Comments about ‘In our opinion: Gettysburg a pivotal moment for the United States’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
airnaut
Everett, 00

"While Lincoln saw the founders as seeking to put slavery on a course to extinction, slave-holding states read the U.S. Constitution as a veritable endorsement of slavery."

=======

The stuborn Southerners remind SOoooo much of today's Tea-Party.

- The Constitution is NOT subject to interpretation or in need of any change,
- The Bible supported their ideology,
- Some people are superior to others,
- The Progressives and other Liberals were destroying the Country,
- The growth of the "Federal" Government,
- Government telling Businesses what the can or can't do,
- They were right, Lincoln and the Liberals were wrong - and they would shutdown the Government and even sucede from the Union rather than be "subject" to a Progressive/Liberal as President.
- They liked their 2nd amendment right, and weren't afraid and threatened to use them.

and even after they kep loosing,
they vowed that the South will rise again....

elkym
Provo, UT

While airnaut's comment rightly notes some of the possibly distorted concerns of the Tea Party, he/she appears to have ignored the Lincoln's point, and unless I am mistaken, this editorial's point: Lincoln avoided triumphalism. This suggests to me that to recognize the Tea Party's faults without recognizing any of their concerns that might be legitimate is shortsighted. Lincoln was saddened by the widespread destruction of his nation, and while the southerners are notably unrepentant at various places and times in history, the implication that impuning the Tea Party (which I also do not sympathize with, generally) is something valuable-- that's a cringe-worthy thought. Liberals and Tea Partiers both share concerns about government overreach, in my experience. Perhaps we can take a hint from Lincoln: that it is better to build on common ground.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Lincoln did not "judge" political parties. He did not "judge" people by their political views. He asked that we bind up the wounds. For that, he was assassinated.

He did not point a finger at those whose political viewpoint differed from his own. He did not twist the words of others to suit his purposes. He did not mock. He did not sling mud. He was a leader. America could use a leader now. America could use citizens who would rather emulate Lincoln than emulate those who would divide us.

The Gettysburg Address is masterful but its meaning is lost on too many whose chief purpose is to destroy the foundation document that keeps us free from government control.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

So - Mike -

Do you feel the Confederacy was "right" taking a stand, not compromising, holding out and defending the "Constitution" as it was written at the time which guaranteed their rights which allowed Slavery?,

or

Do you agree with the bleeding heart progressive Abraham Lincoln - who understood the deeper meaning of the "intent" of the Constitution, got the necessary votes and fixed it (amended) because "all men are created equal"?

You do realize that when Lincoln "freed" the Slaves
-- it was via the "Emancipation Proclamation", i.e., an executive order.
He usurped States Rights [viewed un-Constitutional],
He stripped away a Master's "property" without compensation [also viewed un-Constitutional],
They said Lincoln as a Tyrant,
They felt he had made himself a "KING" [sound familiar at all?]
And they fueled their hatred toward Lincoln personally to the point that many Southerners forgot what they were even fighting for.

So,
You can either stand by your comments and stated opinions [which appears to put you in the DEEP South],
or can you support what the bleeding heart Northern liberal Abraham Lincoln did .

Both you can't have your cake and eat it too.
========

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Some would call Lincoln a bleeding heart. That's a shame. Lincoln believed God and in the humanity of the individual. He did not attack the individual. He did not mock the individual. He did not judge the individual. He asked all people to set aside their differences and to bind the wounds that were crippling this nation.

Today, we have a President who believes in dividing us. We have people who post regularly who believe in dividing us.

The question that we need to ask ourselves is whether we support the Supreme Law of the land without adding or subtracting from it. Lincoln neither added nor did he subtract. He knew the limits placed on his authority by the People and he respected those limits. Today, we have a free-for-all where elected officials disregard the will of the people and the Constitution, which is the foundation for everything that government is authorized to do in America. Unfortunately, there are citizens who also believe that the Constitution, unless it serves them, is obsolete.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
Some would call Lincoln a bleeding heart.
[because he was]

Lincoln believed God
[as do most Liberals because of ] the humanity of the individual.

He asked all people to set aside their differences and to bind the wounds that were crippling this nation.
[And YOU of all people are saying this?]

Today, we have a President who believes in dividing us.
[No, he is trying to have us all play by the same rules. The haves (have mores) and the have nots is what’s now dividing this nation.]

The question that we need to ask ourselves is whether we support the Supreme Law of the land without adding or subtracting from it. Lincoln neither added nor did he subtract.
[You still can see it, it’s right there in front of you and you still refuse to see it – tell me, does the 14th amendment have any meaning whatsoever with you?]

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihiuahua, 00

I wish people would study George Washington's farewell address like they study the Gettysburg address.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihiuahua, 00

LDS Liberal.

Quit taking anything you hate and putting it in the category of "Right Wing extremism" It is rather annoying and biased. The Confederates were democrats. The same democrats like Malcolm X said, pretend to be friends of the black people with the agenda of keeping them dependant with maybe an extra bone thrown to them in the form of a higher welfare check or what not.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihiuahua, 00

But they had to turn around and invade the frontier and massacre the Indians making them dependant and enslaved. Which is what Hitler used as the model for exterminating the Jews. The Union army was perfect either, even though they did a good thing in the civil war.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihiuahua, 00
LDS Liberal.

Quit taking anything you hate and putting it in the category of "Right Wing extremism" It is rather annoying and biased. The Confederates were democrats.

========

Quit distorting history.

The lables of R's and D's mean nothing over time.
but
The ideological bases have stayed pretty much the same.

The parties have traded places over the past 150 years.
with the biggest tip coming in 1964 with Barry Gold Water and Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

The Democrats were experiencing a split (similar to what Republicans are doing now) .
The idea was to flip the South from Democrat to Republicans by campaining on a platform against the Blacks "civil rights" and for "Sates Rights" -- breaking away completely from the Northern Liberal Democrats once and for all.

---

BTW - Mussolini and Hitler and the Nazi wre facsists -- uber-far-right-wing conservatives as well.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@airnaut, @Open Minded Mormon, or @LDS Liberal (you choose),

Abraham Lincoln was a great President.

Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

VST:

Very few presidents measure up to Lincoln.

That said, it's noteworthy to point out he was widely reviled, quite unpopular, while he was president.

As tensions built up to the Civil War, Lincoln was politically paralyzed, didn't know what to do with slaves who escaped to Union forts, because he resisted making the issue of southern secession about slavery. He wanted to keep the union together.

Lincoln was distinctly indecisive on the matter, leaving a Union officer at the fort (who happened to be a lawyer named Benjamin Butler) to coin a new term, "contraband", as he got no direction from Washington and didn't want to see the slaves returned to their property owners, only to be used against his own men, in the inevitable warfare upcoming.

My point is not to demean Lincoln. He was a great president.

I'm only pointing out that the pressures and challenges presidents face often make them very unpopular, in their day.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

@Anti,

1860s Democrats =\= liberals and 1860s Republicans =\= conservative. There's a reason that the extreme wing of Lincoln's part was called the "Radical Republicans" - not an adjective usually associated with conservatives and certainly not meant to be ironic.

Anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that today's political parties have always aligned on the same sides of the isle needs to find a remedial course on early-to-mid 20th century American political history.

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

"
BTW - Mussolini and Hitler and the Nazi wre facsists -- uber-far-right-wing conservatives as well."

I think it's called the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY! No right wing group!
I also think it was Hitler that said to control the people, you must control their health care.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

"The question that we need to ask ourselves is whether we support the Supreme Law of the land without adding or subtracting from it. Lincoln neither added nor did he subtract. He knew the limits placed on his authority by the People and he respected those limits."

Many Americans living in 1863 would be outraged to hear Lincoln being lauded for his strict adherence to the Constitution. Lincoln was frequently savaged by many in the North for overplaying the powers of the executive branch and governing as a tyrant who trampled all over the Constitution. Criticisms included the expansion of executive war powers, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, suspension of habeas corpus, and suppression of votes in border state elections.

Which is something to bear in mind when we try making comparisons between Lincoln and our contemporary leaders. Despite what people at the time thought, I believe Lincoln to be our best president. The verdict of history is often far different from how we perceive events at the time.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There are "rats" who gnaw at the ropes that keep civilization together. They bite and chew at the very fabric that binds us together. They might not know how pernicious their gnawing is, but the end result is that they try to destroy what intelligent minds have given us. Lincoln had an intelligent mind. He knew the source of his intelligence. He did not look to himself for inspiration, but to our Creator. His vision was of a unified nation, undefiled by the "rats".

Today, we have "rats" that mock the Constitution, that mock this nation, that mock the citizens whose viewpoints differ from their own. They call themselves "liberals", but they are anything but liberal. They, just like those who plotted against Lincoln, are full of malice towards all and charity only for themselves.

They have the freedom to speak, but their speech, hidden behind their pseudonyms, shows their character. Many think that they can define terms and conditions unilaterally, but they are mistaken. Lincoln knew them well. A war was fought against them. That war still rages on and will rage on because the "rats" continue to gnaw.

Understanding what Lincoln said puts "rats" in their place.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

Mike Richards,

Kindly engage the counterpoints presented instead of attacking the integrity, character, and desires of those who disagree with you with ad hominems, comparisons to rodent vermin, and absurd allusions to Lincoln's assassin.

In your first comment above, you wrote of Lincoln: "He did not point a finger at those whose political viewpoint differed from his own. He did not twist the words of others to suit his purposes. He did not mock. He did not sling mud."

Please demonstrate the same courtesy with those who don't share your views here on the DN.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Unreconstructed Reb,

I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but kindly remember that the Deseret News is the moderator. They set the rules of what is said. They have posted a request about "a civil dialogue" and they select what is published. If the moderators allow a post, then those moderators have decided that the post fits within their guidelines of "a civil dialogue".

Since you directed your post at me, by name, perhaps you might compare what you've written to your request that I write only what you find politically correct. Do you wish to control the dialogue?

Mr. Lincoln spoke and wrote eloquently, but he was not a "door mat". I wish that I had his gift of eloquence, but I'm just a humble farm boy whose education did not include a course on the subtleties of feigning outrage while mounting an oblique attack. You are more masterful of that approach than I ever hope to be.

Because I use my name when I post, if you find my posts offensive, then please don't read them.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

Mike Richards,

I respect the ability of DN moderators to do their job, but they do not set my own views on "civil dialogue" and I reserve the right to respond to what I consider an inflammatory post.

No, I've no wish to control the dialogue. There is a 'report abuse' function, but rebuttal is better than censorship. I've called you out because your first post is completely at odds with your "rats" metaphor.

While I disagree with your views on many things, especially your black-and-white approach and your political views which ignore 200 years of constitutional theory and practice (As a lawyer, I assure you that I've studied the Constitution, too!), I don't make it personal.

I don't question your integrity, your motives, your morality, or your sincerity. I don't claim you're acting contrary to God. I don't preach or condemn. I don't lump you with Hitler, communists, or assassins. I've witnessed you do all these repeatedly to others. In previous interactions, you've insulted my own military service in Iraq and my commitment to our shared faith. I'm weary of bullying and will respond to it.

L White
Springville, UT

Mr. Unreconstructed Reb,

Do you really respect the Deseret News moderators, or do you think that you are the moderator? You've told us that you, not the Deseret News moderators, should decide what is published. I think that you're not in the position to make that decision.

You told us that you do not like the "rats" metaphor. I like it. Does that mean that I cannot express my opinion because you disagree with anyone who posts something that you do not want published?

If I have read your post correctly, you have personally attacked Mr. Richards. He does not write what you think is politically correct. What is politically correct? Is it politically correct for you to "censor" someone just because he writes something that you think is offensive?

What does your military service buy you when you post? Thanks for your service; but, did you serve so that you could force your viewpoint on us or did you serve to protect our freedom to make our own decisions?

I think that Abraham Lincoln would wonder if you sustained the Constitution or whether you wanted to dictate to the nation. I wonder too.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments