Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[sodaseller]

Since you've indicated that Lincoln was such a "secular saint", I wonder if you've ever heard of Clement L. Vallandigham. If not, you should become familiar with him, because he should be a hero to liberals everywhere.

Vallandigham was a conservative politician in the mid-1800's and quite the outspoken critic of President Lincoln and his policies. His primary argument was that "no circumstance, even war, could deprive a citizen of his right to oppose governmental policy freely and openly." (see "Letters of Dissent" by Frank Klement).

Surprisingly, this argument raised a major ruckus in both the media and in Washington. Because Vallandigham refused to back down from his exercise of his constitutional right to free speech and his constant criticism of Lincoln's administration, he was arrested, tried, imprisoned, shuffled off to live in the south and ultimately exiled to Canada -- all with the tacit or direct approval of President Lincoln.

This is a "secular saint"?

Don't even go there - you're descending into Dawnism. You know nothing about Lincoln's presidency. Don't try to stain him to defend the idiot in office - have some sense of the sacred. You know nothing about Lincoln - you look up some piece and think you have a clue. Ya'll disgust me.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Don't even go there - you're descending into Dawnism. You know nothing about Lincoln's presidency. Don't try to stain him to defend the idiot in office - have some sense of the sacred. You know nothing about Lincoln - you look up some piece and think you have a clue. Ya'll disgust me.

Wow, did my post hit a nerve? You really do seem a tad touchy about Lincoln. He was, after all, just a flawed human being just like you and me. Amazingly enough, there is a historical record of not only his accomplishments, but also his warts, pimples, foibles and errors. There's nothing sacred about him, except in your own mind.

As I showed in a previous post, there are numerous references to Lincoln's major missteps re: Vallandigham. It's recorded that Lincoln himself regretted his actions in this regard. You might want to read Frank Klement's book, "Letters of Dissent". Or pick up a biography of Lincoln that is written by someone who chooses not to prostrate themselves at the Lincoln altar.

The whole truth is out there... if you're willing to face it. Or you can just practice the "dishonesty" you regularly accuse others of.

 

[dcentity2000]

Perhaps if they were so well organized they were in places you'd never suspect.

Hehe, that's a bit like saying "how do you know that a table doesn't turn green when you turn your back on it?" - impossible to disprove! I guess though that if they were there than they were pretty inert - uncharacteristically so, in fact.

I'll just take this opportunity to correct myself - the IRA is still about - they just (supposedly) carried out a bank raid.



Rich::

 

[richiebaseball]

Don't even go there - you're descending into Dawnism. You know nothing about Lincoln's presidency. Don't try to stain him to defend the idiot in office - have some sense of the sacred. You know nothing about Lincoln - you look up some piece and think you have a clue. Ya'll disgust me.

This is classic! Thanks for laugh!

 

[richiebaseball]

Sometimes, it's painful to read your posts. Here is a thought, by a well respected rightie to remember in this situation:

Man is not free unless government is limited. As government expands, liberty contracts.

Ohhh, quotes by Ben! I like this game. Um, here's one:

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Ohhh, quotes by Ben! I like this game. Um, here's one:

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

Actually, "mom's" quote was from my signature line... it's from Ronald Reagan. As usual she misses the point trying to score one. Reagan believed that the government's primary responsibility was the common defense of its citizens (something I agree with wholeheartedly). This thread's topic (i.e., the tempest in a teapot) is hardly about an expanding government, but rather about the government's most important responsibility: to protect the citizens of the U.S. I suppose it is to be expected that there will be disagreements on how that should be accomplished. It's been like that since before the country was founded. I'm re-reading 1776 by David McCullough and it is fascinating to see how even then there was widespread dissent about how to protect/defend our young country.

 

[Charade]

Don't even go there - you're descending into Dawnism. You know nothing about Lincoln's presidency. Don't try to stain him to defend the idiot in office - have some sense of the sacred. You know nothing about Lincoln - you look up some piece and think you have a clue. Ya'll disgust me.

Ok, what have you done with sodaseller and who is this posting under his screen name?

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I'm re-reading 1776 by David McCullough and it is fascinating to see how even then there was widespread dissent about how to protect/defend our young country.

I'm currently reading this book as well, and it does make for interesting reading.

 

[sodaseller]

Wow, did my post hit a nerve? You really do seem a tad touchy about Lincoln. He was, after all, just a flawed human being just like you and me. Amazingly enough, there is a historical record of not only his accomplishments, but also his warts, pimples, foibles and errors. There's nothing sacred about him, except in your own mind.

As I showed in a previous post, there are numerous references to Lincoln's major missteps re: Vallandigham. It's recorded that Lincoln himself regretted his actions in this regard. You might want to read Frank Klement's book, "Letters of Dissent". Or pick up a biography of Lincoln that is written by someone who chooses not to prostrate themselves at the Lincoln altar.

The whole truth is out there... if you're willing to face it. Or you can just practice the "dishonesty" you regularly accuse others of.

Thanks for filling me in on Abe - I'll print it out and put it on the dedicated shelf of my library to Lincoln, including the book proposal (yes, unsuccessful) that went through three exchanges and might have flown if not for Guelzo's work.

Also appreciate the primer on original sin - I'll put your work right next to Augustine's and Neibuhr's on the subject. I have foolishly over the years tried to synthesize their observations on the subject, witha touch of Golding. Little did I realize there was such a prophetic source right here on the DIS, and with such minimalism, one that can somehow taint Lincoln to make their point. I suppose that in defending Bush, it is important to ensure that no one stands tall. Or maybe you're just praising him. While you're at it, don't forget Churchill, or even Christ, who chose him for office, or more comparisons on the endless cycle of apologetic idolatry. I have been accused, with some justification, of an idolatrous view towards Lincoln. You adopt it towards Bush. The ridculous to the sublime, truly a fascination with the profane.
Disgusting

 

[crcormier]

Ohhh, quotes by Ben! I like this game. Um, here's one:

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

Thanks for the demonstration!

Just kidding Rich, it was just too good a setup to let it slide.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'm currently reading this book as well, and it does make for interesting reading.

Totally OT, but I continue to be amazed that the Revolutionary War was ever won, given the errors and misjudgments made by both sides. Lots of lessons to be learned there.

 

[crcormier]

Totally OT, but I continue to be amazed that the Revolutionary War was ever won, given the errors and misjudgments made by both sides. Lots of lessons to be learned there.

I agree, it certainly is amazing. A bunch of farmers against the best professional army of the time. So many little things could have made it turn out differently. Have you ever seen the musical 1776? It's one of my favorites and I've been lucky enough to perform in it twice and there is an excellent film version of it as well. Certainly doesn't have the breadth that McCullough's book has, but it's still a wonderful glimpse of the time, much of the dialogue from actual letters.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Thanks for filling me in on Abe - I'll print it out and put it on the dedicated shelf of my library to Lincoln, including the book proposal (yes, unsuccessful) that went through three exchanges and might have flown if not for Guelzo's work.

Also appreciate the primer on original sin - I'll put your work right next to Augustine's and Neibuhr's on the subject. I have foolishly over the years tried to synthesize their observations on the subject, witha touch of Golding. Little did I realize there was such a prophetic source right here on the DIS, and with such minimalism, one that can somehow taint Lincoln to make their point. I suppose that in defending Bush, it is important to ensure that no one stands tall. Or maybe you're just praising him. While you're at it, don't forget Churchill, or even Christ, who chose him for office, or more comparisons on the endless cycle of apologetic idolatry. I have been accused, with some justification, of an idolatrous view towards Lincoln. You adopt it towards Bush. The ridculous to the sublime, truly a fascination with the profane.
Disgusting

Thank you for your most gracious notice of my feeble efforts to engage in a meaningful discourse on this subject. I am certainly not worthy of the enormous attention you devote to my humble attempts to cobble together some salient thoughts. You do flatter me too much with your sweeping assessments of my meager abilities. I am certain that your mental prowess exceeds my insignificant portion by immeasureable bounds. It is odd, however, that you appear to grow ever more intolerant of disagreement, especially in areas that look to be close to your heart. For one so learned, it is difficult to understand how you maintain this attitude. One would think that the increase of education and knowledge would enable the mind to expand and understand opposing ideas. I would not suggest that you must embrace or entertain that which creates dissonance for you. However, such aggressive rejection without consideration is unusual. Maybe its the stress of the holidays, but I tend to agree with Charade and wonder what has happened to cause this.

 

[Judge Smails]

Totally OT, but I continue to be amazed that the Revolutionary War was ever won, given the errors and misjudgments made by both sides. Lots of lessons to be learned there.

There is a lesson to be learned from the Revolutionary War: arrogance can cost you a nation. Mr. Bush should bone up on Burgoyne.

 

[richiebaseball]

Thanks for filling me in on Abe - I'll print it out and put it on the dedicated shelf of my library to Lincoln, including the book proposal (yes, unsuccessful) that went through three exchanges and might have flown if not for Guelzo's work.

Also appreciate the primer on original sin - I'll put your work right next to Augustine's and Neibuhr's on the subject. I have foolishly over the years tried to synthesize their observations on the subject, witha touch of Golding. Little did I realize there was such a prophetic source right here on the DIS, and with such minimalism, one that can somehow taint Lincoln to make their point. I suppose that in defending Bush, it is important to ensure that no one stands tall. Or maybe you're just praising him. While you're at it, don't forget Churchill, or even Christ, who chose him for office, or more comparisons on the endless cycle of apologetic idolatry. I have been accused, with some justification, of an idolatrous view towards Lincoln. You adopt it towards Bush. The ridculous to the sublime, truly a fascination with the profane.
Disgusting

Translation: I'm much smarter than you, please don't attempt to argue with me.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

There is a lesson to be learned from the Revolutionary War: arrogance can cost you a nation. Mr. Bush should bone up on Burgoyne.

We won the Revolutionary War because England did not have its heart in it.

Terrorists know that the only way to defeat American is to weaken the hearts of those on the homefront. Our President's heart and the heart of our military remains strong. Unfortunately, some Americans on the homefront have weakened already. (Some have weakened simply because they hate our President).

 

[Jamesbyr]

This is utter nonsense.

 

[richiebaseball]

Actually, "mom's" quote was from my signature line... it's from Ronald Reagan.

Doh! Quoted the wrong post.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Insert my Franklin quote here.

I hate Freudian slips.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Translation: I'm much smarter than you, please don't attempt to argue with me.

Sorry but I can't help at this. Hammer... nail... POW!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It occurred to me last night how Vallandigham was the Civil War's version of Cindy Sheehan (not that Cindy has suffered the indignities that Vallandigham did at the hands of the then current administration). However, both rather loudly proclaim the same message: that even in a time of war citizens have the right -- maybe even the responsibility -- to question and criticize the government if they believe the gov't. is wrong.

What is interesting is the Vallandigham was a conservative politican while Sheehan is an avowed liberal. Both, coming from opposite sides of the political spectrum, are chastised and reviled; both had/have their patriotism questioned; Vallandigham was exiled first to the south then he went (or was sent) to Canada; it's been suggested more than once that Sheehan leave the U.S. Interesting parallels.