In response to:

Learning from Lincoln: Both Onscreen and Off

Semperfi/par Wrote: Dec 08, 2012 11:28 AM
Not a fan of Lincoln. Most of what is said about him is revisionist nonsense. The war between the states was fought over money. He was the first tyrant.
Carl469 Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 12:06 PM
A couple of lousy books by Thomas DiLorenzo can't alter history. The war was over the concept of "honor," at least as the Southern plantocracy defined the concept.
Al3404 Al Barrs Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 7:50 AM
Absolutely correct Semperfi! See TRUE AMERICAN HISTORY at
Jim69 Wrote: Dec 08, 2012 11:49 AM
Wow! I can only imagine the research and dedication to fact which must have gone into such insights! That hack Doris should be ashamed!

What is it about Abraham Lincoln that has captured the hearts and minds of the American public since his assassination nearly 150 years ago? After all, one could argue -- rather persuasively -- that our 16th president was the least qualified candidate ever elected to high national office; in fact, his public service record included just four terms in the Illinois state legislative, one unremarkable term in the House of Representatives, and two unsuccessful bids for the US Senate. In addition, he had virtually no executive experience and, as his contemporaries invariably pointed out, Lincoln seemed wholly unfit to lead the...