I am shaken, (yet not so much because of my years), at this view of Lincoln.
There is no end to the perceptions of the "facts" of history. Whose to say what "really" happened.
Whose to know what those who use their "perceived" notion of who Lincoln was (because our views come from history as told by those that were not there)to produce their own ideologies, really mean. ???
I hope this link/address gets you there to the Friday Special Edition of the PatriotPost volume 9 no. 6 of Friday February 13th, 2009
I just heard that a CNN poll of historians rated Lincoln number one among U.S. presidents. The same poll rated George W. Bush 36th and Clinton 13th if my memory is correct. I'll see if I can find a link to the complete results. I couldn't find the recent CNN poll, but here's a link to a C-Span ranking which doesn't included George W. Bush. Lincoln ranks #1, followed by Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Truman.
Here's the C-Span top ten presidents ranked by historians:
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4 Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John Kennedy
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. Lyndon Johnson
ooo, I think they made a mistake. I don't see Carter in there...
LOL, seriously, LBJ?! but no Reagan...very interesting. That War on Poverty thingy really kicked in didn't it. lol
Never trust a spin blogger with a bio 3 pages long who lists among his credentials: "accepted an executive level federal appointment in a reserve national security capacity" and whose writing style is similar to that of Thackeray.
It certainly makes you think. Of course, many of the posts conclusions of constitutionality are dead wrong, legally speaking.
True. Alexander expressed concern about straying from the Constitution under Clinton which I don't recall to have been an issue, but he fails to mention what's happened to the Constitution under Bush--erasing the line separating church and state, NSA warrantless spying on Americans' phones, computers, email, credit records, polliticizing the Justice Department and so forth ad nauseam. This is pure right-wing propaganda posing as objective, patriotism.
so, tell me, where you got this information. what do you mean by a "spin blogger"? this is an article from a regular weekly newsletter...do you call a newsletter a blog? I kinda get "spin" heck it may not even be a newsletter...I am certainly not up on all the lingo of the internet world
Then you could replace the 'z' (zed, not zee) with an 's', out of empathy with your old world colleagues... Webster - what evils you wrought
"I hope this link/address gets you there to the Friday Special Edition of the PatriotPost volume 9 no. 6 of Friday February 13th, 2009"
Assuming you are referring to the notion that Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than freeing slaves. Nothing new there. That has been considered for a long time. A great read on Lincoln is 'Lincoln' by Gore Vidal.
It is a historically based novel and thus puts one in the period, politics, food, fashion and intrigue. Not pop history to which we are all inundated. .
Woah... I don't know if that was just me, but I couldn't understand a word of that article. It was just garbldy-gook.
"Woah... I don't know if that was just me, but I couldn't understand a word of that article. It was just garbldy-gook."
Just U. Afterall you sell baby carriages. You are not actually suppose to know how to read.
I hear that members of Congress are also not supposed to be able to read. Only ONE Senator was able to read the entire "stimulus" package. That wasn't even the final draft! You really gotta wonder why this bill was rushed through Congress. Why not give the Senator's another weak to flip through Obama's masterpiece? After all, most the spending happens in 2010. Doesn't make sense....
I place next to no credence in polls. Not a true cast of the electorate.
Anyway, back to Lincoln. I also head that his wife was into psychic kinda stuff and was depressed and greatly disturbed throughout his presidency.
But like the Founding Fathers (or so historians say...), they all had their "unseemly sides"....to put it mildly. I think historians are like everyone else...they all have an opinion from their individual limited perspectives of life.
Lita, here I go off subject...but I like your avatar pic... there is something a bit "spooky" about it not unkindly meant just extremely unique
Yes, I agree to some extent (about historians). It is possible to do enough research, and I feel, interpret enough that you can produce historical writing with good 'perspective.' I speak from experience, because this is what I >hope< that I produced in my one book that dealt with a historical event.
One good book on American history from a well-rounded perspective is "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn. I'm gonna bet Ralph knows it.
Thanks about the avatar. Hmm. Didn't know that's how it came across. Maybe I'll rethink!
Oh--and you can tell 'spin' (spin blogger my invented word) by the heavy partisanship that site carries... It isn't that the author doesn't bring up valid points--it is his style and his interpretation of those points that is lacking.... And I got the info. about his 'career' or whatever, in that obfuscation of words, from his bio that he includes on the site.
interpretation...yes, that's what makes the world spin 'round (dizzy smiley here )
The only valid thing I felt I taught my youngest in homeschooling about history was that all that you read is only that person's or that group's interpretation of history...never drink the whole glass of kool-aid, and look to your own heart with compassion for yourself and others when you are looking for examples of how to be an adult. The world is not what it seems.
spooky may not have been the best word...eerie (is that how you spell that?) maybe...no, I'll have to go to a thesarus...don't mind me...it's only my limited opinion
Yes, absolutely. Agree with that, . The thing with old school historians is that they covered things from a limited perspective--very limited. Wars, what 'leaders' were doing, etc., etc. Never the full picture. Zinn tried to take history from 'the people's' perspective. Everybody. Common people, women, Indians, etc.
Of course, some will say that and this book has a progressive 'spin' and you will have the round and round arguments. I am a progressive--but not because of simple partisan interests--I am because I feel it carries the most truth and that it is right.
by A.S.K.Preacher5 years ago
I believe the Bible was written by men inspired by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Why is it so hard for people to see the scripture as applicable for now? Especially those scripture that clearly...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
Ronald Reagan, according the Friday's Gallup poll. I was shocked to see that George Bush and Thomas Jefferson tied. Who answers these polls?? I don't think W was as evil as many libs do, but to compare him to the...
by Ron Montgomery5 years ago
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/09 … &cc=fpAt least she's consistent. Lie, defend lie with more lies, prepare next lie.Why are her groupies so gullible?
by Susan Keeping7 years ago
There is a new book out that defends the South from wanting to secede and calling Lincoln a dictator for the way he handled it. Do you agree?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.