Which Lincoln book is better?

[Bucjason]

I don't like Lincoln one bit, and yes I've read his racist comments in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Lincoln only starts to look good when I have to listen to the pro-slavery drivel in this forum. Just because Lincoln was bad, doesn't mean the South was right.

Directly from the Lincoln-Douglas debates : and pretty much sums up Lincoln's view:

"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.[19] ”


“ This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest "


This stance is pretty honorable , and light-years ahead of the mentality of tyrants like Jefferson Davis .

For the 1850's , Lincoln was WAY ahead of his time as far as the belief that " all men are equal" For this he is to be praised , IMO.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm not "lapping up" anything by Confederate apologists..
I just wanted to read up more on Lincoln.
Idk about others on here, but I don't like Davis either.. I hate them both.

North was not the direction which encouraged a wretched whore to stand in faith and to walk in faith, to cross a fathomless ocean in search of a new world, but it was a narrow and precious, self evident and unalienable Truth that ultimately divorced her from the tyranny that owned her so that she could then be remarried to a more perfect husbandry.

[Erazmus]

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto.

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane


I could go on.

Seriously , next time you laugh and roll your eyes when someone mentions the "right of revolution" , don't mention Thomas Jefferson in the next breath. It's an insult to Jefferson

..and finally , another qoute that I think can be applied to the Civil War quite well:

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois

Your post is incredibly sad, and I mean that in the most sincere way. The concepts I am talking about are incredibly subtle, so I understand the confusion, and perhaps I haven't explained them very well. The sad part is that you've quoted Jefferson, so the answer is right in front of you and you just don't see it. I've been wracking my brain on how to explain this to you, so I'll try one last time. We'll see how it goes.

Basically you have two forms of revolution, a peaceful one in which the minds and attitudes of the people shift. Then you have the violent one. Now, the importance here comes from causality and how you define the terms. But it breaks down into two components. If we look at a micro example it becomes clear. If someone defends their life (a Right) and uses lethal force which ends in another's death (not a right) we can now see the two components. Since rights come from property, we can see that no one has a right to kill someone else or initiate violence. Let's call them A and B.

Component A - is self defense (a Right)
Component B - is lethal force (not a Right)

Now, in a vacuum we also can see that lethal force isn't a right. However, when based on component A, we can see that B is just. If we take this clear example to the macro level, we can see that the same is true of violent revolution. Violent revolutions have happened numerous times throughout history. Many of them were not just, and in a vacuum we can see that they are not a right. It is merely the use of force at the macro level (many people). However, when governments abuse people's rights, suddenly it becomes just as a reactionary measure.

Component A - is self defense (the peoples' Right to protect themselves)
Component B - violent revolution (not a Right)

So it is when violent revolution occurs on behalf of a right of self defense against government that it becomes just. Your confusion to Jefferson's quotes now becomes obvious. Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence that you used as your first quote is talking about the abolishment of government that the people created. If you own something (thus created it) then yes you do have a Right to destroy it. He isn't talking about violent revolution here. It is a subtle yet important distinction.

So yes, maybe it was improper for me to have rolled my eyes and laugh. As I have done this philosophical exercise, I sometimes forget others may not have. If nothing else, perhaps I have made you think. Again, if you are not able to grasp what I have outlined above, then perhaps we should just shake hands and part ways, because I'm not sure I can explain this concept a better way.

[Erazmus]

If you think your state or local government has the right to do anything it wants , including enslave you , then by default you have taken a pro-slavery position.

I'm not sure if you are saying this in general terms, or if you are directing this comment toward me. If the latter is true, then you haven't been reading my posts.