Today is President's Day in the U.S.........

(Psst, letty -- your link doesn't work with the period after ".html")

Thanks, Patio. I'll go back and re-do it.

The only humorous thing that I have ever heard Bush say (at least the only thing that he meant to be humorous) was:

I went to Yale with William Buckley; he wrote a book and I read one.

Anywho, had a little titter about this...



A right Lincoln's party has occasionally tried to execute since then, too...

Otherwise -- I can appreciate the criticism of Lincoln, but I think the glowing portrait of Washington may just be a trifle simplistic...

Here's the link without the period:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3138.html

Right, patio. All our presidents are so fraught with legends, that it takes a bit to see through them to the man/politician.

In response to the query of a Brit, I was somewhat embarrassed to find that I wasn't certain whose president's picture was on what paper money, so I had to go to my cash drawer and find out for myself..sheeeeeze.

Geez, Letty, aren't there any other sites that you could have linked that didn't include such idiotic comments as:

--"Born in abject poverty and raised by a father with limited husbandry skills, Lincoln considered the agrarian way of life suitable only for the uneducated and semi-literate. People whom he thought required government assistance, thus auguring the establishment of the agricultural bureaucracy in 1862." --"But the New England mercantilists who placed Abraham Lincoln in office could not tolerate a Southern nation that would threaten their tariff -- backed price gouging that kept European goods, artificially, at a higher price than their own products. And, while the rhetoric about "saving the Union," and "freeing the slaves" proved to be powerful propaganda tools, the question was about profits and power." --"[Lincoln] shutdown Democrat newspapers that editorialized against his usurpations, broke up opposition state legislatures, made military districts out of several northern states, including Ohio, and, like every competent dictator, used the federal army to get elected in 1864 -- by a meager 38,000 popular votes."

Of course, it's not surprising that the author contributes articles to the "Southern Partisan," described as a white supremacist publication. Honestly, Letty, did you read it before you posted the link?

<scratches head> Let's see, Letty, did you read it before posting it? Can't remember. Hey, I wanted responses to a debatable article. You just gave a good one.

I don't know. If I were to write a summary of Washington's life, I think mine would come out to be glowing too. One could say hundreds of things to support this, but I'll just say that almost anyone else assigned to be commander-in-chief of the American forces during the Revolutionary War would have either given up, negotiated for terms, or lost due to lack of the phenomenal dedication Washington displayed. A wealthy man, he was nonetheless willing to remain in the battlefield, enduring serious problems regarding even the most basic supplies, for eight years. He never wanted to be president, but let the other founders prevail upon him to server two terms during which he displayed almost unparalleled wisdom and dedication. Although hardly selfless, he was a man of immense moral character and charity. He could probably have been king, but believed in the republican ideals expressed in the Declaration. Whenever congress offered to pay or reward him, he consistently either declined or asked that they make a contribution to charity instead. I could also list flaws, but nevertheless would say that any accurate summary of Washington would probably be glowing.

Ah, me.

I have to agree with joefromchicago that the Lincoln sketch is biased almost beyond belief. And the only reason I qualify that with an 'almost' is because one does have to consider the source. That said, Lincoln was far from the paragon of virtue which the secondary school level textbooks would have him be. There is so much nonsense in those textbooks, anyway, it's a wonder any of us learn anything accurate about American history.

I seem to remember being taught that the American Civil War was fought over the issue of chattel slavery. (Now, granted, when I went to school scarce five or six years had passed since the end of that war. ) From Lincoln's point of view, slavery had hardly anything to do with it. He openly said, in a letter to Horace Greely, the redoubtable editor of the New York Herald, that if he could keep the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would gladly do so. I also recall being taught (maybe I misunderstood; I don't know) that the Emancipation Proclamation, issued as an executive order by President Lincoln, freed a whole bunch of slaves. In fact, that order didn't free a single soul. It cleverly applied only to "those states in rebellion" against the USA, i.e. states over which neither Lincoln nor anyone else in Washington had any control whatsoever. It was sort of like our present situation in Cuba. We don't recognize Fidel Castro as the legitimate head of state on that island. Yeah, so what? Does that, somehow, depose him? The point is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to those states where the Government, under Lincoln, could have legitimately freed the people in bondage -- Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, the so-called Border States.

Slavery was outlawed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and Lincoln was long dead by then.

But Lincoln is admirable on many other counts. He was, certainly, one of the most articulate and moving orators at a time when the job of speech-writer had not yet been invented. He had great moral courage and a powerful will. And one wonders where he got his military acumen and talent for grand strategy. Working with a handful of totally incompetent generals in the field (all the good talent had gone over to the Confederate side), he managed to turn the Army of the Potomac into an actual fighting unit and impose his will on the generals in the field, discarding Gen. Winfield Scott's totally unworkable 'Anaconda Plan' early on. And, I believe, down deep he was a quite sincere and honest person. Something about the Gettysburg address rings so true, it can come only from the heart. There is no artifice, no bombast, no grandstanding here.

Now, Washington. Well, he had already died when I was born, so I am less familiar with his accomplishments. But I see great similarities between the two men. Both had that iron will and the ability to impose it on others. Washington's command of his army in the field is impressive, as has already been pointed out. And there was a typically American sense of humility about him, despite the fact that, by the standards of his day, he was to the purple born.

As for who had the best sense of humor, Letty, I don't know. They've all been funny in their own way. Nixon's declaring "I am not a crook," for example, is a hilarious throw-away line. So is Clinton's insistance on knowing what the dinition of 'is' is. Side-splitting. Bush is funny in his won way, too, but he's too much the buffoon for my taste. Except for Charlie Chaplin, I never did enjoy slapstick all that much.

Here's what Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. [i]All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war[/i]. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

(Emphasis added) Consequently, by 1865, if not sooner, Lincoln had a pretty clear idea what caused the war: slavery. Moreover, he was right.


Far from being discarded early on, the Anaconda Plan was followed faithfully up to the point where, with the fall of Vicksburg, it was largely accomplished. Indeed, this is one of the rare instances in history where a military plan was devised at the outset of the war and successfully followed for years thereafter.

Sheeeze, Joe. Isn't there any other threads that you could have created besides Edward and his trolley?

George Washington was a fantastic president because he didn't want to be, but when he was drafted, he had the foresight to appoint a group of advisers who could clue him in. He listened to them, but made his own decisions then accepted the responsibilities of his own actions. He set precedents that some have come to regret, but they were good ones.

As for humor, Kennedy had the press eating out of his hand because he didn't have manicured hair. (Can still see him running his fingers through that unruly mop. Damn if I don't wish Kerry would ruffle up that coiffed hair of his.)When asked by his "planned" nemesis, about exactly what he was doing to advance the cause of women, he replied, "Not nearly enough, I'm sure."

Then there was Cal Coolidge who gave new meaning to the word "laconic".

"Mr. Coolidge, said one reporter, "I wanted to sit next to you because I was certain that I could get you to say more than two words."

"You lose", was his marvelous response. and then, "I do not choose to run." Wow.

Of course, Lincoln was reputed to have said when his other generals complained about Grant's propensity to consume alcohol.

" Find out what brand he drinks so that I can send a case to all my generals." (something like that)

I saw a movie the other night which kept me awake. It was called "Wake the Dead" and was a marvelous thought in politics and protest. There was no resolution, but in that fact there WAS resolution.

No apologies for my diatribe tonight. I now have a date with Colonel Morton.

That's a great Lincoln quote, Letty.

My favorite Lincoln story concerns the time he was trying to contact the incompetent General McClellan, then in charge of the Army of the Potomac. He was told that "The General has his headquarters in the saddle." Lincoln thought about this for bit, then said: "It's too bad that his headquarters are where his hindquarters ought to be."

Andrew, I am always fascinated by the past, but to be honest, I am more interested in what the least of us has to say.

I say,"The beauty of the past, only makes us more aware of the promise of the future."

and if that promise is not the land we thought was milk and honey, then so be it...

and Andrew, Joe, patio, brandon. What say ye? to be candid, the great unwashed and the intellectually bankrupt are far wiser than we ever imagined.

Goodnight, my friends, and you are my friends. Hoorah for the Salvation Army Band....laughin'