Re: [asa] Lincoln and (now Douglas)

 From one who is naive about civil war history (& have the advantage of
not having any great ideological axe to grind here) I have to ask, what
is wrong with Dr. Bugg's assessment? Was he naive to think slavery
would just fade away? Asking our social studies teacher at school, he
agreed about the tariffs but disagreed about slavery disappearing. Do
all these malcontents wandering about muttering "war of northern
aggression" under their breath actually have a point on this one?
Maybe we could start our own movement and angrily mutter "war of
metaphysically naturalist aggression" every time we encounter
concordist-accomodationist crossfire-militant atheist crossfire. It
doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily though.

--Merv (from bloody Kansas)

gmurphy10@neo.rr.com wrote:
> You should have asked for a return of the tuition for this course if the rest of it was as fictitious as this. In that it resembles the YEC essay Burgy posted.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> When I was a college student studying American History at the University of
>> Missouri, a southerner, Dr Bugg, was our professor. During one of his
>> lectures on the Civil War he timed the ending to absolute perfection. He
>> drove home the point that when Lincoln took office some southern states
>> seceded, but it wasn't until he passed a Republican tariff bill on imported
>> goods that the rest of the states could see what was coming with a
>> Republican administration and the remainder of the thirteen states seceded
>> and formed the Confederacy. His point was that Lincoln caused the war. The
>> seceding states would have come back into the fold, slavery wasn't going to
>> survive much longer and would go away on its own, and the lives of over a
>> million men would have been spared. To this day I can still hear him
>> thunder, "And the man of the hour was never Abraham Lincoln, but Stephen A.
>> Douglas"! Then the bell rang and we all remained stunned in our seats.
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Ted Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:09 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu; gordon brown
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Lincoln and Darwin
>>
>> I read somewhere last year (I think in a history magazine, but in something
>> by a professional historian), in an article on Lincoln and Darwin, that the
>> 3 individuals about whom historians had written the most were, in order:
>>
>> Jesus
>> Napoleon
>> Lincoln
>>
>> Darwin was somewhere down the list.
>>
>> IMO, Darwin was probably the most influential scientist of the 19th
>> century, in terms of influence of ideas on the wider culture. But that's
>> certainly an arguable point -- who is to say that Faraday or Maxwell or
>> Pasteur or Liebig or ... well, you can probably come up with several other
>> names here, wasn't equally influential, since their ideas ended up in
>> zillions of important applications. It depends on the kinds of influences
>> you want to talk about.
>>
>> Darwin was also IMO one of the greatest scientists of his century, but
>> (again) you can make a good case for Helmholtz (he's my own choice for
>> number one) and others.
>>
>> When it comes to statesmen from that century, however, it's hard to make a
>> case for anyone other than Lincoln, IMO. Certainly the greatest American
>> president of any century, and enormously influential all over the world.
>>
>> As a single bicentennial day, I doubt there's a more important one than
>> this when it comes to multiple individuals.
>>
>> Ted
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 13 18:15:21 2009