Tuesday, February 21, 2012


You gotta really twist your history to make Abe Lincoln look like a gun-hatin' peacenik.


Joseph said...

About as much imagination as making him a vampire hunter?


Anonymous said...

Yup. The book "Lincoln's Choice" describes him personally testing a Spencer when a few officers were urging more widespread use by the Union army.

Nathan said...

Yeah, Lincoln, the man who looked so long for a general who understood "the arithmetic", was a gun-hater. I don't think so.

Ken said...

As far as the "insurrectionist" meme is concerned, I think it's more fun to respond with a shrug, a smile, and, "If so, that just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Anonymous said...

The President who wrote about his hunting trips and shooting bear while living in Indiana.

The President who was a champion wrestler?

The President who came from rural Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois?

The President who loved guns and even shot the Henry and Spencer on the White House lawn?

Yeah, really reaching there, Alan.

Shootin' Buddy

treefroggy said...

He didn't hate guns. He just realized that they are useless for killing vampires.

Brad K. said...

Think of Lincoln's time. Think of how many grandparents and great-grandparents had made their action in the Revolutionary and other wars a part of their *immediate* family history.

Think of the times when the hazards weren't philosophical debate about social issues, but active and personal threats effectively countered only with personal defense.

The personal threat levels and battles on the home ground have faded a bit, in most families. The affairs of people standing firm for respect and the law, though, in the roles of nations, haven't changed.

The fact that hand weapons are tending to make communities and cities more stable, socially, and safer for more citizens, is plainly a part of recent history. The fact that firearms in general lend themselves to economic and national security is also self-evident, to my mind.

The fact there is dispute over the role of weapons in personal, community, and national life, is, I think, overall a good thing. Moderation is tough to maintain, and crucial.

Kristopher said...

off topic:

Looks like the UAV shoot has attracted the attention of lawyers ...

Kristopher said...

Back on topic:

So the CSGV was ok with Lincoln ( a Republican ) sending in the army to arrest all of the Democrats in the Maryland state legislature?

staghounds said...

"fact that hand weapons are tending to make communities and cities more stable, socially, and safer for more citizens"

Not if you live in NYC, Chicago, LA, or the projects anywhere,they don't.

Guns only make the world safer where the good guys have them. We forget that many millions of our disarmed neighbours live daily lives where gun means criminal.

The value of private guns is not apparent there.

Chris said...

Or really twist your ankle jumping from the balcony.


Justthisguy said...

When some guys proposed kidnapping Lincoln to Jeff Davis, Jeff said it wouldn't work because Lincoln was a "Western" guy and would fight to the death rather than put up with that kind of thing. I don't agree at all with Abe's ideas about how the country should be run, but he was a tough son of a gun.

Robbie said...

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi

8Notch said...

JTG, I have always been mildly surprised that Booth killed Lincoln as easily as he did. His personal security notwithstanding, he always struck me as a fellow who would have put up a Rasputin-like struggle with the ferryman. I guess that's why Booth decided to cap him in the back of the head.

Don M said...

The aspiring rebels were convinced that to prevent Lincoln from being inaugurated they would have to kill him, since he was a Western man. Accordingly, the aspiring rebels raised disloyal militia companies in DC to do just that. A small number of loyal US Army officers bustled around to these militia companies insisting that they (with officers going first) take a public oath of allegience. When the officers refused, the issued weapons were packed up and removed to safe storage, with the unit being disbanded. Loyal units were eventually founded, and issued rifles.

It was only due to a small number of loyal officers, and the militia units they were able to create on short notice, that inauguration ocurred at all.

Anonymous said...

"You gotta really twist your history to make Abe Lincoln look like a gun-hatin' peacenik."

In other news snow is cold, water is wet, and the sun is hot. Next up we go to Remy with the weather.



Justthisguy said...

Oh, yeah, 8Notch. Lincoln kept living and breathing for quite a while, even after having been shot in the head. He was a very tough guy. Modern medicine might have saved him.

P.s. I am getting really tired by the latest google captchas. They are really now more annoying than funny.

Justthisguy said...

Don M says things like "rebels", and "disloyal." The South had a perfectly good Constitutional case for secession.

Don M seems to be a nationaliser and centraliser, of the evil Republican ilk. I wonder if he has German ancestry.

Tam said...


"P.s. I am getting really tired by the latest google captchas. They are really now more annoying than funny."

Would you like me to do something about the weather, too, while I'm at it? ;)

Don M said...

Don M is not of German ilk, though I spent 4 years there with 3rd Armored Division.

There was no constitutional case for secession, which is why the Confederates chose to raise an army (calling for 100,000 men before Lincoln called for 75,000) and then started the war at Ft. Sumter to bring in Virgina, the largest slave state, so they could fight the war. They also planned to murder the elected US president as part of their secession. Rather disloyal that? Perhaps even treasonous?

By contrast, Virginia convicted John Brown of treason against Virginia, a state of which he was not even a citizen.

There was no war against the south, until the south started the war. There was no oppression against the south until the south began its pretended secession.

The Republicans were elected to a majority in Congress, and to the Presidency, but the President had not even taken office when the pretended secession took place.

Texas v. White is the key supreme court case.

Goober said...

DonM - the Constitution would never had been ratified if it weren't clear that the states maintained their right to secede if they so chose.

I do agree that the South loses a huge portion of it's moral authority in that they fired the first shots when such an act was completely unecessary to achieve their goal, and that the reason that they were seceding, while putatively was over "state's rights," the particular right that they thought that they had was to keep and maintain slaves. Anyone making the "It wasn't about slavery, it was about State's Rights!" is being a bit dishonest.

Yeah, it was about State's rights. I'll agree to that as long as any pro-southerners then agree that the right in question - the one that was being discussed and fought over - was the "right" to own human beings and force them to do your bidding.

Sorry, South, you lost, and while I will go on at length about how wrong it was for Lincoln to do what he did, the world really is better off for it in the end.