley, I still have to wonder why the seemingly at least to me sudden rise of the Anti-Lincoln crowd. Why do they feel the need to attack and diminish him in the eyes of all Americans? If they succeed in doing so who is next on their hit list? Washington? Adams? Jefferson? In the eyes and hearts of many Americans he is no less great than these men, and just as human. Yes he did many things that history will judge him for, that The Deity will judge him for. He saved the Union and kept America whole and indivisible. Is there something sinister behind all this? I don't know. I hope not.
Lincoln doesn't deserve the place in history that he has. I think the sudden rise is due to the sudden rise in the libertarian movement. Really, why is it so important to you that the notion of the Union be in tact? It's Liberty that we were founded on. The Union is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Either you don't bother to read what you write (which I would certainly understand) or some idiot is posting on Amazon using your name.
This is what appeared under your name:
"Alan Craig says:
"Kirtap-Patrick, Triliberty actually says it quite well, there is no use arguing with stupid people. The Ron Paul supporters who have posted the one star phoney reviews are just such types as this. F. Hollister and Triliberty include themselves among them to gain unwarrented attention to their lost cause."
I do find it interesting how often the right wing nutz confuse quantity with quality. Bull O'Really? has a tv show from which he can peddle his sad books. This hardly makes them worthwhile.
Is ice cream better for you than broccoli because it sells better?
The Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. Matter of fact it wasn't even a Civil War for that matter. Civil Wars are Wars where one side wants to change the Government. The South didn't want to change the Government they wanted to secede and create their own government which is not a Civil War. It was the War between the states a War of attrition. And contrary to popular belief from State Propaganda the Civil War had very little to do Slavery. It had to do with States Rights. When the Federal Government violated the compact over and over again the South finally said enough was enough. There were years and years of violations of the compact by the general government. I am not going to educate you on all the issues that is your job. But it was over unfair tariffs! Go do some research it will make you appreciate it more!
Triliberty I once thought this would be a discussion of history. Its a story of something that I thought only southerners who still can't accept they lost believe. I have read extensively on the civil war and their is no question that the south feared the loss of the right to hold slaves. The state's rights argument which was meant to avoid the federal govt from passing laws that would affect their peculiar instituion of slavery which supported their way of life. One of the most destested ruling which declared slaves to be chattel which must be returned to their owners was a federal decision in favor of the south. Lincoln had made it clear he did not intend to free the slaves but the south felt the opposite and feared the loss of the right to hold slaves and tried to secede. PLease tell me how the federal govt had taken actions to hurt the south or remove its rights
M hawley you have your history wrong in both roman and american. Ceasar did not end the republic. It took a civil war and the gradual erosion brought on first by augustus and for almost 150 yrs after that the roman empire flourished as did the people in it. the horrible things done by romans were true under the republic or the empire. The republic at best was an oligarchy ruled by the wealthy
Ceasar was a conqueror but so was every ruler under the roman banner.
Lincoln was a conservative and wanted to preserve the union. the southern states were conservative in their own way that they wanted to preserve their way of life. He was a president of a country who fought to preserve it.
The build up to the Civil war started in 1828 with the Tariff of Abominations which started the Nullification crisis with Andrew Jackson. The South believed that the Tariff of Abominations supported Northern Industrialist and was not fair or equal. It effected the Southern Farmers in a Negative way while enriching the Northerners. At this time the South and most American People were well versed in what the true intent of the constitution was. They knew that congress could pass no legislation that did not act upon the country as a whole equally. Protective tariffs like I said hurt the Southern Farmers who would have to pay more for good they imported as the General Government made laws (Tariffs) to protect Northern Industrialists. The General Welfare Clause was written in the constitution with the intent of preventing Congress from making laws that favored one group over another. Meaning that all laws made by congress had to be in the general welfare of the United States as a whole which these high tariffs were not in the General Welfare they favored the North and Punished the South. There is no doubt that the South was agitated about the Northern abolitionists. But then again they were secure in the knowledge that Lincoln made many speeches claiming he had no intent on stopping slavery. So that argument is dead on arrival. What did vex the South was the Morrill Tariff. That legislation caused the first States to secede in the 1860. When it passed in 1861 by James Buchanan most of the South States refused to collect it because again like with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, the Morrill Tariff created the same environment that was favorable to the North at the Souths expense. And when Lincoln made a speech prior to being inaugurated saying that he would go to war to collect the Tariff it was then that the rest of the Southern States continued to Secede. Read history Alan. It's interesting how it's been obscured by guys like Bill O'Reilly with their Pro State Agenda!
I glanced at one of Tom DiLorenzo's books today and it was more subjective and more full of Propaganda that was completely anti-Lincoln which I found to be completely distastful. I cannot see how anyone with a modicum of intelligence could believe such a book. I will stick to Ketchum, Sandburg and O'Reilly for my information about Abraham Lincoln. Whom I still believe and will continue to believe was a Great Man and a Great President in spite of all the gainsayers out there. All the anti Lincoln Libertarians and all the Ron Paul followers will not get me or any Americans who believe in Common Sense, and in America to think otherwise.
Alan I have a novel idea maybe you should take the time to read it and if you still believe it's only based on opinion take a look at the references! That section is in the back of the book. However what I find amusing is how when the State Court Historians present their history it's never opinions it's always fact? They operate like this in the Establishment Corporate Media, anything outside the accepted three inch by three inch window of accepted Media APPROVED Opinions are not facts. These opinions which fall somewhere in between what John McCain believes and John Kerry believes are what we all should find to be fact! Alan Craig on this Thanksgiving I wish for you to evolve to see that you have been imprinted by the Establishment. Once you have an awareness you can acknowledge the problem, account for it and the take action or accept your current dilemma which is counter productive. Good Luck
I refer you to my post mentioning Ketchum and Sandburg. They are the only sources I feel that I need to know about Lincoln. The O'Reilly-Dugard tome is merely what it claimed to be a snapshot of the last two weeks of Lincoln's life. Along with some of the historical events surrounding it.