Comments on: Abraham Lincoln and the Jews

By: JB

JB — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:34:39 +0000

Remember that Grant later became president. He used to be considered the worst president of all time … but now I’m not so sure.

By: Butler T. Reynolds

Butler T. Reynolds — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:45:27 +0000

Was Lincoln being principled or just calculating? I don’t give the tyrant much credit beyond just being shrewd.

Regarding “Steve’s” comment that it was the intention of the South to destroy the United States of America. That’s a first for me. My impression was that they wanted to leave it, not destroy it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the Confederacy either. I’ve found their constitution uninspiring. Oh, and that slavery thing ain’t so honorable if you ask me.

BTR

By: EvilPoet

EvilPoet — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:57:19 +0000

George W. Bush and the Jews

By: Apollo

Apollo — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:29:59 +0000

A very mild correction: he did not expel Jews from all of Kentucky and Tennessee. In December 1862, General Grant oversaw operations in the Department of the Tennessee, which included only those portions of Tennessee and Kentucky west of the Tennessee River (a small portion of those states), and whatever portions of northern Mississippi that were controlled by Union forces. The book's reference to action by the Jews of Cincinnati is interesting insofar as they were not directly effected. That would also explain why the Jews of Paducah, which was within Grant's department, acted with more alacrity. See here. [You're right, thanks --SA]

By: Jpeditor

Jpeditor — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:04:12 +0000

“. But there are some things that are not done in America, it appears, even when the survival of the nation is at stake.”

You mean like indicting and arresting “journalists” and other scum who leak our secrets and undermine our war against the islamo-fascists?

Keep it up, we’ll get there…

By: Gavin Peters

Gavin Peters — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:53:45 +0000

“Steve” may be right. Of course, the constitution also holds that no state in the United States can be split without that states legislature’s consent.

Sadly, I have not found such consent for the creation of West Virginia.

It seems, steve, that some people, discussing American history or even legal matters, may wish to not only split hairs finely, but split them both ways.

- Gavin

By: steve

steve — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:57:07 +0000

It was the intention of the South to destroy the United States of America. Also, it was their intent to enslave or keep in enslavement citizens of the United States and to spread its evil existence to other States as they were encorporated West into the United States of America.

By: tarran

tarran — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:45:20 +0000

I’m kind of confused about one thing: was the ’survival’ of the United States really in any doubt in the war? Last I checked, the Confederacy merely wanted out of the union. The casus belli, the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter, was carried out because the Federal Government intended to continue collecting import taxes from freighters entering Confederate waters. I don’t think the Confederacy had any designs on conquering the United States at any point in the war.

Am I wrong?

By: George

George — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:52:56 +0000

Well, it’s not so surprising that Lincoln did not allow Grant to get rid of all the Jews in a region. And it’s not so surprising that Bush hasn’t locked up all the Arabs or Moslems or Iraqis or Iranians living in regions of the US. Those two share the “principled exercise of restraint by the President in time of war,” limiting “indefinite detention of an American citizen without trial” to individuals where there is specific reason to do so.

Unfortunately, it’s also not so surprising that presidents like FD Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson expelled and concentrated entire classes of peoples from particular regions.

As you say, it’s important to keep this in mind, lest we vote in a new president like FDR and Jackson.