The Most Ridiculous Blog Comment in the History of

I should just lay off. I know. I have a trip to prepare for, and I shouldn’t dwell on this. But I can’t help it.

The other day I sparred with a guy, “Grand Old Partisan” (Michael Zak), who scolded readers of his who had written to tell him things about Abraham Lincoln he evidently didn’t want to hear. Here’s what Zak wrote:

Not content to recycle the same-old same-old absurd insults (dictator, tyrant, warmonger, racist and so on), some of these ranters cite bogus Lincoln quotes floating around the internet, such as:

“I have no intention of interfering with slavery or freeing the slaves.  The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry whites, serve on juries or vote.  This is my firm belief.”

Of course, Abraham Lincoln never said this or wrote this or even thought this.

I then showed Zak that although Lincoln had of course never uttered those words in that particular order, he did indeed believe in all those things — and presumably it’s the substance of the quotation, rather than the peculiarities of syntax, that would be of interest to a scholar, or even just to the average person. Lincoln said precisely these things in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and in his First Inaugural.

Instead of admitting his error, Zak thinks the important thing is that Lincoln never used this precise sentence order. Here’s the comment that inspired this post:

If Thomas Woods has indeed admitted that the alleged Lincoln quote was bogus, then my dispute with him on this point is at an end.

Being placed within quotation marks implies that Abraham Lincoln spoke or wrote those words, as stated. These sentences, as stated, are nowhere to be found in Lincoln’s writings or speeches, which means that it is a bogus quote. One may indeed claim, though others may disagree, that the alleged quote is a paraphrase or summary of Lincoln’s words or beliefs, but the alleged quote is not actually a quote, meaning it is a bogus quote.

That is a ridiculous enough response that I could just leave things right here. But of what conceivable significance is it that although Lincoln believed every sentiment expressed in that quotation, and said these things quite explicitly, he never used that particular word order?

Thus the Lincoln paraphrase that has Zak so angry has the president saying, “The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry whites, serve on juries or vote.” Lincoln’s actual words?

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Wow, big difference!

How could anyone consider this a victory, when from the beginning I acknowledged that the original quotation was obviously a paraphrase? In fact, this alleged quotation floating around the Internet, which Zak was at pains to refute, cannot be found anywhere on the Internet except in his original post, in my refutation, and in posts about my refutation! He obviously invented it on the basis of what he remembered some of his readers’ complaints about Lincoln to be.

So he proves that his own invented quotation was never said by Lincoln, and thinks it’s of no real importance that Lincoln did in fact believe all those things. He triumphantly announced to his readers that his invented quotation had never been uttered by Lincoln, with the obvious implication that these sentiments were not Lincoln’s.

Had he actually meant to say, “Although this particular word combination was never used, I grant that Lincoln held these odious views,” he would have done so. No honest person could have done otherwise.

Obviously, having been caught in an embarrassing error, he’s simply trying to come up with post hoc rationalizations of his position.

Bear in mind Zak actually said Lincoln never “even thought this.” So by “thought,” Zak doesn’t mean what the rest of the human race means, which is “Lincoln never even held these concepts in his mind, much less supported them.” Zak is trying to tell us that he meant, “Lincoln never had a mental experience in which this order of words passed through his mind.” Of what significance to anyone is this trivial insight?

OK, this completely gratuitous smash is now over. See you in Philadelphia.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • jaffi411

    First off, no one here is a disciple.  Sure, we may have some admiration or respect for Tom, but we aren’t mindless followers.  Further, what the hell does what somebody said on a blog’s comments section have to do with Tom’s complete intellectual bludgeoning of you?  Just in case you didn’t know, Tom doesn’t typically moderate or censor comments.  

    I will admit that whoever said that Lincoln was a “psychopathic monster” was probably a little off base.  I prefer to describe him as an entirely sane mass murderer who was cognizant of his actions.  


  • Joshua A. Woolley

    Here’s a Lincoln quote I was surprised to see inscribed in marble in the Lincoln Memorial in DC. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it…”

  • Dan

    If he said it and didn’t believe it, which I think is incorrect, then he’s just a lying, manipulative politician. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole honest Abe machine. Still, it’s going to be tough to sell that he didn’t believe his racist rants considering his belief in colonization until the day he died.

  • Ernie Hughes

    I don’t think that your argument is, in any way, gratuitous, sir.  The fact that Lincoln held these views and stated these views speaks directly to his character, and is a blot on the hero worship that has been heaped on him.

  • plenarchist

    He was.

    Lincoln sought the destruction of the South to pay off his industrialist cronies (slavery was by his own admission incidental). He had no intention of freeing the slaves until Lee was on his doorstep and he got desperate. He was a white supremacist. He happily snuffed out the lives of 3/4 million Americans… and he decimated the Constitution. Oh, and gave us the fiat currency we enjoy today. I think monster sounds about right. And read the Hare psychopathy checklist and tell me which trait *doesn’t* apply…And Tom’s disciple? Uh, no. I stop by, I read, I learn… You should try it sometime.

  • Mike

    He’s not too far off. I would describe him more as a greedy vulture, devouring those in the path of his corrupt economic pursuits.

  • Mike

    “”It is intellectually dishonest to assert that those few paragraphs, during a debate, give an honest portrayal of our nation’s greatest president.”

    Yes…greatest. “Greatest” usually refers to the number of skulls a president racks up during his presidency. With that definition I would completely agree Lincoln was “the greatest”. I could care less what his manner was in person. Many tyrants have had excellent personal manners.

  • Fredrik

    Just wondering… Why are you doing this? Sure, refuting people who hold opposing views is an effective way to make your case, but you’ve gone beyond proving your point and started bashing Grand Old Partisan for lack of intellectual integrity. Now, attacking the person holding the aforementioned opposing views might be worthwhile if they’re held in at least somewhat high esteem or have a big fan base, but come on, this is a minor blogger with zero comments on almost all of his posts, and he probably got the most traffic he’s ever had after you mentioned him. It’s starting to become silly.

  • Dan

    Sometimes people say things that are just so absurd that you feel compelled to respond. Anyways, most of us found this funny. I’m glad he posted this because I enjoy a good laugh about a ridiculous comment every now and again. Lighten up, Dr. Woods goes after plenty of the “big shots” already.

  • Anonymous

    Lord, Levin, now this guy.

  • Cristobal

    Why not just call your mom in to rectify the mess you’ve created?
    You’re wasting people’s time with your vapid thoughts.
    Now, go to your room for time-out!
    (and send Ron Paul $100 as punishment for being a real tool)

  • Greg

    no, this is REALLY good stuff.  

    Woods needs contents for this site.  its a bit boring and dry to always eat the nullification-the-south-was-the-good-guy-in-the-civil-war pie.  its nice to munch on some entertaining debates + arguments.  also i learn more this way because woods has to face facts and questions which he may have avoided for his own convince if he did not get into arguments.

    keep it up T Woods.  

  • Greg

    hmm NO.  “if you say it in an official debate, it is your official position of record.”  you either trust politicians too much or you do not understand politics.

    have you EVER noticed that in one debate a politician may say one thing and then in another debate he may say something completely different???  politicians often form temporary alliances with groups after which they may drop them.  look at the tea party for example.  when it was popular in 2010 EVERY republican rushed to say that they supported it, yet in reality most of them had records of voting against the kind of stuff the tea party was saying.  logrolling is another common manifestation of this.  a politician may give his support for something he does not really support or cares about in exchange for support for something he does favour or support.  
    i am NOT saying that lincoln was a good guy.  i am NOT questioning that a lot of his policies were very bad and illiberal.  what i am saying is that to judge lincoln, like any other politician, you MUST understand the subtleties of the politician’s political and economic environment.  

    but to say “yeah he said something therefore he MUST believe in what he said” is utterly naive.  look up “cheap talk” on wiki.

  • Greg

    what if you were the president right now and the political reality was that your party and the opposition would allow you entirely get rid of TSA if and only if you allow some pork barrel spending in the key constituencies, i.e. a few hundred million on a few museums and bridges to nowhere?  of course you would do it.  yet i could just say “a-ha, he illiberal, he increased spending on white elephants”.  yet what i say ignores the fact that you cut TSA.  

    same thing for lincoln.  he may have said some unpleasant things and did unpleasant things but was that cheap talk and logrolling respectively???  

    i am not saying that lincoln was a nice man.  just like all politicians, he was a liar and a thief, yet to REALLY judge him one MUST consider the constraints and political/economic realities he faced at the time, NOT just to look at what he said or did.  after all one would not laugh at a 5 year old for building a lego house instead of a real house, because the 5 year old is constrained by the fact that he does not understand advanced mathematics and material sciences and does not have the capital for a full house!!!!

  • Rothbardian

    Ok, let’s consider the biggest constraint on Lincoln during his time as president: the Constitution: In between suspending habeas corpus, imprisoning anti-war protestors, censoring media, confiscating firearms, blockading southern ports (without a dec. of war), and starting a war without congressional consent, I think its pretty clear that Lincoln did not care about constraints.

    Your example of spending vs. abolishing the TSA is a legal compromise. Lincoln didn’t just do ‘unpleasant things’, he destroyed the constitution as it was intended. He effectively gutted the tenth amendment and any sense of sovereignty among individuals or states. You want to consider constraints – well, he ignored the most important constraint at the time – what does that say about his ‘character’?

    Even if we look at the ‘political/economic realities’, would that really grant him a pass? If a white, southerner decided to start farming, would you condemn him because he decided to buy slaves? If yes, then why not consider the ‘constraints’: it is a reality that you had to own slaves to compete as a farmer. That does not, however, make it justifiable. The farmer is still wrong to own slaves, regardless of the ‘constraints’. Lincoln MAY have acted in popular interest, but that would only mean that Lincoln AND the people who voted for him were to blame, instead of just Lincoln. If Lincoln was merely a tool that acted for the political agenda at the time, then that makes him no better: he is either a dictator or a weak minded rat who acted as a pawn.

    Arguing that Lincoln acted within the political realities of the time is a tough thing to do. Lets examine the situation: why would one decide to do things that were politically expedient? To gain popular favor, to get reelected, personal gain, etc. Lets examine how that worked out for Lincoln: the south hated him, he caused thousands of kids to die, and he was assassinated. Wow, he really played his cards right, didn’t he?

    An easier and truthful description is the fact that Lincoln was a dictator, bent on destroying sovereignty. He tried to deport slaves to Africa until the day he died. He destroyed the constitution. Any argument that he acted within the constraints of the time is irrelevant because of one: my argument above, and two: we are now living with the horrific results of his actions.

  • Greg

    some replies:
    1) “let’s consider the biggest constraint on Lincoln during his time as president: the Constitution”  i don’t think the constitution was the biggest constraint.  i think his biggest constraint was to try and avoid a civil war/disintegration of the union.
    2) again character is not a constraint when one faces a war which could have (and did) cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.  i think anyone would sacrifice one’s character to prevent a war including you.  
    3) a very interesting point about the southern farmer.  however i disagree with you.  if i were a southerner i would not want to be a farmer because i would have had to buy slaves which is something i don’t want to do.  there were other employment opportunities.  this may raise the comment “lincoln didn’t have to become president but he did and he did bad things”.  at the heart of my comment is that no matter who would have been in lincoln’s place, he would have faced the same constraints and maybe would have done much worse than lincoln did.  what i want to say is that we ought to ask whether anyone else could have done better.  
    4) my point was that given the constraints lincoln faced, MAYBE what he did was literally the best anyone could have done!!!  put yourself in his shoes, try and figure out what you would have done and remember that you cannot simply wish away problems!!!
    6) i am obviously not as versed in pre-civil war politics as some other people but i think a major constraint he faced was to not let the union disintegrate as well as all the other constraints politicians face.
    7)  “Lincoln was a dictator, bent on destroying [sic] sovereignty” that’s far too extreme.  (also, what sovereignty did he want to destroy?)  
    8) again look up ‘cheap talk’ and ‘logrolling’ on wikipedia to get some idea of what i am talking about.

    and finally i never said that Lincoln was a good guy and i never wanted to defend his policies.  what i meant to say was that lincoln, and another other politicians for that matter, much be judged in the light of the reality around him as well as one should never forget that political battles often involve relaxation of one’s principles (that is why Reagan was a president and Ron Paul will never be president, and in the end Reagan has done more for liberty than Ron Paul even if Reagan has also done a lot of bad thing!!!).

    let me say it again given the circumstances could someone else have REASONABLY done a better job???  e.g. i am sure you think that to tell a lie is a serious sin/moral failing, but imagine if a killer came to you and said “tell me where your mother is, i want to kill her” i am sure that facing this constraint you would lie…this is NOT a moral-relativist position, we are still judging by a strict and non-bending moral code, but we simply expand the range of information from which we form a judgement!!!!

    again, i am NOT saying that lincoln was a good guy or a bad guy, i am simply trying to point out that the way woods seems to judge him is rather naive and one-dimensional!!!  i am not trying to defend him or give him a pass but rather trying to make any judgement on him more concrete and better informed!!!

  • jaffi411

    I actually live in a black community (the Buckeye area of East Cleveland), so I think that I can speak to this a bit.  While it is true that a majority of blacks tend to have collectivist beliefs, much of this is due to the state’s fostering of these beliefs over generations (welfare babies and the like).  However, I will say that a great deal of the younger generation of blacks are reading economics and philosophy, and they are helping to change the minds of those around them.  As with anything, it is a slow process and it necessarily must push against the current tide.  

    In the past the problem was that black communities were entirely separate and sheltered from white communities, so that information wasn’t as easily disseminated between the two, or even within themselves.  You often had black leaders coming from a socialistic and “woe is me” background, thus teaching the younger generation the same backward ideas that they had grown up to believe.  Essentially, all information was limited due to cultural and income borders.  However, today things are much different.  You have the internet that makes information sharing quite easy, no matter what the subject.  Schools and community leaders are becoming less relevant to the ideas that are permeating the black communities.  Also, there are a greater portion of whites (such as myself) who are extremely poor and are integrating into the black communities and sharing their beliefs, realizing that we aren’t as different as we once thought that we were.  

    As a poor, white male living in a predominantly black community, the largest problem that I see today in the black community is that of entitlement and dependency.  I’ve talked to a great many people in and around my community (almost all of them black) and they see things much the same way that I do.  They have a deep distrust of the state, much more so than what is typically found in the white community, and they do understand that many of their problems are rooted in the state and its social programs and laws.  However, they are also part of those programs and realize that to do away with them means that they are then left on their own.  That is quite a big leap to take for most, because they are at a disadvantage due to the very programs that today allows them to live.  

    Standing on principle tends to represent somewhat of a double-edged sword situation, where you know that you’re doing the right thing, but that it makes life a much more difficult struggle.  As is the case with most humans (no matter what color), the black community takes the less difficult path and accepts what *is* as their fate rather than take on the full responsibility of their position. The greater result of this is societal breakdown in the form of families and community. If you take away the reality that each of us is dependent upon the other for the general increase in the satisfaction of all of us (i.e. the market), then the result is a complete lack of respect for societal norms, as well as property and life. Further, the family unit no longer has any social benefit, because the state becomes the mother/father figure, thus leaving many single mother parents to raise children.    

    The simplest explanation that I can think of to express what I mean is this:  take the case of somebody that has a safety net (i.e. food, shelter, clothing, etc) that his parents provide for him.  He can do nothing and live on this safety net forever if he chooses.  However, if he wants to leave the safety net, then it makes much more sense to do it early than later.  If he leaves the safety net at 18 and gets a menial job, he can work his way up to having a life of his own and be very successful.  However, if he procrastinates and stays on the safety net till he is in his 40s, then this obviously puts him at a great disadvantage, thus lessening the chance that he will leave the safety net, even if he understands that it is the safety net itself that puts him at such a disadvantage.  Well, that is essentially the problem in the black community as I see it, except it has gone on for generations.  And, please. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of whites who fall into this category, as well.

  • Greg

    ok, i do not recognise the bible as the best source of moral guidance, but even by this particular passage the bible seems to be saying that whatever one says one ought to have a good reason for it, be it a lie or not: “they shall give account thereof” – i take that to mean that as long as one was doing good through one’s words than thats ok.  i guess mathew recognised the concept of cheap talk…

  • Greg

    so this idea of sending the slaves back to africa:
    1) how much did lincoln really think this was a good?  after all in any white house there are plenty of crazy “blue sky” ideas being floated about.  just because he may have considered it for a brief moment doesn’t mean that he took the idea all that seriously.  i want to send Michael Moore to north korea so his fat can feed the poor north koreans but that doesn’t mean i am all that serious.  
    2) what was the context of this idea exactly?  was this something the freed slaves may have actually wanted for example?  its hard to judge something out of context.  would this have been like israel or would it have been something much worse?

  • Greg

    rothbard was a sell out!!!  he supported Pat Buchanan for president, Buchanan is anti free trade.  rothbard was a totalitarian menace and if he FELT differently, then he was also weak-hearted sell out.

  • Thomas D

    “… my point, again, is that those were not his exact words.”

    Uh, except that wasn’t the totality of your point. Your point was also that “Abraham Lincoln never … even thought this.”

    And anyway, your real point is some goofy partisan BS about not speaking ill of fellow partisans. That alone sets you up as an unreliable arbiter of truth. Why should we regard you as a worthy debater when you’ve already set this sort of stage?

  • Richard_Ran

    Hi Michael –

    From across the Atlantic, from the city of Amsterdam, you’re kindly requested to go and waste other people’s time.

    Also: where’s the “dislike”-button for this person’s dishonest comments, whose name ”Zak” quite fittingly translates as ”douchebag” in Dutch?

    Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /,

  • Rothbardian

    You are responding to me as if I think Lincoln keeping the Union together was a good thing. I don’t think so. When Lincoln went to war with the south he ignored the constitutional right of secession by the states. Therefore, he destroyed state’s sovereignty and the idea of secession. Lincoln made no effort to avoid a war. He sacrificed thousands of men aggressively destroyed the south.

    The argument you present to me is that Lincoln did some bad things so that a net benefit outcome would occur. But there was no net benefit. The outcome of all of Lincoln’s actions were bad.

    My point is that there is no need to examine the so-called ‘constraints’ on Lincoln because it is obvious where he stood on issues. What ‘constraint’ forced Lincoln to try and export all blacks to Africa?

  • Rothbardian

    Such a childish argument. Rothbard wrote more books and articles than any human can read in a lifetime espousing his hatred of the state and explaining free market principles.

    Contrast with that with King Lincoln who wrote and said many bigoted, racist statements. He also backed these statements up by his actions. Not to mention he ignored the Constitution and caused thousands of people to be killed.

    Sure, making compromises that bring you closer to a goal is not a bad idea. Lincoln did this frequently, but the outcomes were devastating.

  • Michael Zak

    Though you seem to be obsessed with Abraham Lincoln, I am not. In fact, the heroes of my history of the GOP are, in some ways, his political opponents: Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Oliver Morton and other Radical Republicans.
    The bogus quote conflates two different statements made on different circumstances — from 1858 Illinois and 1861 Washington DAnd, since Lincoln did not actually write. or say that concocted quote, neither can he be fairly accused of having thought it. Moreover, as previously explained, at Charleston he was appealing for votes in a racist Democrat area. His words there did not, I believe, reflect his true thoughts on the matter. Rather, it is fairer to judge Lincoln’s true feelings toward African-Americans based on their love for him and his deeds.
    See and Back to Basics for the Republican Party  for more information about the GOP from the Republican perspective.

  • Rothbardian

    Yes it probably is pointless to respond to this guy for the sake of defeating him, but it is instructive for people like me, because I encounter this argument sometimes.  Seeing how Woods responds make my arguments better.  I suppose he did this more of an example to us than to show the guy up. 

  • Rothbardian

    Reagan’s 11th Commandment is a joke to anyone who can think critically. Whoever has an “R” next to their name is sacred?  It doesn’t seem to matter that Lincoln censored the media, jailed a representative for disagreeing views, declared war without congressional consent, tried to export slaves to Africa his whole life, rounded up anti-war protestors, destroyed the south for trying to exercise secession, and basically gutted the 10th amendment.  He was so great that he killed thousands of people.  But, I guess that is how Republicans judge greatness these days.  Its hard to claim that he was doing all of that just to appease a highly racist district…

    Unlike the other poster, no I don’t agree that Lincoln was a psychopathic monster.  He was a fully sane monster.   

    But at least you cleared up that those were not the precise words that he said.  What a joke.

  • Rothbardian

    Agreeing with Woods makes you a disciple?  Nice try, but you have officially lost all credibility.

  • JFF

    A buffoon, indeed.  To say that Rothbard was a “totalitarian menace” is probably the real “Most Ridiculous Comment in the History of”

    Further, Murray admittedly cultivated alliances with many, many groups and individuals that he was ideologically opposed to in some way and made no apologies ever for doing so.

  • Greg

    ok, i agree with you, maybe keeping the union together was not a good thing, again i am agnostic.

    however the fact remains, he did free the slaves!  the slaves would not have been freed otherwise.  if you look at the book called “time on the cross” for example you can see that contrary to adam smith, it turned out that owning slaves was cheaper than having wage labour.  thus slavery was very unlikely to fall with in that century!  of course i am not saying that time on the cross is correct, merely that it is very plausable to me.

    so i think it is perfectly reasonble to judge lincoln good on the whole while recognising that he did a lot of bad too.  

    i am glad that you accepted my point and at least considered lincoln’s constraints.  i was not argueing for or against him, merely that it is reasonable to think of him in possitive manner while still having libertarian views.  whether he really was a good president on the whole or not is still the question.  

    i want to make this community at least aware of consequantialist libertarianism even if people dismiss it after giving it a fair evaluation!!!  

    in anycase lincoln was a VERY good vampire hunter!!!

  • Greg

    hmm, interesting, lincoln freed the slaves, rothbard help Buchanan get popular and buchanan has done a great deal with damage by his advocasy of protectionism.  one may say you have a double standard…also lincoln killed loads of vampires!!!

  • Greg

    i am sorry, but on this site there is no courtesy!  well, at least woods doesn’t delete comments, not all of them anyway.

  • Greg

    “First off, no one here is a disciple” true, disiple would imply some kind of long term formal training arragement, what we do have here is FANBOYS.  

  • jaffi411

    As with any person who is in the public eye it goes without saying that “fanboy” type activity will be present (hopefully to a limited degree).  However, that certainly is not the case with me.  

    Tom and I are like-minded with regard to political philosophy and economics, so I certainly did watch a few of his speeches in the past.  However, it wasn’t until he linked to an article of mine (which was originally published by a close friend of his) that I began to read his blog regularly.  That certainly doesn’t represent a “fanboy” dynamic, rather it is a case of mutual respect (regardless of extent).

    Basically, if there is a guy that thinks very similarly to the way I do and he has the courtesy to voluntarily link to something that I’ve done, then I am going to give him a little more of my attention.

  • chris

    That’s because learning one fact that is contrary to what our schooling (as opposed to education) taught us is the first step on the road to a more true understanding of history.

    With that understanding comes an implied responsiblity to correct the ignorant when they spew the court approved version history upon the public.

  • chris

    The only way to acceptably lable the American Black as a group is to acknowledge that they have been the victims of a coordinated attempt to disenfranchise them, keep them poor and under-represented, by those who claim to offer them the most goodies for their vote.

    This attempt has been largely successful, sadly.

    And yes, it is the state, not the group itself, that is to blame.  Remove the authority of the state and the American Black will divorce himself from the collective and succeed as individuals.

  • chris

    I totally agree with the parenting analogy, and it works for ever increasing order of magnitude.  It is failure to launch on a societal, national, even global scale.

    The entire welfare system is bad parenting writ large.  People are addicted to the system at a young age, and never mature to self-reliance.  The only way for the individual to prevent cognitive dissonance is to accept a liberal ideology, an “entitlement” mentality.

    The same is true for foreign aid.  Where anyone opposing welfare is seen as racist against “blacks”, so to is any opponent of, say, foreign aid to Israel cast as “anti-Semitic”.

    And yet, the good parnet kicks the child out of the house at a cartain age, causing the offspring to learn to fend for itself.

  • Anonymous

    The mental gymnastics necessary to deify Lincoln always amaze me. Lincoln is held up to near saint-hood when his negative acts that harmed many innocent people are well known to anybody that seeks out any information not found in a public school brain-washing session.

  • uk6strings

    It is by no coincidence that the only commandment not written by God (Reagan’s 11th) is the only unwise one.

  • Robert Nabakowski

    The bigger point is that skin color is not the reason this particular sub group finds itself in the predicament that it is in, but rather the culture it has immersed itself in for reasons you speak of in your comment.  That culture is made up of many colors.

  • Robert Nabakowski

    It’s a cultural thing rather than color for the most part.  BTW, I’m in Lakewood.  

  • jaffi411

    Ha!  I just got back from a bike ride to Edgewater (with a stop at Westside Market on the way back).  I like to read on those rocks right by the water for an hour or two.  Unfortunately it was a little chilly today, so I had to cut my read short.    

  • ThomasC

    The War Between the States was not a rebellion.

  • Barry

    Why exactly are we bashing Lincoln?  Is he an ogre for believing what most other people in his society believed?  And don’t we believe in second chances?  He did, after all, have something of a change of heart regarding slavery.

    If all you want to prove is that this commenter is an idiot, fine.  But I object to the larger practice of bashing people like Jefferson and Lincoln for not being ahead of their time.

  • Richard Raznikov

    It seems to me that what I would call the ‘true left’ and the ‘true right’ have a great deal in common.  Both are disturbed at the enormous growth of the federal system and what over the past forty years constitutes an increasing destruction of the Bill of Rights.  I think arguments about ‘the welfare state’ miss the point.  The problem is that with centralized power and its use by the people who own this empire, the full power of the federal government, including much illicit power under the fake authority of the ‘commerce clause’, is used to support the economic predations of the corporations.  It’s not someone on welfare who’s hosing us –– it’s the CEOs on welfare who pay no taxes and grab federal subsidies.  
    What bothers me about the Woods commentary I saw is that he takes shots against the ‘left’.  This movement CANNOT succeed as an ideological movement grounded in the false ‘spectrum’ of left-to-right.  Who passed the Patriot Act?  Who passed NDAA?  Who wants a national ID?  Who voted to retroactively shield the phone companies from liability for illegal wiretaps?  It was both major parties, including many so-called ‘conservatives’ and many so-called ‘liberals.’  With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the candidates for President of any significance have supported empire-building.  As Paul has pointed out, we can’t build an empire without sacrificing our freedom at home.  Time for patriots to stand up.  
    (And meanwhile: who gives a damn about Lincoln… that was then… right now we’ve got a country on the edge of a police state.  It’s NOW we’d better be looking at).  
    I’m personally on the left.  I’ve also just written a column on my own blog which supports the 10th Amendment movement and nullification.  If you’re interested in a ‘left’ viewpoint on this, welcome at: