This was just posted over at the Drudge Report...

Quote: TV STATION: LETTER FROM FOLEY CLAIMS EX-LAWMAKER HEADED TO REHAB Mon Oct 2 2006 00:45:11 ET Letter purpordedly sent to WPBF, the ABC affiliate in West Palm Beach, from former congressman, Mark Foley: X X X X X October 1, 2006 Painfully, the events that led to my resignation have crystalized recognition of my longstanding significant alcohol and emotional difficulties. I strongly believe that I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and related behavioral problems. On Saturday, with the loving support of my family and friends, I made arrangements to enter a renowned in-patient facility to address my disease and related issues. I deeply regret and accept full responsibility for the harm I have caused. Over the weekend, I communicated extensively with one of the most respected mental health experts in Palm Beach County, Florida, who has been instrumental in counseling and assisting me. Attorney David Roth, my good friend of four decades has been requested by me to fully and completely cooperate regarding any inquiries that may arise during my treatment. Words cannot express my gratitude for the prayers and words of encouragement that have been conveyed to me. Sincerely, Mark A. Foley X X X X X A spokeswoman for WPBF says that a reporter went to Roth's house where a woman, allegedly Roth's wife, confirmed a fax had been sent. Developing...

This is what I have referred to in the past when I discussed our society's failing duty to accept responsibility.

"Oh, it really wasn't me....it was the (insert scapegoat here)!!! I'm sorry!!! I wouldn't ever do anything that like if I hadn't been influence by the (insert scapegoat here)!!!"

Give me a f*$(#)@ break!!!

The guy is a homosexual (or bi-, I don't know) that has a taste for teenage males. End of story. Period.

Step up to the plate, Congressman. Owe up and admit your fault. Claiming innocence via uncontrollable influence is nothing more than a pathetic excuse to save your own a** from public humiliation and, if proven guilty in a court of law, a butt raping with a broken broom handle in prison.

Can anyone tell that I'm a little p*ssed? I'm getting tired of every single politician in the last 50 years using a scapegoat instead of accepting responsibility.

Rob

Using Alcohol as a crutch to make excuses for more lurid behavior. I can only be satisfied knowing that his career is over.

I've been drunk and done stupid things before, but that mainly involved jumping on stage or making an ass of myself. I have grabbed women's asses (when I was single) but had never propositioned a 16 year old boy.

They say alcohol removes inhibitions. I guess that says it all in his case.

What pisses me off more is that the legal system lets them get away with it. Anybody else would find their asses in jail in a heart beat.

Quote: Originally Posted by HoJo What pisses me off more is that the legal system lets them get away with it. Anybody else would find their asses in jail in a heart beat.

Well, most of them are part of the legal system. I don't know of many politicians that didn't get their start in law or law enforcement. Obviously there are exceptions though.

Actually, most of them start off working within the judicial system, such as a lawyer.

Remember what Samuel Clemens had to say about Congress?

EDIT: Well, since he said a lot of things, this was the quote I was referring to...

Quote: It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Actually, most of them start off working within the judicial system, such as a lawyer.

That's what I said isn't it?......... Yep "in law or law enforcement".

At least he resigned... there are some people in congress this very minute who have been caught red-handed in scandals who have refused to resign.

It doesn't make him any more right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, they say. I personally think that since Congresspeople are all public servants, they should be held to a *higher* standard that the general public, not the other way around. The Bible clearly states that we should abstain from even the *appearance* of evil. Think about that for a minute.

Bleh. Our country isn't what it used to be.

Quote: Originally Posted by FunkyStickman The Bible clearly states that we should abstain from even the *appearance* of evil. Think about that for a minute. Bleh. Our country isn't what it used to be.

I don't think that whether or not someone reads a Christian Bible should be the basis of what makes a great politician. That type of litmus test would ultimately lead to a theocracy. That's all fine and dandy if you are in a majority, but not so hot for the minority.

You're right. Our country isn't what it used to be, but more importantly, neither are the people in it. Words like honor, integrity, and decency is lacking from their vocabulary.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob I don't think that whether or not someone reads a Christian Bible should be the basis of what makes a great politician. That type of litmus test would ultimately lead to a theocracy. That's all fine and dandy if you are in a majority, but not so hot for the minority. You're right. Our country isn't what it used to be, but more importantly, neither are the people in it. Words like honor, integrity, and decency is lacking from their vocabulary.

Our country never was what it used to be. If you would read some detailed, in depth history, you would understand. This crap has been going on since day one.

By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. Say something bad about him, go ahead, I dare you.

Quote: Originally Posted by joecoin By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. Say something bad about him, go ahead, I dare you.

OK... He was a tall, gangly lookin fella with a horse face.


That being said, one of the best lines I've heard about this sad state was on the Daily Show last night.

It was something to the effect of...

Congressmen are assigned to committees based on their greatest weakness. Foley headed the Child Exploitation Committee and Ted Stevens, who is more comfortable with horses and buggies, is in charge of regulating the internet. Stevens believes the internet is a series of tubes... that you can reach through to molest pages.

"Oh!, I'm sorry... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..." Sorry you got caught.

Quote: Originally Posted by joecoin By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. Say something bad about him, go ahead, I dare you.

President Lincoln never really cared for the slaves owned by the South. If you read closely in the Proclamation Declaration, what it really says is that only in the States that have suceeded, he frees the slaves. The Proclamation Declaration didn't affect any of the slaves in the States outside the Confederacy except for the "escaped slaves from the South" (this allowed them to join the Union Army). It was only issued as a military measure....to deprive the South of the labor and to convince more of the escaped slaves (and to entice other slaves in the South to flee to the North) to join the Union Army. By the time it had been issued, seven States had already suceeded from the Union.

The Civil War was fought over the issue of keeping the Union together, not over slavery itself.

In 1849 when Lincoln was in Congress, he introduced a bill to outlaw slavery in the District of Columbia, more so because he didn't want them there in his sight. When he finally became President, he did eventually sign the measure, but he was more worried about people being deprived of their servants, cooks, and stable boys. Also, what does it say when he insists upon compensating the slave owners for the loss of their slaves? It just reinforces the idea that a human being has monetary value.

No, Lincoln fought the Civil War to keep the Union together and only under pressure from the abolitionist and the radical Republicans did he ever address the issue of slavery. He also addressed it because it became a central issue as to why the Confederate States suceeded from the Union.

I've spoken with a few hardcare Lincoln historians and what is not widely known is that Lincoln had no idea what to do with the slaves once the Civil War had been won. His proposal was to either to pack them all up and ship them off to the Texas territory or to return them to the continent of Africa (or to Haiti). I haven't looked too hard for this information so I can't vouch for its veracity.

Did you know that one month before issuing the Proclamation Declaration that President Lincoln wrote to Horace Greely (editor of the New York Times) that "if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it...."?

I'm not demeaning President Lincoln in any way. Many view him as a noble man bent on abolishing slavery. He simply used the issue of slavery as a tool to gain popularity, just like every other politician. President Lincoln was a great man that kept his country together in a time of strife; however, we just need to properly understand his motives.

Didn't expect that, did you?

Rob

EDIT: I found this and this. It appears that President Lincoln only opposed slavery on the basis that blacks and whites were not equal races and therefore, were unfit to live together.

Frankly for what it's worth, I think the whole thing is a nasty political storm in a tea cup.
Have you fellows read the e-mails sent...come on!
Oh well, only in America.

Here's an interesting link I found while checking out CNet:

Maf54 (Ex-Rep. Foley) Still Lurking Around The Internet Under The Same Screen Name... | The Huffington Post

Ohh, and chapper... here are links to the emails and IMs as posted by the citizens for responsibility and ethics.

NOTE: CHANCES ARE THERE IS STUFF NOT PG-13 IN THESE LINKS!! But that's why this is more than a tempest in a teacup.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby But that's why this is more than a tempest in a teacup.

You've been on this whole 'tea' thing lately....what gives?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob President Lincoln never really cared for the slaves owned by the South. If you read closely in the Proclamation Declaration, what it really says is that only in the States that have suceeded, he frees the slaves. The Proclamation Declaration didn't affect any of the slaves in the States outside the Confederacy except for the "escaped slaves from the South" (this allowed them to join the Union Army). It was only issued as a military measure....to deprive the South of the labor and to convince more of the escaped slaves (and to entice other slaves in the South to flee to the North) to join the Union Army. By the time it had been issued, seven States had already suceeded from the Union. The Civil War was fought over the issue of keeping the Union together, not over slavery itself. In 1849 when Lincoln was in Congress, he introduced a bill to outlaw slavery in the District of Columbia, more so because he didn't want them there in his sight. When he finally became President, he did eventually sign the measure, but he was more worried about people being deprived of their servants, cooks, and stable boys. Also, what does it say when he insists upon compensating the slave owners for the loss of their slaves? It just reinforces the idea that a human being has monetary value. No, Lincoln fought the Civil War to keep the Union together and only under pressure from the abolitionist and the radical Republicans did he ever address the issue of slavery. He also addressed it because it became a central issue as to why the Confederate States suceeded from the Union. I've spoken with a few hardcare Lincoln historians and what is not widely known is that Lincoln had no idea what to do with the slaves once the Civil War had been won. His proposal was to either to pack them all up and ship them off to the Texas territory or to return them to the continent of Africa (or to Haiti). I haven't looked too hard for this information so I can't vouch for its veracity. Did you know that one month before issuing the Proclamation Declaration that President Lincoln wrote to Horace Greely (editor of the New York Times) that "if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it...."? I'm not demeaning President Lincoln in any way. Many view him as a noble man bent on abolishing slavery. He simply used the issue of slavery as a tool to gain popularity, just like every other politician. President Lincoln was a great man that kept his country together in a time of strife; however, we just need to properly understand his motives. Didn't expect that, did you? Rob EDIT: I found this and this. It appears that President Lincoln only opposed slavery on the basis that blacks and whites were not equal races and therefore, were unfit to live together.

I didn't expect anything, I never do. Was I surprised by your response? No.


Lincoln freed slaves only in States that had seceeded, he did not want the border States still loyal to the Union to seceed.If they had, he would have extended the Proclamation to them.

Re-colonization back to Africa was an old idea when Lincoln was elected. The country of Liberia was founded by US citizens to repatriate blacks back to their "homeland". This was in 1822. Lincoln was 13 years old.

Lincoln did care for the slaves, when he went to New Orleans as a young man he was deeply affected by what he saw. But, he saw his job as President was to hold the Union together at all costs. You state as much in your reply. However, without slavery being legal in some Staes and illegal in others, there would have been no war. As for this bill he sponsored in 1849 becuase he didn't want slaves in his sight, where the hell did you read that? Utter nonsense. And when he "finally" signed that bill as President, he was more "worried about people being deprived of their servants, cooks, and stable boys", you are gonna have to show me a verified quote from the Man himself on that score.

But morally, as a private citizen,he found slavery most objectionable. Don't talk to hardcore Lincoln historians, read what he said and judge for yourself.

Amazon.com: Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings: Books: Roy Prentice Basler,Roy P. Basler

The complete quote to Horace Greeley includes the part about if he could save the Union by freeing all slaves, or only freeing some, he would do it. I just can't stand it when people quote anyone out of context to try and make a point. As Ronald Reagan said, "Well..."

Lincoln was a complex being, in my opinion a genius. He was the last true Statesman this country has had as a President. They have all been politicians or just ordinary folks ever since. He was not worried about popularity, if the Democratic party had their act together, he would never been elected. There were three Democrats running that year. Lincoln had a minority of the vote. He was villified in the press. But, he never wavered, stuck to his beliefs and didn't solicit little boys.

That first link you provide is a load of krap, written by a high school kid. I find this little gem particularly foul :

"His basic motive, however, for his extensive efforts was to once again have a purely white America."
Ignorance runs rampant.

The second link, while a much better article, is fraught with out of context inneundo, again.
"My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals." This means that whites won't allow blacks to be their "political" and "social" equals, not that they can't be. The onus is on the white man, not the black one. See the difference?

I take exception with your equating him with "every other politician". I believe I do properly understand his motives, and you, sir, do not.

Sorry for the rational outburst.

Before I start, I think we may possibly be confused on the issue.

I'll agree that Lincoln didn't like the actual institution of slavery; however, his feelings towards the black man could (I didn't say that they are) be construed as racist. We have to remember that there were also white slaves prior to the Civil War, so it would be easy to confuse the issue since he wavered back and forth.

Quote: Lincoln freed slaves only in States that had seceeded, he did not want the border States still loyal to the Union to seceed.If they had, he would have extended the Proclamation to them.

Which is why the Proclamation Declaration was a military document, not one issued because he wanted to see slavery abolished. If he wanted slavery abolished, he would have made it applicable to all the States and just not the ones in rebellion. The only thing the PD did in the States that were not in rebellion was to permit the slaves that had escaped from the rebellion States to join the Union Army without fear of being returned.

In a letter to SecTreas Chase dated September 3, 1863, he wrote "the [Emancipation] proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure".

Quote: Re-colonization back to Africa was an old idea when Lincoln was elected. The country of Liberia was founded by US citizens to repatriate blacks back to their "homeland". This was in 1822. Lincoln was 13 years old.

Agreed. He liked the idea so much that in 1861, he appointed the Rev. James Mitchell as the Commissioner of Emigration to oversee his colonization policies from 1861 to 1865 (abandoned after Lincoln's death). Additionally, Lincoln convened a colonization conference at the White House in 1862 in where he invited several prominent black leaders and tried to convince them to support his emigration policy.

A week before his assassination, Lincoln held a meeting with MajGen Butler and asked "But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?" He then asked the MajGen to consult with SecState Seward about the possibility of devising a colonization plan for Panama. His plan was to send the US Colored Troop to Panama to help dig the Panama Canal (however, it took Teddy Roosevelt to get the ball rolling with Columbia to get it started).

However, it was an issue that he firmly believed in when he mentions it in his State of the Union address in 1862:

Quote: Originally Posted by 1862 State of the Union address Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of African descent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization as was contemplated in recent acts of Congress. Other parties, at home and abroad--some from interested motives, others upon patriotic considerations, and still others influenced by philanthropic sentiments--have suggested similar measures, while, on the other hand, several of the Spanish American Republics have protested against the sending of such colonies to their respective territories. Under these circumstances I have declined to move any such colony to any state without first obtaining the consent of its government, with an agreement on its part to receive and protect such emigrants in all the rights of freemen; and I have at the same time offered to the several States situated within the Tropics, or having colonies there, to negotiate with them, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to favor the voluntary emigration of persons of that class to their respective territories, upon conditions which shall be equal, just, and humane. Liberia and Hayti are as yet the only countries to which colonists of African descent from here could go with certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regret to say such persons contemplating colonization do not seem so willing to migrate to those countries as to some others, nor so willing as I think their interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them in this respect is improving, and that ere long there will be an augmented and considerable migration to both these countries from the United States.

Next...

Quote: As for this bill he sponsored in 1849 becuase he didn't want slaves in his sight, where the hell did you read that? Utter nonsense. And when he "finally" signed that bill as President, he was more "worried about people being deprived of their servants, cooks, and stable boys", you are gonna have to show me a verified quote from the Man himself on that score.

It was widely known that he didn't like the public slave markets and at that time, there Washington D.C. was a central slave market hub. If he was so passionate about the issue of slavery, why didn't he and his supporters introduce a bill that would abolish slavery in all of the States and territories? He knew this bill would fail due to popular support.

When the bill had been reintroduced in 1862 and approved by Lincoln, this is the text of the remarks that Lincoln made to Congress on April 16,1862:

Quote: Fellow citizens of the Senate, and House of Representatives. The Act entitled "An Act for the release of certain persons held to service, or labor in the District of Columbia" has this day been approved, and signed. I have never doubted the constitutional authority of congress to abolish slavery in this District; and I have ever desired to see the national capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way. Hence there has never been, in my mind, any question upon the subject, except the one of expediency, arising in view of all the circumstances. If there be matters within and about this act, which might have taken a course or shape, more satisfactory to my jud[g]ment, I do not attempt to specify them. I am gratified that the two principles of compensation and colonization, are both recognized, and practically applied in the act. In the matter of compensation, it is provided that claims may be presented within ninety days from the passage of the act "but not thereafter"; and there is no saving for minors, femes-covert, insane or absent persons. I presume this is an omission by mere over-sight, and I recommend that it be supplied by an amendatory or supplemental act.

The following is a quote from Mr. Lincoln and Freedom: The progress of Abraham Lincoln's opposition to slavery., which in turn took the quote from the book "Diary of Orville Hickman Browning". Browning was appointed to the Senate by Lincoln after Douglas' death.

Quote: Senator Orville H. Browning visited President Lincoln on April 14 to discuss the pending legislation. "He told me he would sign the bill, but would return it with a special message recommending a supplemental bill making savings in behalf of infants &c. And also some other amendments," Browning wrote in his diary that night. "He further told me he regretted the bill had been passed in its present form — that it should have been for gradual emancipation — that now families would at once be deprived of cooks, stable boys &c and they of their protectors without any provision for them. He further told me that he would not sign the bill before Wednesday — That old Gov [Charles] Wickliffe had two family servants with him who were sickly, and who would not be benefitted by freedom, and wanted time to remove them, but could not get them out of the City until Wednesday, and that the Gov had come frankly to him and asked for time. He added to me that this was told me in the strictest confidence."

Next....

Quote: The complete quote to Horace Greeley includes the part about if he could save the Union by freeing all slaves, or only freeing some, he would do it. I just can't stand it when people quote anyone out of context to try and make a point. As Ronald Reagan said, "Well..."

O.K., here is the complete quote...for context.

Quote: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I fail to see how providing the entire quote disqualifies the statement as anything but a reflection on how he felt. He evens says that what he is doing for the "colored" race is because it helps the Union, not because he personally objects to it.

Quote: But, he never wavered, stuck to his beliefs and didn't solicit little boys.

....and I never said that he did. What I said was that he was just like every other politician, seizing upon hot public issues to gain popularity.

Here are some other quotes by Lincoln to provide further context on how he felt about race.

Quote: Originally Posted by Speech on Oct 16, 1854 in reply to Senator Douglas When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings?Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals. My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot then make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted, but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

Quote: Originally Posted by Speech in Springfield, IL on July 17, 1858 "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."

Quote: Originally Posted by First Lincoln-Douglas debate on Aug 21, 1858 I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favour of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on Sept 18, 1858 I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ... And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

So, in summary, he didn't like the institution of slavery. He felt that the black man could be his equal, just not in the United States.

Not trying to derail the off-topic conversation that got started, but has anyone seen the crap Foley is trying to pull off today?

Now he says that he was molested by a Catholic priest when he was younger.

For crying out loud.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Not trying to derail the off-topic conversation that got started, but has anyone seen the crap Foley is trying to pull off today? Now he says that he was molested by a Catholic priest when he was younger. For crying out loud.

LOL

I'm not catholic, was not molested as a youth nor am I a famous person or politician.

Who/what do I get to blame life on?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Before I start, I think we may possibly be confused on the issue.

There is no doubt that I am confused, as always.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob I'll agree that Lincoln didn't like the actual institution of slavery; however, his feelings towards the black man could (I didn't say that they are) be construed as racist. We have to remember that there were also white slaves prior to the Civil War, so it would be easy to confuse the issue since he wavered back and forth. Which is why the Proclamation Declaration was a military document, not one issued because he wanted to see slavery abolished. If he wanted slavery abolished, he would have made it applicable to all the States and just not the ones in rebellion. The only thing the PD did in the States that were not in rebellion was to permit the slaves that had escaped from the rebellion States to join the Union Army without fear of being returned.

He did want slavery abolished. This was a really good start. He kept the border states in the Union, and freed all the slaves in the states in which, according to the people controlling them politically, he really had no jurisdiction, as they had seceeded. Smart move, dang near genius, and the mark of a Statesman, not a politician.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob In a letter to SecTreas Chase dated September 3, 1863, he wrote "the [Emancipation] proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure". Agreed. He liked the idea so much that in 1861, he appointed the Rev. James Mitchell as the Commissioner of Emigration to oversee his colonization policies from 1861 to 1865 (abandoned after Lincoln's death). Additionally, Lincoln convened a colonization conference at the White House in 1862 in where he invited several prominent black leaders and tried to convince them to support his emigration policy. A week before his assassination, Lincoln held a meeting with MajGen Butler and asked "But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?" He then asked the MajGen to consult with SecState Seward about the possibility of devising a colonization plan for Panama. His plan was to send the US Colored Troop to Panama to help dig the Panama Canal (however, it took Teddy Roosevelt to get the ball rolling with Columbia to get it started). However, it was an issue that he firmly believed in when he mentions it in his State of the Union address in 1862: Next... It was widely known that he didn't like the public slave markets and at that time, there Washington D.C. was a central slave market hub. If he was so passionate about the issue of slavery, why didn't he and his supporters introduce a bill that would abolish slavery in all of the States and territories? He knew this bill would fail due to popular support.

Exactly, you have answered your own question. Until the South had relenquished any control at the Federal level (by seceedeing) slavery was not going anywhere. Once Lincoln was President, he had the opportunity with what would have been a minority government, to control the postwar society. Just a pure visionary.

Snip...

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob I fail to see how providing the entire quote disqualifies the statement as anything but a reflection on how he felt. He evens says that what he is doing for the "colored" race is because it helps the Union, not because he personally objects to it. .

Precisely the opposite. Not providing the entire quote COULD lead the casual reader to believe that Mr. Lincoln would only save the Union by NOT freeing any slaves, it leaves out the other two salient points, which lead to his conclusion that , yes, it was the Union uber alles.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob ....and I never said that he did. What I said was that he was just like every other politician, seizing upon hot public issues to gain popularity.

And this is where we disagree. Lincoln was not just another politician.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Here are some other quotes by Lincoln to provide further context on how he felt about race. snip... So, in summary, he didn't like the institution of slavery. He felt that the black man could be his equal, just not in the United States.

Indeed, but not because the black man was inferior, but that the white man, who held the reins of power in the USA, would never allow the black man to rise above it all. I also find it interesting that Lincoln did not seem to think the white man superior to any other races. At least, I can't find any substantial proof of that. Maybe I'll look a little further.

To attempt to tie this back into the original post, the people "running" this country since day one have usually been the sort who show little if any regard for anyone other than themselves and their immediate circle of cronies. There have been exceptions, Lincoln is one of a handful. Winston Churchill summed it up nicely when he said democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.