Slashdot Mirror


Abraham Lincoln the Early Adopter

Hugh Pickens writes "On the 200th anniversary of his birth, President Abraham Lincoln's popular image as a log-splitting bumpkin is being re-assessed as historians have discovered that Lincoln had an avid interest in cutting-edge technology and its applications. During the war, Lincoln haunted the telegraph office (which provided the instant-messaging of its day) for the latest news from the front; he encouraged weapons development and even tested some new rifles himself on the White House lawn; and he is the only US president to hold a patent (No. 6469, granted May 22, 1849). It was for a device to lift riverboats over shoals. 'He not only created his own invention but had ideas for other inventions, such as an agricultural steam plow and a naval steam ram, [and] was fascinated by patent cases as an attorney and also by new innovations during the Civil War,' says Jason Emerson, author of Lincoln the Inventor. But Lincoln's greatest contribution to the war effort was his use of the telegraph. When Lincoln took office the White House had no telegraph connection. Lincoln 'developed the modern electronic leadership model, says Tom Wheeler, author of Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: The Untold Story of How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph To Win the Civil War. At a time when electricity was a vague scientific concept and sending signals through wires was 'mind boggling,' Lincoln was fascinated by the telegraph and developed it into a political and military tool that allowed him to project himself to the front to monitor and track what was going on. 'If he were alive today, we'd call him an early adopter,' says Wheeler."

261 comments

  1. No... by zackhugh · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he was alive today, we'd call him a zombie...

    1. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      if he was alive, i don't see how he could be undead as well.

    2. Re:No... by NotPenny'sBoat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It would be hard, but we'd have to decapitate one of our greatest Presidents for the good of all.

      --
      What's #FFFFFF and #000000 and #FF0000 all over?
    3. Re:No... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or a really powerful Jedi. For all you Robot Chicken fans out there.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one can stop Time Lincoln!

    5. Re:No... by Fumus · · Score: 1

      Nah. The flesh has probably rotten away by now. He'd be a lich.

    6. Re:No... by DittoBox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Zombies are undead. Please hand in your geek card.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    7. Re:No... by Timosch · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, we'd call him a patent troll.
      SCNR

    8. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greatest presidents? Lincoln was a piece of shit.

      He suspended Habeus Corpus for everybody. You know what happened if you printed a newspaper(even in the North, yes) that was anti-Lincoln? Your ass went to jail, no trial, no questions.

    9. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what do you think is the opposite of dead, dumbass?

    10. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per wikipedia...

      A zombie is a reanimated human corpse. Stories of zombies originated in the Afro-Caribbean spiritual belief system of Vodou, which told of the people being controlled as laborers by a powerful sorcerer. Zombies became a popular device in modern horror fiction, largely because of the success of George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.

      According to Lincoln's wikipedia entry, he was:

      Born February 12, 1809
      Hardin County, Kentucky
      Died April 15, 1865 (aged 56)
      Washington, D.C.

      a. Lincoln was born
      b. Lincoln died
      c. Lincoln is a human corpse right now
      d. Premise as of the grandparent ("if he were alive today")
      e. Lincoln would be a zombie.

      Again, as per wikipedia on the undead, zombies are part of the subset of creatures that are considered undead. Here is the list:

      Forms of Undead

      Revenant
      Skeleton
      Zombie
      Ghoul
      Ghost
      Wraith
      Spectre
      Lich
      Ghast
      Mummy
      Vampire
      Wight

      I hope I thoroughly cleared that up for you.

    11. Re:No... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If he were alive, we'd applaud him on his undoubtedly correct use of the subjunctive voice.

    12. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a more scientific reference like pubmed or something?

    13. Re:No... by Maestro485 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So John Wilkes Booth was actually a hero?

      *head explodes* (figuratively)

    14. Re:No... by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe the correct form of the reply would be:

      If he were alive today, he would be screaming, "let me out of this box!"

    15. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he were alive....

    16. Re:No... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      a. Lincoln was born
      b. Lincoln died
      c. Lincoln is a human corpse right now
      d. Premise as of the grandparent ("if he were alive today")
      e. Lincoln would be a zombie.

      So would Lincoln also be a zombie on stardate 5906.4 when he expressed curiosity over the functioning of the Enterprise's transporter? Then how was he killed by either Colonel Green or Kahless by a spear to the back instead of cutting off the head or destroying the brain?

      Speaking of which, Kirk killing Kahless with a spear to the gut would be a nice print to have to enrage the Klingon Empire. (A pity Bob Herron didn't reprise his role in the ST:TNG episode like the original actors for Kang, Koloth, and Kor did on ST:DS9.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  2. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the telegraph office (which provided the instant-messaging of its day)

    Why always the painfully stupid condescension?

    Communicating science (or history) well to a general audience doesn't require this. See Carl Sagan. If anything, such unnecessary analogies make things *less* clear.

    1. Re:sigh by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      the telegraph office (which provided the instant-messaging of its day)

      Why always the painfully stupid condescension?

      What painfully stupid condescension?
       
       

      If anything, such unnecessary analogies make things *less* clear.

      Yes, explaining a technology few people under fifty have ever encountered in terms of today's technology is such a bad idea.

    2. Re:sigh by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      The stupid condescensions are the slave-trading of the modern day.

      Does that clear a few things up?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the analogy added to the story. I didn't find it condescending. The first thing I thought when I read that line was "I hadn't really thought of it that way" and I envisioned a geeky Lincoln alone with a telegraph, excited by this technology that is allowing him to instantly communicate with another human being over quite a long distance. It also made me think of how similar this experience Lincoln had with the telegraph is to what early adopters of the internet had felt. A kind of giddy excitement from the realization that the world is getting smaller and more connected.

      Condescending would be a literal description of what the telegraph is and how it works. I think most people know what a telegraph is. And if they don't, I think they can figure out how to look it up.

    4. Re:sigh by wisty · · Score: 1

      Maybe they want to make some spurious connection between Abraham Lincoln with his White House install telegraph machine; and Barrack Obama with his security-customized Crackberry.

    5. Re:sigh by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Sagan often used something called a book/a>.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Eh...Obama's church taught Black Liberation Theology which is an overtly, and unabashedly, racist ideology against whites.

  4. Another tick by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another positive tick towards my overarching theory: If knowledge is power, then communication is both your greatest weapon and your most vital line of supplies.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Another tick by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      "your most vital line of supplies"

      You can't eat information nor does it bandage you. But yes, I share your opinion that information is paramount to winning a war. You need to be able to collect, filter, spread, distort and destroy information properly in order to win a war. That, and have a big ass army :)

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Another tick by KORfan · · Score: 1

      "When all other things are equal, God is on the side of the bigger battalions."

    3. Re:Another tick by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      The United States millitary has embraced that idea. In fact, they are quite good at destroying C&C centers to keep militaries from organizing. That worked very well against the Taleban as a government, Saddam Hussein twice, and Soviet russia, but does not work so well against decentralized authorities. Then pure and simple bullets applied to enemies is the most vital thing.

  5. Don't forget Tom by Renegade+Iconoclast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljefferson.htm

    Jefferson was a tinkerer who realized that every design could be improved. The same mind he dedicated to helping to create our novel system of government, he applied to physical science.

  6. Though the names change... by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Lincoln took office the White House had no telegraph connection. Lincoln 'developed the modern electronic leadership model'
     
    Is that what kids are calling it nowadays? I must be out of date - I was raised to call it micromanagement.

    1. Re:Though the names change... by GaryOlson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology allows an even greater ability to micromanage; but does not necessarily imply micromanagement. Faster communications technology can make it possible for the logistics elements to shift behind the scene to better support the front line. Equally well, better technology can give the front line information to modify their plans/actions to prepare for the consequences of out-of-theater actions which will have a definitive impact.

      Micromanagement is a meme attached to people -- not technology.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    2. Re:Though the names change... by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Micromanagement is a meme attached to StarCraft.

      Fixed.

    3. Re:Though the names change... by zullnero · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with that? Do you honestly think that other people always make the best choices, every time, regardless of how little or how much information they actually possess?

      I'm not sure what the kids are calling THAT nowadays, but what they called it when I was a lad was an IDIOT.

    4. Re:Though the names change... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Micromanagement is a meme attached to people -- not technology.

      Exactly, micromanagement is not delegating responsibility to people better at handling it than you, As long as Lincoln was doing that, he wasn't micromanaging no matter how much information he was gathering. More relevant information will improve decisions at every level, but it does not necessarily mean that decisions should be escalated. We all have limited time and capability so information sharing does not mean there's one man at the top with all the knowledge and all the answers. It's a little bit the same as the company logic of "always hire people smarter than yourself" but the part people miss is "for their job". I'd like a chief of engineering that's smarter than the CEO at engineering. I'd like the chief of engineering to hire engineers smarter than himself on the gritty little details of enigineering. And if the CEO keeps an blueprint vault that's fine as long as he doesn't try to micromanage en engineer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  7. Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    President Abraham Lincoln's popular image as a log-splitting bumpkin is being re-assessed

    I doubt any serious Lincoln scholar would ever say Lincoln was a "log-splitting bumpkin". He was a brilliant, self educated man with a ferocious curiosity and probably one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had. The guy who managed to end slavery, preserve the Union, AND assist in ushering in modern medical techniques on the battlefield a log-splitting bumpkin? Yeah, sure.

    It's been said that because he was such a deep and complex personality, our society sees Lincoln not necessarily as who he was, but he is a reflection of our current state of mind as a nation. When we began to focus on racial issues, he was an obvious focal point, when depression became more widely known, he was thought to have been depressed, gay rights bring him up as possibly being our first gay president... and slashdot calls him an early adopter.

    He was probably our greatest American president ever.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative

      He was probably our greatest American president ever

      Very much so, and he was a hell of a killer too. As a percentage of population, Lincoln killed more Americans than all the rest of the US Presidents combined and by a fairly wide margin.

      If we went by percentage of population in casualties, the Civil War, if fought today, would result in almost 7 million dead. If there were slaves in the South today, there would be more than a few people that might suggest that such titanic destruction is not worth it.

      Even in absolute terms, there were casualties at one civil war battle, Antienam, than there have been in Iraq for the entire war, and Lincoln just kept right on rolling with the war.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who managed to end slavery, preserve the Union, AND assist in ushering in modern medical techniques on the battlefield a log-splitting bumpkin?

      While I am with you that he's certainly no log splitting bumpkin I think that giving him any credit in battlefield medicine is a bit extreme. It would be like giving Bush Sr credit for stealth technology. Noticing a good idea as a good idea doesn't make you one of it's founders.

      As for the other two noted feats? He did those by bashing in the skull of his enemy. You don't need to have a lot of wisdom to bring that about.

    3. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lincoln did not end slavery, not even in the U.S. (Nixon did that, when he ended the draft). His public actions against slavery applied only to states over which he had no control, as any honest historian will tell you.

      Lincoln introduced an income tax, suspended habeus corpus, and viciously supressed freedom of speech and assembly.

      By insisting upon preserving the union, he caused the deaths of more North Americans than any president to this very day.

      After the suppression of Shay's Rebellion (1787) and the Whisky Rebellion (1794), Lincoln's Civil War is the most significant advance of big government over freedom in our history.

      The greatest American President ever? Hah! People should spit at his memory.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a [...] man with [...] probably one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had.

      Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to back that up? I don't doubt he was a bright guy, and I certainly agree that describing him as a "log-splitting bumpkin" is (or would be, *if* anyone actually did) ridiculous, but I have a distinct feeling that your main reason for saying he was the single most intelligent POTUS is that he's the single most-admired (by you) one.

      And while that's an easy mistake to make and a very common fallacy, it's still a fallacy.

    5. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by zullnero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Log splitting thing was campaign fluff at the time. Back in the old days, populism got you elected. If he ran on the campaign that he was a geeky lawyer, he would have been laughed out of politics in those days.

    6. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It was a civil war, of course it would have the most American deaths what with Americans being on both sides of the battle.

      The only down side to the civil war is, upon reflection, we probably would be better off without those dead weight southern states.

    7. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Flavio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly.

      The United States holds the distinction of being the only country where a civil war was tied to the issue of slavery. To put matters in perspective, it would've been cheaper to buy all the slaves and a fair amount of land for them than to pay for the civil war.

      The twisted notion that Lincoln's civil war was an act of brilliance stinks of indoctrination.

    8. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The one drawback of Lincoln was that he was racist - as were most people of his time. He used the word "nigger" in his 1860 campaign, and he once was remarked that he did not care if slavery ended or continued. "If freeing the slaves would preserve the Union, I would do it. If keeping slavery would preserve the Union, I would do that." (Source: CBS News Morning show, this past Thursday)

      >>>self educated man with a ferocious curiosity and probably one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had.

      1. John Quincy Adams, IQ 175
      2. Thomas Jefferson, 160 average college graduate, 109

      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/pops/2006/00000027/00000004/art00001;jsessionid=1i07kdv5wgn5p.alexandra?format=print

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it would be pretty hard to compete with Jefferson. Lincoln was a smart man, but let's not kid ourselves and think he was smarter than Jefferson. No US President has been smarter than Jefferson and only one US statesman could definitively be claimed as being smarter than him. Lincoln was a great man, but that doesn't mean that he was the tallest, strongest, smartest, blah blah blah.

    10. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Continued:
      3. John F. Kennedy, 159.8
      4. Bill Clinton, 159
      5. Jimmy Carter, 156.8
      6. Woodrow Wilson, 155.2
      7. Theodore Roosevelt, 153
      8. Chester A. Arthur, 152.3
      9. Abraham Lincoln, 150 ---- I thought he'd rank higher, but he is just a "dumb" Republican after all (just joking)

      And here's the bottom of the barrel:

      Harry S. Truman, 140
      George W. Bush, 138.5
      Ulysses S. Grant, 130
      average college graduate, 109

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by johanatan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think that if the slaves were purchased that way, it would've ended slavery? Wouldn't the South have just brought more slaves in to replace the old?

    12. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Back in the old days, populism got you elected.

      Nothing's changed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because buying the slaves and land would've fixed the problem. I'm sure that the Southern States, having received said lump sum payment, would've abolished slavery after this. This reminds me of arguments that I have with left wing nuts who claim if we were nice to the terrorists that they'd leave us alone. There is no guarantee that either the states would've sold the north the slaves or that they would've refrained from getting more slaves afterwards.

    14. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, why don't you just marry him.

    15. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Why should you be expected to pay someone to do the right thing? Your shallow attempts at revisionism are pathetic.

    16. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by johanatan · · Score: 0

      Noticing a good idea as a good idea doesn't make you one of it's founders.

      You should tell that to our beloved father of the internet--Al Gore.

    17. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, he's the tallest President ever at 6'4". Unless you know of someone else. Most presidents were actually rather average in height.

    18. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Flavio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think that if the slaves were purchased that way, it would've ended slavery? Wouldn't the South have just brought more slaves in to replace the old?

      Of course the South would've brought more slaves.

      My point is that the war was so expensive that even buying the slaves and land for their families would've been cheaper. I never claimed this was a practical solution. If I had to propose a solution, it would involve not provoking the South with tariffs which essentially amounted to commercial blockades, and avoiding a war altogether.

      Americans are taught that the US civil war was about freeing the slaves, when in fact the slaves were only an aspect of a larger economic dispute.

    19. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Generally, we assign the blame for aggressive acts to the instigator, not the victim acting in self defense. In this case, the aggressor was Jefferson Davis, who ordered General Beauregard to attack American troops.

      Those traitors and their followers were the ones responsible for killing so many Americans, not the president.

    20. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, no. That why I put the qualifiers "probably" and "one of the" in there... so you caught me. I base my statement off of my own readings and studies of Lincoln, which are not up to a scholarship level, just casual. But at least a couple of the scholars I've read or listened to have said he was among the brightest of any US president.

      So in terms of hard, scientific validity, there is no basis for that statement - just a subjective assessment of him by myself, and of the true Lincoln scholars.

      If you're to believe this link (which I don't), he was NOT among the very brightest, but I think these folks are just guessing as much as I am; they just put a few more numbers behind it.

      However, I personally still believe the statement I made to be true, given the qualifiers I put around it. Lincoln was undeniably an intelligent person, and despite what some of the cave dweller respondents to my comment have to say about him "destroying civil liberties", or whatever, navigating a civil war, preserving the Union, etc, etc, was not an easy task. Add to that his clear and insatiable curiosity to learn and explore above other presidents, and I think there is a pretty reasonable preponderance of evidence for the statement I made. But that is just my own subjective conclusion.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    21. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Flavio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because buying the slaves and land would've fixed the problem. I'm sure that the Southern States, having received said lump sum payment, would've abolished slavery after this. This reminds me of arguments that I have with left wing nuts who claim if we were nice to the terrorists that they'd leave us alone. There is no guarantee that either the states would've sold the north the slaves or that they would've refrained from getting more slaves afterwards.

      Go read my comment again. I never suggested that the North should've bought the slaves. In fact, buying the slaves would raise their market price and encourage the South to get more of them. My point was that the war was so absurdly expensive that it could've paid for the slaves and land for their families.

    22. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was probably our greatest American president ever

      Very much so, and he was a hell of a killer too. As a percentage of population, Lincoln killed more Americans than all the rest of the US Presidents combined and by a fairly wide margin.

      If you make that assertion because you think he was responsible for the entire war, think again. The hotheads in the south who seceded before he even took the oath of office, and the even hotter heads in South Carolina who started the fighting -- those are the idiots who started the war.

      The south is especialy culpable because 50 years before during the War of 1812, when the New England states tried to open negotitations with the national government on seceding, the south was foremost in calling it treason. 50 years later they decided treason was perfectly fine.

    23. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I couldn't say. All I know about Lincoln's image I got from looking at $5 bills.

    24. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by attackc0de · · Score: 1

      Jefferson Davis was a much better president. ;)

      --
      For a nice date: call strftime(3C)
    25. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny story: I thought I did, but it turned out to just be a really weird Amish dude. I finally figured it out when Lincoln didn't even know how to use a button. Gay Lincoln marriage... what a waste of 15 years... but thanks for the suggestion.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    26. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      Careful with those size tens, matey, you just stepped all over zullneros shiny new joke.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    27. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      To put matters in perspective, it would've been cheaper to buy all the slaves and a fair amount of land for them than to pay for the civil war.

      This was a direct quote from your post. You are inferring that it would've somehow cost less to do this than to pay for the war. Only, you still would've had the same damn problem. So really, in the end, fixing the real problem (biggoted Southern States who were violating the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES) would've cost a lot more.

    28. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many of those IQ's mean absolutely nothing and are made up. Half the presidents you list weren't even alive to take well researched and established IQ tests. The other half I seriously doubt went and got IQ tested by professionals.

    29. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      My how times have changed... wait not really.

    30. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by eharvill · · Score: 1

      The guy who managed to end slavery, preserve the Union, AND assist in ushering in modern medical techniques on the battlefield a log-splitting bumpkin? Yeah, sure. He was probably our greatest American president ever.

      Devil's Advocate here...

      Preserve the Union, greatest president ever? Isn't it a state's right to secede? He was also the only president to allow a civil war on his shift. Ending slavery happened to be a side effect of the war. Doesn't sound like such a a great presidency to me.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    31. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Flavio · · Score: 1

      biggoted Southern States who were violating the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

      It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the Union was interested in defending the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, because one of Lincoln's greatest acts of tyranny was the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

      In fact, the civil war can be considered a power grab by the federal government, in direct opposition to the Constitution.

    32. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by johanatan · · Score: 0

      I understood your point but for it to be valid, there would have to have been another alternative to spending so much on a war. You have offered no such alternative. From my understanding, the southern states were pretty intent on leaving the union (hence the whole secession thing).

    33. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never insisted that the Union was interested in defending the Constitution. I insisted (correctly) that the Southern States were in violation of the Constitution. Two completely different beasts there. Regardless of the intent of the North (rarely are events in history black or white, there are always shades of gray and often times the victor writes history and portrays themselves as faultless), there is no question whatsoever that the South was not in any way in the right, so to speak.

    34. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      *snip*

      He was probably our greatest American president ever.

      Not all would agree, and many think he was a rather sick individual with several emotional issues, ( severe depression one of them ) that irrevocably damaged the country and set it on a path of dilution and eventual dissolution..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    35. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he would have been if he hadn't lost one of the most important wars in his nation's history. I'd say that's a serious mark against him.

    36. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a state's right to secede?

      While I think that it should be, popular opinion, history, and wars fought over the subject would argue that no, it is not.

    37. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Even in absolute terms, there were casualties at one civil war battle, Antienam, than there have been in Iraq for the entire war, and Lincoln just kept right on rolling with the war.

      So did Davis. What's your point?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    38. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a state's right to secede?

      I suppose reasonable minds can probably disagree, but I vehemently say... no.

      Does a city have a right to secede from the union? How about an individual person... can I say my house is now named bigboobsville and there is no US authority in my country? Where do you draw the line?

      It doesn't work for a variety of reasons in a modern society, not the least of which would be financing of the debt we have incurred as a nation. Currency issues, foreign policy, water rights, etc, etc. We would become Balkanized, or at least "Europeanized". Once you're in, you're in - otherwise, you're not a true country.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    39. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      set it on a path of dilution and eventual dissolution

      How do you figure? I'd call secession a cause of eventual dissolution.

      ---- Booth was a patriot ----

      This is the one I'm really curious about, because I've seen it quite a few times here... how do you figure this is true?

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    40. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To put matters in perspective, it would've been cheaper to buy all the slaves and a fair amount of land for them than to pay for the civil war.

      Like your comment, missing the point entirely wouldn't have been any kind of victory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Generally, we assign the blame for aggressive acts to the instigator, not the victim acting in self defense. In this case, the aggressor was Jefferson Davis, who ordered General Beauregard to attack American troops.

      But wasn't it the case that the place at issue was a fort in the southern harbor? If Lincoln wanted to avoid a larger war, he could have. I don't disagree that Lincoln did the right thing, but to say that he had no choice is simply not true.

      --
      This is my sig.
    42. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by johnsonav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So did Davis. What's your point?

      Just to play devil's advocate...

      If the Union would have stopped fighting, the Confederacy probably would have too. The rebels had no desire to conquer the North, and would have been satisfied with a "two-state" solution.

      If the Confederates would have unilaterally stopped fighting, the Union wouldn't have stopped until they had forced the rebel states back into the Union.

      The Confederacy was fighting for its existence. The Union was fighting a war of conquest. I think that's a pretty big difference.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    43. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Booth was willing to die for what he felt was an attack on his country.

      The primary purpose sig is just to make one think, and how relative the terms such as patriot and dissident are. Its about who wins the war and gets to write ( their version of ) history. The sig wasn't to judge if booth was right or wrong in his actions, just that he did act, in the name of his country.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    44. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Confederacy was fighting for its existence. The Union was fighting a war of conquest. I think that's a pretty big difference.

      The point is that the Civil War shows that there are some causes which justify imperialism. Invading another country because we do not like it s political system is not automatically wrong. If a people are kept in bondage, or face extermination, then, history will well judge more favorably the man who sets them free, as much as it will forget the man who ignored him.

      Like it or not, the closest test we will have to the era of the Civil War is the term of George Bush. Like Lincoln, Bush essentially trumped up charges, lied, in an effort to get blanket powers to prosecute his war. Like Lincoln, Bush suspended some liberties to do so. Like Lincoln, Bush was constantly undermined by not only his political opposition but by generals who did not view the war in the same moral terms and did not genuinely want to fight it. Both were crucified in the media and both were faced with political opposition that strongly argued that the cause of freedom did not justify the war.

      There are of course a lot of differences too. Lincoln was very much a hands on President, continually replacing his generals, visiting his soldiers often in the field, actively seeking out and reviewing any sort of weapon's system to help win the war. Bush did none of that, and that hands off approach by Bush tellingly betrays a lack of personal confidence masked by his Texas bluster, whereas Lincoln, although battling depression lifelong, always could trust his own instincts in times of crisis, in ways that Bush could not. And, Lincoln too, although he did not live to fufill it, had a vision for the post-war that Bush simply lacked. Lincoln fought a war not only to end slavery, but to build a new kind of united states, whereas Bush did not ever really think beyond the concept of eliminating a dictator.

      --
      This is my sig.
    45. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      If you were intending to imply that slavery is in some way contradicted by the US Constitution, you may want to reexamine that belief.

      Additionally, you should refer to the discussions of slavery in the drafting and adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The United States was founded upon the principle of equality, yes, but it was quite clear to all concerned that this did not extend to slaves. If that document had been otherwise drafted, it would not have been adopted.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    46. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by KORfan · · Score: 1

      The south is especialy culpable because 50 years before during the War of 1812, when the New England states tried to open negotitations with the national government on seceding, the south was foremost in calling it treason. 50 years later they decided treason was perfectly fine.

      Because if it succeeds, then none dare call it treason!

    47. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by SDF-7 · · Score: 1

      Context matters. The quote given was when what became the Emancipation Proclamation was beginning to take shape. Abolitionists in the North (primarily New England) were clamoring for Lincoln to come down firmly for abolition (who knew?) -- but Northwestern Democrats and border state Unionists [remember -- the border states still had slavery until the 13th Amendment (Dec. 6, 1865)] were adamant that the war was about preserving the Union, NOT about forcing abolition (couched as "property rights" by the genteel... but with some flagrant race baiting of 'the poor black men are going to come North to take your jobs and daughters' as well). Lincoln pretty clearly in private statements and writings was on the abolitionist side but the political environment of the time dictated that:

      1) He couldn't come out and say that the war was against slavery (in 1862) without taking a big risk that Union support in the border states would evaporate... and suddenly the Confederacy would get that much bigger or at least have stronger bases to raid Union areas.

      2) He didn't have clear constitutional authority to make a decision of that nature anyway -- Congress should have addressed the issue. [He worked around this in the Emancipation Proclamation with some groundwork laid in legal opinion pieces from abolitionists prior by categorizing the slaves in the Confederacy as both property of citizens in rebellion (easy enough) and materially contributing to the rebellion war effort (by virtue of either providing materiel or doing forced labor to build entrenchments, etc.). As there is legal precedent for suppression of a rebellion to include seizing property (arms, horses, wagons, etc.) which is being used in furtherance of the rebellion... this gave a clear way for the Commander-in-Chief to mandate that all such property be seized by the North (explicitly or implicitly). Once seized -- Lincoln stated on several occasions that it would only be logical for them to remain free. [Full citizenship was more hotly contended and remained for the 14th Amendment].

      That said -- he was both human and a man of his time. I don't think it at all surprising that he had some of society's biases. I think calling him a "racist" is doing him an injustice given the differences between his viewpoints and the predominant ones, however.

    48. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...he once was remarked that he did not care if slavery ended or continued.

      Absolutely false.

      "If freeing the slaves would preserve the Union, I would do it. If keeping slavery would preserve the Union, I would do that." (Source: CBS News Morning show, this past Thursday)

      Okay, you've quoted something that establishes he valued preserving the Union over ending slavery. Now where's this quote that would establish he did not care if slavery ended or continued?

      Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was a notorious abolitionist. So much so that southern states started seceding before he even took office. To suggest he didn't care if slavery ended or continued flies in the face of the facts. He cared very much. He just cared for the Union even more.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    49. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by SDF-7 · · Score: 1

      Be fair -- the Civil War started because a good chunk of the South seceded simply because Lincoln was elected -- way before he took the oath or made a single action. Unless you think he should have just let half the nation walk out (which wouldn't be a great presidency either), I don't think you can really say he "allowed" the Civil War.

    50. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Booth was willing to die for what he felt was an attack on his country.

      If Booth was willing to die to prevent an attack on his country, that would make him patriotic. OTOH, being willing to die in an act of revenge just makes you an asshat...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    51. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by eharvill · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he should have stepped down and not taken office. For the better good of the country of course. He obviously knew the states would secede if he won the election. Maybe he didn't have the best interest of the country at heart after all.

      It would be terribly interesting to know what the populous of the time truly thought about Lincoln and his actions. As many others have stated already on this topic, history is viewed with rose colored glasses. 150 years from now Bush Jr will probably look much better in the history books than he does with the media today.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    52. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      They had the right idea with the Constitution, the problem was that they didn't feel that slaves were "men." Of course we know they were blinded by bigotry or just as likely, convenience, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution shouldn't have protected people who were slaves.

      The issue is the fact that slaves existed at all and instead were not free men, not that slaves were not protected by the spirit of the Constitution (I would submit that instead, the government by and large violated the Constitution by allowing slavery in the first place). Whatever reason that Lincoln decided that they should be free men, the Civil War was still a situation where the ends did in fact justify the means. The Southern States had no intention of giving up their slaves, and were willing to fight to defend their "right" to keep slaves. It was the bloodiest conflict on US Soil, but it was a just war for Lincoln to get involved in, despite the fact that not all of his reasons may have been honorable.

    53. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true. Even these days, our intelligent and well-educated presidential candidates have to present a façade as e.g. a simple-minded go-with-your-gut malapropist with a Texan drawl to get elected. You can tell how good he really is though, because in eight whole years, he didn't slip up and show his true competence even once.

    54. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by SDF-7 · · Score: 1

      You'd have to pretty much say that the Republican party shouldn't have formed and run a candidate. Anyone they ran that won would have pushed the South over the edge.

      And when you're at that point (people shouldn't run on their principles nor seek office) -- then we might as well just give up the country anyway. It would equate to surrendering everything you have in case anyone feels bad.

      As to your other comment -- there are tons of historical archives of newspapers / letters / etc. touching on what folks thought of Lincoln. Certainly the Copperhead Democrats despised him with even *more* venom than Bush was despised (and more overt acts of treason, being funded by enemy agents, etc.). But the rank of file letters are also available and have been poured over. Grade school history, schoolhouse rock summaries... yes, those are going to be boiled down "Good... baaad" assessments. But anyone sampling history on Lincoln is not going to get just a rose colored version these days.

    55. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      President Abraham Lincoln's popular image as a log-splitting bumpkin is being re-assessed

      I doubt any serious Lincoln scholar would ever say Lincoln was a "log-splitting bumpkin". He was a brilliant, self educated man with a ferocious curiosity and probably one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had. The guy who managed to end slavery, preserve the Union, AND assist in ushering in modern medical techniques on the battlefield a log-splitting bumpkin? Yeah, sure.

      Emphasis on popular image.

      Lincoln probably splits logs, because there are Lincoln logs. That's about as far as regular people get when it comes to historical analysis.

    56. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand? I think there would have been a difference between buying a thousand slaves in bulk and buying out an entire population.

    57. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by eharvill · · Score: 1

      I guess it goes back to my original comment - was Lincoln a "great" president? Based on your post, probably not (or was that just the "Copperhead Democrats" and not the majority of the general populous that despised him?), although the majority of people today would probably say yes.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    58. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Renegade+Iconoclast · · Score: 1

      when the New England states tried to open negotitations with the national government on seceding, the south was foremost in calling it treason. 50 years later they decided treason was perfectly fine.

      This is some of the weirdest historical analysis I've ever seen. Given that the average lifespan was less than 80 years, and most people in power tend to be over the age of 30, I am not sure how you can say "they" changed their opinion.

    59. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      New to this world? Never heard anyone speak of any organization's institutional history or memory? Playing dumb because using your brain is too much work?

    60. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      If you were intending to imply that slavery is in some way contradicted by the US Constitution

      I'm pretty sure he was implying that secession is unconstitutional, not that slavery was.

    61. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      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."
      -- Abraham Lincoln, August 22, 1862
      Gives you second thoughts about his alleged heroism.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    62. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The slave trade was banned in 1808. If the breeding stocks were seized, that would be the ned of slavery.

    63. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      ... argued that the cause of freedom did not justify the war.

      You missed one critical point in your argument - you forgot to prove that the Iraq war was fought for the cause of freedom. There's very little evidence to support this theory - if we go by the official version, then it was to stop WMD stockpiling and distribution; if we go by the most popular alternative, it was a war for resources.

      In any case, even if you are right, and Bush did indeed started the war for the sake of freedom of some people elsewhere, then he will only be vindicated if Iraq does indeed become a stable and genuine democracy in its own right. So far, with all the post-war mess, more people are dying there every day in the ongoing civil war between warring factions than ever did under Saddam; and, unlike it was in Saddam's Iraq, there's nothing you can do to stay out of trouble - it's everywhere. And I seriously doubt that Iraq will survive - it was an artificial state when it was initially created, and it really took someone brutal like Saddam to keep it whole. Without the dictatorship in place, it will disintegrate into bloody chaos eventually.

    64. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also sometimes called guilty by association.

    65. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. It is certainly true that history is written by the victors. Of course, I'd never poke fun at the /. audience for their/our freethinking and discriminatory non-discrimination with loads of irony... never...

      Signed,

      Religious Freak

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    66. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>...are made up.

      You mean estimated, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as it's made clear in the original article (it is).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    67. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>2) He didn't have clear constitutional authority to make a decision of that nature anyway -- Congress should have addressed the issue.

      That didn't stop him from suspending habeas corpus, which also was strictly a Congressional power.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    68. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was a notorious abolitionist. So much so that southern states started seceding before he even took office.

      They did not secede because of slavery. You've fallen for the post-1863 propaganda. Pre-1863 the war had nothing to do with slavery, but tariffs that were destroying the cotton business.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    69. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>I vehemently say...no.

      If a state does not have a right to secede, than the 13 States that eventually united to form the U.S. are illegitimate and properly belong to the United Kingdom.

      Ooops.

      I also wonder - Do France, Germany, Italy have a right to leave the European Union? They joined voluntarily - surely they have a right to leave just as peaceably.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    70. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Like Lincoln, Bush's primary interest in the war was not liberation of the Iraqi people (slavery). Bush was convinced their was a threat to global stability and Lincoln was interested in preserving the Union and continuing the tariffs on the south. The human interest causes where only to rally popular support around the war. I am glad to see now that true reflection on historic event's is starting to see the light of day. Humans as a group tend to make Jesus out of some and Hitler's out of others while white washing the facts that lie in between.

    71. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      If a state does not have a right to secede, than the 13 States that eventually united to form the U.S. are illegitimate and properly belong to the United Kingdom.

      Yep. That's what the British said, and according to their laws, they were correct. They went as far as sending troops over to what would become the United States to fight for it. The same rule applies to the civil war. The legal fact is that neither group of states had the right to secede; the only difference is one rebellion succeeded, while the other failed. You cannot have a viable country without a strong central government - people don't like this fact, but it is a fact. There are no examples of working countries where the central government does not have ultimate authority over the separate states (obviously allowing for personal liberties, privacy, etc). In terms of running a "country", the concept of federalism won, the concept of confederacy has lost.

      I also wonder - Do France, Germany, Italy have a right to leave the European Union? They joined voluntarily - surely they have a right to leave just as peaceably.

      Interesting question, and although I'm not 100% sure of the answer, I'm about 95% sure the answer is no. I recall reading an analysis of the financial crisis recently where something to the effect of this was said: "Should Italy or Greece stray outside of mandatory debt maximums, they would be in violation of their terms of Euro membership. However, since there is no process for removal of a member, no one would really know what to do" (paraphrasing - no idea of source, sorry).

      The United Nations and European Union are current examples of confederate models. Though I think we are better off for having a United Nations, I think their performance has been far from a rousing endorsement of the confederate model. The EU I'm much more impressed with, but the model is getting its first real stress test right now, so we'll see how it does over the course of the next few years - but of course, EU members cannot just up and leave when the going gets tough. The famous economist Milton Friedman said the EU would not survive the first real test. The current economic environment certainly constitutes a first real test. I for one wish our Euro friends all the success in the world - I think the EU makes the world a better place (even though they annoy my American sensibilities once in a while).

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    72. Re:Log-splitting bumpkin, huh? by zullnero · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, I got modded up to 5 for that? I thought it was a "no shit" type of deal. Voters weren't, for the most part, geeks OR lawyers back then. Considering there was no mass media to build someone up, the only way to get someone in the middle of the territories to vote for you was to summarize your entire platform up in one short bio that everyone could pull off the tops of their heads at any given time. As a result, that little marketing fluff becomes part of the public lexicon.

      These days, there are some remnants of that strategy, but they're usually drowned out by a whole sea of mass media talking heads, opinion pieces, sound bites, and everything else. One simple message doesn't get pounded into any one person's head anymore, except for maybe something vague like "Hope and Change" or "It's the economy, stupid". Ask anyone about their personal opinion of a current politician, and chances are, you're not going to hear the same bit of info repeated back at you, as you would back in the old days.

      But what the hell. Who needs to spend any time thinking about anything, you know?

  8. Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    By declaring martial law and throwing a lot of the Constitution (Habeas Corpus, for instance) out the window:

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm?rd=1

    He had a lot journalist in the North jailed for no reason other than he thought should be (no evidence needed).

    In fact, a lot of things that took place under Bush would not have been possible if it weren't for Abraham Lincoln.

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The worst part of American patriotism is that we deify leaders of the past. FDR, another revered leader, also put certain racial groups into concentration camps. I've seen plenty of liberals defend him as saying that he wanted to "protect them", which is just as sensible as saying Hitler wanted to protect the Jews.

      When people have a hero, they never let go, and will always ignore their evils and even make excuses for them.

      We always lament the politicians of today and then glorify them long after they are dead, forgetting that they were what they were--politicians, first and foremost.

    2. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen plenty of liberals defend him as saying that he wanted to "protect them", which is just as sensible as saying Hitler wanted to protect the Jews.

      In all fairness, I don't recall FDR having Japanese Americans killed.

      But yes, we tend to forget the negative or parts. It turns out that Lincon was pretty big on racism, told racist jokes about blacks, thought that interracial marriage was wrong, and that whites were the better race, all this despite believing that slavery was morally wrong. But here's the catch, if he wasn't still a racist, he wouldn't have been elected because the idea that the races really are equal would be considered far too radical.

    3. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The worst part of American patriotism is that we deify leaders of the past. FDR, another revered leader, also put certain racial groups into concentration camps. I've seen plenty of liberals defend him as saying that he wanted to "protect them", which is just as sensible as saying Hitler wanted to protect the Jews.

      Playing Devil's Advocate here, but I don't recall FDR getting any ovens fired up.

    4. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by wytcld · · Score: 1

      I've seen plenty of liberals defend him as saying that he wanted to "protect them", which is just as sensible as saying Hitler wanted to protect the Jews.

      Okay, I've never seen this defense. But it can work. The only Japanese in America put into camps were on the West Coast. The Japanese Navy had active plans to invade there. They'd already successfully attacked Hawaii. If Japanese marines had come aground, we can be sure that national guard and civilian militias would be firing on anyone who looked Japanese.

      Now, for your Hitler parallel: The Israeli Navy was poised to land Jewish marines on the beaches of Germany! Oh wait, Israel didn't have a navy, didn't even have Israel.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    5. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>In all fairness, I don't recall FDR having Japanese Americans killed.

      "Some Japanese Americans died in the camps due to inadequate medical care and the emotional stresses they encountered. Several were killed by military guards for allegedly resisting orders." "These Japanese Americans, half of whom were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or any factual basis, in bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."

      FDR also arrested white Americans who stood in his way - the most famous one being Henry Ford (for not complying with the NRA's price minimums), but Ford could hire enough lawyers to persuade FDR to drop the case. Others were not so fortunate. FDR was a dark, dark man and now historians digging through the archives are just now discovering how dark he was.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US forces did not mistake any other southeast Asians as Japanese forces on any large scale.

    7. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      As you've mentioned, considering the time it would have been hard to find many people that weren't what we'd call racist now and he wouldn't have been elected.

      While some people do look at the past with rose tinted glasses some people look too hard to find a reason to tear down historic figures. I think people don't realise our way of life is hasn't been around that long at all. The truth about Lincoln almost certainly lies in between the positive and negative views of him.

    8. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Yeah, force the Japanese americans in the suburbs to shoddy camps, having them lose their property, their homes, to "protect" them.

    9. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Informative

      By declaring martial law and throwing a lot of the Constitution (Habeas Corpus, for instance) out the window

      That's not quite correct. Check out Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

      "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

      I think the Civil War could accurately be considered a case of rebellion.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    10. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      Jewish != Israeli

      (Not that it's relevant to the argument, it just needs saying in these troubled times.)

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    11. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yes but it is CONGRESS who suspends habeas corpus, not the president. Lincoln was exercising a power not granted to him. For a president to grab legislative power is somewhat similar to when Julius Caesar assumed control of the Roman Senate. The executive and the legislative power is not meant to be in the hands of just one man.

      Ex parte Merryman the judge wrote, "These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."

      This case reiterates the opinion of John Marshall and the court in Ex Parte Bollman (1807) and was recently restated by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      That's not quite correct, either. Many states joined the union with the explicit understanding that they could leave it...and before the war, they could, after all it was a VOLUNTARY union.

      After the war, power was consolidated at the federal level. The states were now in a voluntary union in the same way that United Nations "peace keeping" armed forces create "peace."

      The states in "rebellion" were not states because they were no longer part of the Union that Lincoln controlled.

      Keep in mind that slavery died out in other parts of the world without a war. It would have died out in the South without a war, as well.

      The war wasn't about slavery, it was about the consolidation of power at the federal level.

      Again, many of the things that take place today, happen specifically because of Lincoln.

      Just think of it like this. Before the war, the 10th Amendment was real and in place. After the war, the 10th Amendment was null and void.

      transporter_ii

       

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    13. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      The Japanese Navy had active plans to invade there....If Japanese marines had come aground, we can be sure that national guard and civilian militias would be firing on anyone who looked Japanese.

      Right, they'd be firing on shop owners stocking their shelves, on farm workers loading boxes of oranges, on teachers leading children in their lessons. You really think they were put in camps because the government was afraid average folks of Japanese descent going about their normal lives as they had for years would be easily mistaken for uniformed troops of the Imperial Japanese Army/Marines storming inland at Santa Monica in full uniform, carrying machine guns and mortars? Bullshit. Complete, utter rationalizing bullshit. They were put in camps out of fear they might be spies. A friend of my father's was in one of those camps, out in the fucking desert. His parents used to own a house, and worked at a fruit packing plant. They ended up with nothing but what they carried on their backs. It was a fucking "protective measure", all right, but a measure against imaginary spies.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." I think the Civil War could accurately be considered a case of rebellion.

      ...and to those that maintain there was no rebellion in the north, let's not forget the draft riots in New York.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      The Union is like a Roach Motel.
      You can check in voluntarily, but you can't get back out so easily.
      Or maybe it's like the Hotel California.

      Whatever.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    16. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard about German concentration camps in America until about two days ago. A friend just sent me the following, which appears to be notes from a lecture here in my town (probably at the public library). Note the part about the US going into South America and bringing back prominent German business people...with part of the reasoning being to help American businesses.

      -=-=-=-=-=

      Notes from presentation by Michael Luick-Thrams regarding German Internment camps during WWII, February 10, 2009, Palestine, Texas:

      I hope you can piece together some sense of these notes. For much more comprehensive information, see websites: www.traces.org and www.gaic.info.

      Sandra

      ===================

      Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, legal immigrants were being forced to swear allegiance and carry ID booklets in the U.S.

      On the night of the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S. govt started rounding up German and Italian immigrants. This shows that "they already had lists," said the Mr. Thrams. Approximately 11,000 people of German ancestry or origin were interned in the U.S. by the end of the war. Camps were set up all over the U.S. including several in Texas. HGS, Home of Good Shepherd Roman Catholic convents, had specialized in taking in women before the war. During the war, the convents became camps for German women and children.

      Some internees were in families that had immigrated as early as the1880s. They lost everything, homes, money, belongings, and often families were split up. Some were first generation immigrants from the 1920s coming over after WWI in hopes for a better life. Some were farmers in the midwest, especially Wisconsin. Some camps were strictly for men and some for women and children while others like Crystal City, Texas, were for families. Some were German Jews who had been in concentration camps in Germany for being Jewish who immigrated to the U.S. only to find themselves in the U.S. camps for being German. At the time, journalists referred to the internment camps as "concentration camps."

      In some families, a few members were interned while others weren't. For example, the father might be taken and rest of the family left at home w/o a way to earn a living, so eventually it was decided to take the families intact in order to avoid leaving destitute families behind who would cause problems later. Some parents were separated from their young children. There were cases resulting from incomprehensible decisions. For example, there was the case of a family with 4 grown sons, sons born in U.S. The parents and two middle sons were put in a camp while oldest and youngest sons joined the U.S. military during the war. Also, there is the case of German-born husband and American-born German wife -- wife and child put in camp and husband not. Eventually, the focus of selecting internees was on non-naturalized German-born males and their families.

      The FBI went to Latin America and kidnapped German workers who had been there originally to help the Panama Canal. They were brought to camps in the U.S. Other successful German businessmen were taken from Costa Rica and Guatemala and brought to the U.S. camps. The State Department knew that they had no legal right to do this, and they wrote in a letter (shown on a slide at the presentation) that it was good to take out the successful German businessmen in Latin America so that after the war this would lessen the competition for American businessmen.

      German POWs in American camps were treated better than the German-American civilians in camps. Ellis Island was a camp for a while for Germans and Italians. Mr. Thrams asked the director of the museum at Ellis Island face-to-face why this topic isn't covered in the museum displays. The man was very uncomfortable and said that they couldn't find photos of it, which is a lie because Mr. Thrams has photos. Obviously, the museum has been told not to cover this topic.

      During the war there was forced deportation of some German immigrants to Germany, and this co

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    17. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by transporter_ii · · Score: 2

      That made me laugh out loud. But seriously, that is not how the early states saw it. Many states left a way out when they signed on. Here are two:

      -=-=-=-=

      The delegates for the state of Virginia, in their ratification statement, expressed clearly the right of secession when they wrote: "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." That's pretty straighforward.

      New York's ratification statement said much the same: "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensover it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective State government

      -=-=-=-=

      I believe Texas, Alaska, and many other states had something similar in writing or in their state Constitution. But the key word there is "believe," because I'm not sure exactly how many it was. But clearly, not many assumed it was a one way street.

      transporter_ii

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    18. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by SDF-7 · · Score: 1

      Oh, please... maybe the Japanese Navy had some active plans -- I'm sure the Pentagon has a plan for invading Mars somewhere too (military bureaucrats in search of something to do) -- but no one with any sense of logistics would seriously think the Japanese could have invaded the West Coast, including the Japanese themselves.

      Take a look at http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm -- even Hawaii was unrealistic. Crossing the rest of the Pacific (and presumably having to do Hawaii first)? Illusory.

      At best, Kido Butai could have raided the West Coast a few times -- but that would have been pushing it. In the middle -- what really happened, with periodic submarines hassling the West Coast being able to cross undetected easier than a fast carrier task force (and get refueled via seaplane instead of slow oilers) and slip away afterwards.

      The best excuse for an overly paranoid US security agency would be espionage by naturalized Japanese citizens. That at least was credible given Hawaii... but obviously, that can't be stretched to cover families and Nth generation citizens.

    19. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but he did commit genocide by nuking millions of innocent Japanese living in Japan.

      And to state that it was to protect soldiers, how would you feel if another country nuked two US cities to save their own soldiers, people who are paid to fight and fully know the risk of dying when they sign up for the armed forces (and no the draft isn't an excuse for this either)

    20. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by MLease · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was Truman. Roosevelt died before the atomic bomb was finished. He might have ordered it to be used it on Japan, but he never got the chance.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    21. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why have I never heard of this? My father is full-blooded German and his family has been in the hill country of Texas since the mid-1800s.

      The only prejudice they ever faced was when my grandmother answered a teacher in German instead of English by accident, got laughed at by students, and subsequently swore off ever speaking German again.

      I just googled this, and apparently there was something going on in Kenedy, TX. I don't understand this. My great great uncle was a rancher and full-blooded Kraut in Kenedy, TX, precisely at the time this concentration camp crap supposedly happened. Why have I never heard of this, even within my family who lived in Kenedy at that time?

      A little further reading has revealed that these camps were exclusively for aliens, not citizens of German, etc., descent. A little different from interning Japanese-Americans. Heck, the Geneva Conventions even permit internment of alien residents in time of armed conflict (albeit with some safeguards such as "not even corporal punishment is allowed").

    22. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Genocide: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    23. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You see how people are so willing to go every length to defend their Great American Heroes that they'll try to rationalize away any atrocity?

      Take no heroes, that's my philosophy. Especially politicians.

    24. Re:Yeah, he set the stage for modern America by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      "Some Japanese Americans died in the camps due to inadequate medical care and the emotional stresses they encountered. Several were killed by military guards for allegedly resisting orders." "These Japanese Americans, half of whom were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or any factual basis, in bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."

      Never blame on malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The Japanese, as a culture, place a high premium on loyalty and honor. FDR's administration believed -- wrongly -- that this would result in spies and operatives in the US from Japan. Instead, culturally, the Japanese had traded in their loyalty when they moved here. The Japanese were allowed to enlist in the army -- and did -- having the most distinguished service record of any unit in US history.

      The different autobiographical accounts from people who lived in the camps also believed that the system was more based on paranoid xenophobic self-defense moreso than outright racism. While FDR didn't survive the war, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have taken the same measures Truman did after the war of closing all the camps. And the fact the war could and did end is a main ideological difference with Gitmo.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  9. "the instant-messaging of its day" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and "T-Mails"...really...

    Please, just please kill me now...
    seriously... this is a TECHNOLOGY blog... we know what the hell a telegraph is... no need to dumb it down.

  10. Lincoln was a gay, wait no he was a nerd. by King_of_Mars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This looks like another incarnation of the "Lincoln was _______" phenomena. Apparently Lincoln was so awesome that he has to embody every singly significant idea or social event since his death.

    1. Re:Lincoln was a gay, wait no he was a nerd. by noidentity · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This one is the worst of all: "Lincoln was NOT Lincoln. He was someone else!"

    2. Re:Lincoln was a gay, wait no he was a nerd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one is the worst of all: "Lincoln was NOT Lincoln. He was someone else!"

      who is purportedly also Lincoln, aka Lincoln?

      or perhaps it was an identical force that simply happens to exhibit identical observable properties to Lincoln.

      Thats Ell Eye Enn SEE Oh Ell Enn. I KNOW HOW TO SPELL LINCOLN!

      oh my barely correlating mess of hell going on in my head now.

    3. Re:Lincoln was a gay, wait no he was a nerd. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      It's like the opposite of Hitler. Everyone knows Hitler loved the things that decent people hate

    4. Re:Lincoln was a gay, wait no he was a nerd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember the last incarnation of the "Lincoln was ____" phenomena was the "Lincoln wasn't really against slavery and initiated the civil war for greedy northern industrials."

  11. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by jessica_alba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he held racist views, but he also said of black persons "but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal" in other words, he didn't let his prejudice get in the way of policy.

  12. Attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lincoln held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, "there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality." His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America â" anywhere as long as it wasnâ(TM)t the United States.

    Lincoln's views may have started to change once he saw how bravely black troops fought for the Union cause, but even at the time of his death, he was willing to leave the fate of emancipated slaves in the hands of bigoted state legislators. "Whether Lincoln ever went beyond being an anti-slavery white supremacist," George Fredrickson writes, "is a question that is difficult to resolve."

    So should we tear down his memorial on the National Mall? The answer to this question may surprise you.

    1. Re:Attention! by Kokuyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality."

      Looking at the western world today,I'm not quite sure whether he wasn't actually right... I see no social and political equality.

      The US now has a black president. That is cool and all, but looking back at how much his blackness was hyped in the media all around the world...

      Mind, I'm not judging whether it's a bad thing or a good thing... I'm just observing.

    2. Re:Attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People love to post comments like this where they assume some historical figure was little more than a monolith. There are also hideously racist quotes by Theodore Roosevelt. Using these quotes ignores that both of these men changed their views throughout their lives. Lincoln ran his 1864 campaign on winning the Civil War and passing the 13-15th amendments. So yes, he was bigoted at a point in his life, but he still accomplished more in making people free and equal than you could ever imagine. Unlike you, when Lincoln changed his views, he also changed history.

      So go ahead, focus on one quote and ignore the complexity of his entire life. And go ahead and rally against a statue.

    3. Re:Attention! by phosphorylate+this · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You see no social equality because people of eropean-decendent have done a mediocre job of trying to bring it about. While on the other side of the equation people of African decent are trying to jump up 1000-years of technological development with all the historical power-imbalences that entails.

      Think about how HUGE social differences were - 200 years ago every black man in America was a slave, think on the sheer brutality that implies. In the 1960's (within living memory) seggregation was an established part of much of American society. When slavery was abolished it's not like education or skilled-jobs suddenly jumped into black communities, these things take generations to nuture from parent to child.

      Any "physical differences" between races are at most 3rd or 4th order effects. My guess is it wil take a 100 years or more before social equality has advanced to the point where being black and in power in AMERICA is not noteworthy let alone the rest of the world. You've just elected your first black president - celebrate man this is how progress is made, and how we make up for the misdeeds and ill-gotten gains of pyshcopathic forefathers (on every side).
       

    4. Re:Attention! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>That is cool and all, but looking back at how much his blackness was hyped in the media all around the world...

      Do you think it would have been any different if Hillary had won?
      The first time is notable, whether it be a black president or a woman president.
      Next time it will be no big deal.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Attention! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      200 years ago every black man in America was a slave, think on the sheer brutality that implies.

      Untrue. There were half a million free blacks living in the US at the beginning of the Civil War. "200 years ago", 14% of the black population was free.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe someone needs to go back to Math class. 2009 - 200 is 1809 which is also 200 years since Lincoln was born and not the start of the American Civil War. Also if you reread the article you linked you'd realize that the statistics say African Americans made up 14% of the overall population and 11% of those were free if you do the math.

      Now if you ignore all your errors how many opportunities were available to "freemen" in 1861? They had to fight and die on the side of the Union, (which despite not having slavery at the time) which had basically treated them like 2nd class citizens, to even gain any sort of recognition of being remotely honored.

    7. Re:Attention! by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but the fact that it's notable that a black person has become president for the first time still means something. It will sound misogynistic but women are really different from men. You can't deny that. So, a woman becoming president is really something, the same as it was when a queen would rule a kingdom instead of a king. OTOH people opposing racism say that the color shouldn't matter. If that's true, why make a big deal out of the fact that Obama is black? Why treat it like a great accomplishment? It makes it sound like it is harder for blacks to be presidents. And if that's true then racism is still there and it still influences enough people.

      --
      ics
    8. Re:Attention! by hvm2hvm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, forgot to say that yeah, I know I'll burn a lot of karma with that.
      I'm just saying this because I noticed that when a flamer says that he usually doesn't get burned.
      Now, by saying that I probably canceled the effect
      Maybe if I acknowledge the karma burning caused by acknowledging the canceling of the karma burning I won't get modded down?
      I dunno on which one to stop now...
      ???
      Profit (?)

      --
      ics
    9. Re:Attention! by flewp · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You criticize the post above you containing errors, so it's only fair you take a closer look at the facts in your own post.

      how many opportunities were available to "freemen" in 1861? They had to fight and die on the side of the Union, (which despite not having slavery at the time)

      The Union did have slavery in 1861. Slavery had been outlawed in some Union states for some time, but Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky were all slave states. And despite common belief, the Emancipation Proclamation (which did became effective Jan 1st 1863) did not outright outlaw slavery. It only addressed slavery in the Confederacy. Slavery was not actually abolished nation-wide until the 13th Amendment in late 1865.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    10. Re:Attention! by Hubbell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not look at the fact that if other racial groups voted teh same way that blacks did, McCain would have won by a landslide. Black voted 95+% for Obama, and I've yet to hear of one who didn't say that a major reason was cause they wanted a 'brother in the white house finally' or some derivation thereof. Yet, if you were white and DIDN'T vote for Obama, you were a racist? Maybe I'm fucked up in the head here, but blacks voting for him CAUSE he's black and NOT for mccain cause he was white is the racist part, seeing as almost all across teh country wherever ballot initiatives or other races were occurring and people with the same 'stances' as obama were running, blacks voted against them majoritively.

    11. Re:Attention! by JackieBrown · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you.

      In San Antonio the bulk of the people are hispanic.

      The only one I know that was voting for McCain was treated as a sell out. No mention of issues just racial pride and loyalty were issues for a lot of minorities. (I guess that was considered an issue then.)

    12. Re:Attention! by Hubbell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. Anyone who wasn't white was suddenly voting on race almost entirely, instead of on the issues. Any black who publicly supported mccain/was against obama was riddled with death threats and hate mail simply for not supporting the messiah Obama. It's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

    13. Re:Attention! by nicodoggie · · Score: 1

      But how many of those 14% were free as in beer?

    14. Re:Attention! by Siriaan · · Score: 1

      So *nearly* every black was a slave

    15. Re:Attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the parent has a point. He probably meant the Northern States in general, which was ignorant however the GP post had almost everything wrong. So one error doesn't negate the other.

    16. Re:Attention! by Arker · · Score: 1

      Not all of them fought for the Union, not by any means.

      Large numbers served in the Confederate army protecting their homeland against the invaders. And unlike the northern armies, in the south they were not always serving in segregated units, with all black soldiers (but white officers) - some served side by side with their white neighbours in the same units.

      Those all-black (but white officered!) northern units were deliberately placed in suicidal positions over and over again (to save white yankee lives) while blacks generally served either side by side with whites on the front lines, or else in all-black home guard units (particularly in LA) which were formed to keep order after all the white men of good health had already left for those lines.

      The truth is there was tons of racism on both sides of the mason-dixon line - the essential inferiority of black people was one thing the majority on both sides agreed on. But blacks were more accepted in the south - and this very fact led to northern hatred and accusations of degeneracy in the region! Free blacks certainly faced an uphill battle in the south - but in northern states they were liable to be flogged publically and run out of town, while in the south at least some of them managed to do quite well. At the time of the war several FMCs (Free Men of Colour, the term used at the time) in the south even owned plantations and slaves themselves.

      Remember that the yankee states never freed any of 'their' slaves when they outlawed slavery - they always gave plenty of warning for the owners to 'sell them south' and the laws outlawing slavery also typically outlawed residence of FMCs within the state as well. One of the main gripes in the south (beyond the disproportionate weight of taxation imposed on the south, and the use of that revenue to build northern industry) was the use of so-called 'free state' statutes to prohibit southron blacks from entering the western states, either as slave or free.

      There was plenty of racism on both sides, but the winners manage to whitewash their own sins and blame it all on the losers of the war - even though at the time they were, in fact, quite openly planning not what we would call 'freedom' for the southron black population but something we today would call 'ethnic cleansing' instead - they intended to declare all the slaves free and immediately put them on boats to Liberia. Only the hideous expense and immense logistics problems of such an operation saved the black american population from the fate Lincoln intended.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    17. Re:Attention! by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please. Even ardent abolitionists of the era would be considered racist by today's standards. Lincoln would have been raised and taught by both the scientists and the clergy of the day that blacks were inherently inferior, incapable of existing in civilized society without the firm guidance of whites. It's not fair to single him out and apply today's standards and expect him to measure up. You can't argue that he was considerably more progressive on the issue then most of his peers. Like all politicians, his actions and public words would be 5% rooted in his personal beliefs of right and wrong and 95% in the political reality of what he could actually hope to achieve. Ending slavery was a first step in a process that is still going on today. You can't change an entire society in a lifetime, especially when its cut short by an asassin.

    18. Re:Attention! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      The US now has a black president.

      The Onion said it best: black man given nation's worst job!

    19. Re:Attention! by phosphorylate+this · · Score: 1

      We are born into the same world it just looks different to each of us. If you were born in an igloo in the middle of Siberia how likely is it you would be here right now on /.

      I'm not talking about genes, just the social situations we find ourselves in the US. If your white access to education and job oppourtunities is a little easier (it used to be MUCH easier). Historically more white families have accumulated wealth; these are the families from which the people who innovate often, but by no means always, arise. How many of the big political families are generational (Bush's, Clinton's, Kennedy's etc.)?

      Even 50 years ago just being white gave you far more privilage than today - better access to law and order, assumed correctness in contract disuptes, easier credit. Most of that has been levelled to some extent today which is why Obama is now president - in the long run though he is just a man like any other.

      If you were forced to move right now into a town in the middle of rural China how long before your decendents would have: overcome racism; developed language-skills; obtained country-specific education; the political connections and the oppourtunity to run for major?

    20. Re:Attention! by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Just as a note, Lincoln's views changed radically from the start of the war to the very end of it. While we would still consider his views antiquated in comparison to our now enlightened views (hah!) there is no doubt that by the end of the war, he, and the rest of the radical republicans, were far more committed to a version of the future that included true equality and civil rights.

      It is one of Histories great tragedies that Lincoln died, leaving a true Bigot - Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Johnson who handily extended slavery in America by 100 years.

    21. Re:Attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much any without the social standing to prevent themselves from being recaptured and resold were free as in beer, for the people doing the capturing.

  13. First post: What hath god wrought! by Steve1952 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Given that the telegraph should be considered the true precursor of the internet, I recommend that Lincoln be given the honorary Slashdot number of "0".

    *** "What hath god wrought" is considered to be the first documented telegraph message.

  14. Re:Mod parent up by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    The closest thing to instant messaging in the days of Lincoln was talking face-to-face. Telegraph, optical, electronic or otherwise, doesn't really have an equivalent today, because it had a ridiculously low bandwidth and slower transmission times.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  15. The only president with a patent? Not true, unless by LittleBigScript · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...unless you read the wikipedia on Thomas Jefferson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
    There are none of Thomas Jefferson's patents on the page. In fact it doesn't even mention his involvement in the patent act of 1790, http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/walter40.html

    He invented a Moldboard Plow Of Least Resistance, Wheel Cipher, Portable Copying Press, and an improved polygraph for copying handwritten text.
    http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/classes/tcc313/200Rprojs/jefferson_invent/invent.html

  16. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by CRCulver · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If Obama's church were so hostile towards whites, it wouldn't have a fairly large amount of whites in attendance every Sunday.

  17. unless he is surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!!!

  18. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He was a product of his times. Everyone was some sort racist back then. Sort of like how you're a troll.

  19. At last! by hcoal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is 1863 the year of the Linux desktop?

    1. Re:At last! by Potor · · Score: 3, Funny

      you mean the Linux logtop.

    2. Re:At last! by mangu · · Score: 3, Funny

      you mean the Linux logtop.

      Yes, I think you're right:

      ls /var/log/*.log
      /var/log/apport.log /var/log/kdm.log /var/log/scrollkeeper.log
      /var/log/auth.log /var/log/kern.log /var/log/user.log
      /var/log/bootstrap.log /var/log/lpr.log /var/log/uucp.log
      /var/log/daemon.log /var/log/mail.log /var/log/wvdialconf.log
      /var/log/dpkg.log /var/log/pycentral.log /var/log/Xorg.0.log
      /var/log/fontconfig.log /var/log/rkhunter.log /var/log/Xorg.10.log

  20. Re:The only president with a patent? Not true, unl by Steve1952 · · Score: 1

    Thomas Jefferson invented things, yes, but did he file for patents on his inventions? no. He was the first commissioner of patents, and probably did not because it was a conflict of interest.

  21. not very different eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." -- 4 days before he was assassinated
    I myself, would have gone a step further and stripped the right from the very stupid (joe six-packs)

  22. If he was alive today he'd be busted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. He even wrote a letter to the Hohner Harmonica company stating how he loved to sit on his porch, smoking "sweet hemp" from a corncob pipe and playing his harmonica. He very likely smoked it even while in the Whitehouse, or on or about the Whitehouse grounds, since hemp smoking was rather commonplace in the mid-1800's.

    1. Re:If he was alive today he'd be busted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. He even wrote a letter to the Hohner Harmonica company stating how he loved to sit on his porch, smoking "sweet hemp" from a corncob pipe and playing his harmonica. He very likely smoked it even while in the Whitehouse, or on or about the Whitehouse grounds, since hemp smoking was rather commonplace in the mid-1800's.

      Citation please.

  23. MOD PARENT DOWN! Kokuyo is a thief and a LIAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, this post should be modded in the "downward direction" because he is not quite trolling, but it is a huge lump of flamebait flung in your face. Don't stand for it.

  24. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Loadmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, but really all those white people in the church are all played by Eddie Murphy.

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/10356/saturday-night-live-white-like-me

  25. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the time, "nigger" was not a descriptive term, not an insult.

  26. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by jcr · · Score: 1, Troll

    Heh.. So, you've never met one of the lefties who loves to wallow in guilt, eh?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  27. Why is that? by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    If my car didn't use gasoline, I wouldn't like peas. Huh?

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  28. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NIGGERS SCARE ME!

  29. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are far more freepers who are so busy slobbering Rushes knob they don't don't stop to see if the crap they spew makes any sense.

  30. Re:First post: What hath god wrought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I am going to be crucified for this, as /. is the last Republi-nazi haven in the world, besides Fox News.
    But Obama was the first president to adopt a Blackberry, so another parallel with Lincoln and his telegraph thing.
    Now, crucify me Republi-nazis with all your partisan hatred!
    (thanks God I am posting as anonymous coward...)

  31. Another thing Lincoln pioneered... by jcr · · Score: 1

    If you think the government's current attacks on free speech over the internet are bad, you should read up on Lincoln's crackdown on telegraph lines (not to mention all the newspapers he closed, etc.)

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Another thing Lincoln pioneered... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Would that be a debate on telegraph-neutrality?

  32. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You call a 160 character SMS message high bandwidth? Hell, you could send longer telegrams!

  33. Re:First post: What hath god wrought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF!? it's not like the guy invented it. can we please be real about this?

  34. Re:The only president with a patent? Not true, unl by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was no such thing as conflict of interest back then. The real reason Jefferson did not patent is likely the same reason inventor Benjamin Franklin did not patent. They chose to share their ideas for the benefit of all - what we would call public domain. Franklin was already the wealthiest man in America, so he didn't need the cash.

    And Jefferson was very very poor, the equivalent of $100,000 in debt in today's terms, but he still preferred to give things away. Jefferson's personal library was donated as the foundation for the Second Library of Congress. (The first was burned to the ground by the British.)

     

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  35. Parent is NOT a troll by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent post certainly expresses what we today consider racist opinions, but they are what Lincoln thought, they are a direct response to its parent post, and it is not a troll.

    Mods -- just because history is racist does not make reports on history racist.

    1. Re:Parent is NOT a troll by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      The evolution of Lincoln's views is far more radical then the parent poster understand. His view is a troll.

  36. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    >>>If Obama's church were so hostile towards whites, it wouldn't have a fairly large amount of whites in attendance every Sunday.

    Question:

    How do you post such blatant (and easily debunked) lies like that, and still live with yourself? I just youtubed not one but several different videos, and I did not see one single white face in the audience. Not one.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  37. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

    P.S. I just reviewed the video again. I did see ONE white face. Still not a "large amount" as the grandparent falsely claimed. Check it out for ye self. Listen to the hate speech (and yes that is the proper term): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw

    "Can't we all just...get along?"

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  38. mod parent informative by unity100 · · Score: 1

    let people see another facet of live in 19th century

  39. Why repeat that post title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm white. I've listened to it before and find no reason why I wouldn't attend. You just don't understand (or want to understand) what they're talking about.

    I don't agree with everything they say, but trying to paint them as people who hate whites is flat-out wrong.

  40. Re:First post: What hath god wrought! by pcolaman · · Score: 2

    What in the hell do Republicans have to do with your post? And Obama is just one in a long line of presidents who adopt something that's maybe on the cutting edge (Bush or Clinton at the end of his career adopting a blackberry would've been more cutting edge as they came out in 99). This is similar to presidents that have had plumbing, electricity, etc, installed. And I'm curious, are Republi-nazis similar to Left-wing Hate-Mongers? I love how hypocritical liberals are. Republicans are Nazis, but Liberals are just misunderstood. Yeah, like Nancy Pelosi, who is the worst Speaker of the House the Congress has ever had, hands down.

  41. Re:Mod parent up by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >>>Telegraph, optical, electronic or otherwise, doesn't really have an equivalent today, because it had a ridiculously low bandwidth and slower transmission times.

    The average telegraph could be transmitted at 30 words per minute (55 for exceptionally fast telegraphers). That's equivalent to a 2400 bit/s modem. Not bad for nearly 200 year old technology. It's faster than you can type an IM into your cellphone.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  42. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by eharvill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agreed. I hate the fact that my 93 year old grandfather still uses that term (he grew up in middle Georgia), but as you said it was more of a descriptive term and not an insult. At some point it used to be acceptable to use the term "colored" as well. Not sure when all that changed. Now only black people can call each other the "N" word. Boggles the mind...

    --
    At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
  43. Re:Mod parent up by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    Bandwidth isn't length of message but throughput.

  44. Zombie Lincoln? by Xenographic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wait, I know what to do!

    We'll need Optimus Prime, Indiana Jones and a Carebare to take him out.

    1. Re:Zombie Lincoln? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Carebare? That's low even for a furry.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proof or it didn't happen

  46. yea. right. yea. ok. by unity100 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    killing millions. yea. in a civil war. a war. honorably.

    beats the hell outta what the shitfaces in the south doing. living a life that is built by the most despicable forms of exploitation known to mankind - slavery.

    sorry pal. bud. guy.

    i cant bear myself to have any kind of pity for the fuckfaces that fought for the slaving south. well deserved, i say.

    * this 'flamebait' message with strong language social messages was brought to you from antalya, mediterranean, turkey *

  47. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point it used to be acceptable to use the term "colored" as well. Not sure when all that changed.

    It occurs to me as strange every time I hear the letters "NAACP". I understand that it would have been strange to re-name the org "NAAAAP" when the P.C. terms shifted from "colored" to "African American", but I think that's the only remaining place where the term "colored" is still appropriate when referring to race...

    (As a side note, there are a few interesting scenes in Steven King's dark tower series where a "modern" white guy is conversing with a black woman from a few decades back. As would likely be the case, she's very upset when he calls her "black" and insists on the term colored, making him somewhat uncomfortable.)

    What does all this have to do with Lincoln being an early adopter of tech again?

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  48. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise it that's true. Lots of white people still think they own black people something that happened before any of our great grandparents were born. The world's a big place. Pick any stupid idea and you'll be able find a lot of unlikely believers.

  49. we'd call him an early adopter? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Personally I would call him 'Mr President'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  50. Re:First post: What hath god wrought! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Hysterical. It seems like every story with even the slightest political bent brings out all the reactionaries who want to bash Slashdot's supposed liberal bias. Now this guy says Slashdot is a haven for "Republi-nazis." Surely we can't have it both ways ... can we?? Why, that would be almost as if ... as if ... nah, I dare not say it.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  51. Re:Mod Parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? This reminded me of the "Best Friends Forever" episode of South Park. Just because his motives weren't (aren't?) apparent doesn't mean the end result wasn't a net gain. If it weren't for him, what would the world look like today?

  52. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Obama's church were so hostile towards whites, it wouldn't have a fairly large amount of whites in attendance every Sunday.

    You've never seen the legions of white kids who listen to Public Enemy, have you?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  53. Lincoln was dumb anti-intellectual who killed many by zymano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He was a dumb jackass just like Joseph Stalin - keep that union preserved at all costs. Rapes & murder didn't matter. He got many people killed in this country.

    And he didn't even like blacks. He didn't want them freed either. Thats what they DON'T teach in public schools because of the propaganda by the government.

    He was a pure murdering phony with aggrandizing historians helping his legacy.

  54. lkjh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People think Lincoln was a log splitting bumpkin? WTF?

  55. Lincoln and Bush by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he hotheads in the south who seceded before he even took the oath of office, and the even hotter heads in South Carolina who started the fighting -- those are the idiots who started the war.

    My question is this: why is it treason for a state to want to secede? I mean, it's a shitty thing, but, if the elected leaders of a state wanted to secede, then wouldn't it make the USA a sort of an empire to trample that state into remaining in the union?

    As far as Fort Sumter goes, Lincoln was given the choice of removing the troops and letting the South have the base. He told, rightly, the south to go pound sand and organized a relief mission of the fort and a federal blockade instead.

    The fact of the matter is this, the Civil War was a blatant act of imperialism by the north, upon the south, a war that was pushed into all of its horrors by Abraham Lincoln, and he was right to do it. The great lesson of the civil war is that there are times when sovereignty must be set aside for a greater good, and that some imperialism is justifiable.

    IT was right for Abraham Lincoln to destroy the South and end slavery, and, if anyone is like the Lincoln of our day, it may well be that it was right for George Bush to invade Iraq and destroy the Baath Party.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Lincoln and Bush by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is secession wrong?

      It gave each state a veto over all federal legislation, indeed over every other state's own internal legislation. If any state didn't like what the federal government or any other state government was doing, it could threaten to secede.

      One of the main arguments for secession was by South Carolina. They didn't like the high tariffs imposed by the majority, claimed that every individual state had the power to veto federal legislation, and threatened to secede if tariffs were enforced in South Carolina. There was a nasty undercurrent to this. The main source of income for the federal government of the time was tariffs. Part of South Carolina's plan was to force a small ineffective federal government on the rest of the nation by vetoing its income source thruout the nation.

      That's no way to run any organization, let alone a government.

      Look at the original articles of confederation from the 1776 revolution which proved to be so unworkable that they were replaced by the 1789 constitution. One of the main complaints was that the national government had almost no powers of its own, especially taxes. All its revenue came from donations by the individual states. It simply did not work, and the federal government of the 1789 constitution was the preferred result. Secession as threatened by South Carolina would have destroyed that. Secession as practiced by the confederacy did try to destroy the constitution. And the confederacy was just as hypocritical as any bunch of politicians; they put down more than a few rebellions of their own from counties that wanted no part of the war for slavery.

      Secession as proposed by the New England states in 1815 was slightly better -- they wanted negotiations, not outright unilateral secession. But it still would have destroyed the union by imposing a veto on the nation.

    2. Re:Lincoln and Bush by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, but there is an undercurrent to tariffs as well. The reason that the south hated tarrifs was that they were a protectionist measure designed to protect the northern manufacturers from foreign competition. The south, being primarily agrarian, needed to import its manufactured goods and thus wanted them to be as inexpensive as possible and in the runup to the civil war, the best manufacturer was actually Great Britain.

      But the fact of the matter is, the primary issue for the civil war was slavery. If you read the Confederate Constitution, it is actually almost a word for word copy of the Federal Constitution, but that, owning a slave is a basic civil right (unbelievable as it is), and that, they had a President with a single 6 year term, and a line item veto.

      Interestingly, southern Presidents have actually proposed those two items be on our constitution.

      Jimmy Carter once advocated for a single six year term but handled it so badly that the public walked away with the perception that he was trying to get another two years without having an election (untrue of course). The story of the line item veto is interesting.

      For years, Republicans, sons of the south they are, argued for the line item veto, and, actually helped give it to Bill Clinton, who also a southerner, argued for it and it was the only thing in the Contract with America that he did support.

      Unfortunately, a northern Republican named Rudy Guiliani sued and got the line item veto declared unconstitutional, by a Supreme Court that ruled 6-3 for the Rudy, which support included four justices appointed by conservatives and two genuine conservatives (renquist and thomas).

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Lincoln and Bush by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly, southern Presidents have actually proposed those two items be on our constitution.

      It is in the Constitution. It's the 22d Amendment.

      two genuine conservatives (renquist and thomas)

      And are you suggesting Scalia isn't a "true" conservative? How more conservative can you get than an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

    4. Re:Lincoln and Bush by tjstork · · Score: 1

      It is in the Constitution. It's the 22d Amendment

      That's two four year terms, not a single six year term as in the Confederacy.

      originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

      Scalia is an originalist of convenience and in this sense today's conservatives neglect their own judicial activism. A genuine constitutional originalist would decide that the federal government had no specific power to legislate on a number of social issues, but they don't. Indeed, there is no constitutional provision that even allows the FCC, FDA, or any number of federal agencies to actually exist, yet, conservatives routinely side with the government when it is their issues they advocate. Of course, this level of judicial activism isn't up to the same level of ridiculousness as takes place in New Jersey public schools or even Roe V Wade, but it is activism non-the-less. Social issues are the purview of the states, not the federal government.

      --
      This is my sig.
    5. Re:Lincoln and Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it may well be that it was right for George Bush to invade Iraq

      It might have been, had he proposed that plan for the sake of the Iraqi people, and actually gotten popular support before launching the invasion.

      Instead he lied to the people to launch an unjust war. Whatever good was incidentally done there while on Bush's personal vendetta was totally just a happy coincidence.

      Similarly, if helping people was the goal some nation would have sent peace-keepers to Afghanistan years ago. Instead it waits till they think Osama is there.

      Bush will go down in history as the one of the greatest indirect murderers in history, responsible for millions of deaths in a needless series of conflicts.

  56. Subject by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    Lincoln led the country into a bloody war and killed 600,000 of his own people.

  57. In fact... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I've been kinda comparing Lincoln and Bush and of course the biggest crack against Bush is the Iraq War and with it comes the off-repeated slogan, freedom cannot be brought by the barrel of a gun. The fact is, freedom did come by the federal gun in the civil war, and, it came again during the Civil Rights Era when the US Government would send soldiers and federal agents to ensure that black children could go to the same schools as whites.

    --
    This is my sig.
  58. Lincoln, worse than Bush by rea1l1 · · Score: 0

    Lincoln violated the constitution numerous ways and suspended habeas corpus! Lincoln authorized the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of aiding the rebels.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/young-andrew7.html

    Lincoln helped destroy the constitution and make the US government what it is today!

    Once again, the ends don't justify the means. I am pro freedom and anti prejudice. Abraham Lincoln helped enslave us, and because the north won, they made him look great all through the rest of history.

    Because of Abraham Lincoln, no state is allowed to recede for any reason.

  59. Just like Obama by Rusty+pipe · · Score: 1

    When Lincoln took office the White House had no telegraph connection.

    When Obama took office, he only found oldest computing equipment.

    1. Re:Just like Obama by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      "Only oldest"? Somehow I doubt they were still using vacuum tubes.

      Can I get a reference for what you're talking about?

  60. Re:The only president with a patent? Not true, unl by jejones · · Score: 2, Informative

    See http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jefferson.html for info on Jefferson and patents. Note in particular:

    "Jefferson, a strong proponent of equality among all people, was not sure if it was fair or even constitutional to grant what was essentially a monopoly to an inventor, who would then be able to grant the use of his idea only to those who could afford it. His feeling that all should have total access to new technology was one of the reasons he never took out a patent on his own inventions."

  61. US Patent #6469 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    [Lincoln] is the only US president to hold a patent

    US Patent #6469

    (you will need a TIFF viewer or plugin)

  62. To the idiot that modded me down by zymano · · Score: 0, Troll

    Afraid of the truth?

    1. Re:To the idiot that modded me down by killproc · · Score: 1

      zymano, the brainwashing was deep and thorough... you can't blame the deaf for not hearing.

      --
      When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
  63. Re:First post: What hath god wrought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "..."What hath god wrought" is considered to be the first documented telegraph message..."

    Is it? This seems like yet another Americocentric boast. Cooke and Wheatstone were demonstrating their telegraph invention in London about ten years earlier. I'll bet you can find some documented messages from that time.

    Cooke and Wheatstone used a 6-wire parallel bus. Perhaps we could claim them as the precursors of a computer architecture?

    To illustrate how commonplace the telegraph was in the UK when Morse was 'inventing the first one' in the US, this site has a documented message of the railway telegraph in England being used to catch a murderer on Jan 1st 1845:

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8341/telegraf.htm

  64. He makes them himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite invention from Lincoln by far is Lincoln Logs.

  65. Abe Lincoln, stoner by mercury7 · · Score: 1

    Lincoln was an early adopter for something else too. After receiving as a gift a harmonica from the Hohner harmonica company he wrote in a letter to them, "Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." Yes, Honest Abe toked up. My admiration for our 16th president increases.

  66. Lincoln was a badass by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Lincoln was so badass that he makes Chuck Norris look like a schoolgirl and Bruce Schneier look like a remedial math student.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  67. Check your math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A wpm is (within a order of magnitude) approximately equal to a bit/s. When doing rough bandwidth comparisons they're often considered equivalent (since a wpm isn't precise anyway)

    If you've ever read text coming from a 300bps modem you know that even that is coming at a clip well beyond what a human telegrapher could signal. At 2400bps (that's 300 8-bit bytes every SECOND!) there's no way a telegrapher could keep up

    1. Re:Check your math by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yep, I made a math error because I forgot to convert minutes to seconds. 30-55 words per minute == 0.5-0.9 words per second *5 == 2.5-4.6 chars/sec. A 110 baud modem does 10 cps, so even a good telegrapher could not keep up.

      Still you shouldn't underestimate the power of the telegraph by saying, "It's not as good as instant messaging." Prior to the telegraph it would take weeks for the president to hear news of a disaster in Georgia or Maine. With the telegraph it was mere minutes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  68. Re:Mod parent up by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

    In response to this story, John McCain said that he doesn't really get this newfangled "telegraph" technology and he relies on his wife and aides for that kind of thing.

  69. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    As a side note, there are a few interesting scenes in Steven King's dark tower series where a "modern" white guy is conversing with a black woman from a few decades back.

    Surely you mean a modern uncoloured guy ?

    Any person who has any hint of "colour" is "black" in the US. This is very strange.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  70. obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the article appears at usnews.com. Grandma's news portal of choice, so you have to provide these types of analogies.

  71. Mod Parent Grammar Nazi Up, Up, Up!!! by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    Best. Grammar. Nazi. Ever.

    I would mod you up, good sir!

    To explain to those who don't know for lack of education or lack of native ability, the correct statement is "If he were alive today . . ."

    Here is an explanation. I am trying to perfect my use of the subjunctive in speech. I'm typically a descriptive grammatist, but when writing formal documents, I become a prescriptive grammatist.

  72. Knit picking but... by rHBa · · Score: 1

    Assuming that our slashdot numbers are the primary key/id of the users table in the database, it would be impossible to have an ID of zero I'm afraid...

    1. Re:Knit picking but... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      $ dict knit ...Needlework created by interlacing yarn in a series of connecting loops...

      $ dict nit ...egg or young of an insect parasitic on mammals especially a sucking louse; often attached to a hair or item of clothing

      (Not trying to be an asshole, just trying to help.)

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  73. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    I wonder what it would be like if everyone started using the word as a general insult. Would it become disassociated from black people? I know there's some sort of reclamation of the word (like "nerd" and "geek" have been reclaimed by their respective populations) as a term of empowerment, but what if the word became just a general insult and lost all ties to being black?

    It would be an interesting linguistic and social experiment from a scientific point of view. I'm not sure how it gels socially with everyone, though.

    There is a folk (and false) etymology of the word that it derives from "niggard" meaning, basically "a scrooge." That might help it along to becoming a general insult.

    Because I fear for my future employment, I'd like to clarify that I'm not glorifying its use and am merely posing a question about what the world might look like if the word became a general insult completely unaffiliated with its former racist connotations or even just asking aloud whether this would even be possible.

  74. Re:Mod parent up by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    This has, of course, been muddied by the extremely popular usage of "I have limited bandwidth. I only get 20GB of download a month."

    My university IT department uses "bandwidth" in this way. This is at The University of Texas, which has prestigious computer science and computer engineering faculties, I believe.

    The IT department on campus puts caps on bandwidth usage, and if you go over each week, you have to more "bandwidth."

    http://resnet.utexas.edu/support/more-bandwidth.html

    If you have reached your bandwidth limit, you may purchase additional bandwidth in 1-gigabyte (GB) increments from the Public Network Store in TX Shop (up to three GB per week). Purchased bandwidth will first be used to make up the amount by which you exceed your allocation, and the remainder is available for you to use on the 1st-class service bracket until your reset day, when your account is reset to your full bandwidth allocation.

    There, the residential network seems to be conflating the throughput and dictionary usages of the word.

  75. Bullshit by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Find some documentation for that quote. It's source is a Huffington Post article praising pot, but the author gives no documentation for it. No one else seems to have a genuine source for it either, all of them circling back to that HuffPuff piece as a reference. Until I see actual proof this quote is genuine, I'm calling it just another Internet urban legend.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Bullshit by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      You are, quite likely, correct. This[German] article makes the point that the quote is dated 1855, and yet Hohner harmonicas were not manufactured until 1857. The curator of the Hohner museum also denies the existence of any such letter from Abraham Lincoln.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  76. Re:Mod parent up by e4g4 · · Score: 1

    John McCain jokes are as old as the man himself..

    --
    The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  77. Grammar Nazi Fail, Mod Down! by adavies42 · · Score: 1

    subjunctive is a mood, not a voice!

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
    1. Re:Grammar Nazi Fail, Mod Down! by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're right. That's what I get for replying in the AM.

  78. Re:he also used the word nigger a lot by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Buying into racist philosophy is, ironically, not limited to any race.

  79. Re:Mod parent up by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    McCain uses a cellphone so he can't be too dumb.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  80. Re:Mod parent up by pcolaman · · Score: 1

    Are you just jealous of a man who in his 70's still probably has more fun than you do?

  81. Re:Mod parent up by pcolaman · · Score: 1

    Well, for most hardcore liberals (not necessarily calling the Parent a liberal), because they insist that Bush is a moron (last I checked, having trouble talking in public != stupidity, but another debate for another time), then all Republicans must be idiots and blind to technology. Last I checked, my Unix Bible didn't mention a requirement to lean to the left.

  82. Re:Mod parent up by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

    The average telegraph could be transmitted at 30 words per minute (55 for exceptionally fast telegraphers). That's equivalent to a 2400 bit/s modem. Not bad for nearly 200 year old technology. It's faster than you can type an IM into your cellphone.

    Here's proof.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  83. Lincoln repeater!!! by Spovednik · · Score: 0

    so is it real? those fallout3 guys were on to something!!!