Ron Paul: Abraham Lincoln was not one of our greatest presidents

[Danno 1,228]

There's really no logical basis for that claim. For one, the United States was and still is a representational democracy. Hardly anything remotely close to tyranny.

Sen. Daniel Webster's famous debate with South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne over whether states have the right to secede should be taught in every redneck Confederate loving state:

link

When you get finished reading that long winded post by someone most have never heard of.... consider what Honest Abe said himself on the matter.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

Abraham Lincoln

-took a lot less words for him to get to the heart of the matter.

[mRx 16]

You are going to give Danno and shooter a thrill. Too bad this is revisionist history to support today's anti-government wing nut mentality. But hey, it is after all Ron Paul!

History is all about revisionism. Which type of it just depends on who's writing...

For example, my 20th century history book paints Germany as horrible, immoral scum during WW1, and the sinking of the Lusitania was a "surprise attack" on a "peaceful" vessel. Omitted from the text however, was the fact that the Lusitania was traveling in a war zone, and Germany posted announcements in many American newspapers that ships traveling in a war-zone will be sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying war materials, and therefore it was not "peaceful".

But by reading the text, Germany looks like the early 20th century version of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

[alienlovechild 75]

History is all about revisionism. Which type of it just depends on who's writing...

For example, my 20th century history book paints Germany as horrible, immoral scum during WW1, and the sinking of the Lusitania was a "surprise attack" on a "peaceful" vessel. Omitted from the text however, was the fact that the Lusitania was traveling in a war zone, and Germany posted announcements in many American newspapers that ships traveling in a war-zone will be sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying war materials, and therefore it was not "peaceful".

Revisionism is an ongoing process. The Lusitania was sunk in 1915 but the U.S. didn't declare war until 1917 so there's more to the story. German U-boats repeatly attacked and sunk plenty of other U.S. flagged ships prior to the U.S. entering the war. http://www.usmm.org/ww1merchant.html

Boiling down big events to a single causes is usually a mistake revisionist fall into. U.S. also wanted to support democratic nations which was possible once Russia was defeated. Then there was the Zimmerman Telegram. . .

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Revisionism is an ongoing process. The Lusitania was sunk in 1915 but the U.S. didn't declare war until 1917 so there's more to the story. German U-boats repeatly attacked and sunk plenty of other U.S. flagged ships prior to the U.S. entering the war. http://www.usmm.org/ww1merchant.html

Boiling down big events to a single causes is usually a mistake revisionist fall into. U.S. also wanted to support democratic nations which was possible once Russia was defeated. Then there was the Zimmerman Telegram. . .

A lot of significant events and adventures get lost in the confusion of revisionist history. For instance, speaking of WWI, whatever happened to the Transjordan Pipeline? Even with the internet, certain historical events are getting harder and harder to find, unless you want to actually go to your local University library, and peruse the dusty stacks. Sooner, or later, I imagine they will start scrubbing those catalogues at well.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

These competing interests delayed the development of the Iraqi fields, and IPC's concession eventually expired because the companies failed to meet certain performance requirements, such as the construction of pipelines and shipping terminals. The concession was renegotiated in 1931, however, giving the company a 70 year concession on an enlarged 83,200 km². area east of the Tigris River. In return, the Iraqi government demanded, and received, additional payments and loans, as well as the promise that IPC would complete two oil pipelines to the Mediterranean by 1935 - something CFP had demanded for a long time, in order to get its share of the oil quickly to France.

Differing routes and terminal locations on the Mediterranean coast were favored by the French, who favored a northern route through Syria and Lebanon terminating at Tripoli, and the British and the Iraqis who preferred a southern route, terminating at Haifa, in what then was Palestine. The issue was settled by a compromise which provided for the construction of two pipelines, each with a throughput capacity of 2,000,000 tons a year. The length of the Northern line would be 532 miles, that of the Southern line 620 miles.[2] In 1934, the pipelines were completed from Kirkuk to Al Hadithah, and from there, to both Tripoli and Haifa; the Kirkuk field was brought online the same year. Only in 1938, nine years after the discovery, did IPC begin to export oil in significant quantities.

The Kirkuk production averaged 4 million tons per year until World War II, when restricted shipping in the Mediterranean forced down the production sharply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Petroleum_Company

I guess it's still there, somewhere!

Edited April 11, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

A lot of significant events and adventures get lost in the confusion of revisionist history.

Indeed. In particular, history is being rewritten as we speak. Bill, surely you haven't let them obliterate your memory that Obama is a Nazi? It's quite Orwellian, actually. But the truth will out.