Re: [asa] Lincoln and (now Douglas)

You flatter me by thinking I would hold up my end of any debate on
this. I will be glad to be informed by any more informed than I am, and
look forward to your private reply. I wasn't asking for any detailed
essay --just your general knowledge and comments. The most I might do
is ask a (hopefully probing) question or two.

--Merv

gmurphy10@neo.rr.com wrote:
> A detailed answer to this would be inappropriate since it is well outside the science-religion bounds of the list. (Note though how in my previous post I cleverly tied it to YECism!) I'll email Merv privately & will gladly copy anyone else interested in what I have to say. (But I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a whole series of email debates about the causes of the War of Secession.)
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 19:03:23 2009