Untitled design – 2026-06-15T134541.807

25 Books On The Founding Fathers To Read For America 250

Abraham Lincoln

Alexander Hamilton

America 250

American History

American Revolution

Books

Before Donald Trump stunned the legacy media by winning the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton reassured Americans that “the challenges we face today do not approach those of Lincoln’s time. Not even close.”
Measured by bloodshed alone, she was right. Nothing today rivals the carnage of Antietam or Shiloh. Yet in a deeper sense — culturally, psychologically, and spiritually — the United States may now be more divided than it was when Americans were literally leveling rifles at each other.
The reason is profound: in 1861, both sides still believed in the legitimacy of the American experiment itself.
That may sound counterintuitive. How could the Confederacy — founded on secession and slavery — have believed in the principles of 1776, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that followed? The answer lies in what the Confederates themselves said. In their Declarations of the Causes of Secession, Southern states were explicit. Mississippi declared, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world.” Across the declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia, preserving slavery appears more than eighty times as the central justification for rebellion. Taxes appear once. Tariffs not at all.
This clarity explains a historical paradox: how the country could fight a war of extraordinary savagery and yet reconcile with relative speed once it ended.
The South believed — wrongly and catastrophically — that it was defending the founding principle of self-governance. In its view, states retained sovereignty and thus the right to secede if the federal government threatened their interests. That those interests included the enslavement of millions was morally rationalized or ignored. The North, meanwhile, increasingly understood the war as a test of whether the Declaration’s claim that “all men are created equal” had any binding meaning at all.
As Abraham Lincoln recognized, both sides could not be right. But both believed they were acting in service of America. The Civil War resolved a single, defining question: whether self-government extended to the right to enslave others without due process. The ruling was handed down with prejudice at Appomattox.
The defeated South accepted the verdict — grudgingly, imperfectly, but decisively enough to prevent endless insurgency. By the end of the nineteenth century, former Confederate states had become among the most patriotic regions of the country. Former Confederate general James Longstreet captured that reconciliation when he wrote in 1899, “Barring a little family misunderstanding of a generation back, the South has never been anything but loyal.”
That sentence would be unimaginable today.
Reunion after the Civil War was possible because, once slavery — the central issue — was settled, North and South still shared a reverence for the nation’s founding. They disagreed violently about its application, but not about its legitimacy. They still loved and believed in the innate goodness of their country.
Now consider the present.
What comparable issue divides us today — one that, once resolved, would allow the country to heal? What shared assumptions remain beneath our disputes?
The uncomfortable answer: very few.
We no longer merely disagree over policy. We disagree over whether the United States itself is a moral enterprise. Americans increasingly do not share a common origin story. When one looks at John Trumbull’s painting of the presentation of the Declaration of Independence, one side sees flawed but courageous men risking everything to found a republic that, despite its contradictions, expanded human freedom. The other sees little more than oppression: “racist, sexist, slave-owning hypocrites” whose words about liberty are dismissed as fraudulent from the outset.
<div id="attachment_1041603" style="width: 901px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1041603" class="size-large wp-image-1041603" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-113494983-891x576.jpg" alt="John Trumbull's oil painting, 'Declaration of Independence', 1818, depicting the five-man drafting committee of the Declaration of Independence presenting their work to the Congress, 28th June 1776. The committee are (left to right) John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They are presenting the draft to Charles Thomson (standing) and John Hancock (seated). (Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images)" width="891" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-113494983-891x576.jpg 891w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-113494983-300x194.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-113494983-768x497.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-113494983.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 891px) 100vw, 891px" />Universal History Archive/Getty Images</div>
These are not policy disagreements; they are competing realities. They cannot be resolved by elections or concluded by a surrender ceremony. There is no Appomattox for a conflict this diffuse.
Today’s divide is not organized around a single issue like slavery. It is cultural and perceptual. It plays out not on battlefields but across classrooms, workplaces, media, and daily life. Even our fiercest moral debates — abortion, immigration, gender — are symptoms rather than causes. They reflect a society that no longer agrees on truth, limits, or even basic definitions.
The Civil War removed a localized moral cancer, and the body politic survived. Today’s divisions resemble something more metastatic, dispersed throughout the entire system. There are no clear fronts, no decisive battles, no final terms — only endless skirmishes.
Lincoln urged “charity toward all and malice toward none.” But charity requires reciprocity. It requires a shared belief that persuasion matters and that one’s opponent is still a fellow citizen.
Whether such an audience still exists is the question that will define the years ahead.
* * *
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities fund manager, author, and columnist whose articles have appeared on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, NY Daily News, The Daily Wire, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge, and other outlets. He is the author of three <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD?ccs_id=55112527-86f6-4c89-b82e-a96d6869abed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">books</a>. You can also follow him on <a href="https://bradschaeffer.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Substack</a> and <a href="https://x.com/bschaeffer123" target="_blank" rel="noopener">X</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Lee Surrenders To Grant At Appomattox Court House

There Is No Appomattox For America’s Current Conflict

Civil War

Culture

Southern States

United States

Woke Culture

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attempted to tie President Abraham Lincoln — America&#8217;s first Republican president — to Democratic socialism based on one line from his famed Gettysburg Address.
Sanders joined the hosts of ABC&#8217;s midday talk show &#8220;The View,&#8221; where the cohosts pressed him on everything from the ongoing government shutdown to his recent campaign stops with New York City&#8217;s Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, a self-described Democratic Socialist.
Cohost Sara Haines asked about the shutdown, and Sanders brushed off the idea of a standalone vote on Affordable Care Act subsidies — one of the main sticking points for Democrats as the shutdown drags on — despite a promise from Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to hold such a vote.
Sanders claimed that he wanted to end the shutdown &#8220;tomorrow,&#8221; but that he couldn&#8217;t vote to reopen the government as long as Republicans refused to undo the parts of the Big Beautiful Bill that he didn&#8217;t like.
&#8220;50,000 people will die unnecessarily every single year,&#8221; Sanders insisted, waving his hands to punctuate his point. &#8220;50,000 of our fellow Americans.&#8221;
He then claimed that Trump and Republicans were taking away health insurance from the poor in order to &#8220;pay for&#8221; a tax break for the wealthy.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin praises Sanders for campaigning far-left extremist Zohran Mamdani and tees him up to call on Democrats to move further to the left:
&#8220;Senator, you&#8217;ve been campaigning with the front-runner in New York City&#8217;s mayoral race: democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. He&#8217;s… <a href="https://t.co/YvTduTORrg">pic.twitter.com/YvTduTORrg</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1980301961707544997?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cohost Sunny Hostin pivoted to ask about Mamdani, saying, &#8220;Senator, you&#8217;ve been campaigning with the front-runner in New York City&#8217;s mayoral race: Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani. He&#8217;s leading by double digits. He probably will be the next mayor of New York. Now, a recent Gallup poll showed that over half of Democratic voters prefer socialist aligned figures like yourself, like AOC, like Mamdani, to more establishment, centrist politicians. Is this the direction the Democratic Party needs to go?&#8221;
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
&#8220;You know what? People are saying here&#8217;s a radical idea,&#8221; Sanders said. &#8220;This is what Democratic Socialism basically means: let&#8217;s have a government that works for all the people, not just the billionaire class. Let&#8217;s end a corrupt campaign finance system that allows billionaires in both political parties to determine who wins elections.&#8221;
Sanders concluded by suggesting that Lincoln was actually talking about the same goal when he gave the Gettysburg Address: &#8220;Let&#8217;s try to create the kind of democracy that Lincoln talked about way back when, when he said &#8216;a government of the people, by the people, for the people.'&#8221;

Senate Holds Confirmation Hearings For HHS Secretary Nominee Robert Kennedy

Bernie Sanders Suggests Abraham Lincoln Was Actually A Democratic Socialist

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Socialism

Media

Politics

The View

Zohran Mamdani

Whenever a new administration takes over the White House, a lot of major changes are obviously going to take place. I&#8217;ve covered many of these changes already in the past few weeks, Trump&#8217;s executive orders and so on. But there are also some minor changes that no one really talks about, even though they may have symbolic significance.
In particular, one of the first moves Trump made when he first took office, back in 2017, was to <a href="https://time.com/4649081/andrew-jackson-donald-trump-portrait/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">install</a> a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office. Jackson was a war hero who served in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, when he led American troops to a historic victory in New Orleans. Jackson was also a populist who wanted the United States to expand and grow its borders because he believed it would benefit the average American. And so, for four years, Jackson&#8217;s portrait remained in the Oval Office.
Then, the minute he became president, Joe Biden quickly removed the portrait. No one in Biden&#8217;s administration could stand to look at Andrew Jackson. They didn&#8217;t destroy the portrait, however, they apparently just put it in storage. So now, four years later, the game of &#8220;Andrew Jackson tug-of-war&#8221; is continuing. The portrait is officially back.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 First view of the new Oval Office &#8211; ANDREW JACKSON and ABRAHAM LINCOLN can be spotted on the walls. <a href="https://t.co/4r1j2QWHRM">pic.twitter.com/4r1j2QWHRM</a>
&mdash; Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1881429685944635531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
As you can see from this photo from the Oval Office a couple of weeks ago, Abe Lincoln is on the left, and Jackson is on the right. If you ask a typical Biden supporter about this, they&#8217;ll tell you that this is an outrage, because Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, and on top of that, he wasn&#8217;t exactly a big fan of the Indians. And therefore, he&#8217;s canceled.
That explanation, however, actually misses one of the defining moments of Jackson&#8217;s presidency. A moment that, very soon, could have a lot of relevance for the second Trump term. I am referring to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1832 which held that the Cherokee Indians were a sovereign nation that had the right to govern themselves, without interference from the states. This was a ruling that threatened to disrupt Jackson&#8217;s plans for American expansion to the West. It was also a major blow to the concept of states&#8217; rights, and it would have significant ramifications for Georgia in particular. Of course, as Jackson saw it, it was also an unlawful ruling. In response to this decision, according to various accounts, Jackson uttered some version of: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.&#8221;
In other words, when a court — even the Supreme Court — exceeds the limits of its authority, then there&#8217;s no requirement that anyone follow the court&#8217;s rulings. There&#8217;s certainly no way for the courts to compel the executive branch to do anything. So if a court ever goes rogue, and begins to issue rulings that flagrantly disregard the Constitution — as well as the outcome that a majority of Americans want — that&#8217;s how you deal with it. Jackson set that precedent. A century later, FDR built on that idea. When the courts began striking down his New Deal legislation, he threatened to pack the courts. Very quickly, the Supreme Court backed down and started upholding some of those laws.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1535-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Depending on who you ask, Andrew Jackson and FDR were either villains or heroes in these stories. Either way, their actions illustrate an important point: In our system of checks and balances, everything depends on legitimacy. If courts are seen as legitimate, then their orders are enforced. If courts are seen as illegitimate, then nothing they do really matters. Donald Trump, as a student of Andrew Jackson, certainly understands that. We can assume judges understand this principle as well.
That&#8217;s why the flood of federal injunctions that have already been issued in Trump&#8217;s second term are best understood as a deliberate provocation by the judiciary. Every other day, an unelected federal judge — usually a Left-wing judge — is issuing a nationwide injunction, barring some aspect of Trump&#8217;s agenda. This is happening so frequently that most people don&#8217;t understand the scale of the problem.
So let me run down a non-exhaustive list of some of these injunctions:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Biden judge blocked Trump&#8217;s halt on federal grant spending. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Clinton judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump&#8217;s plan to issue buyouts to federal workers, and also blocked the Trump administration from transferring a trans-identifying man to a man&#8217;s prison facility, where he belongs. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An Obama judge in New York blocked both DOGE and the Treasury secretary himself from accessing internal Treasury records. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Biden judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump from cutting billions of dollars in fraudulent spending that was earmarked for scientific research, including wasteful overhead, as we discussed yesterday. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Another judge in Washington DC, appointed by Trump, halted the suspension of USAID workers, who were spending billions of dollars orchestrating foreign coups and sponsoring transgender theater. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An Obama judge in D.C. ordered Trump to reinstate the head of a Special Counsel office. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A Reagan judge in D.C. blocked prison officials from transferring trans-identifying men to men&#8217;s prisons. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three judges — including Biden, Bush and Reagan judges, in New Hampshire, Washington and Maryland — blocked Trump&#8217;s executive order ending birthright citizenship. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">And most recently, a D.C. judge named John Bates issued what may be the single most obviously unconstitutional ruling ever written by a federal judge.</li>
</ul>
Before we get into that last ruling, let&#8217;s take stock of the sheer magnitude of orders listed here, and where they&#8217;re coming from. Without exception, these are judges located in Left-wing jurisdictions. Most of them were appointed by Democrats. And in every case, they&#8217;re unilaterally issuing emergency temporary restraining orders, which are supposed to be an &#8220;extraordinary and drastic remedy,&#8221; according to established legal precedent. If you&#8217;re trying to portray the courts as legitimate, nonpartisan institutions, this simply does not look good. In fact, it&#8217;s a travesty. And it gets much worse when you look at what these rulings are saying. So let&#8217;s go back to the ruling by John Bates.
This ruling prevents the Trump administration from removing content from websites that the Trump administration controls. In fact, the ruling goes further than that, it requires the Trump administration to keep old content from the Biden administration online. That is not an exaggeration. The order, by its own terms, bans the Trump administration from, &#8220;removing or modifying health-related webpages and datasets,&#8221; while also compelling the administration to, &#8220;restore webpages and datasets that they have already removed or modified.&#8221; In other words, an unelected federal judge has just named himself the official web editor of the entire federal government. He&#8217;s saying in effect that the executive branch has no power whatsoever. They can&#8217;t even control what they&#8217;re putting on the internet. Trump, as the president of the United States, and most powerful man in the world, actually doesn&#8217;t even have the power to make alterations to a website.
Specifically, the ruling comes in response to the Trump administration&#8217;s executive order ending gender ideology in the federal government. Pursuant to that order, the administration removed a lot of content from websites that are run by the CDC, HHS, FDA, and so on. Some of that content was related to sex-changes and cross-sex hormones. Some of it included activist research on the risk of suicide among trans-identifying individuals, which of course has been used to justify child castration — instead of treating their obvious mental health condition. Some of the materials had to do with nonsense concepts like &#8220;environmental justice.&#8221; Some of it was about drugs that gay people can take in order to prevent the spread of HIV while they&#8217;re engaging in reckless and dangerous sexual activity. And on and on. Whatever you think of these materials — and you should think they&#8217;re garbage — it&#8217;s clearly within the federal government&#8217;s purview to delete them from their own websites. That is why we have elections.
But Judge Bates disagreed. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/11/judge-orders-cdc-websites-restored/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">He ruled</a> that, “By removing long relied upon medical resources without explanation, it is likely that … each agency failed to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.&#8221; He goes on to say that the administration has violated something called the &#8220;Paperwork Reduction Act,&#8221; which is a law that no one knows anything about, or cares about in any way, shape or form.
There&#8217;s more to the ruling, but let&#8217;s stop there and address this part of it. He&#8217;s saying that there&#8217;s &#8220;no explanation&#8221; for why this content was removed. So apparently we can&#8217;t &#8220;reduce&#8221; this particular &#8220;paperwork.&#8221; This would be a compelling argument if the judge were, say, living in a cave with no internet access, or access to newspapers or other human interaction, for the past decade or so. But everyone else understands exactly why the Trump administration is gutting these websites. As we discussed yesterday, activists have taken over scientific and medical research in this country. They have promoted child butchery and other obviously immoral practices, which the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Trump ran against all of that and he won a resounding victory. That&#8217;s all the &#8220;explanation&#8221; the federal judge should require.
Then the judge goes on to offer another explanation for his ruling. Again, from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/11/judge-orders-cdc-websites-restored/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the decision</a>: 
<blockquote>If those doctors cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions.</blockquote>
The judge is now claiming that doctors are reliant on government websites in order to treat their patients. As proof of this, he cites a doctor from Yale who says it now takes her a little longer to prescribe contraception to her patients. Without these websites, she&#8217;s totally clueless. Her medical school training wasn&#8217;t enough; her residency wasn&#8217;t enough; her years of practice weren&#8217;t enough; her access to thousands of research papers isn&#8217;t enough. She needs a small handful of government websites in order to do her job, apparently. Now, if we take this claim literally, of course it means that this doctor is incompetent to practice medicine. Instead, the judge takes it as proof that he needs to dictate what content goes on the internet.
If you go through any of the other 10 million injunctions that judges have filed against Trump so far, you&#8217;ll find that this kind of reasoning — as egregious as it is — is pretty much the norm. Judges are taking anecdotal claims from activists, and they&#8217;re using them to throw up roadblocks in the way of the new administration. And they&#8217;re doing it so that CNN can report that Trump is causing a &#8220;constitutional crisis,&#8221; when in fact the judges are the ones doing that. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&gt;&gt; <a href="https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kaitlancollins</a>: &quot;We are three weeks into the second Trump presidency, three weeks, and tonight, there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/PCHCm6MmRf">pic.twitter.com/PCHCm6MmRf</a>
&mdash; Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1889144671231693086?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As you just heard, there are hints in that reporting that the Trump administration may not comply with some of these orders. Trump himself hasn&#8217;t come out and said that. He&#8217;s apparently weighing his options at this point. But as this continues — which it inevitably will — the Andrew Jackson solution is going to become more and more appealing. And ultimately it will be necessary.
To be very clear about this: There is nothing in the constitution that gives any random federal judge absolute power to override anything the president does or any decision he makes at any time. If a single judge in a place like New Hampshire or Washington can decide that the president can&#8217;t reduce foreign aid, or fire his own employees, or kick men out of women&#8217;s prisons, or even control the content that&#8217;s posted on government websites, then essentially the president has no power at all. That&#8217;s the result the Left obviously wants. And now that the deep state and the career bureaucrats are being terminated, they see the courts as their only hope.
That&#8217;s why Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just spoke on the floor of the Senate, declaring that courts are essentially infallible, and their rulings must always be honored. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Schumer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MwdXu6Ro1d4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
If you remember just a couple of years back, Democrats like Schumer were standing in front of the Supreme Court, threatening individual judges over their rulings. AOC was telling Anderson Cooper that Biden should just ignore Supreme Court rulings — and he did. He admitted that the Court had struck down his plan to cancel student loans, so he just went ahead and implemented it anyway. Now these same Democrats are maintaining that judges should never be questioned, under any circumstances.
The reality of course is somewhere in the middle. Judges are not infallible. They can deliberately and maliciously violate the Constitution, just like anyone else can. And when that happens — when a judicial coup is underway — a response is necessary. We&#8217;re not talking about one or two bad rulings here. We&#8217;re not talking about rulings that block a handful of policy goals or anything like that. We&#8217;re at the point where the president is not being allowed to do anything. He can&#8217;t even edit a website anymore. Left-wing judges are issuing emergency injunctions without even deciding actual cases.
The only way to get us out from under this judicial tyranny is for Trump to disregard these orders and for Congress to impeach the judges responsible for them. Throughout our history, there have only been a handful of times when presidents have needed to consider drastic action like this. The country was clearly better off because Andrew Jackson did it. And now, two centuries later, it&#8217;s equally clear that this country would be better off if the Trump administration followed in Jackson&#8217;s footsteps and dared these judges to enforce these rulings. They couldn&#8217;t do it, obviously. They would complain and issue more injunctions and more opinions. Meanwhile, the rest of us — people who want to see this country improve — will get exactly what we voted for.

TOPSHOT-US-JORDAN-DIPLOMACY-TRUMP-ABDULLAH II

Tyrannical, Power Hungry Judges Attempt To Seize Total Control Of The Government

Andrew Jackson

Constitution

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Donald Trump

Federal Government

Judges

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Opinion

President Trump

On December 13, 1862, during the U.S. Civil War, the Union Army suffered its most calamitous and tragic defeat to date at the hands of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia on the frozen fields south of Fredericksburg, Virginia.
After taking over for the paradoxically arrogant yet timid Maj. Gen. George McClellan following the blood-letting at Antietam in September, the new Union Army commander Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was tasked by President Lincoln to vigorously pursue and destroy CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee’s army now encamped in the Shenandoah Valley in that state. Despite harboring doubts about his own abilities as an army commander, the affable and dapper Burnside concocted a plan to dash due south and lay a pontoon bridge over the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg. His aim was to get ahead of Lee’s army farther to the west and race for Richmond, the Southern Confederacy’s capital.
<div id="attachment_843789" style="width: 597px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-843789" class="size-large wp-image-843789" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-90001933-587x576.jpg" alt="UNITED STATES - CIRCA 1863: Warrenton, Virginia. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside and staff officers (Photo by Buyenlarge/Getty Images)" width="587" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-90001933-587x576.jpg 587w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-90001933-300x294.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-90001933-768x754.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-90001933.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 587px) 100vw, 587px" />UNITED STATES &#8211; CIRCA 1863: Warrenton, Virginia. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside and staff officers (Photo by Buyenlarge/Getty Images)</div>
But Burnside&#8217;s plan that relied on speed and surprise almost immediately went awry. The pontoon bridges needed to affect the river crossing were delayed by ten days. By the time they arrived and construction began, Lee had marched his army to Fredericksburg. The Rebels took up a nearly impregnable position south of the town on a rise called Marye’s Heights that presented the defenders with a commanding view of the city and open ground before them.
<div id="attachment_843801" style="width: 837px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-843801" class="size-large wp-image-843801" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090033-827x576.jpg" alt="13th December 1862: Union troops attempting to cross the Rappahannock river during the battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)" width="827" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090033-827x576.jpg 827w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090033-300x209.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090033-768x535.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090033.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 827px) 100vw, 827px" />13th December 1862: Union troops attempting to cross the Rappahannock river during the battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)</div>
Despite his plan being foiled — his anxious engineers found themselves laying the pontoon bridges under fire from Rebel snipers who occupied the town along the river bank — the unimaginative Burnside pressed forward anyway. Following a bombardment that all but destroyed the little town, Yankee troops marched over the bridges and fought their way through the streets, whereupon many shamelessly looted the abandoned homes and shops until officers could corral them back into their ranks. The Yankees then formed up for the doomed assault against Lee’s lines.
What the Union troops faced was the suicidal prospect of crossing a half-mile of open, sloping ground to assault a solid line of veteran Rebel troops massed behind the protection of both a sunken road and high stone wall backed by artillery lined hub-to-hub along the crest of the hill before them. While watching the lines of Union blue forming up to make their attack, Lee’s First Corps commander on the Marye’s Heights sector of the line, Gen. James Longstreet, asked his young artillerist, Col. E.P. Alexander, if he thought the position was defensible. Alexander assured him: “General, a chicken can’t live in that field when we open up on it!”
<div id="attachment_843811" style="width: 765px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-843811" class="size-large wp-image-843811" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-103011593-755x576.jpg" alt="A Union Army battery makes final preparations on the day before the Battle of Fredericksburg, on Marye's Heights, Virginia, USA, December 1862. (Photo by Kean Collection/Archive Photos/Getty Images)" width="755" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-103011593-755x576.jpg 755w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-103011593-300x229.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-103011593-768x586.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-103011593.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 755px) 100vw, 755px" />A Union Army battery makes final preparations on the day before the Battle of Fredericksburg, on Marye&#8217;s Heights, Virginia, USA, December 1862. (Photo by Kean Collection/Archive Photos/Getty Images)</div>
And so began a series of ill-advised charges up the slopes of Marye’s Heights by a Union Army that proved itself to be as brave as any army in any field; but they were doomed nonetheless. The Confederate lines were so concentrated that for every man at the wall shooting down into the slowly approaching Union lines, two stood behind them with loaded and rammed rifles at the ready to hand the marksman one weapon after another, giving the stone wall’s rate of fire the effect of a machine gun — with the same grisly efficiency. As Alexander predicted, whirring, bouncing projectiles fired from his overheating guns tore into the compact blue formations, killing and maiming groups of men with each round. Thousands of Union troops totaling six divisions were fed into the Rebel meat grinder, one brigade at a time.
Watching the slaughter from his vantage point above the fighting, Gen. Lee, his stirred warrior blood struggling for equilibrium with his humanitarian nature, offered somberly: “It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.”
<div id="attachment_843805" style="width: 468px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-843805" class="size-large wp-image-843805" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090032-458x576.jpg" alt="7th November 1862: Confederate General Robert E Lee (1807 - 1870) at the battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Lee was offered the command of the Union Army but although personally opposed to both slavery and secession, his loyalty to Virginia led to his taking command of the Confederate forces. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)" width="458" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090032-458x576.jpg 458w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090032-239x300.jpg 239w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090032-768x965.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-3090032.jpg 815w" sizes=" (max-width: 458px) 100vw, 458px" />7th November 1862: Confederate General Robert E Lee (1807 &#8211; 1870) at the battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)</div>
After fourteen assaults some 13,300 Union dead and wounded lay strewn in a veritable carpet of blue before the smoke-obscured Confederate lines (to the South&#8217;s 4,500, many of whom listed as &#8220;missing&#8221; had just slipped away to nearby homesteads for Christmas). Although he contemplated continuing the forlorn attack, Burnside was convinced by his corps commanders that any new assaults would be just as fruitless and bloody so he called the battle off. (Burnside actually wanted to lead a final charge himself, so distraught was he over the carnage he’d unnecessarily inflicted on an army he sincerely loved).
The Union attack against 2nd Corps Commander &#8220;Stonewall&#8221; Jackson&#8217;s more exposed lines east of Marye&#8217;s Heights situated in lower swampland on Lee&#8217;s right did actually make some progress, but this attack too was repulsed.
For two days in the bitter December cold, the shivering Union survivors trapped in the no-man&#8217;s land between the heights and the town, hunkered down on the frozen ground. Many shielded themselves from Rebels taking shots at them from behind the stone wall by piling up the bodies of their fallen comrades to act as macabre breastworks. Soldiers would always remember the sound of .566 rounds thudding into the stiff cadavers. At night the eerie lights of a rare Southern aurora borealis flashed overhead in the starry sky, which the Confederates took as a sign that God Himself was celebrating their astounding one-sided victory.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
The surviving Union troops eventually withdrew from the corpse-laden field and made it back through the town and across the Rappahannock to safety.
Col. Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine recounted the retreat under the shroud of night. &#8220;We had to pick our way over a field strewn with incongruous ruin; men born and broken and cut to pieces in every indescribable way, cannon dismounted, gun carriages smashed or overturned, ammunition chests flung wildly about, horses dead and half-dead still held in harness, accoutrements of every sort scattered as by whirlwinds. It was not good for the nerves, that ghastly march, in the lowering night!&#8221;
After one more botched offensive in late January, during which his plans were foiled by a torrential rainstorm rather than Rebel bullets (forever remembered to history as the &#8220;Mud March&#8221;) Gen. Burnside resigned as army commander. He was replaced by Gen. Joe Hooker — Lincoln’s fifth new commanding general in two years.
When the Confederates re-occupied the shattered and ransacked Virginia town, Lee asked Jackson how they could put an end to this terrible war and all its needless desolation. “Kill them,” Jackson said coldly while surveying the ruins. “Kill them all!”
* * *
Brad Schaeffer is a fund manager and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three books</a>. His articles have appeared on the pages of Daily Wire, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, The Blaze, Breitbart, Zerohedge and other outlets.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Mud March

‘It Is Well That War Is So Terrible’: The Battle Of Fredericksburg

'It Is Well That War Is So Terrible': The Battle Of Fredericksburg

American General

Confederacy

Robert E. Lee

U.S. Military

Virginia

A new documentary about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abraham-lincoln">Abraham Lincoln</a> focuses on the former president’s sexuality, speculating that his private writings and certain actions prove he was most likely <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/homosexuality">gay</a>.
“<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/documentary">Lover of Men</a>” argues that the 16th president likely had several male lovers even after marrying his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. Some historians have explored the subject, and it has become an urban legend in academic circles.
“We live in a homophobic society,” producer Rob Rosenheck said, per <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2024/09/06/abraham-lincoln-documentary-lover-of-men/75061112007/">USA Today</a>. “People keep talking about Lincoln&#8217;s queerness as a ‘theory’ or ‘myth,’ but you need to acknowledge the fact that it keeps coming up over and over and over again. The reason for that is because it&#8217;s part of our history and it won&#8217;t go away.”
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
“Do we really need to get into his personal life?” director Shaun Peterson said. “To me, there’s always a homophonic tinge to that. There have been thousands of writings about Lincoln and Mary having this fractured marriage. People are fine writing about a heteronormative relationship, but when it comes to the possibility of his love of men, it’s like, ‘Well, we shouldn’t dig that deep.’”
The documentary, which hit theaters on Thursday, claims Lincoln may have had sexual relationships with several men he shared beds with in the 1800s despite that being a common practice for heterosexual men of the time. 
The main suspected love affair presented in the film was between the former president and one of those bedmates, Joshua Speed. The two friends shared a bed for four years, and Lincoln spoke fondly of him after he moved away. Speed got married and stayed in touch with Lincoln by exchanging letters.
“You can see the passion on the page,” Peterson says. “Lincoln would write things like, ‘I miss you’ and ‘I’m jealous of your new wife, Joshua.’ He pours his heart out in these letters. Nowhere else in any of Lincoln’s work have you seen anything quite like it.”
The documentary also makes much out of the fact that Lincoln fell into a “suicidal depression” when Speed moved away, <a href="https://people.com/abraham-lincoln-documentary-biggest-bombshells-8706767">writing</a>, &#8220;I&#8217;m now the most miserable man living. If what I am feeling were distributed to the whole human family, there would not be a cheerful face on the earth.&#8221;
Another argument in favor of Lincoln being gay or bisexual stems from him and his wife having separate bedrooms in the White House. The couple had four children together. 
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724211156439000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2xQ8bdTcpfdrPBAzczIuck">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a>
Presidential historian Tom Balcerski said Lincoln was likely “sexually fluid” and everyone needs to get on board with that concept. 
“This next generation of Americans that we call Gen Z, they’re more queer and fluid than ever. They get this argument,” he said, per the outlet. “But talk about hitting your head against the wall trying to have this conversation with older folks.”

New Documentary Probes Whether Abraham Lincoln Was A ‘Lover Of Men’

New Documentary Probes Whether Abraham Lincoln Was A 'Lover Of Men'

Documentaries

History

Homosexuality

Movies

Some July 4th traditions endure better than others. We’ll always have fireworks, parades, and family picnics, it seems. But there was also a time when presidents offered eloquent speeches on America’s birthday — ones aimed at fostering unity and gratitude. And who can deny we could use more of that in such fractious times?
Sure, few of us would clamor for another presidential speech. But in an age where we’re losing a sense of who we are and the significance of our heritage, it’s a tradition worth renewing, especially with our 250th anniversary on the horizon.
<a href="https://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/electric-cord-speech.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Both Abraham Lincoln</a> and <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-celebration-the-150th-anniversary-the-declaration-independence-philadelphia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Calvin Coolidge delivered</a> particularly notable July 4th speeches. In his opening, Coolidge noted that, “It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July.” The event, of course, was the birth of a new nation.
It’s all too easy to forget the remarkableness of the deeds done, the selflessness of the risks taken, and the magnitude of the accomplishments of our Founding Fathers. General George Washington defeated the most formidable military in the world. The Constitution was the “miracle of Philadelphia,” and remains the oldest written constitution in existence. Such undertakings were assumed for the benefit of not only those first Americans, but their posterity.
The issuance of the Declaration of Independence was still more noteworthy. As Coolidge explained, “It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history.” The Declaration put forth the revolutionary idea that no human being is born to rule over others absent their consent. That idea makes each American the fortunate inheritor of a unique trust: a nation committed to self-government.
<div id="attachment_759175" style="width: 748px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-759175" class="size-large wp-image-759175" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/07/GettyImages-104560161-738x576.jpg" alt="Grace Coolidge (1879-1957), First Lady of the United States, United States President Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), the wife of Coolidge's friend Frank Stearns, and C. Bascom Slemp (1870-1943), Secretary to the President, sitting in their box at the sixth game of the World Series in Washington, D.C., USA, circa 1925. Coolidge and Slemp are pictured waving their hats, cheering on their team, from the box, draped in a United States flag. (Photo by FPG/Getty Images)" width="738" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/07/GettyImages-104560161-738x576.jpg 738w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/07/GettyImages-104560161-300x234.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/07/GettyImages-104560161-768x599.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/07/GettyImages-104560161.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 738px) 100vw, 738px" />FPG/Getty Images</div>
That trust establishes a connective chain of gratitude and obligation for the American people today. The Founding generation launched the experiment. The current generation has the task of continuing it by governing themselves, assuming their duties and respecting the rights of others, in equal measure. Without an appreciation of their heritage, we can’t expect them to remain galvanized to maintain a life of freedom for their children.
Such reflections serve to inspire, just as they humble. Contemporary Americans are the posterity, but not the singular source, of America’s material blessings. From the Founding to Lincoln’s time, America had grown in size, population, and wealth. It was the “iron men” who fought for the principles of America, who enabled the “degree of prosperity that we now enjoy.” The Founders established a commercial republic, respectful of property rights and disdainful of class distinctions, that unleashed American ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and mobility.
Both Lincoln and Coolidge believed such enterprise could ultimately be traced to the Declaration of Independence. It is the principle of human equality that eliminates fixed social status and gives individuals the right to eat the bread that their own hands earn, <a href="https://mason.gmu.edu/~zschrag/hist120spring05/lincoln_ottawa.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">as Lincoln explained</a>.
In turn, Coolidge contended that, “The things of the spirit come first.” He warned that, unless Americans cling to the Declaration, “all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp.” Material pursuits, when not bound by eternal and immutable principles, become destructive. Self-reliance degrades to autonomy, greed, and consumerism. Profound abundance, absent the transcendent and sacrificial, ushers in a crisis of purpose and meaning. Coolidge’s words portend our time.
Fortunately, Coolidge also provided a path forward. Examinations of the past serve to underscore the unifying work that went into the Declaration and offer hope for renewed consensus. The Declaration was not an exegesis of privileged, select statesmen but “the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies.”
For example, the principle of equality was present in nine of the early state constitutions, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Political-Theory-American-Founding-Conditions/dp/1316506037/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2H20U7BN7TC4J&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.6qtc2rDHt-eUAnvUNOWGcHoydmfDDWYvpVCEfsosvd0EIwzTqv-kOfaQ2wvE-5-nivfxK_gCKiOydGmsvehF9Axk0jevsI92E_SVXYrSLJUYNZe3XhWYq_STdhR2rS39tf6XIAg2YjNKFwciDl3hhwOw1EZz9fff6X07sToEIl3o4L-5HKnbL19VO7vzSMmJwDDkHKzseLZQyv7OS9e7us9WCCeQH8xqMxjINBMzx6g.iz2h0xgI27hDriV1LLtgh5AlgL1thYUFaB6cToR16ug&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=the+political+theory+of+the+american+founding&amp;qid=1717520575&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=the+political+theory+of+the+american+founding%2Cstripbooks%2C100&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Founding scholar Dr. Thomas West</a>. Ideas about inherent natural rights and equality were put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, penned by George Mason, prior to the Declaration of Independence. The recognition that “all men are created equal” was made accessible by the Judeo-Christian tenet that all are equal in the eyes of God. And influential religious leaders like Rev. Thomas Hooker preached to the approximately <a href="https://www.amazon.com/STILL-HOLD-THESE-TRUTHS-Rediscovering/dp/1935191926" target="_blank" rel="noopener">70-80% of colonial Americans</a> who attended church that, <a href="https://connecticuthistory.org/the-free-consent-of-the-people-thomas-hooker-and-the-fundamental-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.”</a>
Both Coolidge and Lincoln believed American unity resides in the Declaration. For his part, Lincoln believed that the principle “all men are created equal” establishes a common moral sentiment. It is the right of every American to “claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration.” For so we are.
That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
It is fidelity to a set of principles, rather than exclusive religions or ethnicities, that defines Americans.
Matching Lincoln, Coolidge <a href="https://coolidgefoundation.org/events/virtual-event-inspiration-of-the-declaration/#:~:text=In%20the%20speech%2C%20titled%20%E2%80%9CThe,created%20equal%2C%20that%20is%20final." target="_blank" rel="noopener">contended</a> that:
<blockquote>About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful … If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.</blockquote>
Americans can find contentment, solitude, and pride in the resilient principles of the Declaration of Independence and the connectivity they offer.
In Fourth of Julys gone by, Abraham Lincoln and Calvin Coolidge delivered two speeches worthy of Americans’ lasting consideration. Who will be the next statesman to do so? It may be some time, as such genius is difficult to match. Yet perhaps it is not so essential that presidents today echo their masterful words. What matters most is that we Americans believe them ourselves.
* * *
Brenda M. Hafera is the Assistant Director and Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation&#8217;s Simon Center for American Studies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

American Flags in Foreground with the White House in the Background

Claiming Our July 4th Birthright

4th of July

Calvin Coolidge

Declaration of Independence

Founding Fathers

Heritage Foundation

Presidency

Readers Pass

The attempts to take down Donald Trump are quite real, and they are having significant consequences for the body politic.
They&#8217;re coming from nearly every major institution in the United States — from our universities to the media, from academia to the judiciary. It&#8217;s happening everywhere.
The real question is, is this really about Donald Trump as a person? Is it really about Trump, with all of his myriad foibles, mistakes, and craziness? Or is it about something broader?
I would contend that it&#8217;s about something broader, that the elite institutions in our society have basically decided that if anyone remotely Right-wing were ever to enter the presidency again, it would be an existential threat to their vision of a utopian future for the United States.
Every year, the American Political Science Association publishes <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24434298-presidential_greatness_white_paper_2024">a survey</a> ranking all the American presidents, dating back to George Washington. The list demonstrates who they think was the best — and the worst.
Of course, they have dumped Trump in last place. You would assume that they would. But that doesn&#8217;t really answer the question as to whether they just hate Trump or whether there is something broader going on to truly understand how much the elite institutions hate Trump and the Right wing.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1908-bankrupting-trump-murdering-navalny-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
It&#8217;s not just that they hate Trump; it’s that they despise anyone who smacks in any way of being on the Right in the United States.
Trump is just the apotheosis. He is the apex of all they hate, and they are able to stack up Trump’s myriad of craziness and foibles on top of all that they hate about Republicans. 
If you look at their list, every Republican is downgraded significantly while every Democrat is upgraded significantly. 
They have Abraham Lincoln at number one. The usual consensus pick among historians is Abraham Lincoln, with George Washington in the number two spot. Sometimes they are switched, but they are always the top two.
But not for the American Political Science Association.
They have Lincoln at number one, and then they have Franklin Delano Roosevelt as number two, which is pretty astonishing considering that Roosevelt presided over the Great Depression. He probably lengthened it by nearly a decade with his garbage economic policies. Roosevelt initiated many of the vast government overspending programs that have crippled America and created a welfare state that has led to a $34 trillion national debt.
FDR did some good things, including his leadership during World War II, although that was plagued by some bad leadership decisions, particularly with regard to the Yalta Conference, which ceded all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. FDR had a bizarre soft spot for Stalin.
Putting FDR above George Washington is monumentally telling, but it doesn&#8217;t end there. The list places Teddy Roosevelt at number four. Roosevelt was a progressive and a believer in the power of big government, even though he was a Republican. They put Thomas Jefferson at number five, Harry Truman number six, and Barack Obama at number seven.
Now, there is no possible way to say Obama is the seventh greatest president of all time, clocking in above Dwight Eisenhower, James Madison, John Adams, Ronald Reagan, and everyone else. That&#8217;s insane. Obama was a terrible president. By every available polling statistic, he wildly exacerbated racial divisions in the United States of America. He presided over the complete dissolution of American power around the world, downgraded the American military, and wrecked us in the foreign sphere.
Domestically, he polarized America as no president in my lifetime has — bar none — not just on issues of race, but also on issues of culture and sexual mores. We moved from a country where in 2008, Obama campaigned as a proponent of traditional marriage to a country where, by the time he left office, there were open discussions about whether men were women.
And don’t forget: He presided over the worst recovery from a serious economic recession in American history. He spent more money than all prior presidents combined.
Yet he’s number seven on this list. Lyndon B. Johnson, who initiated the Great Society programs and spent roughly $13 trillion on anti-poverty programs to leave almost precisely the same percentage of Americans in poverty as before, is ranked at number nine. This is the same guy who lost the Vietnam War and completely rewrote the constitutional relationship between the government and the private American citizen. 
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Bill Clinton is at number 12; Joe Biden is at number 14.
Biden is ranked 14 while Ronald Reagan, who led the most booming economic recovery in modern American history in the 1980s and also created the groundwork for defeating the Soviet Union, is ranked at 16.
Woodrow Wilson, the worst president of all time — a vicious racist who led us into World War I, created the system that led us into World War II, jailed his political opponents for sedition, and created the bureaucratic state — is ranked above Ronald Reagan.
Because of the framework by which our elite institutions work, they conclude with a bizarre delusion that they can&#8217;t possibly lose to somebody like Trump. Thus, they are led to believe that they can do anything they want to stop Trump. 
After all, according to these people, if the 14th greatest president of all time is running against the worst president of all time, what can&#8217;t you do to stop Donald Trump?

Former President Donald Trump Participates In South Carolina Fox News Town Hall

The War On Trump. It’s About Something Bigger Than He Is.

2024 Election

Barack Obama

Ben Shapiro

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)

Joe Biden

Nineteen Democratic attorneys general said that the Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/department-of-veterans-affairs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Veterans Affairs</a> should cover costly genital surgeries for transgender-identifying veterans in part because that’s what former Republican President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abraham-lincoln" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Abraham Lincoln</a> would have wanted.
The Democrat officials, representing 18 states and Washington, D.C., filed an <a href="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thecentersquare.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/a8/fa886aea-c116-11ee-be63-6b3afb2d1710/65bbb9a52d7bb.pdf.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amicus brief</a> on Wednesday in support of the Transgender American Veterans Association, which is suing the VA to cover the costs of vaginoplasty and phalloplasty surgeries.
&#8220;The mission of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is to fulfill President Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s simple promise: &#8216;to care for those who have served in our nation’s military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors,'&#8221; the attorneys general wrote in the amicus brief, which was first <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8b53a78e-c116-11ee-8c69-432b52fda8e7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> on by The Center Square. &#8220;Taken together, the regulation and implementing directive render President Lincoln&#8217;s promise an empty one for many transgender veterans. Although the VA recognizes the existence of transgender veterans, the VA falls short of serving and caring for all veterans when it prevents transgender veterans from accessing medically necessary and potentially life-saving treatment.&#8221;
The officials said that the surgeries, which often have serious long term side-effects, were both “life-saving” and “medically necessary.” The surgeries covered would also be those that remove the breasts of women who identify as men.
&#8220;Transgender veterans with gender dysphoria are left without life-saving healthcare, and are vulnerable to physical suffering, depression, and suicidal ideation,&#8221; they wrote. &#8220;Further, the VA&#8217;s approach stands in tension with the experience of the amici States – which have found giving transgender people access to comprehensive healthcare, including medically necessary surgery – provides significant benefits at negligible costs.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1706370777182000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1rZs278QeRErxuxwtCwcq8">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The VA currently uses taxpayer funds to pay for veterans to get cross-sex hormones, hair removal, and so-called “voice training,” <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/transgender-veterans-lawsuit-va-gender-affirming-surgery-rcna135566" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to NBC News. Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough previously said that the department would start paying for genital and breast surgeries at some point, but the department hasn&#8217;t started yet.
The attorneys generals of Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont all signed on to the brief.
Last year, House Republicans attempted to pass a measure that would prohibit taxpayer money from going toward paying for transgender procedures.

Washington, D.C. Cityscapes And City Views

Democrat AGs Say Lincoln Would Have Wanted VA To Pay For Veterans’ Transgender Surgeries

Democrat AGs Say Lincoln Would Have Wanted VA To Pay For Veterans' Transgender Surgeries

Democrats

Department of Veterans Affairs

Social Issues

transgender surgery

U.S.

Veterans Affairs (VA)

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro showed off his knowledge of history this week while sitting down with Broadcast Cal, star of the <a href="https://www.bentkey.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bentkey</a> original show “Kid Explorer,” who quizzed him on a variety of topics from American presidents to inventions. 
The two discussed the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell, President Abraham Lincoln, and the American Revolution, among other topics from history. 
During their discussion, Cal asked Shapiro what sport Lincoln was known for, prompting Shapiro to answer “wrestling” and give more background on the athletic prowess of the 16th president.
“He would actually challenge dudes to wrestle in the streets. There are a bunch of stories about people confronting him, being like, ‘Let&#8217;s throw down right now,’ which is totally not what you think of when you think of Abraham Lincoln,” Shapiro said. 
Shapiro also gave more context on the debates between Stephen Douglas and Lincoln, which focused on federal versus state power. 
Historians have “preserved a huge number of these speeches and sort of the back and forth between Lincoln and Douglass and those those arguments are relevant right now on other subjects, actually, not just regarding slavery, because they&#8217;re all about what should be left to the states, what should be left to the federal government, which sort of subjects should be left to the people versus taken off the table by the Constitution,” Shapiro said. 
The two also discussed the shot heard round the world at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and how long Britain’s King George III was in power. 
“Wow, a dominant performance,” Shapiro said after Cal’s final question. “But there are certain things that I didn&#8217;t know. Even I can learn things from the Kid Explorer and so can you. Which is why you should go to <a href="https://www.bentkey.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daily Wire+</a> and subscribe if you haven&#8217;t already. ‘Kid Explorer’ is a great show for kids. They&#8217;ll absolutely love it.”
<a href="https://www.bentkey.com/">CHECK OUT BENTKEY HERE</a>
“Kid Explorer” is just one of the original shows available on Bentkey, The Daily Wire’s kids entertainment company. Other originals include “A Wonderful Day with Mabel Maclay” and “Chip Chilla.” 
The Daily Wire announced that new subscribers can take advantage of a 14-day free trial by downloading the Bentkey app or visiting <a href="https://www.bentkey.com/">Bentkey.com</a>, giving parents a great opportunity to check out entertaining content for their kids without the woke indoctrination. The code for the free trial is &#8220;UNLOCK.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Quizzing Ben Shapiro" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lbAEg03_y9A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ben and Cal 2

WATCH: Ben Shapiro Quizzed On History By ‘Kid Explorer’ Broadcast Cal

Bentkey

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/washington-d-c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lincoln Memorial</a> was temporarily closed this week after officials discovered that the monument had been vandalized with pro-Palestinian graffiti.
ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/lincoln-memorial-temporarily-closed-after-vandalized-graffiti/story?id=105811958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that the monument was vandalized with the phrase &#8220;Free Gaza,&#8221; which was painted in red, according to U.S. Park Police. Law enforcement have since opened up an investigation into the incident as clean-up crews work to restore one of America&#8217;s most iconic monuments.
&#8220;Vandalism was discovered in the area of Lincoln Memorial Circle and the Reflecting Pool,&#8221; U.S. Park Police said in a statement. &#8220;Anyone with information is asked to contact the United States Park Police tip line at (202)379-4877 or e-mail USPP_tipline@nps.gov&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pro-Hamas vandals pour red paint &amp; graffiti on the steps leading up to the Lincoln Memorial in yet another desecration of one of the most iconic American symbols. This month alone, there have been desecrations/disruptions at the Capitol, Grand Central Station, the Rockefeller… <a href="https://t.co/3qMSSTXXuG">pic.twitter.com/3qMSSTXXuG</a>
&mdash; Canary Mission (@canarymission) <a href="https://twitter.com/canarymission/status/1737845627671986572?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The U.S. Park Service said in a statement that it had started the process to restore the monument.
&#8220;National Park Service conservators have begun the process of removing the paint this morning, though it may take multiple treatments over several days to remove all of it,&#8221; the U.S. Park Service said. &#8220;The steps on the west side of the Reflecting Pool are closed to visitors while the conservation work takes place.&#8221;
On Thursday, the National Mall and Memorial Parks, National Park Service said that the monument was now open.
&#8220;The expert conservators on our staff removed most of the paint &amp; latex on the Reflecting Pool steps yesterday and finished up with a second treatment this morning,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;The Lincoln Memorial and other sites remain open to the public. Good work, team!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Anyone with information is asked to contact the USPP tip line at (202)379-4877 or e-mail USPP_tipline@nps.gov. <a href="https://t.co/UkMFV1LOy6">https://t.co/UkMFV1LOy6</a>
&mdash; USPPNEWS (@usparkpolicepio) <a href="https://twitter.com/usparkpolicepio/status/1737902704050020800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Menu