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 ...
Poll numbers...is he still running for office?
The liberals have now adopted a new strategy to say "OK, OK, we now agree that Lincoln was great but he was really a liberal".
That strategy is not new at all. Liberals have loved The Lincoln since his days in the white house starting with Karl Marx.
Anyone who disagrees with Lincoln's actions in preserving the union and ending slavery has some serious fundamental differences with the Republican Party now and historically.
Lysander Spooner disagreed with The Lincoln's actions, and he was one of history's greatest abolitionists. Does that make him a "neo-confederate" too?
Much to the contrary. Several posts back you made a detour on your own over to the barn. You've been building creatures out of hay ever since.
In post #21 You said Lincoln was like Wellstone because he like taxes. I assumed that meant you were against them.
You assume too much. I am and always have been against abusive, high rate taxes. When I say that The Lincoln and Wellstone liked taxes, I say so in the sense that they had an excessive political attraction to them as a means of enacting their policy agendas. Such is often the case with people of the left.
I assumed you meant all taxes when you implied you were against them.
That seems to be the root of your problem them. You made an illogical assumption without first verifying it.
You neo-Confederates like to bring up the word "banned" a lot too. Don't like dissent, huh?
Titus Fikus aka Llan Dduessant aka all those other things got banned for preaching marxism and anti-semitism here. If he wishes to preach those repulsive ideas to persons that listen, I cannot stop him. But there is no reason that he should have the right to use freerepublic to do it, and for that reason he was banned. Do you believe that this was the wrong course of action for FR to take?
Your elusion to the opinion of Curtis in this matter, while interesting, holds about as much wait as Jerry Springer today. Jerry Springer served his country as mayor and "resigned to the private sector" to "continue his work", much like your Curtis.
While you may consider the opinion of someone in the private sector binding, I sir, consider such opinions tersheary to the opinions of those both with the power and responsibility to govern.
Curtis = Peanut Galery
Sin itself is never "OK" and should be opposed, even when that sin is legal. But sin is also inescapable and in this present world and government it exists with great frequency. It is therefore up to all moral people to oppose that sin and work toward its elimination, but not by sinning themselves in return to that initial sin. In the case of slavery, a moral obligation existed to oppose that sin and work toward peaceful abolition. Abolition by means of violence, murder, and warfare was itself sinful and therefore not a moral alternative.
Why don't you recognize that the Declarations state clearly that slavery was the reason for secession? I've never seen any of you do that.
You must not read my posts then. When those declarations are the issue of discussion - there were a total of four of them, by the way - I have not once attempted to deny that slavery was cited as a major cause. I have commented previously that those declarations cannot reasonably be said to speak for the entire south nor were they the only cited cause of the war. In fact, they are the only documents out of the formal secession documents to cite slavery as a primary cause. That includes in entirity those 4 legislative declarations, 11 secession ordinances, 2 rump convention ordinances, and 2 territorial ordinances, and several treaties among the indian tribes.
Lincoln did nothing wrong.
He sinned in warfare and the waging of that warfare. So yes. He did something wrong. You are free to agree with the course of action he took, but to assert that he conducted himself on that course without fallability is a lie. It also wreaks of idolatry as it falsely extends an attribute of divinity to a flawed and sinful human being.
He is Commander in Chief and protector of the Constitution.
So he may have been. But he also violated that Constitution by suspending habeas corpus, dividing Virginia into a new state, violating the civil liberties of the bill of rights among civilians, violating the authority of the judiciary, and assuming powers beyond the scope of his office. You are free to argue that he was correct in doing this just as I am free to argue to the contrary, but that he acted in such a manner cannot be denied or excused away.
Why won't you admit secession was for slavery like the Declarations of Secession say?
Because those four declarations were but a small fraction of the stated reasons for secession, both in formal legislative documents and informally in speeches and newspaper editorials. Due to this fact it would be fallacy and dishonesty to assert that the entirity of the southern cause was for the sole purpose of slavery and no other. Slavery may legitimately be cited as a cause, but to assert it alone at the neglect of all others is to lie, and lying is a sin.
Spooner wasn't president, he was a man with an opinion.
He was also a leading figure in the abolitionist movement and an individual of great historical importance to the cause of abolition. To profess an understanding or advocacy of that movement without regard to its chief participants such as Spooner and Garrison is to offer an inherently incomplete and therefore skewed accounting of it as a movement.
You're right that I don't put too much in any one man's opinion, especially a man who was inconsequencial like Spooner.
Your tactics are becoming all the more sloppy. To discuss abolitionism while dismissing Spooner is akin to discussing the American Revolution while dismissing Jefferson. Both were central philosophical minds of their respective movements. It is therefore impossible to fully understand either movement without these individuals.
I get my opinions from the bible and myself
That is nice, but still it is no grounds to dismiss something of historical importance as "inconsequential" simply because you do not like what it says or implies about your previously decided historical interpretation of that same event. History is not a Luby's Cafeteria where you pick and choose what flavor Jello you get whiling leaving the rest behind.
What they say disagrees with the bible.
So Spooner's indictment of the union, in which he assails them for claiming victory over a sin when they achieved that victory by sinning themselves, is in conflict with the bible? And I suppose that St. Augustine, who also stated that to sin for the purpose of ending the sin of slavery was itself a wrong, is in conflict with the bible as well? If you truly believe that, I can only say that your concept of theology is a heretical perversion of Christianity in which a somewhat just result may be used to justify untold horrors, moral wrongs, and rampant sinfulness so long as each is used as a means to achieving that end.
America is God's country, prophesy says so.
Many nations have claimed themselves to be God's country, and many humans have claimed to be God's chosen ruler over this world. They all rise and fall with history. You should pay attention in particular to what your bible says of this in John 18:36. Jesus spoke in that passage:
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
You may certainly believe that it is with providence that America exists and is guided, but to claim America as the kingdom of the one true God is itself a falsehood.
Because you make up stuff. You add stuff.
Every accusation you have made of such to date has proven false. You claimed that Marx's words did not contain the very phrases I noted them to contain even though it was evident that they did to any sane reader of that quote. Nor is it a valid excuse for the construction of straw men to accuse another of "making stuff up." You built scarecrows to joust with and got caught. It is that simple.
Why can't you be like Walt and just stick to the truth
Walt would not recognize the truth if it were glued to his forehead. That he peddles falsehoods and offers a view that is only what he desires to see has been demonstrated many times here and elsewhere. You need only read one of the many threads where he has been taken to task to see an example first hand.
At least I don't add words to historical quotes like you do.
Every word you accuse me of adding to historical quotes is there. This has been shown to be so time and time again. The words I stated to be there were "workingmen" and "working class," Marx's terms for the proletariat of his revolution. You denied this yet they are there. I also stated that Marx described a "new era of ascendancy...for the working class" - a phrase he used to describe the proletarian revolution of his communist philosophy. You denied this yet it is there. I then stated that Marx predicted the "reconstruction of the social order" - a prediction of communism. You denied this yet it is also there.
It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that either you did not read the quote or you are lying about its contents when you claim that I added those words.
I stick with truth
That is a desirable goal, but it is one you have also failed to reach by a considerable margin. This is evident in your denial of the words I quoted directly from Marx's statement when they are readily evident for any reader.
and I spend hours a week working on improving my discernment.
I can only say keep working. You have quite a distance to go.
Your attempt at an analogy is itself fraudulent. Curtis' expertise and career was as a jurist. It is therefore valid to cite him as a judicial authority on matters of judicial weight - just as much so as it is to cite Rehnquist, or Marshall, or Taney. Now with regard to Springer, I suppose it would be legitimate to cite him as an authority on the government of Cincinnatti, or perhaps on the cooking rituals of lesbian biker vegan goths from trailer parks. But citing him as an authority on the Constitution would be fallacy. Citing Curtis, or Marshall, or Taney, or Story, or Rehnquist on the Constitution however would not be so. Therefore your analogy is false.
He's now ranked as the best president in polls.
That strategy is not new at all. Liberals have loved The Lincoln since his days in the white house starting with Karl Marx.
Marx praised the founding fathers too. Look in FR archives and you'll see that there was a big liberal attack on Lincoln a couple years ago from Spielgberg et al.
Lysander Spooner disagreed with The Lincoln's actions, and he was one of history's greatest abolitionists. Does that make him a "neo-confederate" too?
Do you know the meaning of the prefix "neo"?
With what subject?
You assume too much. I am and always have been against abusive, high rate taxes. When I say that The Lincoln and Wellstone liked taxes, I say so in the sense that they had an excessive political attraction to them as a means of enacting their policy agendas. Such is often the case with people of the left.
Lincoln had a country to save.
That seems to be the root of your problem them. You made an illogical assumption without first verifying it.
Instead of saying "taxes", you should've been more specific.
Titus Fikus aka Llan Dduessant aka all those other things got banned for preaching marxism and anti-semitism here. If he wishes to preach those repulsive ideas to persons that listen, I cannot stop him. But there is no reason that he should have the right to use freerepublic to do it, and for that reason he was banned. Do you believe that this was the wrong course of action for FR to take?
I've never heard of the guy. What was the reason for bringing him up? You neo-Confederates seem to want dissent banned because you bring up nanishment a lot.
Though that line is often offered by labor unions and industrialists to achieve protection for their industries, it is an economically illegitimate argument. It is a matter of economic fact and mathematical proof that protective tariffs do more to diminish the economic welfare of a country as a whole than any economic gain in the protected industry to be achieved from it. This is so because the tariff removes a segment of the consumer surplus, but only a portion of that segment is returned to the economy by way of the protected industry in the consumer surplus. The remainder is split between government revenues from the tariff (which tend to be wasted since government expenditures are less efficient than market expenditures of the same ammount), and two segments of dead weight loss - meaning it is removed from the economy and lost entirely.
The South put all their marbles on slavery and it put them behind industrially and after getting off the ground
Actually the south placed its marbles in agriculture. In some aspects of that agriculture, namely the large plantantions, slavery was the dominant method of labor and, in being so, was a sinful moral blight on that labor market. But slavery was not the reason for the southern economy - it was an attribute of portions of that economy. The southern economy developed not out of some planned conspiracy but like any economy develops - out of the market areas in which its strengths exist. Resource wise, the southern portion of the nation was and still is prime for certain types of agricultural production. Because agriculture happened to be its resource and because the south had comparitive advantages in the agricultural market, its economy developed around agriculture and the export of agricultural goods. In a similar manner, regions that are endowed with other resources, such as a large coal deposit, will tend to develop economies that best employ those resources. In 1860, the north was relatively well endowed with resources that offered it comparative advantages in industrialization.
It went from tariff=good to tariff=bad in a few decades for the South.
The south consistently opposed protective tariffs in the national government for at least four decades prior to the war. The change you speak of is simply not there.
So you believe Bush was wrong in protecting the vital war industry of steel from foreign dumping?
Yes. I do. I also agree with Milton Friedman that we should be sending letters of thanks to countries who are percieved to engage in the act so-called as "dumping." The laws of economics backed by mathematical proof indicate that as a country we in fact benefit when other countries do this.
The reason the South had no industrial base to protect was because they laid their marbles on slavery. Their mistake.
First off, you are incorrect on that assertion. They laid their marbles in agriculture. An attribute of the cash crop portion of that agricultural market was plantation slavery. As I have noted, that slavery was a sinful blight. But it was not the southern economy any more than labor unions today are the northern economy. Second, the south's agricultural economy was anything but a mistake. It was an efficient use of the south's natural resources of climate, soil, and land that developed as such by way of the market. Under capitalism, steel refineries tend to develop in countries and regions where there is steel. Just the same, agriculture tends to develop where there is land and climate to provide optimal conditions for that agriculture.
It is no accident that corn is grown on the great plains. It is no accident that oil is refined in Texas. It is no accident that coal is mined and processed in upper appalachia. It is no accident that fishing occurs off the new england coast. It is no accident that shipbuilding occurs on major waterways and in deep sea ports. The market leads to these specializations because each of these geographic regions has comparative advantages toward that particular industry or economic sector.
He didn't tax us to death, we beat the South.
Your assertion is a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Economic studies of the war indicate that the protectionist Morrill tariff severely hurt the northern economy. This was noticed within a year of its adoption as trade with Europe declined to virtually nothing of its previous free trade levels. Unemployment and economic harship struck several northern industries as a result, just as the ceasing of trade in the south due to the blockade produced devastation there. The north was still endowed with resources of manpower and military production though and was accordingly able to eventually win. The fact that its win followed the tariff on the timeline says nothing of the tariff being the cause of that win any more than eating sandwich yesterday would cause you to win the lottery today, though the latter event would follow the former.
Was the North's tariffs all Lincoln's idea or was Congress involved in passing them?
It was a collaborative effort of the 1860 Republican platform. Northerners in Congress passed the Morrill tariff in two steps. The House passed it in May 1860 and the Senate passed it a few days before Lincoln's inauguration. They did so with Lincoln's backing as Lincoln advocated a tariff hike in his campaign. He also told an audience before his inauguration that if the bill was not through the senate by the end of the session he would make it a top legislative priority to pass it.
Was was the level of the tariff before Lincoln took office?
The average tariff rate, which had been adopted in a tax cut in 1857, was about 18% prior to the Morrill bill. At the time that rate was considered very pro-free trade on a world scale. The Morrill tariff immediately doubled that average rate for 1862 and then hiked it to almost 50% by the last two years of the war.
Or winning a war?
They weren't used for winning the war because they were not revenue tariffs. They were protectionist tariffs. Theoretically, had Lincoln wanted to raise revenues for the war, he could have pushed through a modest tariff hike of a couple percentages. This action would have retained most of the country's trade while bringing in greater revenue. But the hike that they adopted was massive and protectionist. It resulted in wiping out trade with Europe almost entirely.
To use a modern analogy, if the government today had a flat income tax rate of 15% and needed more revenue, it could probably raise it to 18% and achieve that end. But if it raised the rate to 75%, revenue would disapear because the tax itself would discourage the reciept of income and people would stop working as much. The same thing happens in a tariff-based tax system when tariffs are raised so high that they severely discourage and inhibit trade.
That tariff was in 1861, wasn't it?
It was passed in two stages. The House adopted it in May 1860. The Senate adopted it in February 1861. So the debate on it was waged from spring of 1860 to the end of the 1861 winter, a period encompassing the same time secession occurred.
I said the South liked tariffs decades earlier when they had to compete with Indian cotton.
My question then is how many decades earlier? Cause the south consistently pushed for free trade from the 1820's until the war. In fact, South Carolina almost seceded in the early 1830's after the yankees passed a high tariff.
You're making things up. Tariffs went up and down for decades prior to 1861.
Not really. There was a consistent downward trend in tariffs toward free trade from 1846 to 1860. The north pushed through a tax hike in 1860-61. Prior to 1846, tariffs fluctuated more with the south consistently opposing the high rates dating back to the 1820's.
Their purpose was to get American industry off the ground
As I noted previously, that claim is an illegitimate argument that is economically unsupportable and in fact directly contradicted by mathematical analysis of trade and tariffs. This has been known since David Ricardo developed the modern economic study of trade and tariffs in the 1810's. The southern congressional delegation also emphasized it at length in detailed analyses before Congress dating up to the eve of the war.
and to finance the government.
Protective tariffs do not function well in financing the government because they discourage the very same action upon which that revenue is dependent - imports.
Marx also praised the founding fathers.
No, not really. In his quote he only attributes to them a revolution of the middle class, which was but a stage in his view of history before communism would be achieved. Marx disliked that middle class and denounced it throughout his writings.
Marxist "sympathizer"? Is that the clsoest you can get? LOL
By political affiliation, McPherson comes from the far left wing of the modern Democrat party. That wing sympathizes heavily with marxist groups, though it is still Democrat in political affiliation.
LOL You have to change the meaning of words to get what you want out of Marx' quote.
Much to the contrary, and in fact it appears that you are doing exactly what you speak of yourself. You claim Marx's quote was an innocent item of praise for worker's rights. Yet it is a simple fact of Marx's writing that he used the terms "working class" to denote proletarian revolutionary concepts - meaning communism. Just the same without knowing the context, one could declare the statement "workers of the world unite" to be an innocent call for workers to unite together and petition for better factory conditions. But since that quote came from Marx, we know better than to assume such a naive and historically incorrect reading of it. We know that when he said "workers of the world unite" he was urging them to carry through a communist revolution.
LOL I knew you would rationalize away that even though Marx praised the founding fathers that he didn't really mean it.
Show me the praise then. It is historical fact that Marx disliked the middle class. It is also historical fact that he saw a transition from the elite to the middle class to be a non-permanent stage in history before his desire of communism was to be achieved. His statement in the quote I provided does nothing more than to identify that the american revolution brought about a stage of the middle class. It does not praise that stage or the middle class as Marx despised them. It simply notes that the stage happened, and Marx believed that would occur before the stage of the workers and communism.
Working men is working men.
Yeah. And the "proletariat" is by definition in Marx's writings the "working men." They are interchangable. What do you think Marx was talking about when he advocated the ascendency of the proletariat? The answer is communism.
Now, if proletariat = working men, as was the case for Marx, how is advocating the ascendency of the working men any different from advocating the ascendency of the proletariat? Other than the obvious synonym, there is no difference what so ever. That is not "making things up," as you assert. That is reading Marx in context and understanding his concepts of various word choices. Or do you think his famous call for the workers of the world to unite was an innocent piece of advice for them to negotiate with the management for better factory conditions?
And breaking up God's country to perpetuate slavery is especially wrong.
You must not read my posts then. When those declarations are the issue of discussion - there were a total of four of them, by the way - I have not once attempted to deny that slavery was cited as a major cause. I have commented previously that those declarations cannot reasonably be said to speak for the entire south nor were they the only cited cause of the war.
They were the official declarations endorsed by the legislatures. If anyone would've disagreed with them, they could've declared their own.
In fact, they are the only documents out of the formal secession documents to cite slavery as a primary cause. That includes in entirity those 4 legislative declarations, 11 secession ordinances, 2 rump convention ordinances, and 2 territorial ordinances, and several treaties among the indian tribes.
The others were simple ordinances. A stop sign doesn't list the reasons to stop, it just says "stop". That's what an ordinance is, a simple statement of a legal act.
He sinned in warfare and the waging of that warfare. So yes. He did something wrong. You are free to agree with the course of action he took, but to assert that he conducted himself on that course without fallability is a lie. It also wreaks of idolatry as it falsely extends an attribute of divinity to a flawed and sinful human being.
Of course he sinned like everyone, but his actions in defeating the Confederacy were not legally wrong.
So he may have been. But he also violated that Constitution by suspending habeas corpus,...
The Constitution only forbids the Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus except in certain cases.
...dividing Virginia into a new state,...
This was all Lincoln's doings?
...violating the civil liberties of the bill of rights among civilians,...
There was rebellion and therefore it was legal to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.
...violating the authority of the judiciary,...
There was rebellion and the Constitution requires the president to protect it.
...and assuming powers beyond the scope of his office.
The Constitution gives the president the power to protect it.
You are free to argue that he was correct in doing this just as I am free to argue to the contrary, but that he acted in such a manner cannot be denied or excused away.
The Constiutution gives him the power to protect it.
Because those four declarations were but a small fraction of the stated reasons for secession, both in formal legislative documents and informally in speeches and newspaper editorials.
Newspapers? Come on! If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
Due to this fact it would be fallacy and dishonesty to assert that the entirity of the southern cause was for the sole purpose of slavery and no other.
If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
Slavery may legitimately be cited as a cause, but to assert it alone at the neglect of all others is to lie, and lying is a sin.
The Declarations of Secession say slavery was the reason for secession.
He was also a leading figure in the abolitionist movement and an individual of great historical importance to the cause of abolition. To profess an understanding or advocacy of that movement without regard to its chief participants such as Spooner and Garrison is to offer an inherently incomplete and therefore skewed accounting of it as a movement.
Profess an understanding? LOL All I've said is that it was wrong for the South to secede for slavery.
Your tactics are becoming all the more sloppy. To discuss abolitionism while dismissing Spooner is akin to discussing the American Revolution while dismissing Jefferson. Both were central philosophical minds of their respective movements. It is therefore impossible to fully understand either movement without these individuals.
Boloney. The South seceded for slavery. They were wrong and deserved to be beaten. Individual opinions of the time notwithstanding.
That is nice, but still it is no grounds to dismiss something of historical importance as "inconsequential" simply because you do not like what it says or implies about your previously decided historical interpretation of that same event. History is not a Luby's Cafeteria where you pick and choose what flavor Jello you get whiling leaving the rest behind.
But Spooner wasn't president nor did he push secession so his role is inconsequencial.
So Spooner's indictment of the union, in which he assails them for claiming victory over a sin when they achieved that victory by sinning themselves, is in conflict with the bible?
He's wrong.
And I suppose that St. Augustine, who also stated that to sin for the purpose of ending the sin of slavery was itself a wrong, is in conflict with the bible as well? If you truly believe that, I can only say that your concept of theology is a heretical perversion of Christianity in which a somewhat just result may be used to justify untold horrors, moral wrongs, and rampant sinfulness so long as each is used as a means to achieving that end.
LOL You making things up again. Slavery is wrong and to break up the country for slavery is wrong. The North responded to attacks on it's property and beat the South. Anything else is just noise meant to confuse.
Many nations have claimed themselves to be God's country, and many humans have claimed to be God's chosen ruler over this world. They all rise and fall with history. You should pay attention in particular to what your bible says of this in John 18:36. Jesus spoke in that passage: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." You may certainly believe that it is with providence that America exists and is guided, but to claim America as the kingdom of the one true God is itself a falsehood.
I didn't say that America is Jesus' kingdom, I said it's God's current country for Israel as prophecy says.
Every accusation you have made of such to date has proven false. You claimed that Marx's words did not contain the very phrases I noted them to contain even though it was evident that they did to any sane reader of that quote.
You added words. You made stuff up.
Nor is it a valid excuse for the construction of straw men to accuse another of "making stuff up." You built scarecrows to joust with and got caught. It is that simple.
Got caught? You made stuff up with Marx' quote adding words that aren't there. Simple really.
Walt would not recognize the truth if it were glued to his forehead. That he peddles falsehoods and offers a view that is only what he desires to see has been demonstrated many times here and elsewhere.
Walt simply uses real quotes from real people. How could it be false?
You need only read one of the many threads where he has been taken to task to see an example first hand.
I've yet to see one of these threads, I guess. LOL
Every word you accuse me of adding to historical quotes is there.
You added stuff to Marx' quotes in your explanations.
This has been shown to be so time and time again. The words I stated to be there were "workingmen" and "working class," Marx's terms for the proletariat of his revolution.
You did it again. Marx did not say these words, he said "working men" and "middle class". You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do.
You denied this yet they are there.
I deny that "communism", proletariate", and every other word you made up were there.
I also stated that Marx described a "new era of ascendancy...for the working class" - a phrase he used to describe the proletarian revolution of his communist philosophy.
You did it again. Adding words. "Working class" means "working class", you have to make stuff up to make a point.
You denied this yet it is there. I then stated that Marx predicted the "reconstruction of the social order" - a prediction of communism. You denied this yet it is also there.
You did it again. Marx did not mention "communism", but you say his words say he did. You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do.
It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that either you did not read the quote or you are lying about its contents when you claim that I added those words.
Marx did not say "communism", or "proletariate" in his quote. You added them. You made it up.
That is a desirable goal,...
One you obviously are having a hard time achieving.
...but it is one you have also failed to reach by a considerable margin. This is evident in your denial of the words I quoted directly from Marx's statement when they are readily evident for any reader.
Marx did not say "communism" or "proletariate". They're just not in his quote. They are two words you threw in. You made them up because truth is not on your side and you have to spruce the truth up to make a point.
I can only say keep working. You have quite a distance to go.
At least I don't add words to people's quotes. LOL
Absolutely. It is for reasons such as these that Lysander Spooner, the great legal philosopher of the abolitionists, denounced their claims to have abolished slavery and saved the union as a "sham" and a "fraud." The abolition of slavery that Spooner spent his life seeking was attained after the war. Yet he denounced it because it was so sinfully achieved and by such tyrannical means. That speaks volumes about those who claim The Lincoln was a morally guided emancipator and friend of liberty.
On what grounds do you claim that this is God's country? He said in rather explicit terms that his kingdom was not of this world.
They were the official declarations endorsed by the legislatures.
No they weren't. They were documents of interest explaining the motives of some, but not one of them had any legal statutory meaning to it. They were legislative resolutions adopted separately from the secession ordinances by the respective conventions of 4 states to assert some of the positions of those conventions.
The others were simple ordinances.
Not all of them. Some detail grievances about the abusive strength of the federal government. The territorial ones cite different causes entirely, such as the failure to provide frontier protection and mail services in the far west.
Of course he sinned like everyone, but his actions in defeating the Confederacy were not legally wrong.
The action of dividing Virginia was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Suspending habeas corpus was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Usurping and ignoring the judicial authority was legally wrong - it violated the constitution. Disregarding the civil liberties of citizens was legally wrong - it violated the bill of rights.
The Constitution only forbids the Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus except in certain cases.
To the contrary. The Constitution only permits the suspension of habeas corpus in certain cases. The clause permitting that suspension is granted as a power only to the legislature. The founding fathers were in unanimous agreement on this. So was every court ruling on the issue. So were the most prominent legal scholars of the early 19th century.
This was all Lincoln's doings?
He facilitated it and permitted it.
There was rebellion and therefore it was legal to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.
No it wasn't. Only Congress can do that under the constitution.
There was rebellion and the Constitution requires the president to protect it.
Rebellion or not, the President's actions are governed and checked by the authority of the judicial system under the Constitution. When that judicial system ruled against The Lincoln, he disregarded it. In any other time he would have been impeached with good cause.
The Constitution gives the president the power to protect it.
But not the power to destroy it. Do you not realize the implications of your own argument? If an idividual takes actions in conflict with the Constitution in order to "protect it" from what he percieves to be destruction by others, he has in effect done for himself exactly what he set out to prevent among others.
Newspapers? Come on!
Yeah. Newspapers. They are among the most detailed sources of historical information available to us.
If any state disagreed with the Declarations of Secession, they could've issued their own.
...or perhaps their leaders could have listed their own reasons (as they did in many states), or perhaps they could have listed those reasons in their secession ordinances (as they did in some states), or perhaps they could have adopted resolutions locally in cities, towns, and counties (as they did in some states).
Profess an understanding?
Your implication is exactly that when you act to dismiss something you disagree with in the historical record of documents.
But Spooner wasn't president nor did he push secession so his role is inconsequencial.
He did push abolition though and abolition was part of the political dialogue. Therefore he was not inconsequencial.
He's wrong.
Simply saying that does not make it so. Since you dismissed Spooner without offering any consideration whatsoever to his arguments, you cannot legitimately claim to have demonstrated the error you ascribe to him. I may therefore dismiss your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
LOL You making things up again.
Not at all. I am referencing theological and philosophical concepts that conflict with your assertions and asking you to explain or reconcile those conflicts. To date you have avoided doing so.
Slavery is wrong and to break up the country for slavery is wrong. The North responded to attacks on it's property and beat the South.
So you believe that sinful actions to achieve a percieved good end are justified by that end? I ask because if so, you are asserting a doctrine in conflict with Christian ethics.
I didn't say that America is Jesus' kingdom, I said it's God's current country for Israel as prophecy says.
And you know this exactly how? Lots of countries have claimed themselves to be the current Israel, and lots have claimed that this is a matter of prophecy. Yet they have all fallen at some time or another.
You added words. You made stuff up. Got caught?
Yeah. You got caught building straw men. I'm sorry if you do not like it but that is not of my concern.
You made stuff up with Marx' quote adding words that aren't there.
You have claimed this many times yet not once have you made a sound case. In fact the only case you attempted was itself fraudulent, as the words you claimed not to exist were all shown to be present. Therefore I may reject your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Walt simply uses real quotes from real people. How could it be false?
When those quotes themselves assert falsehoods as is regularly the case.
You added stuff to Marx' quotes in your explanations.
Not in the least. When Marx called for the working men of the world to unite, it goes without saying that he was calling for a communist revolution. Why then is it so hard for you to understand that he was speaking of the same thing when he wrote about the working men ascending and the reconstruction of the social world?
This has been shown to be so time and time again. The words I stated to be there were "workingmen" and "working class," Marx's terms for the proletariat of his revolution. - ME
You did it again. Marx did not say these words, he said "working men" and "middle class". You make stuff up like all neo-Confederates do. - YOU
It is on things like this that I base my case for your diminished mental capacity. Here is the quote. The words are in bold:
"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world"
It's all there in bold for any sane person to read. If you still deny this you are either blind or lying.
I deny that "communism", proletariate", and every other word you made up were there.
I never said that the words "communism" or "proletariat" were stated by Marx. I did however say that he was speaking of communism and proletariats and that is an indisputable fact. "Working class" = proletariat to Marx. He used them interchangably. When he said ascendency of the proletariats, he meant communism. When he said ascendency of the working class, as was the case in this quote, he meant the exact same thing. Exactly what is so hard about that concept to make it beyond your grasp?
At least I don't add words to people's quotes.
No. You simply deny that they are there when you don't like what the quote says.
Check out his latest little charade on Karl Marx. The guy seems to seriously believe that when Marx spoke of the "an era of ascendency..for the working class" and the "reconstruction of the social world" he was making a compassionate plea for better working conditions.
On a similar note, I suppose he believes that "workers of the world, unite!" was a call by Marx for all the factory workers to take a day off for a casual day of picnicking and games at the park. Surely Marx couldn't have been saying "go launch a communist revolution," could he? And surely that "era of ascendency...for the working class" he was talking about couldn't have been an era of communism, could it? At least not in the foreign mental universe of #3fan's disconnected mind...
You're not Paul Harvey. The convention REFUSED to consider that the people of the united states were one common mass of people. End of story.
'[S]o firmly am I persuaded that the American people can no longer enjoy the blessings of a free government, whenever the state sovereignties shall be prostrated at the feet of the general government, nor the proud consciousness of equality and security, any longer than the independence of judicial power shall be maintained, consecrated and intangible, that I could borrow the language of a celebrated orator, and exclaim, "I rejoice that Virginia has resisted."'
Justice Story, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, (1816).
Given that 9 of the 13 existing states could join together and form a new government, the Committe of Detail changed the wording of the Preamble to omits the names of all 13 stats, and instead simply say "we the people of the united states" [as in the states that chose to unite, not the name of a country]. Otherwise the founders would have had to list the 715 combinations of names.
I can list numerous cases to refute your insane postings, but I don't need to - the founders refuted it themselves!
So why would you try and mislead people so blatantly?
The facts speak otherwise, the lies come from you - not me.
The neo-reb rant can only be sustained by lies and half truths.
Again, besides your continued practice of hurling insults when you fail to otherwise support your position, the lies posted are by you.
It's pretty obvious that, your disinformation tactics notwithstanding, that the people -have- maintained the Union.
You're delusional and pathetic. The "people" of the Confederacy left legally, the Lincoln then invaded to collect the revenues.
I agree. But when the country was new special steps had to be taken since we were a weak country industrailly. Tariffs were probably OK. The South liked them too at first.
It is a matter of economic fact and mathematical proof that protective tariffs do more to diminish the economic welfare of a country as a whole than any economic gain in the protected industry to be achieved from it. This is so because the tariff removes a segment of the consumer surplus, but only a portion of that segment is returned to the economy by way of the protected industry in the consumer surplus. The remainder is split between government revenues from the tariff (which tend to be wasted since government expenditures are less efficient than market expenditures of the same ammount), and two segments of dead weight loss - meaning it is removed from the economy and lost entirely.
I agree. But when a nation attempts to dump a prduct like steel that is needed in war to wipe out the competition, we have have to play smart and not allow this to happen in case there is war. Do you disagree wity Bush's protection of our steel, or should we have let our steel industry die by foreign dumping?
Actually the south placed its marbles in agriculture.
Which used a mainly slave force.
In some aspects of that agriculture, namely the large plantantions, slavery was the dominant method of labor and, in being so, was a sinful moral blight on that labor market. But slavery was not the reason for the southern economy - it was an attribute of portions of that economy. The southern economy developed not out of some planned conspiracy but like any economy develops - out of the market areas in which its strengths exist. Resource wise, the southern portion of the nation was and still is prime for certain types of agricultural production. Because agriculture happened to be its resource and because the south had comparitive advantages in the agricultural market, its economy developed around agriculture and the export of agricultural goods. In a similar manner, regions that are endowed with other resources, such as a large coal deposit, will tend to develop economies that best employ those resources. In 1860, the north was relatively well endowed with resources that offered it comparative advantages in industrialization.
Indiana and Illinois has some of the best farmland in America and yet Chicago industrialized nicely. Slavery held the South down to the point where they got behind and started to go against tariffs. There were some that pleaded with the South to get rid of slavery so they could catch up industrially and so the tariffs wouldn't bite them, but unfortunately, southern plantation owners just wouldn't listen. They liked their free money too much.
The south consistently opposed protective tariffs in the national government for at least four decades prior to the war. The change you speak of is simply not there.
They never faced competition from Indian cotton?
Yes. I do. I also agree with Milton Friedman that we should be sending letters of thanks to countries who are percieved to engage in the act so-called as "dumping." The laws of economics backed by mathematical proof indicate that as a country we in fact benefit when other countries do this.
Yes overall. But we cannot let our steel industry die. We may need it in war.
First off, you are incorrect on that assertion. They laid their marbles in agriculture.
Illinois had both industry and agriculture. Why couldn't the South do the same?
An attribute of the cash crop portion of that agricultural market was plantation slavery. As I have noted, that slavery was a sinful blight. But it was not the southern economy any more than labor unions today are the northern economy. Second, the south's agricultural economy was anything but a mistake. It was an efficient use of the south's natural resources of climate, soil, and land that developed as such by way of the market. Under capitalism, steel refineries tend to develop in countries and regions where there is steel. Just the same, agriculture tends to develop where there is land and climate to provide optimal conditions for that agriculture.
It was a mistake for the South to hold on to slavery. Slavery held them back industrially.
It is no accident that corn is grown on the great plains. It is no accident that oil is refined in Texas. It is no accident that coal is mined and processed in upper appalachia. It is no accident that fishing occurs off the new england coast. It is no accident that shipbuilding occurs on major waterways and in deep sea ports. The market leads to these specializations because each of these geographic regions has comparative advantages toward that particular industry or economic sector.
Like I said, Illinois and Indiana did both. Why couldn't the South? Because slavery was too lucrative for them.
Your assertion is a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Economic studies of the war indicate that the protectionist Morrill tariff severely hurt the northern economy. This was noticed within a year of its adoption as trade with Europe declined to virtually nothing of its previous free trade levels. Unemployment and economic harship struck several northern industries as a result, just as the ceasing of trade in the south due to the blockade produced devastation there. The north was still endowed with resources of manpower and military production though and was accordingly able to eventually win. The fact that its win followed the tariff on the timeline says nothing of the tariff being the cause of that win any more than eating sandwich yesterday would cause you to win the lottery today, though the latter event would follow the former.
Like I said, I'm a free trader until vital war industries are threatened with extinction. So you're probably right. I believe in a ~10% flat income tax. Income taxes should've been increased to 10% to win the war instead of increasing the tariff. Either way, Lincoln and Congress would've been hated by the tax-haters. The government needed funding to win the war and the income tax wasn't enough at the time. The money had to come from somewhere.
It was a collaborative effort of the 1860 Republican platform. Northerners in Congress passed the Morrill tariff in two steps. The House passed it in May 1860 and the Senate passed it a few days before Lincoln's inauguration. They did so with Lincoln's backing as Lincoln advocated a tariff hike in his campaign. He also told an audience before his inauguration that if the bill was not through the senate by the end of the session he would make it a top legislative priority to pass it.
The government needs money. I think flat taxes are the way to go though.
The average tariff rate, which had been adopted in a tax cut in 1857, was about 18% prior to the Morrill bill. At the time that rate was considered very pro-free trade on a world scale. The Morrill tariff immediately doubled that average rate for 1862 and then hiked it to almost 50% by the last two years of the war.
It also hit that high years before, didn't it? It went up and down for decades.
They weren't used for winning the war because they were not revenue tariffs. They were protectionist tariffs. Theoretically, had Lincoln wanted to raise revenues for the war, he could have pushed through a modest tariff hike of a couple percentages. This action would have retained most of the country's trade while bringing in greater revenue. But the hike that they adopted was massive and protectionist. It resulted in wiping out trade with Europe almost entirely.
So if the receipts weren't used for the government, where'd they go?
To use a modern analogy, if the government today had a flat income tax rate of 15% and needed more revenue, it could probably raise it to 18% and achieve that end. But if it raised the rate to 75%, revenue would disapear because the tax itself would discourage the reciept of income and people would stop working as much. The same thing happens in a tariff-based tax system when tariffs are raised so high that they severely discourage and inhibit trade.
I agree with that. But you're saying that the rates weren't raised to raise money to keep the country together. What were they raised for?
It was passed in two stages. The House adopted it in May 1860. The Senate adopted it in February 1861. So the debate on it was waged from spring of 1860 to the end of the 1861 winter, a period encompassing the same time secession occurred.
I believe the South liked tariffs when they were having a hard time competing with Indian cotton decades earlier.
My question then is how many decades earlier? Cause the south consistently pushed for free trade from the 1820's until the war. In fact, South Carolina almost seceded in the early 1830's after the yankees passed a high tariff.
John C. Calhoun was a South Carolinian who initially supported the tariff. The tariffs were uncontroversial until about 1820 and the South held the most Congressional power up till then because of the counting of slaves as partial citizens.
Not really. There was a consistent downward trend in tariffs toward free trade from 1846 to 1860. The north pushed through a tax hike in 1860-61. Prior to 1846, tariffs fluctuated more with the south consistently opposing the high rates dating back to the 1820's.
Because by that time slavery had got them behind industrially.
As I noted previously, that claim is an illegitimate argument that is economically unsupportable and in fact directly contradicted by mathematical analysis of trade and tariffs. This has been known since David Ricardo developed the modern economic study of trade and tariffs in the 1810's. The southern congressional delegation also emphasized it at length in detailed analyses before Congress dating up to the eve of the war.
If tariffs were not meant to protect industries, why were they called "protectionist"?
Protective tariffs do not function well in financing the government because they discourage the very same action upon which that revenue is dependent - imports.
I agree. But we have an extra 150 years of history to confirm this.
No, not really. In his quote he only attributes to them a revolution of the middle class, which was but a stage in his view of history before communism would be achieved.
He praises the ascent of the middle class.
Marx disliked that middle class and denounced it throughout his writings.
What did he say about the middle class?
By political affiliation, McPherson comes from the far left wing of the modern Democrat party. That wing sympathizes heavily with marxist groups, though it is still Democrat in political affiliation.
Tell me how Lincoln was a Communist.
Much to the contrary, and in fact it appears that you are doing exactly what you speak of yourself. You claim Marx's quote was an innocent item of praise for worker's rights. Yet it is a simple fact of Marx's writing that he used the terms "working class" to denote proletarian revolutionary concepts - meaning communism.
Why didn't he say so? Marx praised the end of slavery, there's nothing wrong with that.
Just the same without knowing the context, one could declare the statement "workers of the world unite" to be an innocent call for workers to unite together and petition for better factory conditions. But since that quote came from Marx, we know better than to assume such a naive and historically incorrect reading of it. We know that when he said "workers of the world unite" he was urging them to carry through a communist revolution.
We do? I don't know, I've never read Marx. Like I said, I don't read one man's opinion.
Show me the praise then. It is historical fact that Marx disliked the middle class.
What did he say about the middle class?
It is also historical fact that he saw a transition from the elite to the middle class to be a non-permanent stage in history before his desire of communism was to be achieved. His statement in the quote I provided does nothing more than to identify that the american revolution brought about a stage of the middle class. It does not praise that stage or the middle class as Marx despised them. It simply notes that the stage happened, and Marx believed that would occur before the stage of the workers and communism.
One man's opinion.
Yeah. And the "proletariat" is by definition in Marx's writings the "working men."
Then why didn't he say "proletariate"?
They are interchangable. What do you think Marx was talking about when he advocated the ascendency of the proletariat? The answer is communism.
He didn't say "proletariate, he said "working men".
Now, if proletariat = working men, as was the case for Marx, how is advocating the ascendency of the working men any different from advocating the ascendency of the proletariat?
Why didn't he say "proletariate"? You're adding words to spruce it up.
Other than the obvious synonym, there is no difference what so ever.
Except he didn't say it. He said "working men".
That is not "making things up," as you assert.<
Yes it is. He didn't say "communism" nor "proletariate". You added those words. You're making thing up like neo-Confederates always do.
That is reading Marx in context and understanding his concepts of various word choices. Or do you think his famous call for the workers of the world to unite was an innocent piece of advice for them to negotiate with the management for better factory conditions?
I have no idea. I've never read his words. Given that you think Lincoln was a commie, I don't trust your judgment of other people's words.
Looks like Spooner was an idiot.
Britain, the US, and Israel are the prophetic Israel that God will fight for in the battles of Armageddon and Hamongog.
He said in rather explicit terms that his kingdom was not of this world.
You're confusing Jesus' kingdom with prophetic Israel.
No they weren't. They were documents of interest explaining the motives of some, but not one of them had any legal statutory meaning to it.
No the legislatures commissioned these Declarations.
They were legislative resolutions adopted separately from the secession ordinances by the respective conventions of 4 states to assert some of the positions of those conventions.
Yep. Conventions commissioned by the legislatures.
Not all of them. Some detail grievances about the abusive strength of the federal government.
Against slavery.
The territorial ones cite different causes entirely, such as the failure to provide frontier protection and mail services in the far west.
So secession was for mail?
The action of dividing Virginia was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
This was Lincoln's doings?
Suspending habeas corpus was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from doing this.
Usurping and ignoring the judicial authority was legally wrong - it violated the constitution.
The Constitution gives the president the power to preserve it.
Disregarding the civil liberties of citizens was legally wrong - it violated the bill of rights.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus.
To the contrary. The Constitution only permits the suspension of habeas corpus in certain cases. The clause permitting that suspension is granted as a power only to the legislature. The founding fathers were in unanimous agreement on this. So was every court ruling on the issue. So were the most prominent legal scholars of the early 19th century.
The Constitution says the powers granted went to the legislature. That section dealt with what wasn't granted.
He facilitated it and permitted it.
But was it his doings?
No it wasn't. Only Congress can do that under the constitution.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from doing this.
Rebellion or not, the President's actions are governed and checked by the authority of the judicial system under the Constitution. When that judicial system ruled against The Lincoln, he disregarded it. In any other time he would have been impeached with good cause.
He wasn't impeached so his actions stand.
But not the power to destroy it. Do you not realize the implications of your own argument? If an idividual takes actions in conflict with the Constitution in order to "protect it" from what he percieves to be destruction by others, he has in effect done for himself exactly what he set out to prevent among others.
Nope, he can be impeached by Congress. He wasn't, his actions stand.
Yeah. Newspapers. They are among the most detailed sources of historical information available to us.
Written by individuals! Should we now read the NYT editorial page to find an accurate description of average American opinion? I didn't think so.
...or perhaps their leaders could have listed their own reasons (as they did in many states), or perhaps they could have listed those reasons in their secession ordinances (as they did in some states), or perhaps they could have adopted resolutions locally in cities, towns, and counties (as they did in some states).
Or they could've commissioned their own declarations. They didn't so they supported the ones that were there.
Your implication is exactly that when you act to dismiss something you disagree with in the historical record of documents.
I dismiss your adding of the words "communist" and "proletariate".
He did push abolition though and abolition was part of the political dialogue. Therefore he was not inconsequencial.
Inconsequential to me.
Simply saying that does not make it so.
It does to me.
Since you dismissed Spooner without offering any consideration whatsoever to his arguments, you cannot legitimately claim to have demonstrated the error you ascribe to him. I may therefore dismiss your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I've considered his arguments. The South was in rebellion for slavery therefore they deserved to lose. Simple.
Not at all. I am referencing theological and philosophical concepts that conflict with your assertions and asking you to explain or reconcile those conflicts. To date you have avoided doing so.
You're making things up. What do you want me to resolve?
So you believe that sinful actions to achieve a percieved good end are justified by that end?
Defeating the South wasn't sin.
I ask because if so, you are asserting a doctrine in conflict with Christian ethics.
David lied to avoid capture by Saul. Was this right? In any case, defeating the South wasn't a sin. They rebelled for slavery and then attacked us. They got what they deserved.
And you know this exactly how? Lots of countries have claimed themselves to be the current Israel, and lots have claimed that this is a matter of prophecy. Yet they have all fallen at some time or another.
Genesis prophesies for the last days. We are Israel. God renamed Manasseh and Ephraim as Israel. We are Manasseh and Britain is Ephraim. Read this to get my opinion on this issue. I am in almost total agreement with this site.
Yeah. You got caught building straw men. I'm sorry if you do not like it but that is not of my concern.
Oh, OK. LOL
You have claimed this many times yet not once have you made a sound case.
He did not say "communist", or "proletariate".
In fact the only case you attempted was itself fraudulent, as the words you claimed not to exist were all shown to be present. Therefore I may reject your assertion in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Show me whaere the word "communist" appears in that quote.
When those quotes themselves assert falsehoods as is regularly the case.
How is this?
Not in the least. When Marx called for the working men of the world to unite, it goes without saying that he was calling for a communist revolution.
Was he?
Why then is it so hard for you to understand that he was speaking of the same thing when he wrote about the working men ascending and the reconstruction of the social world?
Because I've never read his words. I don't read one man's opinion. You say that's what he meant. I think if that's what he meant, he would've said it. You've gotten everything else wrong that I don't trust your judgment on anything.
It is on things like this that I base my case for your diminished mental capacity. Here is the quote. The words are in bold: "The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world" It's all there in bold for any sane person to read. If you still deny this you are either blind or lying.
I do not see the words "communist", or proletariate" in that quote. Those are words that you made up to spruce it up.
I never said that the words "communism" or "proletariat" were stated by Marx. I did however say that he was speaking of communism and proletariats and that is an indisputable fact.
A fact? LOL Why didn't he just say "communist", or "proletariate"? You made those words up to add to the quote.
"Working class" = proletariat to Marx. He used them interchangably. When he said ascendency of the proletariats, he meant communism. When he said ascendency of the working class, as was the case in this quote, he meant the exact same thing. Exactly what is so hard about that concept to make it beyond your grasp?
That game could be played with anything. I could say that anytime Davis said "freedom", that he meant "freedom to practice slavery". Why don't we just stick to the real quotes like Walt does instead of changing them to suit our agenda? You neo-Confederates just like to make things up all the time. I guess it's because the truth isn't on your side.
No. You simply deny that they are there when you don't like what the quote says.
Where have I denied that "working men" and "middle class" exist in the quote?
The end of slavery was indeed the beginning of better working condition for the former slaves. You add made up words to suit your agenda.
On a similar note, I suppose he believes that "workers of the world, unite!" was a call by Marx for all the factory workers to take a day off for a casual day of picnicking and games at the park. Surely Marx couldn't have been saying "go launch a communist revolution," could he? And surely that "era of ascendency...for the working class" he was talking about couldn't have been an era of communism, could it? At least not in the foreign mental universe of #3fan's disconnected mind...
Maybe he meant exactly what he said in the quote. That the end of slavery was a good thing for the former slaves.
Where did I say I hate Linclon? I just disagree with what he did. He has been dead an spat upon enough for me to hate him. I still reserve my right to say he was wrong, if that is okay the liberal and commie faction of this country? Since I could take it that you hate "Washington and a bunch of White guys", I don't see where I steered off course in our debate.
You make personal attacks on me because the record won't suit you.
About the only thing I ever called you Walt was a communist. If you talk like a commie, I don't think you should take it personally, that's just the way it is. Like it or not. If I attack you personally, please take to the moderator or Jim Robinson and have me banned.
You have now lived in two centuries, Wlat, and in spite of how new the current one is, you probably already have a lock on the title of the biggest bullshiter of the 21st Century, no one would deny you that title for the twentieth, it's over and you are the clear winner! And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of posting crap. You are as incredible as your posts!
So it was. But that was not the view taken by Marx, who instead viewed the conflict through revolutionary communist terms. Try again.
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.