Gay-braham Lincoln
My sentiments on this non-story, courtesy of Instapundit.
WAS LINCOLN GAY? Andrew Sullivan cares, and so do the folks at The Weekly Standard. I can't seem to, though. The guy saved the nation, and I'm supposed to care about where he put his wing-wang?
3 Comments:
This isn't directed at you, Alex, because I think I know your stands on these things, but I have to wonder regarding this opinion:
Did he care where Clinton put his wing-wang? My guess is yes, very much.
Where does he stand on flying the Confederate flag? I stand by the opinion that if you think Lincoln "saved the nation" then you must also consider the Confederates to be traitors, and their flag to be a traitor's flag, unworthy of being flown from state houses and the like.
Sorry, that shit just really gets my goat. It doesn't even have anything to do with Lincoln being gay.
Well, Reynolds is pretty much a pure libertarian, so I don't know where he came down on the Clinton thing, but I'm guessing he sided more with the Left than with Social Conservatives. Good ol' Andy Sullivan has been pretty consistent on such "bedroom freedom" matters over the years; he wrote several pro-Clinton pieces during the Impeachment flap.
As for Confederate Flag...
Reynolds is from Tennesee, so he may have a more, shall we say, Southern, take on things. But again, as a regular reader of his blog, I must say that such an issue doesn't really seem on his radar screen. I suppose we could go through his archives and see what his response was to H. Dean's whole, "Confederate flags/pick-up trucks" imbroglio last year.
The Confederate flag stuff doesn't bother me as much as it does you (although I do consider myself a good Yankee Republican), if only because the secession movement is not strictly a Southern phenomenon. Dating back to the 1790s, New England has often flirted with such "treasonous notions." You'll probably be happy to hear that the great swathe of Middle America -- PA through CA -- that has consistently been the most loyal to the idea of the Federal American state. At least, according to "Albion's Seed."
Anyway, I guess my point is that while the Confederates were no doubt traitors (and it is interesting that both you and I take what's essentially an 1870s, "radical Republican" stance on this issue), secessionary movements are everywhere in U.S. history, and if we must label the South treasonous, we must all attack the pro-secession rhetoric of New England politicans over the years, as well as that of some modern, dissaffected "Blue Staters."
I'd say my opinion is about 50% treason is treason is treason and 50% the victors write the history books. I mean, if the Union was for slavery and the Confederacy broke off in protest, and I lived in the confederacy (or by now, probably even the Union) then I'd find secession to be an act of heroism. The founding of the USA was treason after all. Like the whole terrorist/freedom fighter question a lot of it depends on your perspective.
Post a Comment
<< Home