US going to hell in a hand basket?

President Abraham Lincoln was always against slavery on moral grounds. However, he was not an admirer of the black man, did not believe blacks should be granted the rights of American citizens, and did not wish that they be a part of American society. He believed that all blacks should be removed from the United States and resettled in some other country.

Lincoln on slavery: "The monstrous injustice of slavery... deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty."

Lincoln on Southerners: "If slavery did not exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did not now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up."

Lincoln on freed slaves: "My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible."

Lincoln on social equality: "What then? Free them, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people on." "What then? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feeling will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not... A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded."
 
Quote from max401:

Notice that good ol' Abe didn't bother to free any of those Union slaves, nor were the slaves in the States in "rebellion" free either, they were a separate nation and it was a meaningless and purely political proclamation utilized against the enemy Confederacy.
More...

From "Emancipation Lecture
by Edward Steers, Jr."

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/steersward.htm :

The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT an executive order or a legislative act. It was a military order whose sole LEGAL justification was under the War Powers granted the President in the Constitution. The reason for this is because the President had no authority to issue such an order except as a military decree to injure the military capability of the Confederacy. Both [Lincoln critics] Bennett and Seward sound as if Abraham Lincoln held the power to abolish slavery at any time he chose.

Neither the President nor the Congress of the United States had the power to abolish slavery by executive order or by legislative Act.

Lincoln had no authority, even under the War Powers, to emancipate slaves in Maryland or Kentucky or Delaware or Northern Virginia since these areas were not at war with the United States and were not enemy belligerents. Lincoln's proclamation, while a war measure, was a political document meant to have a political effect.

It blunted European recognition of the Confederacy, and most important, it ended any hope of restoration of the Union -- a deliberate move on Lincoln's part in my opinion. The ending of any hope to restore the Union as it was is an important spin-off of the Emancipation Proclamation that I believe is not appreciated by many historians.

If the Confederate states were going to rejoin the Union, they would now do so without slavery. It placed a condition on re-Union that had not existed before. Lincoln held tenaciously to this conditional requirement of total abolition.

Restoration meant turning back the clock to conditions as they existed prior to hostilities. With the issuance of Lincoln's proclamation there would be no turning back; no return to the Union as it was before secession.

While some historians fail to see this irrevocable action caused by the Proclamation, Jefferson Davis immediately realized its importance and said so. In a message delivered to the Confederate Congress on January 12, 1863, just eleven days after the Emancipation Proclamation became official, Davis said, "A restoration of the Union has now been rendered forever impossible..."

Davis went on to state that the proclamation was "A measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race -peaceful and contented laborers in their own sphere -- are now doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation "to abstain from violence unless in necessary self-defense."

Davis boldly announced that, in retaliation for Lincoln's proclamation, he would deliver to state officials all commissioned officers of the United States Army captured within that state, and they would be dealt with in accordance with that state's laws covering individuals who incite slave insurrection. Such laws universally carried the death penalty. Union officers would now be subject to the death penalty because of Lincoln's proclamation.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and Davis's bluster was never carried out -- perhaps because Lincoln was fully prepared to retaliate and told Davis so.

In issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln shifted the conflict from restoration to abolition -- a shift that incensed Southern leaders. The importance of the Emancipation Proclamation resided more in what it said than in what it did, a point that seems to be lost on Mr. Bennett in his analysis of it.

Three men that Mr. Bennett praises in his book as the true or real emancipators spoke up in praise of Lincoln: Frederick Douglass declared, "We shout for joy that we live to record this righteous decree." Gerritt Smith, a major critic of Lincoln, could hardly contain himself, proclaiming, "God bless Abraham Lincoln," and Wendell Phillips, Lincoln's severest critic and one of Bennett's examples of a true hero, wrote: "How decent Abe now grows." Mr. Bennett fails to mention the praise these men gave to Lincoln for issuing his Proclamation.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:





You can't stand "heroification" yet you worship and preach the thoughts of Marx, Engles, and other fellow communists?

Typical drivel.
More...


You seem a sure bet for the loony bin, Optional.

On what basis, moron, have you determined that I "worship" Marx and Engels, or other "fellow communists"?
You are a joke. I certainly do not "preach" their ideas; if your English comprehension could ever get the better of your pathological need to disparage my character you could readily see that, by my own words, I disagree with the aforementioned, in no uncertain terms.
 
Quote from alfonso:




You seem a sure bet for the loony bin, Optional.

On what basis, moron, have you determined that I "worship" Marx and Engels, or other "fellow communists"?
You are a joke. I certainly do not "preach" their ideas; if your English comprehension could ever get the better of your pathological need to disparage my character you could readily see that, by my own words, I disagree with the aforementioned, in no uncertain terms.
More...

Quote from alfonso:

The correct name for my political philosophy is that of "Social Democracy".
More...




http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm defines Social Democracy as follows:


Social Democracy

The term "Social-Democracy" has been used by Marxists since the time of the First International of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The term is both an organizational appellation, meaning it describes a particular political affiliation within a political culture and an adjective describing a "kind" of politics within the broader socialist movement. Simply put, a social-democrat was for democratic socialism. That is, the extension of political democracy to the economic level, the elimination of capitalism and the institution of a broad based workers democracy.

Chronologically "Social-Democracy" described both the adherents of the First and Second Internationals through 1914-1919. Everyone in the various socialist movements who were at all affiliated with these internationals were described as being "social-democrats", whether they represented the staid reformism of US socialist Morris Hilquit to the revolutionary Marxism of V.I. Lenin. They were all "social-democrats."

With the failure of the Second International to rally the international working class against the onslaught of the First World War the social-democracy split, eventually culminating in the Communist, or 3rd International in 1919, which was based, in large part, of the left wing of the Russian social-democracy, the Bolsheviks, in assuming power in October of 1917, the first successful socialist revolution in the world. At this point, most supporters of the Communist International ceased calling themselves "social-democrats" and simply called themselves "Communists." Thus, social-democracy became the purview of the remnants of the Second International, who eventually reconstituted themselves into the early 1920s. The term social-democracy therefore became largely synonymous with the pale reformism of these now established socialist parties, such as the German Social-Democrats and the British Labour Party.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

social democracy

NOUN: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism.
OTHER FORMS: social democrat —NOUN
social democratic —ADJECTIVE



You want to give us a different definition?

So you are a socialist? BFD. Europe is in the toilet with socialism. Socialism is failing big time, as the lazy people suck all the life out of the society, and people lose their incentive to achieve.

Take that shit out of here. Trace back the roots of socialism, right back to the founders.....you find the manifesto.....right comrade?

Call it whatever you like, anyone can read between the lines to your communism based statements.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:






You want to give us a different definition?

So you are a socialist? BFD. Europe is in the toilet with socialism. Socialism is failing big time, as the lazy people suck all the life out of the society, and people lose their incentive to achieve.
More...



I was going to address that, Optional.

I used the term to social democracy as it is the term political parties, especially in Europe, use to describe themselves. I believed that the term differentiated such policies from what traditional socialism stood for. However, as you pointed out, if socialists did refer to themselves as "social democrats" since their inception, then I stand corrected; and would like to state for the record that I do not -- DO NOT -- support Marxism or communism.

It is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of intelligence (so I guess that excludes yourself), that the policies of parties like the German Social Democrats -- the ruling party -- also do not amount to anything resembling classic Marxism.

So perhaps we can drop the labeling game, and just address my arguments? Nah, thinking takes too much effort, right? Easier to just slap someone with the title of "Socialist" -- as it that's some accusation to be ashamed of! -- and let any attempt at reasoned discussion just die on its ass.

"Europe is in the toilet with it's socialism". Oh well. You are even dumber than I thought. And, no jokes, I really do consider you one HELL of an ignoramous.
Firstly, I have to mention again, that Europe is certainly NOT socialist in the traditional sense of the word. But, if we are going to use "Socialism" to mean anything that recognises a nation consists of a society of people, and that, therefore, the state ought to assume some responsibility for the social security of its citizens as "socialism", then ok.
Secondly, calling it "in the toilet" once again betrays your ignorance. Yes, the European economy lags America. My answer is, so freaking what! Only a moron brought up on a diet of "growth is everything", seasoned with some Fox "News", would make such a pathetic statement.
 
Quote from Error 404:



Alfonso should not be permitted to explain anything until he explains his Abraham Lincoln quote first. (Alleged quote). And if indeed the quote is accurate, then he should tell us why he uses it on his signature. What is the point? More interesting to me than Harry's charts.

Peace,
RS
More...


*This is a reply to a post you made in another thread*


You know, having read some of your rs7 material, I had the impression that you were more open minded and amiable to nonantagonistic disagreement than some of your compatriots; perhaps I was wrong.

I certainly do not need to explain my "alleged quote" (the fact that, to you, it is only "alleged" is explanation enough) to anybody.

But since you asked so nicely [ahem], it is there as a curiousity that would, I believe, most likely conflict with the high moral standards they attach to the man. I do that because, from my discussions with Americans (on ET and elsewhere; mostly the latter), that Americans have this inbred sense of virtuousness about their country that exceeds, by a long shot, what any rational judgement of the history of that nation would conclude; a sense that, even though there might be some checkered aspects, America is just oh so great, oh so benevolent, oh so fair, oh so etc etc ad nauseam. I'm convinced that it's this infatuation with yourselves that prevents you from understanding anything about the contempt peoples of other nations have for you, that prevents you from understanding that, golly jeepers, maybe everything ain't so great about America, that maybe -- brace yourself -- America is just another nation, no more, no less; full of problems, just like every other nation; that there's nothing inherently fantastic about the biological fluke that made you an American.
 
Uh, oh... it's the Battle of Typists. All we need is RSX.X to chime in with a few hundred words and we can really burn up some bandwidth.
 
Quote from alfonso:





I was going to address that, Optional.

I used the term to social democracy as it is the term political parties, especially in Europe, use to describe themselves. I believed that the term differentiated such policies from what traditional socialism stood for. However, as you pointed out, if socialists did refer to themselves as "social democrats" since their inception, then I stand corrected; and would like to state for the record that I do not -- DO NOT -- support Marxism or communism.

It is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of intelligence (so I guess that excludes yourself), that the policies of parties like the German Social Democrats -- the ruling party -- also do not amount to anything resembling classic Marxism.

So perhaps we can drop the labeling game, and just address my arguments? Nah, thinking takes too much effort, right? Easier to just slap someone with the title of "Socialist" -- as it that's some accusation to be ashamed of! -- and let any attempt at reasoned discussion just die on its ass.

"Europe is in the toilet with it's socialism". Oh well. You are even dumber than I thought. And, no jokes, I really do consider you one HELL of an ignoramous.
Firstly, I have to mention again, that Europe is certainly NOT socialist in the traditional sense of the word. But, if we are going to use "Socialism" to mean anything that recognises a nation consists of a society of people, and that, therefore, the state ought to assume some responsibility for the social security of its citizens as "socialism", then ok.
Secondly, calling it "in the toilet" once again betrays your ignorance. Yes, the European economy lags America. My answer is, so freaking what! Only a moron brought up on a diet of "growth is everything", seasoned with some Fox "News", would make such a pathetic statement.
More...

Growth is everything.

Either you grow, or you die....just like Europe is dying under the weight of its socialistic structure...as the lazy euros suck the life out of their economies.

People who expect the government to take care of them, have traded the state for family, for self reliance, for everything that leads a human being to strive for excellence in life.

Wimps.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Growth is everything.

Either you grow, or you die....just like Europe is dying under the weight of its socialistic structure...as the lazy euros suck the life out of their economies.

People who expect the government to take care of them, have traded the state for family, for self reliance, for everything that leads a human being to strive for excellence in life.

Wimps.
More...


Now THAT is the very definition of "drivel". Classic Optional.

One day Optional, perhaps something might make you take a look at yourself, and realize just how brain dead you truly are. Perhaps then you might feel compelled to take your head of the sand.

Adios.
 
Quote from alfonso:




Now THAT is the very definition of "drivel". Classic Optional.

One day Optional, perhaps something might make you take a look at yourself, and realize just how brain dead you truly are. Perhaps then you might feel compelled to take your head of the sand.

Adios.
More...

Not surprised that your defense of the failure of socialism in Europe is a personal attack. As I have commented before, your arguments are for shit.

Europe is in deep trouble. They know it. They know that their individual economies as so weak, that they need to try to band together in a "European Community" in order to compete with the rest of the world.

This will fail, as every European country, with their weak minded socialist thinking will look to suck the life out of any strong minded countries.

I only hope that GB can wake up before it is too late, and realize that a once proud country is dying under the weight of socialistic thinking.

I repeat, anyone who looks to the state to take care of them, is weak minded, lacking in any sense of self determination, and devoid of any family structure to look to gain strength from.

The chief component of communism was to replace self deterministic life, and the family structure as the source of strength, along with the destruction of Religion as a mainstay in times of stress.

This creates a most unhealthy dependency on the state, which weakens the mind and the spirit...Europe being a classic example at present of the failure of socialistic thinking.

Attack me all you like, who gives a fuck? You cannot defend the failed experiment of socialism in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top