Posted on 02/06/2003 1:37:27 PM PST by clintonbaiter
Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be. I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic. I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring.
I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.
Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican and the 16th President of the United States, was in reality a liberal Democrat. Moreover, not just any liberal Democrat. According to the folks at Discovery Channel, Abe Lincoln was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone......
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
You can't be too Dem if you recognize the goodness of Lincoln. :^)
Not really, I'm pointing out it was created by, and worked for by, others in the party. BTW, this would be an appropriate place to post some of Lincoln's speeches in support of the 13th amendment, so feel free. You know, I never have seen any...
"one of your kind". Well, you're clearly nothing more than a pathetic hatemonger, Mr/Ms Sharpton. You are obviously unable to respond intelligently, so you must resort to spewing your hateful crap. I will assume that your prejudicial hatespeak is an acknowledgement that my statement was correct.
Holy cow, you think slavery should still be legal?
Well, not only are you a hatemonger, but you're stupid too. I clearly said NO to that asinine question that was irrelevent to the point at hand.
Since I'm against slavery, I'm a race-baiter? LOL
(sigh) No, you're a race baiter because of your pathetic race baiting tactics. You responded to my question about Lincoln and the Constitution with a diversionary race-based statement/question that avoided answering a simple question that had nothing to do with race. THAT makes you a race baiter.
Yes of course I disagree with him.
Thank you for finally answering my simple question. Too bad you had to demonstrate that you are a hatemongering race baiter before just answering it.
All you neo-Confederates just make things up.
(sigh) More name calling, and knee-jerk assumptions. What has been "made up", specifically?
How many times did the electoral college overturn the popular vote of the sum total of each of States electoral votes? As noticed on this thread, Walt advocates this to the immigrants and practices it himself.
I think he had to pay a 50,000 dollar fine in the process for his arrogance too.
Too bad I already responded to your mistake, since I am answering my posts in the order they were received. I acknowledge your admission of your mistake, and my previous comment specific to that one point is retracted.
Well, I'd say you guessed wrong when you voted for "democrat hacks" to try to subvert the process in favor of Al Gore. As usual, you were wrong.
As you wish.
From the reply to the Committee of the National Union Convention concerning the adoption of the 1864 Republican platform:
"Gentlemen of the Committee: I will neither conceal my gratification, nor restrain othe expression of my gratitude, that the Union people, through their convention, in their cintinued effort to save, and advance, the nation, have deemed me not unworthy to remain in my present postion.
I know no reason to doubt that I shall accept the nomination tendered; and yet perhaps I should not declare definitely before reading and considering what is called the Platform.
I will say now, however, that I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation. When the people in revolt, with a hundred days of explicit notice, that they could, within those hundred days, without the overthrow of their institution, and that they could not so resume it afterwards, elected to stand out, such amendment of the Constitution as now proposed, became a fitting and necessary conclusion to the final success of the Union cause. Such alone can meet and cover all cavails. Now, the unconditional Union men, North and South, perceive its importance, and embrace it. In the joint name of liberty and Union, let us labor to give it legal form, and practical effect."
From his anual message to Congress, December 6, 1864:
"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate but failed for the lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same in Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or the patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only the question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the states for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? Is is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on the members to change their views or their votes...It is the voice of the people not, for the first time, heard upon the question."
From an account of his response to a serenade on February 1, 1865:
"President Lincoln supposed the passage through Congress of the Constitutional amendment for the abolishing of slavery throughout the United States was the occasion to which he was indebted for the honor of this call. The occasion was one of congratulation to the country, and to the whole world. But there is a task yet before us—to go forward and consummate by the votes of the States that which Congress so nobly began yesterday. He had the honor to inform those present that Illinois had already done the work. Maryland was about half through, but he felt proud that Illinois was a little ahead. He thought this measure was a very fitting if not an indispensable adjunct to the winding up of the great difficulty. He wished the reunion of all the States perfected, and so effected as to remove all causes of disturbance in the future; and, to attain this end, it was necessary that the original disturbing cause should, if possible, be rooted out. He thought all would bear him witness that he had never shirked from doing all that he could to eradicate slavery, by issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. But that proclamation falls short of what the amendment will be when fully consummated. A question might be raised whether the proclamation was legally valid. It might be added, that it only aided those who came into our lines, and that it was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up; or that it would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter; in fact, it would be urged that it did not meet the evil. But this amendment is a king’s cure for all evils. It winds the whole thing up. He would repeat, that it was the fitting if not the indispensable adjunct to the consummation of the great game we are playing. He could not but congratulate all present—himself, the country, and the whole world upon this great moral victory."
You know, I never have seen any...
Now you have.
Do you deny that you and Booth held the same political beliefs? You neo-Confederates just dismiss the evils of slavery as no big deal and wouldn't have minded if the practice would've continued for a few more decades with a Southern win. It takes a callous mind to think like this in this day and age. You call me hateful, how do you feel about the slaves? I don't see much difference between your kind, who can't see the evils of slavery, and our more callous liberals who can't see the evils of Stalin's Soviet Union.
Well, not only are you a hatemonger, but you're stupid too. I clearly said NO to that asinine question that was irrelevent to the point at hand.
Read my next post.
(sigh) No, you're a race baiter because of your pathetic race baiting tactics. You responded to my question about Lincoln and the Constitution with a diversionary race-based statement/question that avoided answering a simple question that had nothing to do with race. THAT makes you a race baiter.
Lincoln's actions fundamentally changed the Constitution. Anytime the Constitution is amended it is changed. The flaw of slavery is what was changed in the Constitution. This is a fundamental flaw. So yes, the old Constitution was no more, but we were still a Constitutional government with a much more perfect Constitution thanks to Lincoln's actions. Since race is at the heart of the change in the Constitution, how could I not associate your question with race. You're a whiner.
Thank you for finally answering my simple question. Too bad you had to demonstrate that you are a hatemongering race baiter before just answering it.
You don't seem to have much of a problem with slavery, so I call 'em as I see 'em.
(sigh) More name calling, and knee-jerk assumptions. What has been "made up", specifically?
Look at GOPCapitalists posts. LOL Let's see, he says Lincoln's purpose was to make business owners rich. I'd like to see some of Lincoln's quotes that confirm this. This article claims that Lincoln would be a liberal today. All you neo-Confederates agree. This is simply made up with no basis in fact or logic. You say that 1861 was then end of Constitutional government so you're a wacko too. All you guys are wackos. Now look at Walt's posts. Real quotes from the time from the players involved. Whether Democrat or space alien, if someone uses real quotes from history, there's no BS involved.
Too bad I already responded to your response to my misreading for the same reason. (This could go on and on.)
To be honest, I don't know what his political beliefs were. Maybe he was a whig, or a democrat, or whatever, I don't really know. What I do know is that what started this exchange between you and I is the fact that I took offense to someone who despises the United States Constitution and exposed them for their traitorous belief. You took offense to me because of that, so where does that place you, I wonder.
You neo-Confederates just dismiss the evils of slavery as no big deal and wouldn't have minded if the practice would've continued for a few more decades with a Southern win.
There you go again with your knee-jerk hatemongering and lies, insinuating I am a racist again. I am not, but you ARE a damned hatemonger, and it's plain for all to see. You make me sick, you judgemental bigot and liar.
It takes a callous mind to think like this in this day and age.
"to think like THIS". A freudian slip, it seems, as you are clearly describing your own thoughts. Yes, it takes a callous mind to think like you do, it does indeed. Take your hatemongering to stormfront, or DU where it belongs.
You call me hateful, how do you feel about the slaves?
Yes, I call you hateful, because you obviously are, you have demonstrated that repeatedly. BTW, there you go race baiting again. Not that it has anything whatsover to do with it, but I think slavery was wrong.
I don't see much difference between your kind, who can't see the evils of slavery, and our more callous liberals who can't see the evils of Stalin's Soviet Union.
"your kind, who can't see the evils of slavery". FU, you liar. It's easy for you to vomit your hatespeak and lies from behind the safety of your computer, but that's always the case with wretches like you. You have already shown everyone that you are nothing but a hatemonger and a liar, your confession is complete.
Lincoln's actions fundamentally changed the Constitution. Anytime the Constitution is amended it is changed. The flaw of slavery is what was changed in the Constitution. This is a fundamental flaw. So yes, the old Constitution was no more, but we were still a Constitutional government with a much more perfect Constitution thanks to Lincoln's actions. Since race is at the heart of the change in the Constitution, how could I not associate your question with race. You're a whiner.
Just look at and follow your ignorant racebaiting non-sequitur. The slavery amendment was NOT what killed the Constitution's power. That was only one of many amendments, it was the 13th one. If an amendment kills the Constitution, then it should have been dead twelve times before that one. You are actually trying to say that ending slavery is what zapped the Constitution, which is STUPID. You are just twisting things to try and connect RACE back into something that had NOTHING to do with race. That makes you a race baiter, you race baiter. My question didn't have a damn thing to do with race and you know it, unless you suffer some sort of mental illness that equates everything with race, which in itself would result in you being a race baiter. Lincoln killed the constitution by making it irrelevent in regards to the separation of powers in our government, and that had absolutely NOTHING to do with race.
You don't seem to have much of a problem with slavery, so I call 'em as I see 'em.
You are a liar, a pathetic hatemongering liar. Go to DU where you belong, you hatemongering liar.
No. The southern tariff, which was adopted in May 1861 after the north passed the Morrill act, was a revenue tariff with minimal impacts on the consumer surplus. The average rate on the confederate tariff schedule was just over 13%, making it one of the lowest in the world.
So the tariff's sole purpose was to make a few poor manufacturers wealthy.
It's sole purpose was to benefit the participants in the protected northern industries at the expense of the rest.
Was this the same purpose for the South's tariffs?
No. The southern tariff was a revenue tariff. Its rates fell on the revenue side of the tax curve we generally know of today as the laffer curve. By contrast, the northern tariff was a protectionist tariff - it fell on the other side of the curve.
So since Davis had a tariff also, did he love taxes?
No more than Ronald Reagan loved taxes for the reason that they existed in his administration. Davis' tariffs were minimal and revenue oriented. Their average rate was among the lowest in the world. Lincoln's tariffs were extensive and protection oriented. Their average rate was among the highest.
So did the South's tariffs have the same effect and was their sole purpose to make her poor manufacturers rich?
Generally no, because that effect is the result of protective tariffs - those that fall on the far side of the curve. The south's tariff was a revenue tariff and fell on the near side, making its protective effect minimal.
Was it the same in the South?
No. It wasn't. The northern rates were high, protective, and redistribution oriented. The southern rates were low and revenue oriented. Think of it as Massachussetts (where they tax everything) versus Texas (where there is no state income tax and the main revenue comes from a small sales tax).
But the South supported the tariffs initially when they couldn't compete with India.
Specifically when are you talking about?
And you said yourself that the South had a 13% tariff.
Yeah. To raise revenue. To use another modern analogy, think of it as an income tax system where everybody across the board pays a small ammount, such as 10%, to finance the basic operations of a restrained federal government. Then in contrast picture our current government under Clinton or Carter when taxes were through the roof costing many of us at 36%, 40% or more, which was then redistributed out in welfare and handout payments to a voting block of the Democrat party. ies, or rich cronies.
They were middle-class cronies?
Its perfectly possible that some were. Those who recieved the benefit did so because their industry got protection with the tariff, not because of their income levels. Therefore if steel was protected, those in the steel industry reaped the benefits off of everyone else.
Was the South's tariffs the same?
No, because the south's tariffs were revenue tariffs. Revenue tariffs do not exhibit the redistributionist effects that the much higher protection tariffs do.
Did the South's tariffs do the same thing?
Again, no. They did not because the south's tariffs, as I told you previously in earlier posts and as I have indicated in this post, were not high enough to exhibit a significant protection effect.
Exactly. But they still praise Jesus, rightly or wrongly.
No. They praise what they claim to others is Jesus
And a lot lot of liberals praise Jefferson.
I still have not seen these liberals. Practically every one of them that I know thinks Jefferson was a rich white male western-value oriented slave owner and hates him accordingly.
The Alpha chapter of Marx cults?
I suppose you could call Marx's own group that.
I think it's a good thing for the working class to ascend.
Not in marxian terms. When Marx says that he's talking about a working class revolution with a hegelian end of installing communism.
Looks like Marx was right in this case. It's good for blacks to get paid for doing work.
You still do not understand the quote. Marx did not say that Lincoln initiated a new era for blacks or for former slaves. he said that Lincoln initiated a new era for working men, the proletariats. It is a simple fact of history that when Marx writes of a working class ascendency, he means a proletariat movement to communism.
What is it about this quote that you don't like?
That it predicts the rise of communism in the United States. Do you think there is something wrong for not liking that quote for that reason?
The what despise? I've heard a lot of liberals praise Jefferson.
Well I haven't. All it seems that they can talk about is the alleged affair with sally hemmings and how he was a white male slave owner.
Where did Marx promote anything socialistic in this.
In the parts I bolded.
Do you disagree that blacks should be paid for doing work?
Yes, but that was not Marx's concern. He did not say an ascendency of black workers or of slaves. He said an ascendency of the working men, the proletariat. In marxian terminology that means but one thing - a move toward communism.
So you've got this other theory here. Let me see if I I've got it right. Marx praised Lincoln for freeing the slaves but since Marx said that the working class would benefit from this act that Marx was actually praising Lincoln for being a Communist?
That's a fancy looking scarecrow you've created there. Can I take it that you intend to joust with it shortly?
hmmm... Maybe the logic will come to me.
It should come to you immediately considering that you built it, but since you seem to be a little slow on these type of things maybe it will if you joust long enough. Don't hurt yourself though.
I thought you were in agreement with the article. If you look at the start of this thread, I said the same thing to several of you neo-Confederates. But instead of commenting on the subject of this thread, you were simply disrupting.
There you go again with your knee-jerk hatemongering and lies, insinuating I am a racist again. I am not, but you ARE a damned hatemonger, and it's plain for all to see. You make me sick, you judgemental bigot and liar.
I notice that you are not denying anything I've said. Is a few more decades of slavery acceptable to you with a Southern win?
"to think like THIS". A freudian slip, it seems, as you are clearly describing your own thoughts. Yes, it takes a callous mind to think like you do, it does indeed. Take your hatemongering to stormfront, or DU where it belongs.
Would a few more decades of slavery be acceptable to you with a Southern win?
Yes, I call you hateful, because you obviously are, you have demonstrated that repeatedly. BTW, there you go race baiting again. Not that it has anything whatsover to do with it, but I think slavery was wrong.
It has everything to do with it. The Declarations of Secession say so.
"your kind, who can't see the evils of slavery". FU, you liar. It's easy for you to vomit your hatespeak and lies from behind the safety of your computer, but that's always the case with wretches like you. You have already shown everyone that you are nothing but a hatemonger and a liar, your confession is complete.
In the 1860s, there was a group of Americans that preserved the union and ended slavery. In the 1860s there was a group of Americans that broke up the union to perpetuate slavery. You despise those that saved America and ended slavery. Your feelings on slavery are clear. It's not really a big deal to you. You have some kind of theory of the "end of the Constitution" that you think as the biggest event of the 1860s, and even that is made up, like most of everything you neo-Confederates believe. So you put more emphasis on a made up grievance than two things that really happened: secession to perpetuate slavery and the saving of America.
Just look at and follow your ignorant racebaiting non-sequitur. The slavery amendment was NOT what killed the Constitution's power. That was only one of many amendments, it was the 13th one. If an amendment kills the Constitution, then it should have been dead twelve times before that one. You are actually trying to say that ending slavery is what zapped the Constitution, which is STUPID. You are just twisting things to try and connect RACE back into something that had NOTHING to do with race.
Secession had everything to do with race, all the Declarations of Secession say so. For you to deny this is to deny reality. But that's nothing new for you neo-Confederates, you live in your revisionist dreamworld.
That makes you a race baiter, you race baiter. My question didn't have a damn thing to do with race and you know it, unless you suffer some sort of mental illness that equates everything with race, which in itself would result in you being a race baiter. Lincoln killed the constitution by making it irrelevent in regards to the separation of powers in our government, and that had absolutely NOTHING to do with race.
There was rebellion. The president is authorized to preserve the Constitution and is Commander in Chief. The Constitution is preserved by preserving America.
You are a liar, a pathetic hatemongering liar. Go to DU where you belong, you hatemongering liar.
Why is it that you're so offended that you and Lincoln have different ideas of Constitutional powers, but you can't see the wrongness in secession to perpetuate slavery. Your passions about Lincoln and lack of passion about secession to perpetuate slavery tell me I have not mischaracterized you at all.
LOL I figured as much. You despise Lincoln because you hate tariffs but the South's tariffs are OK. Figures. You neo-Confederates can rationalize anything.
It's sole purpose was to benefit the participants in the protected northern industries at the expense of the rest.
But somehow the South's tariffs were pure as snow. LOL Would you support such a tariff now even though you hate tariffs?
No. The southern tariff was a revenue tariff. Its rates fell on the revenue side of the tax curve we generally know of today as the laffer curve. By contrast, the northern tariff was a protectionist tariff - it fell on the other side of the curve.
So do you hate this tariff too? Or have you had a change of heart? LOL
No more than Ronald Reagan loved taxes for the reason that they existed in his administration.
But since they existed with Lincoln, he loved taxes although somehow Davis and Reagan didn't. Your theories are falling apart in a hurry.
Davis' tariffs were minimal and revenue oriented. Their average rate was among the lowest in the world. Lincoln's tariffs were extensive and protection oriented. Their average rate was among the highest.
Lincoln had a country to save. So you said you hate taxes and tariffs but now you're saying their OK if they're not big?
Generally no, because that effect is the result of protective tariffs - those that fall on the far side of the curve. The south's tariff was a revenue tariff and fell on the near side, making its protective effect minimal.
So suddenly taxes and tariffs are good in your eyes? Things look so much different when you find out your side did them too, huh?
No. It wasn't. The northern rates were high, protective, and redistribution oriented. The southern rates were low and revenue oriented. Think of it as Massachussetts (where they tax everything) versus Texas (where there is no state income tax and the main revenue comes from a small sales tax).
So now you're saying that if they're low, they're good?
Specifically when are you talking about?
It's pretty clear. The South loved the tariff when it first came out because they couldn't compete with Indian cotton at the time. When they got their slave-labor established so that a few were making big profits, suddenly tariff...bad.
. Yeah. To raise revenue. To use another modern analogy, think of it as an income tax system where everybody across the board pays a small ammount, such as 10%, to finance the basic operations of a restrained federal government. Then in contrast picture our current government under Clinton or Carter when taxes were through the roof costing many of us at 36%, 40% or more, which was then redistributed out in welfare and handout payments to a voting block of the Democrat party. ies, or rich cronies.
So you don't hate taxes so much after all, huh? LOL
Its perfectly possible that some were. Those who recieved the benefit did so because their industry got protection with the tariff, not because of their income levels. Therefore if steel was protected, those in the steel industry reaped the benefits off of everyone else.
So Lincoln's sole purpose in supporting tariffs was to make a few people rich?
No, because the south's tariffs were revenue tariffs. Revenue tariffs do not exhibit the redistributionist effects that the much higher protection tariffs do.
So now tariffs...good? LOL You've seemed to have changed your mind.
Again, no. They did not because the south's tariffs, as I told you previously in earlier posts and as I have indicated in this post, were not high enough to exhibit a significant protection effect.
So they were good tariffs even though you hate tariffs and taxes?
No. They praise what they claim to others is Jesus
As does your imaginary Marxist cults does with Lincoln. You finally get the point I was trying to show you. LOL Why don't you link me to one of these cults anyway, so I can see for myself their praise for Lincoln.
I still have not seen these liberals. Practically every one of them that I know thinks Jefferson was a rich white male western-value oriented slave owner and hates him accordingly.
I have. I don't know what else to say. Let the readers decide, I'm sure they've seen the same thing I have.
I suppose you could call Marx's own group that.
More imaginary stuff from a neo-Confederate. You're having to make this up as we go, it's hilarious.
Not in marxian terms. When Marx says that he's talking about a working class revolution with a hegelian end of installing communism.
I didn't see any of that in his quote. Marx praised the founding fathers also. Does that mean the actions of the founding fathers were wrong?
You still do not understand the quote.
No, I don't include imaginary words like you do. Marx praised Lincoln for freeing the slaves. It's pretty simple.
Marx did not say that Lincoln initiated a new era for blacks or for former slaves. he said that Lincoln initiated a new era for working men, the proletariats. It is a simple fact of history that when Marx writes of a working class ascendency, he means a proletariat movement to communism.
Looks to me like you're making things up. Marx was well trained to give his opinion. If he wanted to say the founding father's and Lincoln's actions were great for communism, he would've said so. No, he said their actions were good for the working and middle classes, and of course he was correct.
That it predicts the rise of communism in the United States. Do you think there is something wrong for not liking that quote for that reason?
It predicts the rise of Communism?! LOL You neo-Confederates can't rely on simple truth, you have to make things up.
Well I haven't. All it seems that they can talk about is the alleged affair with sally hemmings and how he was a white male slave owner.
Figures.
In the parts I bolded.
I didn't see anything about communism.
Yes, but that was not Marx's concern.
I hope you mispoke. I asked if you disagree that blacks should be paid for doing work and you just said "yes".
He did not say an ascendency of black workers or of slaves. He said an ascendency of the working men, the proletariat.
He said working and middle classes. You're making things up and adding words because you can't rely on simple truth.
In marxian terminology that means but one thing - a move toward communism.
Why didn't he say so? You're making things up.
That's a fancy looking scarecrow you've created there. Can I take it that you intend to joust with it shortly?
I notice you ignored my question about the founding fathers. I'll ask again: Marx praised the founding fathers for helping the middle class ascend. Does that mean that we should hate the founding fathers like you hate Lincoln for Marx' praise?
It should come to you immediately considering that you built it, but since you seem to be a little slow on these type of things maybe it will if you joust long enough. Don't hurt yourself though.
You're the one backing away from earlier statements. You now like tariffs and taxes. LOL
So criticizing The Lincoln and his abuses of power makes one a defender of slavery? Now that is peculiar, especially in light of one critic of the civil war era had to say about it all. If you know anything of American history, you should recognize the name Lysander Spooner. He was one of the nation's leading abolitionists over several decades prior to the war and is considered to be their greatest legal philosopher. In other words, he was no friend and no defender of slavery, nor did he have any trouble whatsoever seeing slavery's evil.
But slavery was not the only evil he saw. Here is what he had to say about the yankee's war of conquest:
"If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, The Constitution of No Authority, Chapter XIX, 1870
Spooner is known to history as a great abolitionist who had no problem recognizing the evil of slavery. He also had no problem recognizing the evil that had occured during and as a result of The Lincoln's unjust war. While not one of the people you accuse of being "neo-confederates" has ever indicated support for slavery or refused to consider slavery itself a wrong, you do seem incapable of acknowledging The Lincoln's war as anything other than good. If Spooner can readily identify the wrongs of that war and that government while maintaining his abolitionist principles, why can't others? And if a leading abolitionist such as Spooner can acknowledge the wrongs committed by The Lincoln, why can't you?
You guys spend every day here year after year telling each other the same thing over and over. You neo-Confederates never speak of the wrongness of slavery unless provoked into it like I've done to you here. That tells me that even though you have opinions on everything about the Civil War, slavery is last on your list of concerns.
Now that is peculiar, especially in light of one critic of the civil war era had to say about it all. If you know anything of American history, you should recognize the name Lysander Spooner. He was one of the nation's leading abolitionists over several decades prior to the war and is considered to be their greatest legal philosopher. In other words, he was no friend and no defender of slavery, nor did he have any trouble whatsoever seeing slavery's evil.
Exactly, he was an abolitionist. Apparently slavery was a big enough deal to him that he is known as an abolitionist. Not true with you neo-Confederates. It's OK as long as it's legal, ain't that right? At best, you're certainly not concerned with it too much.
But slavery was not the only evil he saw. Here is what he had to say about the yankee's war of conquest: "If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, The Constitution of No Authority, Chapter XIX, 1870
I don't care what he said. It's one opinion out of 30 million at the time. Here's mine: The South was in rebellion when they seceded. The union was worth preserving and the slaves needed freeing.
Spooner is known to history as a great abolitionist who had no problem recognizing the evil of slavery. He also had no problem recognizing the evil that had occured during and as a result of The Lincoln's unjust war. While not one of the people you accuse of being "neo-confederates" has ever indicated support for slavery or refused to consider slavery itself a wrong, you do seem incapable of acknowledging The Lincoln's war as anything other than good. If Spooner can readily identify the wrongs of that war and that government while maintaining his abolitionist principles, why can't others? And if a leading abolitionist such as Spooner can acknowledge the wrongs committed by The Lincoln, why can't you?
And I'm supposed to care about this man's opinion because...? As Americans we all have our own opinion and we vote and can discuss them. Mine agrees with Lincoln's: The South's secession was wrong and was rebellion and the slaves needed freeing and the country needed saving.
One would think with all the practice you've been getting in the construction of scarecrows that your finished products might become more refined. Yet that strawman is as sloppy as any.
You know as well as I do that I never said all taxes in themselves were wrong or had to go. I have gone out of my way to convey to you the distinction between a low, restricted, revenue-oriented tariff and an high, protective, redistributionary tariff. The former is a legitimate object of the government if it is conducted in a restrained manner, just as a low tax rate today would be tolerable and legitimate. The latter was a form of taxation in excess that was intolerable then just as an excessive redistributionist tax rate would be intolerable today.
But somehow the South's tariffs were pure as snow.
Compared to the yankee tariff that was four times as high, yes. It was.
LOL Would you support such a tariff now even though you hate tariffs?
I would support a low-level revenue tariff now in the place of an income tax and federal spending. I would not support a high-level protectionist tariff though.
So do you hate this tariff too?
I never said I hated low-level revenue tariffs and defy you to show otherwise. I did state my opposition to protectionist tariffs though and that is exactly what the north had. For some unknown reason though this distinction seems to be well beyond your comprehension abilities. But perhaps if I put it in simpler terms for your simple mind...
13% = low rate
40% = high rate
The South had 13%
The North had 40%
40% is bigger than 13%.
See the difference now?
But since they existed with Lincoln, he loved taxes although somehow Davis and Reagan didn't.
You are babbling incoherently now.
Your theories are falling apart in a hurry.
To know that would require that you first grasp my theories. To date all of them seem to be beyond your comprehension. Therefore I may safely say that you would not understand my theories if they were glued to your forehead. Accordingly you cannot legitimately claim to know whether they are falling apart.
Lincoln had a country to save.
Even if we accept that premise, it does not follow that he had a need to tax the country to death in order to enrich the protected northern industries.
So you said you hate taxes and tariffs
No, only abusive ones. Taxes in a restrained fashion are a legitimate function of government. They are often abused though and that is where they become problems.
but now you're saying their OK if they're not big?
If they're not too big and if they're used for legitimate functions of a government like defense etc.
So suddenly taxes and tariffs are good in your eyes?
No. Only certain taxes that are low, restrained, and without excess.
Things look so much different when you find out your side did them too, huh?
Not really, cause "my side" didn't have a 40% tariff schedule. Therefore "my side" did NOT "do them to."
It's pretty clear. The South loved the tariff when it first came out because they couldn't compete with Indian cotton at the time.
If that is true, why did every single southern congressman save one vote AGAINST the Morrill tariff on the first vote ever taken on it? I asked you that before and you avoided the issue.
So Lincoln's sole purpose in supporting tariffs was to make a few people rich?
In the form he supported them, basically. Yes. And that is what they did at the expense of the whole nation.
So now tariffs...good? LOL You've seemed to have changed your mind.
Not at all. Your strawman did change its mind though, just as you built it to do.
As does your imaginary Marxist cults does with Lincoln.
Marx was a real live person with a real live socialist club that followed him. Surely you do not think they were imaginary, do you?
LOL Why don't you link me to one of these cults anyway, so I can see for myself their praise for Lincoln.
Check out the World Socialist Website (a trotskyite marxist group). They've got a lengthy interview with marxist-sympathizing historian James McPherson on the subject.
More imaginary stuff from a neo-Confederate. You're having to make this up as we go, it's hilarious.
So now you are calling Karl Marx and his group of followers "imaginary" and made up? Nice try, but Marx and his group physically issued a proclamation congratulating The Lincoln on his reelection. It appears in his collected works series. I gave you a quote from it which you have yet to comprehend despite its simple and straitforward message.
I didn't see any of that in his quote.
Then you did not read the quote. He refers repeatedly to the "working men" and an era of the "working men." Since you are obviously of diminished mental capacity, I have attempted to make those as readily discernable as possible for you by bolding the applicable words and explaining them in great detail. Unfortunately comprehension is not your ally, meaning there is little more I can do for you.
Marx praised the founding fathers also.
Not really. He simply acknowledged that their revolution led to an age of the middle class, which, to him, was a step in the long progression toward communism.
No, I don't include imaginary words like you do.
Unfortunately for your case, the words you claim to be imaginary are as real as their author Karl Marx, who you also just claimed to be imaginary. That you have comprehension disabilities does not mean that something lacks existence beyond the impared scope of your mind. I've already shown you exactly where phrases about the "working men" etc. appear in that quote by bolding them yet even they do not make it through to you. The problem is obviously on your end.
If he wanted to say the founding father's and Lincoln's actions were great for communism, he would've said so.
With regard to The Lincoln's actions, he DID say so. When he says "a new era of ascendancy...for the working class," he means proletarian communism. When he says "the reconstruction of a social world" he means reconstructing it into communism. That is how Marx wrote. That is how Marx referred to communism. If you do not like it and do not like its implications about Abe Lincoln, tough.
It predicts the rise of Communism?!
Yes. It does very specifically in two places. It predicts "new era of ascendancy...for the working class," which in marxian terminology means proletarian communism. It also predicts the "reconstruction of a social world," which in marxian terminology means a social world of communism.
I hope you mispoke. I asked if you disagree that blacks should be paid for doing work and you just said "yes".
My apologies if I conveyed any such message as I percieved your statement to ask if I agreed with such sentiments, and I do agree in market-based compensation for the commodity of labor offered by any person.
He said working and middle classes.
So now you admit that he did say the working class? Then why all this nonsense of the past several lines in which you denied exactly that and accused me of imagining it? And for the record, his reference to the middle class was of a previous revolution. He did not say it of The Lincoln.
Why didn't he say so?
He DID say so. Use of the terms working class was his way of saying it. It was his way of saying it in the letter to The Lincoln just as it was his way of saying it in Das Kapital, the manifesto, and practically all of his communist advocacy writings.
First off, you are incorrect. In fact just the other day I posted a lengthy excerpt from St. Augustine's City of God about the sin of slavery and why it was such a great wrong. Second, even if I had not posted that excerpt about slavery's wrong, why should I have to keep posting over and over again what is painfully obvious to any sane individual? I suppose if you came along and started trying to justify slavery I would have a reason to argue against you over that. But seeing as you are not doing that, why should I bother reminding you every day that slavery was wrong?
Exactly, he was an abolitionist. Apparently slavery was a big enough deal to him that he is known as an abolitionist.
Yeah, and unlike you he had no problem recognizing the sins of The Lincoln and his armies. Nor did he have any problem outing them for those sins. You on the other hand seem to be incapable of admitting that The Lincoln did anything wrong and attack those of us who suggest otherwise.
At best, you're certainly not concerned with it too much.
If I were not concerned with it, why would I be posting one of the greatest philosophical attacks on slavery in all of human history?
I don't care what he said.
Obviously you do not care much about what anyone other than you says. You do not respect the words of historical figures as evidenced by your butchery and/or dismissal of their words when you do not like what they say. Nor do you respect the words of your peers on this forum. Instead you misrepresent them and construct straw men to resemble them as a means of avoiding their content.
It's one opinion out of 30 million at the time.
It is also a philosophical argument of merit from an individual of greater authority on the slavery issue than 99.999999% of those other 30 million at the time. This fact indicates that your dismissal of it is not based on its numerical status as an opinion relative to those around it, but rather on the fact that you do not like what it says.
And I'm supposed to care about this man's opinion because...?
For one, because it contradicts your implication that people who object to The Lincoln are slavery lovers by default. Beyond that, you would do good to pay attention to it because it came from a leading historical authority on the abolition of slavery, a topic you profess to abide by yourself. But since you are not interested in hearing anything but your own predetermined view of the conflict, I do not anticipate your interest in it will grow any. You might as well glue your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend that the world around you does not exist. And in all honesty, you do not appear to be far from that point as it is right now.
At minimum, both Walt and Non-Seq -try- to construct arguments. Those arguments are seldom very logical and many times fall short on facts, but at least they are attempts at reasoning. This new fellow seems to bounce all over the place though.
As evidenced by his recent reply, it seems that he believes in a radical dualism of tax policy: You must either love all taxes or hate all taxes. In this particular case he does not seem to be capable of distinguishing between good tax policies and bad tax policies. His only positions are that either the 13% confederate tariff was good and therefore the 40% yankee one was good also, or that the 40% yankee one was bad and therefore the 13% confederate one was bad as well. As far as argumentation goes, it simply makes no sense.
Oh well. I guess we've found a replacement jester on the Wlat brigade since that Llan-Ddeussant aka Titus Fikus aka all those other fake names got banned.
Where did I ever say anything to give you that impression?
If you look at the start of this thread, I said the same thing to several of you neo-Confederates. But instead of commenting on the subject of this thread, you were simply disrupting.
You are clearly the disruptor, running around spewing your hatemongering racist allegations. I pissed you off by exposing your buddy wlat's hatred of the US Constitution, that's your beef with me.
ME:
There you go again with your knee-jerk hatemongering and lies, insinuating I am a racist again. I am not, but you ARE a damned hatemonger, and it's plain for all to see.
Your specific response that statement:
I notice that you are not denying anything I've said.
LOL - Dumbass, look at the statement you're responding to. I most certainly have denied what you've said. LOL, you're an idiot, in addition to being a hatemongering racebaiter.
Is a few more decades of slavery acceptable to you with a Southern win?
If it resulted in better race relations after emancipation than what was created by the Northern carpetbaggers during reconstruction.
me in a previous response:
"to think like THIS", A freudian slip, it seems, as you are clearly describing your own thoughts. Yes, it takes a callous mind to think like you do, it does indeed. Take your hatemongering to stormfront, or DU where it belongs.
your response to that:
Would a few more decades of slavery be acceptable to you with a Southern win?
Racebaiter. This question does not relate to my statement that you are specifically responding to, it is only more proof of your racebaiting.
It has everything to do with it. The Declarations of Secession say so.
We were specifically discussing the US Constitution, you are diverting the topic again, with no absolutely no other purpose than to racebait and call people racists. You repeatedly do that, no matter what the real subject is.
Your feelings on slavery are clear.
Yes, I said I thought it wrong. That makes my feelings the same as Lincoln's, dumbass.
You have some kind of theory of the "end of the Constitution" that you think as the biggest event of the 1860s, and even that is made up, like most of everything you neo-Confederates believe
Most Constitutional historians and legal scholars would laugh in your face over that statement. As the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "The union survived the Civil War, but the Constitution did not."
So you put more emphasis on a made up grievance than two things that really happened: secession to perpetuate slavery and the saving of America.
There you go again you racebaiting hatemonger. My question to you was about that "made up gievance" as you called it, not secession, slavery, horsefeathers or pie recipes either. By the way, little miss hatemonger, Thurgood Marshall the Black Supreme Court Justice agrees with ME in regards to that "made up grievance" (the issue at hand), so you must think he was a racist too, which, like most of what you have posted, clearly exposes you as a racebaiting hatemonger.
Me:
Just look at and follow your ignorant racebaiting non-sequitur. The slavery amendment was NOT what killed the Constitution's power. That was only one of many amendments, it was the 13th one. If an amendment kills the Constitution, then it should have been dead twelve times before that one. You are actually trying to say that ending slavery is what zapped the Constitution, which is STUPID. You are just twisting things to try and connect RACE back into something that had NOTHING to do with race.
your response:
Secession had everything to do with race, all the Declarations of Secession say so. For you to deny this is to deny reality.
You have definitely lost all touch with reality. The issue was not secession or the declarations of secession, it was the Constitution. It was not even what the 13th or any other amendment were about. It was about the Constitution, and the fact that our Constitutional form of Government was changed forever. Now you respond to my having clearly exposed your racebaiting diversion by posting another racebaiting diversion. You are more of a hatemongering racebaiter than I had realised.
There was rebellion. The president is authorized to preserve the Constitution and is Commander in Chief. The Constitution is preserved by preserving America.
LOL - That's doublespeak. You sound like a character in a George Orwell novell.
Why is it that you're so offended that you and Lincoln have different ideas of Constitutional powers, but you can't see the wrongness in secession to perpetuate slavery.
You did it again, you diverted the topic to your racebaiting crap. You can't discuss Constitutional issues, or any other issues, so you just divert the topic and spew your racebaiting hatemongering crap. No matter what the point is, you divert and spew. Back to the topic, it's not a question about 'differnt' ideas of Constitutional powers, its about what the Constitution clearly says regarding the separation of powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.