Abraham Lincoln

What is your opinion of Lincoln as a president and as a man? He is a pretty controversial figure in history, I figured it would make a good discussion.

Undecided. Definitely something I plan on looking into...

ElizabethBennett wrote:Undecided. Definitely something I plan on looking into...

I reccomend this as a good book to read on the subject. http://www.americascaesar.com/ You will find the whole book available on the website.

He was probably one of the most destructive presidents in history.

Abraham Lincoln was to the United States what the French Revolution was to France. He is merely a product of Unitarian New England though . . . a good example of how the churches influence the country. If you want some reading that will get your dander up, I recommend the Real Lincoln.

kevinharbin wrote:

ElizabethBennett wrote:Undecided. Definitely something I plan on looking into...

I reccomend this as a good book to read on the subject. http://www.americascaesar.com/ You will find the whole book available on the website.

Thanks! I'll see if I can find Real Lincoln, too.

A tyrant. Suspending state conventions, preventing states from having the constitutional right to secede. He purposely sent supplies to Fort Sumter in order to start a war between the states. He raised an army to fight the south. Two seperate houses can't stand as one, unless you put them together by force. The founding fathers would have been up in arms if they saw what Lincoln did.

George Grant did an excellent lecture on the similarities between Lincoln and Lenin (communist in Russia). It can be found on www.sermonaudio.com If you want to see it, search "Lincoln and Lenin" or look up George Grant and find it.

Re. A. Lincoln,
There is another good book on the subject titled "THE REAL LINCOLN". Great reading if you have time. He did trample headstrong over individual civil rights and in a lot of cases ignored the constitution. This side of him is not what I learned in our government schools, but ho hum that applies to a number of subjects.
Waxhawflyer - better known as The Kingfish

I think that although he took a liberal view of presidential powers in wartime, he did get our nation through a civil war. Although I think the South was correct in their view of states rights, Lincoln did end slavery directly or indirectly through his actions

Please, lets not get into a big fight over North v South. We already fought a war over it, we're not going to decide it here on this forum lol

cruisin'n5thgear wrote:I think that although he took a liberal view of presidential powers in wartime, he did get our nation through a civil war. Although I think the South was correct in their view of states rights, Lincoln did end slavery directly or indirectly through his actions

Please, lets not get into a big fight over North v South. We already fought a war over it, we're not going to decide it here on this forum lol

While I do agree that we do not want to fight another civil war, the ideas that drove the North and the South need to be studied. This is especially true since the definitions of liberty and tyranny are so misunderstood in our culture. We, as a society, still suffer from the false presumption that "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means." Without acknowledging our sins, there can be no movement towards true repentance.

BrianEschen wrote:

cruisin'n5thgear wrote:I think that although he took a liberal view of presidential powers in wartime, he did get our nation through a civil war. Although I think the South was correct in their view of states rights, Lincoln did end slavery directly or indirectly through his actions

Please, lets not get into a big fight over North v South. We already fought a war over it, we're not going to decide it here on this forum lol

While I do agree that we do not want to fight another civil war, the ideas that drove the North and the South need to be studied. This is especially true since the definitions of liberty and tyranny are so misunderstood in our culture. We, as a society, still suffer from the false presumption that "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means." Without acknowledging our sins, there can be no movement towards true repentance.

I would completely agree! Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it.

cruisin'n5thgear wrote:I would completely agree! Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it.

I would add that even those who do study history are bound to repeat it—though at times it is with less regularity.

Lincoln did end slavery directly or indirectly through his actions

This is absolutely false. The Emancipation Proclamation was a purely political device to generate public support. All he did was issue an executive order to free all the slaves held IN THE SOUTH.

It did nothing whatsoever to free the thousands of slaves held in the north.

It would be akin to President Obama signing an executive order emancipating all the house cats in Bolivia.

TheWylff wrote:I would add that even those who do study history are bound to repeat it—though at times it is with less regularity.

Are you asserting that history is not moving anywhere or are you just saying that people often make the same mistakes?

As Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun. And even those who study history will repeat it—and make the same mistakes—because the situations we face never appear exactly the same from our perspective as the situations years ago. In twenty years, the things we are going through now will look differently to us and others. Learning history won't necessarily help anything. People make mistakes, (though how a purposeful misdeed is a mistake beats me) and will continue to do so, even if they do study history.

TheWylff wrote:As Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun. And even those who study history will repeat it—and make the same mistakes—because the situations we face never appear exactly the same from our perspective as the situations years ago. In twenty years, the things we are going through now will look differently to us and others. Learning history won't necessarily help anything. People make mistakes, (though how a purposeful misdeed is a mistake beats me) and will continue to do so, even if they do study history.

I disagree. If a Christian people study history, and purpose to apply the Bible to avoid the same mistakes by God's grace in the power of the Spirit and prayer, they will avoid those mistakes. Our puritan forefathers are a good example of that . . . producing the greatest nation in history.

Sheesh. What can I say? I didn't realise perfection was achievable, but I guess with enough prayer and study of history, anything is possible.

(And America was not the greatest nation, is not the greatest nation, and never will be the greatest nation, unless great means "greedy, fat, selfish, world-dominating, assimilating land of cowboys and civil wars". As well, America was not founded by Puritans. That is a mistake many make, and studying history probably won't help you not repeat it, but you could try I suppose. America was founded by Separatists. Puritans wanted to stay in the Anglican Church, but reform it. Separatists were on the Mayflower because they were fighting against the law and got kicked out.)

P.S. The founders of America really didn't solve the problem, because look what happened with inflation, during the revolution? Look what happened everywhere in America—the same things that happened in France years earlier, but that no one was smart enough to fix. If you're looking for a good example, it doesn't exist.

Calm down. Extreme responses rarely go very far in helping to understand an argument.

I never said "perfection." I actually believe that history is going somewhere . . . to God's stated end. This is not because people are good students of history, pray, etc, but because of the gospel which IS the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. God actually accomplishes what He says He will. I do not base my beliefs based on what I see, but on what God says. Hence, I can say with certainty that we are not always doomed to make the same mistakes.

You may look at America and lament how wicked she is. I will admit that I do the same thing. However, it is a little naive to reject the claim that America was the greatest nation on the earth simply because she had problems at her inception or because of where she is now. You will never have a perfect nation.

Your claim about the Puritans is unfounded. To make a claim and then say, "If you read history you would understand this," does nothing to advance an argument. At best it serves to distract from the argument, at worst it works to annoy. Just because the Pilgrims (separatists) came first does not mean that the Puritans had no hand in founding America. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Indeed I would say that the Puritan influence was greater in that they were more numerous.

The Pilgrims did not get "kicked out" of England any more than the Puritans did. Remember, they held to the same doctrines but just differed on their responses. As you rightly pointed out, the Pilgrims thought reformation in the church was hopeless, the Puritans thought the opposite was true. The Pilgrims actually left England (willingly) for Holland first and then left for America (willingly) later for a four-fold reason 1) they found they were losing their children to a decadent Dutch culture, 2) there was a clear intention that the Spanish were planning on enforcing popery on the country, 3) they wanted to advance the gospel of Christ to the heathen Indians and 4) they wanted to establish a commonwealth that would protect their rights to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences held captive by the Word of God. You can find this in a wonderful book by William Bradford called Of Plymouth Plantation.