 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / November 2003Abe Lincoln, the Evil Racist
Ready for a racial awakening? Then visit: http://www.stormfront.org/ Q: Since we can't cover everything in the content of this interview, let's start by busting some myths. A: OK. Q: Racial equality. What is the deal with Lincoln on racial equality, or did he really care? A: The story of Lincoln and racial equality is there for anyone who wants to read it. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, he said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He went on in the same speech in Ottawa, Ill., in 1858 to say that he was not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office and not to intermarry with white people. Also, he supported the Illinois constitutional change in the 1840s that prohibited the immigration of black people into the state of Illinois. And his career-long position on the race issue was colonization. He advocated sending every last black person in America back to Haiti, Central America, Africa – anywhere but here. In his eulogy of Henry Clay in 1852, he said, "There is a moral fitness to the idea of returning to Africa her children …" He repeated that in a message to Congress in 1862: "I cannot make it any better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Like you said, that's not what we learned in the history books in school. Q: Didn't he once say in reference to the Negro that he didn't care? That his primary focus was to preserve the Union? A: Right. There was a famous letter that he wrote to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. On Aug. 22, 1862, he wrote, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." That was his position. He did not launch a war because of slavery; he launched a war to destroy the secession movement. Continued: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27225 "Every man dies, but not every man truly lives" Dear "Captain" Lincoln's views on race are hardly some great secret and very much in line with those of many if not most people living in the United States north of the Mason-Dixon line. This is hardly controversial at all. Although Lincoln was given the title "The Great Emancipator" let's remember that the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 prohibited slavery only in those states in rebellion and not in the border states where slavery was still practiced. I think it is both unfair and unkind to describe Lincoln as evil. He was simply a man of his times, a great genuis to be sure, who was dedicated to preserving the union at all costs. Mark056 I just read an intersting article in the paper the other day about Lincoln. It broke down some of the myths surrounding him. One thing I found interesting is that while Lincoln professed to care deeply about the plight of the slaves, he did not actually issue the Emanicipation Proclamation until Jan. 1 1863, 2 years after the start of the Civil War. Furthermore, I learned that the Proclamation only applied to those areas in rebellion, and exempted the Northern border states which had slavery, as well as several areas within the Confederacy itself. The article didn't touch on this point, but I consider Lincoln's action to have been illegal as an American president had no authority against the sovereign Confederate States of America. Finally, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, could also be considered illegal as it was only ratified by the Northern states, excluding the Southern states which Lincoln insisted all along belonged in the Union. "I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal... We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." -- Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation Well Dogg... The legalities of Lincoln's actions and even the constitutionality of the 13th Amendment are moot. It all depends on how one looks at things. The Confederates thought that they were a sovereign state made up of sovereign states and the Union thougtht of them as states in rebellion. As much as you might want to change the way things are; accept the reality that the Union won and the supremacy of the Federal Government over the several states was affirmed. The American Civil War aka War of Rebellion aka War of Southern Independence resolved the States Rights issue in favor of a strong central government. Personally I always thought that the concept that if a state could join the union, it could leave the union, and then there is the problem of the American Revolution, but that aside, the reality is the Union prevailed and succession is a no-no. In my estimation Lincoln was enough of a visionary to see that the Union needed preserving so that it could become our great nation. We forget that the world was different in the 1860's, and the European powers would have been interested in exploiting or possibly even annexing a North America with several weaker states. You will recall too, that during this time the French made a grab for Mexico while the US was engaged in bloody fratricide (Mexico, at least most of it is located in North America BTW). Although this failed, it nevetheless shows intent and interest. Regardless of your political or racial views, nothing is going to change and we have what we have. Remeber that famous quote by historian Shelby Foote: "Before the Civil War the term was the United States are...after the Civil War the term was The United States is..." (I'm paraphrasing a bit). To me that is the greatness of Lincoln. Cordially, pb111 > Well Dogg... > > The legalities of Lincoln's actions and even the constitutionality of the > 13th Amendment are moot. Well no they aren't. There are plenty of places wanting to secede from other places around the world. If Lincoln's actions were legal then the Union government must allow that similar actions would be legal for governments of states with secession problems. > It all depends on how one looks at things. The > Confederates thought that they were a sovereign state made up of sovereign > states and the Union thougtht of them as states in rebellion. By "the union" you mean the Republican party and it's supporters. Many in the union thought the south was right on the money. > As much as you might want to change the way things are; accept the > reality that the Union won and the supremacy of the Federal Government > over the several states was affirmed. Really? Force establishes legal supremacy? > The American Civil War aka War of Rebellion aka War of > Southern Independence a.k.a The War of Nothern Aggression. > resolved the States Rights issue in favor of a strong > central government. Personally I always thought that the concept that if a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a visionary to see that the Union needed preserving so that it could become > our great nation. Why? What's so great about being a "great nation"? It seems to mean nothing but being obliged to rescue allies every so often at great expense in blood and treasure. > We forget that the world was different in the 1860's, and > the European powers would have been interested in exploiting or possibly > even annexing a North America with several weaker states. Why? Do you really think that they could suceed where Britain failed? In fact where Britain failed in spite of having troops and supporters on the ground? Remember that america had grown faster than Europe since the Revolution (especially during the Napoleonic wars when Europes economy was bashed about the head). Remember also that moderately friendly relations between the CSA and the USA would be inevitable given their high rate of trade. Thus a defensive alliance would have been easy to arrange. > You will recall too, that during this time the French made a grab for > Mexico while the US was engaged in bloody fratricide (Mexico, at least > most of it is located in North America BTW). So they managed to beat up Mexico (eventually) so what? The Texans beat up Mexico by themselves, with only volunteers for help. They didn't even need the rest of the Confedracy let alone the Union. To think that the Union needed all the states to defend itself from France or any other power is ludicrous. Firstly all that is need to defeat an invasion attempt is Britian's help, which it would give if it looked like a potential rival were take america. Secondly the only people with a base to invade from were France, with Mexico. Quite frankly they would have a job fighting an american invasion and the inevitably Mexican revolt (funded by americans) at the same time. > Although this failed, it nevetheless shows intent and > interest. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > War the term was The United States is..." (I'm paraphrasing a bit). To me > that is the greatness of Lincoln. What is great about it? What is even good about it? > Cordially, > > pb111 > > We forget that the world was different in the 1860's, and > > the European powers would have been interested in exploiting or possibly > > even annexing a North America with several weaker states. Given this reality, wouldn't a tremendously bloody and expensive war between the USA and CSA be the worst possible option? "Given this reality, wouldn't a tremendously bloody and expensive war between the USA and CSA be the worst possible option?" B.B. If I understand your question, correctly, then the answer would be yes. The Union was desperately afraid that Britain would ally itself with the Confederacy, and as previously stated, France made the grab for Mexico. pb111 > "Given this reality, wouldn't a tremendously bloody and expensive war > between [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > pb111 So if the europeans didn't intervene in OTL in any way disadvantageous to the USA and CSA then it shows that the fear is exagerated. Michael, An interesting and emotional response. I'll respond to a few of your comments. "Well no they aren't. There are plenty of places wanting to secede from other places around the world. If Lincoln's actions were legal then the Union government must allow that similar actions would be legal for governments of states with secession problems." Not if the interests of the United States so dictate. Different times, different places, different interests dictate foreign policy more than any single element. "By "the union" you mean the Republican party and it's supporters. Many in the union thought the south was right on the money." Many in the union did believe that the south was right on the money. You will recall that MacClellan ran in the election of 1863 on a peace platform, the war, as I am sure you probably know, was not going well for the North. Nevertheless, Lincoln was reelected. "Really? Force establishes legal supremacy?" Despite being a nation of laws and all of that, the answer going back over five or six thousand years of recorded history would be yes, and you will also remember, good sir, that the victors write the history books. What precisely is your point ? "a.k.a The War of Nothern Aggression." I seem to recall that the South fired the first shot(s). "Why? Do you really think that they could suceed where Britain failed?" The issue is not necessarily whether they might have succeeded in my opinion, but the mess they (European powers, primarily France and Britain) would have created. The possibility of two or three different countries occupying the geograhpical area that was formerly the United States and being sucked into the sphere of influence of several European powers would have served to no great ends for the people living in these coutnries. It they only would have been exploited by a strong Europe and potentially might have wound up as de facto colonies. It is interesting I think to look at the Canadian experience. Although technically given independence in 1867, it wasn't really until after World War II that that nation began to pursue policies independent of those of Great Britain. As an aside, I take it that you support independence for Quebec ? "Why? What's so great about being a "great nation"? " You obviously have only lived here and haven't traveled much abroad, then you would see how great this great nation is. It is a self evident truth. "What is great about it? What is even good about it? " Well...a preserved union has given generations of people the opportunity to pursue their dreams and enjoy liberties unheard of in other lands. While the American Dream is changing, I am well aware of that, this is still a great place to live. Had there been no United States, then Hitler might have made it for one thing. I don't think that if two nations had co-existed: a CSA and USA and possibly a Republic of Texas too, that it would be inevitable that geographical proximity would necessarily bring about close and even harmonious relations. Ideology is a wonderful thing, but it will never replace realpolitik, like it or not. While debate is healthy, and historical problems like this should be addressed, I detect perhaps, an emotional undercurrent in your writing. As I indicated in my other post, I have always had some issue with the legality of the American Civil War, but so what ? It happened and nothing will ever change that. Remembering that famous line..."that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral"...I nevertheless am glad that I was born in a United States of America, still very much a work in progress and a great experiment. pb111 <IOqdnefKy49UACWiRVn-hg@net1plus.com> >Well...a preserved union has given generations of people the opportunity to >pursue their dreams and enjoy liberties unheard of in other lands. Is this something that would not have happened (better) had the South seceeded? If you think so, I would like to know on what basis you believe that. >While >the American Dream is changing, I am well aware of that, this is still a >great place to live. Had there been no United States, then Hitler might have >made it for one thing. Had there been no United States, we might not have gotten involved in WW-I (in which we had no defensive military interest), it is likely that Germany would have won or drawn, Germany would not have been subjected to the Treaty of Versailles, their economy would not have been in the toilet in 1932 when Hitler was looking for a campaign issue. Far from preventing Hitler's rise, it seems very likely that we caused it. >I don't think that if two nations had co-existed: a >CSA and USA and possibly a Republic of Texas too, that it would be >inevitable that geographical proximity would necessarily bring about close >and even harmonious relations. That's why we're always at the throats of Canada and Mexico or they at ours? I find little in the present situation affirming your contention. (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email) Hi Frank, "That's why we're always at the throats of Canada and Mexico or they at ours? I find little in the present situation affirming your contention." Then why are we having this discussion. Apparently you seem to think that the United States would have been better if it had fragmented. Look at the wide gulf of social attitudes that prevail between north and south even today. With regard to Canada and Mexico let's look at the historical problem (remember that my posting is primarily focused on Alt.History not those other groups) The United States in its past invaded Canada twice, and fought a war with Mexico where it annexed approximately one half of it territory. At best even today, we enjoy an uneasy relationship with Mexico, but what can the Mexicans do about it ? On one level the Canadian are always standing in our shadow, and would if they could get from out under us. There position is reminiscent of Finland's to the former Soviet Union. Anyway, thank you for responding. pb111 > Hi Frank, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fought a war with Mexico where it annexed approximately one half of it > territory. Both before the civil war, and invading Canada was a response to British aggression, so I doubt this adds anything to the discussion. It was the mighty union that helped motivate these actions, not smaller republics, which is what the CSA and others wanted. > At best even today, we enjoy an uneasy relationship with Mexico, > but what can the Mexicans do about it ? Yes, amnesty for millions of illegal Mexicans every year, billions in trade (NAFTA), fluid tourism. Rather uncomfortable for someone I guess. > On one level the Canadian are always > standing in our shadow, and would if they could get from out under us. Which would be less of an issue were there smaller confederated republics of the US. And on the issue of Quebec, I think western Canada as great justification to peal away from Ontario and Quebec. Quebec uses secession as a club against the rest of Canada. Now _that's_ realpolitik. > "Really? Force establishes legal supremacy?" > > Despite being a nation of laws and all of that, the answer going back over > five or six thousand years of recorded history would be yes, and you will > also remember, good sir, that the victors write the history books. What > precisely is your point ? So you deny our Constitution and the precepts it and our Declairation affirm.  Signature"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." - Colin Powell February 24 2001 "We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful." "He threatens not the United States." "But I also thought that we had pretty much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have." 'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.' - Colin Powell February 26 2001 Hi gaffo, "So you deny our Constitution and the precepts it and our Declairation (sic) affirm." I am responding mainly to the alt.history newsgroup, so I am attempting to look at this as a historical problem. No one is denying anything. Next thing I know, you will ask me when did I stop beating my wife :-) All kidding aside, again you have to look at history. The Constitution of the United States is a living document, and to a degree is whatever the Supreme Court of the United States says it is. Certainly there are strict constructionalists and I am not denying that is not a point of view. The debate over the role of the Federal Government and its relationship with the several states goes as far back as Adams and Jefferson. As this country has moved forward in time, certain concepts have evolved. It is not like we must play by the rules of 1787, but rather, the rules are always changing. Let us (those who are in the United States) rejoice that we do live in a nation of laws. However, history also teaches us that might does indeed make right. Power and force of arms often times determine who rules and who follows..and who writes the history books. Fortunately, we have avoided military dictatorships in this country. Have we been bully boys and pushed other countries around, yes we have, why ? Because we can. , and more often than not because it is to our economic advantage. Now if you are really concerned about your personal freedom, then you better be concerned about some of the provisions of the new Patriot Act. Rather than ask me if I deny the Constitution and the precepts of the Declartion of Independence, it would be more prudent to ask President G.W. Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. Cordially, pb111 > Let us (those who are in the United States) rejoice that we do live in a > nation of laws. This little mantra has become the duck and cover of many statists lately. The law is often but the tyrant's will. > However, history also teaches us that might does indeed > make right. No it doesn't. History may be a series of events where might got it's way, but that is quite distinct from being right. <DcmdnctHi9ekoSei4p2dnA@net1plus.com> >Fortunately, we have avoided military dictatorships in this country. Not for too much longer, it appears... (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email) > Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > different places, different interests dictate foreign policy more than any > single element. No I'm sorry you are wrong. If nations can't supress their secession movements then Lincoln was wrong. > "By "the union" you mean the Republican party and it's supporters. Many > in the union thought the south was right on the money." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the war, as I am sure you probably know, was not going well for the North. > Nevertheless, Lincoln was reelected. Yep, the Republicans had a lot of supporters. Not so many that they could > "Really? Force establishes legal supremacy?" > > Despite being a nation of laws and all of that, the answer going back over > five or six thousand years of recorded history would be yes, and you will > also remember, good sir, that the victors write the history books. What > precisely is your point ? The point is that if force establishes legal supremacy then the US has no right interfering with those who have forcebly established it. For instance, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, etc. > "a.k.a The War of Nothern Aggression." > > I seem to recall that the South fired the first shot(s). True, against a federal garrison that had no right to be there. > "Why? Do you really think that they could suceed where Britain failed?" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being sucked into the sphere of influence of several European powers would > have served to no great ends for the people living in these coutnries. It would very well have served the ends of the people living in these countries. As the secession movement proved. As for "being sucked into the sphere of influence of several European powers", how? If you are talking commercially North America already was in their shere, if militarily you are talking nonsense. > It they only would have been exploited by a strong Europe and potentially > might have wound up as de facto colonies. Europe was neither that strong nor that interested as evidence by the lack of intervention in the ACW. > It is interesting I think to look at the Canadian experience. Although > technically given independence in 1867, it wasn't really until after World > War II that that nation began to pursue policies independent of those of > Great Britain. And is that better than not pursuing policies independent of Washington? > As an aside, I take it that you support independence for Quebec ? No, I don't live there. I do however support the right of Quebecios to decide the issue themselves. > "Why? What's so great about being a "great nation"? " > > You obviously have only lived here Here? In Australia? Well yes, I have mainly lived in the relatively low crime, socially harmonious land of Oz. > and haven't traveled much abroad, then you would see how great this great > nation is. In other words you don't have an answer and don't understand the question. What is so great about being a "great nation" in the sense of being a powerful nation? It doesn't make you freer, richer, smarter or more socially constructive. > It is a self evident truth. No it isn't and you don't > "What is great about it? What is even good about it? " > > Well...a preserved union has given generations of people the opportunity to > pursue their dreams and enjoy liberties unheard of in other lands. Absolute rubbish. A relatively free society with relatively large limits on government power did that. If anything the preservation of the union limited that. > While the American Dream is changing, I am well aware of that, this is still a > great place to live. I'll take your word for it. However this doesn't show that a divided america would not be as good or better. > Had there been no United States, then Hitler might have made it for one > thing. Or he might not even have got into power. > I don't think that if two nations had co-existed: a > CSA and USA and possibly a Republic of Texas too, that it would be > inevitable that geographical proximity would necessarily bring about close > and even harmonious relations. What cause would they have to fight? Provided that borders were properly surveyed (they were) and trade flourished (it would) where's the beef? > Ideology is a wonderful thing, but it will never replace realpolitik, like > it or not. Then abandon your ideology and ask the realpolitik question "What's in it for me?". Why is your life better because the USA kept the southern states? > While debate is healthy, and historical problems like this should > be addressed, I detect perhaps, an emotional undercurrent in your writing. Strange, I detect the same in yours. > As I indicated in my other post, I have always had some issue with the > legality of the American Civil War, but so what ? It happened and nothing > will ever change that. Remembering that famous line..."that patriotism is > the last refuge of a scoundral"...I nevertheless am glad that I was born in > a United States of America, still very much a work in progress and a great > experiment. I know you are glad you were born in the USA, but ask yourself, should you be? Would a disunited america be all that bad? > pb111 Michael, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my last post I will respond to some of your comments. BTW I am on the alt.history list, but this is a cross post. "Really? Force establishes legal supremacy?" Historically it does. Remember your English History and the War of the Roses, for example ? "Well no they aren't. There are plenty of places wanting to secede from other places around the world. If Lincoln's actions were legal then the Union government must allow that similar actions would be legal for governments of states with secession problems." It would depend on the circumstances, and whether succession would undermine regional security, shift the balance of power, and possibly then create a threat to the United States or an ally. "The point is that if force establishes legal supremacy then the US has no right interfering with those who have forcibly established it. For instance, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, etc." I believe that force established the United States during the Revolutionary War. Are you suggesting that the thirteen colonies should have remained as part of the British Empire ? In many instances the U.S. or any other nation has no right, per se, to interfere with those who have established power through force. That should only happen when another nation becomes a threat or potential threat. Hitler was a threat, pure and simple. My opinion regarding the Iraqi War is that the US was not justified in invading Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein did present A CLEAR THREAT to the United States. Afghanistan was another situation altogether. "True, against a federal garrison that had no right to be there." You will recall that Ft. Sumter was a coastal artillery fort in Charleston harbor. It was part of a series of coastal defenses along the Eastern seaboard. There was nothing illegal about it according to the constitution. The Army was protecting American shores against foreign invasion. The last time a foreign power invaded was during the War of 1812, you will recall that the British burned the White House. The prospect of foreign invasion, then was very real in the minds of 19th Century American military planners. It matters not that in the end these fears did not pan out. The Army was there legitimately. "As for "being sucked into the sphere of influence of several European powers", how? If you are talking commercially North America already was in their sheer, if militarily you are talking nonsense." There was nothing nonsensical about the French invasion of Mexico. It happened. It was also no accident that at the end of the Civil War 50,000 US troops were sent to the Mexican border under Phil Sheridan, "just in case". You will recall too, that the CSA went to great lengths to try and get a military alliance with Britain. This was finally thwarted, but suppose for a moment, the South had been successful. Do you think for one moment that the British wouldn't have mounted an expeditionary force against the USA ? " Europe was neither that strong nor that interested as evidence by the lack of intervention in the ACW." That is a very debatable point, I fear. Europe was the epicenter of world power. Germany had yet to be unified, Italy was being unified under Garabaldi, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was mitteleuropa focused, but France and Britain both looked to both Americas, still. "And is that better than not pursuing policies independent of Washington?" Every nation should pursue its own foreign policy independent of another's. I am not quite sure what you mean by this response, whether the Canadians follow Washington's lead. It would appear that is not the case. You really need to study both the diplomatic history of the USA and CSA to get a better grasp on the period. " Here? In Australia? Well yes, I have mainly lived in the relatively low crime, socially harmonious land of Oz. " Two comments, socially harmonious ? I understand that there is growing friction among European descendants and the Aboriginal peoples who were subjugated and have been generally treated like third class citizens. Socially harmonious, and then there is the problem of immigration, I understand that many native born Australians have difficulty in dealing with your new immigrants from places like Italy and South America, of course you racial exclusion policy was practiced until relatively recent times, no blacks or Asians allowed, thank you very much. I am sure that you aren't a racist though, are you ? Why would you be ? Low crime ? I understand that violent crime is on the rise since your government passed one of the most draconian and repressive gun laws on the planet. I have been led to understand that now they want to ban swords and knives. This makes people who are in Highland Dance Groups potential criminals. For one who speaks glowingly about freedom, independence and all of that, how can you justify not denying your lawful citizenry the right to keep and bear arms ? Am I getting a mixed message here or what ? Please enlighten me. "What is so great about being a "great nation" in the sense of being a powerful nation? It doesn't make you freer, richer, smarter or more socially constructive." The plain fact is that the United States is richer, freer and smarter than most of the rest of the world. Socially constructive, I am not so sure about, because the ideals of liberty and justice for all have yet to be realized. And pardon me, you are correct, it is not a self-evident truth, it is only a self-evident truth if you have lived here...apparently you haven't. My apologies. Cordially, pb111 > > Michael, > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > > You obviously have only lived here > > and haven't traveled much abroad, then you would see how great this great > > nation is. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > > > pb111 My apologies to Michael and others with regard to one paragraph: My opinion regarding the Iraqi War is that the US was not justified in invading Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein did present A CLEAR THREAT to the United States. Afghanistan was another situation altogether. Should Read: My opinion regarding the Iraqi War is that the US was not justified in invading Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein did NOT present A CLEAR THREAT to the United States. Afghanistan was another situation altogether. Thank you, pb111 > Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Historically it does. Remember your English History and the War of the > Roses, for example? Remember your John Locke? > "Well no they aren't. There are plenty of places wanting to secede from > other places around the world. If Lincoln's actions were legal then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regional security, shift the balance of power, and possibly then create a > threat to the United States or an ally. No it wouldn't. Either violence against seccession movements for being seccession movements is OK then it is OK. Having used the justification the US must allow it in the case of others. > "The point is that if force establishes legal supremacy then the US has no > right interfering with those who have forcibly established it. For > instance, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, etc." > > I believe that force established the United States during the Revolutionary > War. No agreement established the United States during the Revolutionary War. Force preserved it. At no time did some of the states try to force others into the union. > Are you suggesting that the thirteen colonies should have remained as > part of the British Empire? If they should not have then surely the same argument applies to the South? > In many instances the U.S. or any other nation > has no right, per se, to interfere with those who have established power > through force. That should only happen when another nation becomes a threat > or potential threat. Everyone's a potential threat. > Hitler was a threat, pure and simple. My opinion > regarding the Iraqi War is that the US was not justified in invading Iraq, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > harbor. It was part of a series of coastal defenses along the Eastern > seaboard. There was nothing illegal about it according to the constitution. It was there to collect tarriffs which were illegal if Charleston was not part of the US. > The Army was protecting American shores against foreign invasion. Not primarily, it was for tax collection. But in any case Ft. Sumpter is clearly in South Carolina, which was not in the US after seccession. So the garrison had no right to be there. > The last > time a foreign power invaded was during the War of 1812, you will recall [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > happened. It was also no accident that at the end of the Civil War 50,000 US > troops were sent to the Mexican border under Phil Sheridan, "just in case". 50,000 troops is a lot less than the confederates fielded to defend themselves. Why assume that just because the French can defeat the Mexicans, who were without European allies, money or an armed populace they can take on the CSA which would have had all three? In any case that would be the Confederacy's look out, not Lincoln's. If the full resources of the USA pre-61 were needed to defend it then surely a defensive alliance would be easy to arrange. > You will recall too, that the CSA went to great lengths to try and get a > military alliance with Britain. This was finally thwarted, but suppose for a > moment, the South had been successful. Do you think for one moment that the > British wouldn't have mounted an expeditionary force against the USA ? All the more reason to allow a peaceful seperation that would prevent such a military alliance. > " Europe was neither that strong nor that interested as evidence by the lack > of intervention in the ACW." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Garabaldi, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was mitteleuropa focused, but France > and Britain both looked to both Americas, still. Looked, and did nothing, despite American being weaker than at any time in it's history. A British invasion through Canada would certainly have won the war for the CSA and probably have crushed the US. They did not do it. If they didn't take such an obvious opportunity then what opportunity would they take? > "And is that better than not pursuing policies independent of Washington?" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > friction among European descendants and the Aboriginal peoples who were > subjugated and have been generally treated like third class citizens. Yep, and do you know how much violence is involved in that "growing friction"? A few punch-ups at worst and generally not even that. > Socially harmonious, and then there is the problem of immigration, I > understand that many native born Australians have difficulty in dealing with > your new immigrants from places like Italy and South America, of course you > racial exclusion policy was practiced until relatively recent times, no > blacks or Asians allowed, thank you very much. Relatively recent times yes. However since WWII we have been one of the biggest accepters of refugees and other immigrants in the world (recent behaviour by P.M. Howard notwithstanding). > I am sure that you aren't a > racist though, are you ? Why would you be ? Low crime ? I understand that > violent crime is on the rise since your government passed one of the most > draconian and repressive gun laws on the planet. It is, but it's still a lot better than the US. Maybe that's because half the country never invaded the other half and took their stuff. > I have been led to understand that now they want to ban swords and knives. Yep, it's pretty pathetic. > This makes people who are in Highland Dance Groups potential criminals. For crimes against taste? Seriously though it is a problem. I blame this bitch Laura Norder. Ever election time politicians court her. > For one who speaks glowingly about freedom, independence and all of that, > how can you justify not denying your lawful citizenry the right to keep > and bear arms ? I don't. Never have. > Am I getting a mixed message here or what ? Please enlighten me. No, you are confusing the nation with the individual. So like a statist. > "What is so great about being a "great nation" in the sense of being a > powerful nation? It doesn't make you freer, richer, smarter or more > socially constructive." > > The plain fact is that the United States is richer, freer and smarter than > most of the rest of the world. It is not the "plain fact" at all. The Patriot Act allows far more intrusive police powers than anything a free country should have, ditto the RICO statues and other seizure legislation. In any case you have not answered my question. I did not ask what is so great about the US (I know that) but what is so great about being a "great nation". Are any of the positive things you claim for the US the result of being a great nation? How? > Socially constructive, I am not so sure about, because the ideals of > liberty and justice for all have yet to be realized. And Lincoln made it harder to realise them. But in any case there is nothing about liberty and justice for all that needs a great nation. > And pardon me, you are correct, it is not a self-evident truth, it > is only a self-evident truth if you have lived here...apparently you [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > > > > > > pb111 * The word "not" inserted after another of his posts stated that it's absence was a typo. > > ["prober111"] > > Ideology is a wonderful thing, but it will never replace realpolitik, like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for me?". Why is your life better because the USA kept the southern > states? Since "prober" didn't answer this, allow me to fill in the blank: Nationalism. Prober apparently places much value on his national pride, and a bigger nation state gives him more to beat his chest about. > > > ["prober111"] > > > Ideology is a wonderful thing, but it will never replace realpolitik, like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and a bigger nation state gives him more to beat his chest > about. Ok, but why? I mean Australia isn't all that big a nation in the minds of Austalians* but everyone I know is proud to be an Australian. Not in a "Rah, Rah, I must have a flag on my veranda [translation: porch]" sense but in a "Yep, it's a pretty good place" sense. * At 7,686,850 sq. km. it's is actually "big" but it's population is about that of Iraq which is not usually considered a "big" country. > > Prober apparently places much value on his national pride, > > and a bigger nation state gives him more to beat his chest [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is about that of Iraq which is not usually considered a "big" > country. But I think it was much the same for Canadians and Australians (and early Tory Americans) who resisted seperation from the British Empire for so long. A bigger conceptual envelope is better, it is often considered more powerful. People have emotional attachments to larger conceptual things that they subordinate themselves to, it becomes a part of their self-image and identity. This is what drives religions (the single God of monotheism being the ultimate conceptual unity), as well as things like "corporate culture", brand loyalties, etc. > > > Prober apparently places much value on his national pride, > > > and a bigger nation state gives him more to beat his chest [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > God of monotheism being the ultimate conceptual unity), as well > as things like "corporate culture", brand loyalties, etc. Yeah but the Commonwealth doesn't actually get to boss us around much. The Union gets to boss around american's all the time. > "I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the > Negro into our social and political life as our equal... We can > never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of > an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither > possible nor desirable." > -- Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln was an idiot, a lot like Churchill. He thought he could make a pact with the devil to preserve his empire. In both cases, the result was disaster. rAD > > "I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the > > Negro into our social and political life as our equal... We can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > rAD So whom did Churchill make a pact with? If you think it was the Germans then get your facts straight.!!! Who was Chamberlain then? 'I hold in my hand a piece of paper' And Lincoln was a man of his time, do not put our modern thinking ways into the thoughts and words of a man many consider one of the greatest men in the USA. And yep,I am from the UK. :-) SHard. > Ready for a racial awakening? Then visit: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > A: The story of Lincoln and racial equality is there for anyone who > wants to read it. But at least one should read all of it, not preselected parts thereof. > In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, he > said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality > between the white and black races, and I have never said anything to > the contrary." In the same speach, Lincoln continued, "...but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects--certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." When the entire context is considered, we have Lincoln addressing a racist audience. Like other politicians, Lincoln first attempts to assuage his audience that he shares their prejudices. He then tries to lead his audience away from their prejudices. <Snip> The rest. The big Lincoln lie and the neocons: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo55.html The Gettysburg fraud: http://www.ildomenicale.it/approfondimento.asp?id_approfondimento=6 -- -------- DC Dave Author, "Who Killed James Forrestal?" "America's Dreyfus Affair, The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster" "Upton Sinclair and Timothy McVeigh" "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave News group: alt.thebird > > Ready for a racial awakening? Then visit: > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > <Snip> The rest. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.