Startling Similarities!

[beefhole]

Not sure if this has made the rounds yet, but here goes-some odd similarities between Abe and JFK.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Now it gets really weird.

Lincoln 's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Now hang on to your seat.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called ' Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'

Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And here's the kicker...

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
---
Two problems that I know of-

a) Lincoln had never held a political office at the time he was elected President.

b) Lincoln wasn't really concerned at all with civil rights-while he personally disliked slavery, he was by no stretch of the imagination an abolitionist and even the emancipation proclomation was issued only as something to hurt the confederate war effort-it had absolutely zero practical use at the time it was first issued, freeing only those slaves in the rebellious states, essentially making it unenforceable. (tonight for my AP class we read two arguments-Lincoln freed the slaves and the slaves freed themselves)

Still rather uncanny though.

[Craig.]

An Interesting read if nothing else.

[Hagar]

I've seen this before. In fact the first time was many years ago before I even had a computer. Not sure if all those coincidences are true. It would be interesting to check them out. Here's a good place to start. http://www.snopes.com/

PS. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

[dcunning30]

Here's my take on Lincoln.

Agreed, Lincoln wasn't primarily concerned with freeing the slaves, though he was sympathetic to the abolition movement.  Reason whay is Lincoln didn't think pursuing freeing the slaves as a doable issue.  However, prior to the Emancipation proclimation, the north had been having a very bad go at it.  The had suffered a string of defeats and Lincoln was going through Generals to command the Army of the Patomic.  Moral was suffering in the north and Lincoln neede a moral imperative to cause the north to press on, that is the reason for the Emancipation Procalmation.

Now, the matter of slavery and how it plays in the Civil War is the stuff of debates.  As anyone interested in the war between the states from the south and you'll get one answer.  Ask anyone from the north and you'll get another.  Southernerers will say the war was fought over "states rights".  Northerners will say it was fought over slavery.  Well, both were right, IMHO.

There were several events leading up to the civil war, such as the John Brown rebellion, the Kansas-Nebraska act, the congressional battles over what sort of state such places as California would become, slave or free.  But to cut to the chase, northerners are correct the wqar was over slavery, and southerners are correct that the war was fought over state's rights.......the right of a state to keep slavery legal.

Lately, I've noticed in some circles the attempt to disparage Lincoln.  To me, this attempt has more to do with current political sensabilities than the actual history.

[dcunning30]

And another point was Lincoln pursued the War Between the States as an act of preserving the union.  At the time of Ft. Sumpter, that was a reason Northerners were willing to fight over.  What was odd was both the northerners and southerners thought it would be a short skirmish and be over in a short matter of weeks.

In fact, for the 1st Battle of Bull Run, Politicians, and various dignataries and their family rode out and and sought to make a spectator sport of the battle.  The south soundly defeated the north and sent those politicians and dignataries fleeing back to Washington DC along with the defeated federals.

[Hagar]

Here's my take on Lincoln.

I think the Snopes.com article basically agrees with your conclusions. Back on the odd 'coincidences', this seems to sum it up nicely.

So what are we to make of all this? How do we account for all these coincidences, no matter how superficial they may be, and why do so many people find this list so compelling?

The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood. In this specific case two of our most beloved Presidents were murdered for reasons that make little or no sense to many of us, and by finding patterns in their deaths we also hope to find a larger cosmic "something" that seemingly provides some reassuring (if indefinite) rhyme or reason why these great men were prematurely snatched from our mortal sphere.

[C]

Amazing coincidences, if they are true...

[beefhole]

While slavery may have been a primary cause of the war, it was not why it was fought, no matter how you try to twist it.

As I've learned in my very enlightening historyy class this year, almost every (American) conflict wasn't black/white, everyone on this side believes and is fighting for this, and vice versa.  There was a very large portion of the nation during the revolutionary war that were completely against separating from Britian-the war wasn't "all Americans v. all British" (I'm not implying you didn't know this).

The same was true of the civil war.  The war was started, and primarily fought, to punish the south for secession.  Lincoln never had any intentions of freeing the slaves at wars start, when it did not appear to be a military objective.  

While in terms of the secession the beliefs were black/white, they were not in terms of slavery.  Many, many federal soldiers expressed disdain at the thought of fighting a war for blacks.  That was not why they signed up.  And even the most rabid abolitionists most likely had no intentions of making blacks their social equals.

In the end, I think it is folly to say the American Civil War was fought over slavery-as I would say that isn't true.  It sure helped to get them to the point of war, but it is not why the war was fought-not even after the emancipation proclomation.  It was always to bring the South back in to the Union.

[H]

Every individual has his own beliefs which may not be totally 'in tune' with everyone else on the side for which he (or she) fights. There were many Tories (loyal to remaining a British colony) during the Revolution. However, during the Civil War (War Between the States) there were also a number of blacks in the Union ranks quite prior to the E.P. and their impetus may have been for reasons other than just revenge or income.
I'm reminded of my thoughts when I saw some of the old documentaries about the Battle of the Little Big Horn. More than once it was stated that no one survived to accurately describe the battle. Like, duh... there were hundreds -- on the other side! Of course, their memories wouldn't be reliable, they were only there . It also seems amazing that, the further we get from an event, the more we seem to rewrite it.

[dcunning30]

While slavery may have been a primary cause of the war, it was not why it was fought, no matter how you try to twist it.

Nope.

[Felix/FFDS]

On slavery - the issue almost tore apart the new Union in 1790.

One of the most important compromises early on (1787?) during the Constitutional Convention was that slavery, per se, was not to be expressly addressed in the new governing document.

Quaker abolitionists presented a bill in Congress to eliminate the slave trade and to eliminate slavery completely.  Southern states, of course, opposed.  Abolitionist plans never really considered that the emancipation of the slaves would be carried out by freeing them into the areas where they were currently living, but rather into separate lands either westward (much as Native Americans were herded to later) or to African homelands.

Either way, the compromises reached in 1790 merely postponed the issue of the abolition of slavery for another, 70+ years.

Call it states rights, or whatever, the underlying issue was (for the South) maintaining slavery, as the perceived root of Southern wealth and economy.

[dcunning30]

Two summers ago, I was in Montgomery Alabama.

[RitterKreuz]

Felix and Dcunning both hit the nail right on the head IMHO

i think it would be important to mention a couple of things about the people of the south at the time however.

for starters, ownership of slaves was a right typically belonging only to the wealthy land owners. A lot of people (especially young folks) i talk to about the subject seem to be of the impression that every white guy south of the mason dixon line owned a slave. obviously not the case.

secondly, most of the average people of the south were poor farmers. generally the wealthy slave owners were the ones in a position to own, and benifit most from slavery. "why pay good money to local whites to work the land when you can buy a slave to do it practically free." (i say "practically free" not to imply they were compensated, only to imply costs were involved despite free labor).

The wealthy slave owners would have also been the ones at a point to enter into the political arena at the time. I feel like a lot of the average people of both the north and south, as in most wars, were mislead about a lot of the issues leading up to war. IMHO

ON ANOTHER NOTE....

another "misunderstanding" that really gets me is the changing of the name of the Confederate Air Force. (read on)

the word confederate refers to a group which is bound together in a league or by a common contract. hence "Confederate States of America". they were confederate because they were bound together by a common league just as the Confederate Air force was bound together by a common league and various contract agreements.  Special Intrest groups have convinced the CAF to change its name to commemorative air force because of what the word "Confederate" implies.

only to someone who is completely ignorant would the use of the word "confederate" in the original CAF imply that the CAF was sensative to slavery or the plight of the civil war south! gimme a break. another case of bending the truth to serve special needs.

[dcunning30]

RitterKruez


Excellent point regarding who the slaveowners were in the south.

Regarding the Confederate Airforce, I understand , and agree with your assessment.  As most of you may have gathered from the pic assocated with my screen name, I'm black, even though that pic isn't me.  I'm quite a bit younger.  I've observed the goings on regarding the stars and bars and the controversy it causes.  From my perspective, the Civil War is a historical event.  The stars and bars is a historical banner.  Nothing more and nothing less.  BUT!!!!!  I've certainly noticed that racists have used the stars and bars as a symbol of their racism and others have viewed the stars and bars, both rightly and wrongly as a symbol of racism.  To me, it's just history.

[Felix/FFDS]

Interesting - I always thought that the "Confederate Air Force" was set up as, yes,