LDS LiberalYour view of the "right side of history" is like
a persons view of who was a good president and who was a bad president.
I'd bet, for instance, that many on the left would not give credit to
Reagan/Bush as being on the right side of history with regards to
anti-Communism, military buildup, and ending the Cold War. Others would say it
was a great historical accomplishment. I know people still that think our
country should never have spend billions on a space program to get to the moon.
Especially as it was a race against the Russians. Others, like myself still see
that as one of Americas greatest accomplishments. Right side of history?? From
each of our points of view, we both are on the right side of history. And
refering to a comment above by Beowolf, was one of the icons of liberalism, FDR,
on the right side of history with Japanese internment camps?
@Brutus-- it appears you and Obama share the same thoughts.
Oh my. "Right side of history". This is a common mantra of the
Progressive Liberal left that is repeated by such people to comfort themselves
that whatever they are pressing for at that particular moment is
"right".Well, a century ago one of these so-called
"right side of history" ideas was eugenics, the idea that a perfect man
could be created by breeding people with the "right" genes. Sounds
great, right? Well, the reverse was discrimination against people who did not
have the "right" genes. And who got to decide which was which? Why, the
Progressive Liberal left, of course. Forced sterilization of southern black
women in the 1920s and 1930s was instigated by Northern liberals, not by
Southern segregationists (which you would expect to be the usual suspects in
such shenanigans).This evil idea only perished after the horrors of
World War II, when the concentration camps were discovered (eugenics applied in
practice...).So don't let me hear banal nonsense about being on
"the right side of history". You won't know whether you were or not
until long after you are dead.
Maple Don, don’t know what the President believes in his heart. The fringe
right loves to him, attempted to paint him as evil and anti-American, despite
evidence to the contrary. Just because he has a different ideology than the
libertarian right wing doesn't make him either bad or wrong.Blind ideology is taking this country down faster than any outside internal
threat. There is no cooperation between parties any more, no consensus, just
partisan bickering. My vote always goes to the candidate that is competent and
honest. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate that agrees with me politically
that I do not find to be ethical and capable of doing the job. I would vote for
a candidate with opinions divergent from my own if that candidate strikes me as
able to serve effectively and grounded on honesty and a true ethic of public
service. I did not vote for Obama, and wasn’t happy that he
won, but he is still the president. You might want to refer to the Constitution
and check out the systems of checks and balances we have. One man cannot destroy
America without the cooperation of the people.
Guess which two words from the original Gettysburg Address did President Obama
exclude when reciting the speech?Huh? Give up?"Under
God."Barack Obama omitted the words "under God" from the
Gettysburg Address when reciting the great speech for a Ken Burns documentary.
Burns had filmed all living presidents as well as various Hollywood
personalities and luminaries to pay homage to the speech which was delivered by
Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago, today.Surprised?
@custer – “This was a war that never should have been
fought.”Easy to say in hindsight, but this was a problem even
the collective genius of the Founders could not solve. And slavery was something
the South was given repeated opportunities since the founding to abandon, but
greed (not to mention an increasingly entrenched Southern aristocracy) is a
powerful motivator.No, this was a war that not only should have been
fought but in fact is one of the few in history that was morally justified. And
for all the ways wars (and the aftermath) can go wrong, Lincoln did about the
best job of navigating that treacherous four years as anyone could have.We could easily be two nations today, and given the ideology pervasive
in the South it is highly doubtful the Confederacy would have continued intact.
It’s questionable whether even their states would have survived given the
factionalism and distrust of government.More likely they would have
ended up as hundreds of Kingdom of Jones’.
@kiddsportFairview, UT"The Emancipation Proclamation was
an EXECUTIVE ORDER issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a
war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive
branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States."Against this background, Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority
as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2
of the United States Constitution. As such, he claimed to have the martial
power to free persons held as slaves in those states which were in rebellion
"as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion".and yes, The Executive Order was then made permanent and
Nationwide [trumping any and all States rights] with the passage of the 13th
amendment to the U.S. constitution.The points is, The
Progressive Liberals have more often than not been on the right side of history.
A truly great president, worthy of Mt. Rushmore, would have prevented the Civil
War from ever happening. Instead, Lincoln ran headlong into it, just waiting
for the South to fire a shot, so he could raise an army and start the tragic
Civil War--which cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans. This was a war that
never should have been fought. Americans fighting Americans. A great president
would have brought the North and South together long before shots were fired.
Lincoln did not free slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. That occurred
with the 13th Amendment. What the proclamation did was direct the military how
to treat slaves encountered in states which were in rebellion to the Union. It
did not affect the five Southern states not in rebellion. It was only
enforceable in areas of rebel states that came under Union control. It was a
part of his role as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war to expedite the
management of liberated slaves. States Rights did not apply because those
states were in a state of declared war. What the Emancipation Proclamation did
was set the stage and define the stated outcome of the Civil War.And yes,
we are still divided. Unfortunately, many people have exchanged their chains of
iron with chains of blind obeisance.
Lincoln "freed" the Slaves via the "Emancipation Proclamation",
i.e., an executive order. He usurped States Rights [viewed by the South
as un-Constitutional], He stripped away a Master's "property"
without compensation [also viewed un-Constitutional], They called Lincoln
as a Tyrant, They felt he had made himself a "KING" [sound
familiar at all?]Agreed -- We're still divided, and
along the same ideological lines as well.
@brutusLincoln was also the leader of the War of Northern Aggression
against the South.Right?
Brutus and Esquire have illustrated with their comments we are just as divided
now as a nation as we were in 1863.
Lincoln was a tyrant in every sense of the word. The Gettysburg Address, as
lovely as it may read, was just Lincoln being the politician he was. His
actions throughout his presidency should speak far louder than any address, and
those actions are not to be commended. He was no friend to our constitutional
Cowboy, my issue is that the right wing talks a big game about the principles of
the speech, but that's where it ends. Blah, blah, blah, but their actions
are totally opposite.
Nice article; captures the speech's essence quite well - that above all
Lincoln stood for government by the people (i.e., democracy) and against
factionalism, ideology, and unequal representation.Lincoln was
perhaps the least tangential politician this country has ever seen and arguably
one of the most complete human beings in history. His shoes are
large and difficult to fill, and watching our politics today one can't help
feel that we're doing a poor job of filling them.
Esquire,I am willing to bet that you hear about it a lot more on Fox News
and The Blaze rather than CNN and MSNBC.
Do you think we could get the Tea Party and the Republicans to even read the
Gettysburg Address? It would do them and the nation, a lot of good.