As an aside I remember when we celebrated Lincoln's birthday and Washington's birth day separately. Then, I think in order to get rid of a national holiday the two were consolidated into Presidents day which was a celebration of Washington and Lincoln's birthday. When did it become a celebration of all presidents?
As a separate aside to TMs comment on who writes history.
As a point of reference I was born 8 years after the end of WWII. In school, books, movies, tv, everything I was exposed to, I learned that General MacArthur was the hero that liberated the Philippines and was revered by the Philippine people.
This weekend I was talking to a Filipino woman who grew up and was educated there. Revered is definitely NOT the way he is thought of over there.
A quick google search shows that everything I ever heard about him was slanted.
You are incorrect and obviously not a student of the times. Lincoln himself vowed to leave slavery alone as he claimed he did not have constitutional authority to change it. He also vowed to invade any state that failed to collect the imposed tariffs in the same speech.
Wrong as usual, and what speech are you referring to? It's noted that in addition to not reading other people's links you refuse to provide any links supporting your ahistorical notions.
towermonkey wrote: You are incorrect and obviously not a student of the times. Lincoln himself vowed to leave slavery alone as he claimed he did not have constitutional authority to change it. He also vowed to invade any state that failed to collect the imposed tariffs in the same speech.
When liars figure, figures lie. I did a quick look because MacArthur and it gives me a chance to say Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the party of racism and till are. (See Virginia).
I did find this: "The 1860 Republican National Convention nominated Lincoln, a moderate former Congressman from Illinois, as its standard-bearer. The Republican Party platform promised not to interfere with slavery in the states, but opposed the further extension of slavery into the territories."
Blazer Bob wrote: When liars figure, figures lie. I did a quick look because MacArthur and it gives me a chance to say Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the party of racism and till are. (See Virginia).
Are you referring to Charlottesville, Virginia?
Blazer Bob wrote: I did find this: "The 1860 Republican National Convention nominated Lincoln, a moderate former Congressman from Illinois, as its standard-bearer. The Republican Party platform promised not to interfere with slavery in the states, but opposed the further extension of slavery into the territories."
While the southern states did indeed secede to preserve slavery, Lincoln's war was always about preserving the Union, regardless of the slavery issue. Lincoln said as much himself:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I always hate it when historians come by 150 years later and try to rewrite the war. Wouldn't it be best to read the actual words of the people who lived it? Instead of some "interpreter" who is trying to sell his new book? Or get you to click on a website by putting out a teaser headline?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
When liars figure, figures lie. I did a quick look because MacArthur and it gives me a chance to say Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the party of racism and till are. (See Virginia).
