Quotes from Abe Lincoln....for real...Google it

[mitch768292]

In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa.
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."[/FONT]

 

[mitch768292]

 

[Markymark]

"We have the BEST politicians money can buy, We need to spend a LOT MORE MONEY!"
Will Rogers

The war ended in 1865, gentlemen, GET OVER IT!!! PUHLEEEEEEEZE!

With Love, I am,

 

[mitch768292]

"We have the BEST politicians money can buy, We need to spend a LOT MORE MONEY!"
Will Rogers

The war ended in 1865, gentlemen, GET OVER IT!!! PUHLEEEEEEEZE!

With Love, I am,

This is not a debate about the war. But simply some revelations about historical figures whose social and political opinons are popularly thought to be the opposite of what they really were and these facts are realtively unknown. Which is a pretty poor reflection on our school systems. The schools will not go near teaching the truth because it is not PC. They would rather teach the myth than the truth.

 

[slimvintage]

This is not a debate about the war. But simply some revelations about historical figures whose social and political opinons are popularly thought to be the opposite of what they really were and these facts are realtively unknown. Which is a pretty poor reflection on our school systems. The schools will not go near teaching the truth because it is not PC. They would rather teach the myth than the truth.

Mitch. Come on. Everyone has dealt with that shit a long time ago. It was all mooted at the time of discussions re: the Jefferson liaison, years ago. There are myriad existential dilemmas, quandaries and contradictions dogging US race relations since the founding. The last presidential election should have given us all the excuse to talk about happier stuff. That whole discourse is so over.

 

[mitch768292]

Mitch. Come on. Everyone has dealt with that shit a long time ago. It was all mooted at the time of discussions re: the Jefferson liaison, years ago. There are myriad existential dilemmas, quandaries and contradictions dogging US race relations since the founding. The last presidential election should have given us all the excuse to talk about happier stuff. That whole discourse is so over.

People need to know the truth about Lincoln and his henchmen.

 

[slimvintage]

People need to know the truth about Lincoln and his henchmen.

But is "the truth" something other than the universal vision of him as the good man we all hold him to be? Do you think Lincoln was bad? His "racism" pales before the historical fact of his getting the nation you love through the most wrenching catastrophe any people can bring upon themselves. Surely to quibble with his having shared attitudes vis-a-vis race that were current at the time, is pettily obsessive when considered as a small part of the whole man.

Humankind is fraught with the need to confront the essential dilemmas of our existence, and there are myriad contradictions in all of us.

 

[mitch768292]

Gee, I have not heard any of the usual voices of liberalism call Lincoln a "racist" yet? Imagine that?

 

[slimvintage]

Gee, I have not heard any of the usual voices of liberalism call Lincoln a "racist" yet? Imagine that?

I believe in "contextuality" or whatever the real word is. That man, as a Kentuckian of his time, was not a racist any more than Jefferson was before him. I even imagine that some of what he said was pragmatic politics, hoping to avoid secession by giving the future Confederacy some assurance regarding the dreaded raising of their chattel to the level of humanity. In order to avoid the slaughter that loomed, I might have said stuff like that, even if I knew I wasn't expressing my true feelings.

Everyone who feels that issues of truth, loyalty, filial love, responsibility, selflessness, patriotism place us face to face with essential quandaries that often end in emotionally unsatisfactory answers, should read Albert Camus' "L'Etranger" very carefully. As you probably know it's a strange and difficult little book, but is very helpful to people who are interested in addressing the philosophical concept of choice in the face of dilemma.

In the end history always has its way with our debates. Lincoln has pretty much come through as more hero than bigot, as I think anyone would agree. I hope I live long enough to get some perspective on our 43rd president. His case is far more fascinating in that in him we're are dealing with a good guy with a very very low IQ, a combination that normally wouldn't be subjected to the rigors of planetary leadership or decisionmaking. History decrees that some reviled presidents were truly electoral mistakes. Others have been rehabilitated over time. Could this ever happen to Bush, or are his intrinsic disabilities so crippling that he's destined to ignominy?

 

[mitch768292]

I believe in "contextuality" or whatever the real word is. That man, as a Kentuckian of his time, was not a racist any more than Jefferson was before him. I even imagine that some of what he said was pragmatic politics, hoping to avoid secession by giving the future Confederacy some assurance regarding the dreaded raising of their chattel to the level of humanity. In order to avoid the slaughter that loomed, I might have said stuff like that, even if I knew I wasn't expressing my true feelings.

Everyone who feels that issues of truth, loyalty, filial love, responsibility, selflessness, patriotism place us face to face with essential quandaries that often end in emotionally unsatisfactory answers, should read Albert Camus' "L'Etranger" very carefully. As you probably know it's a strange and difficult little book, but is very helpful to people who are interested in addressing the philosophical concept of choice in the face of dilemma.

In the end history always has its way with our debates. Lincoln has pretty much come through as more hero than bigot, as I think anyone would agree. I hope I live long enough to get some perspective on our 43rd president. His case is far more fascinating in that in him we're are dealing with a good guy with a very very low IQ, a combination that normally wouldn't be subjected to the rigors of planetary leadership or decisionmaking. History decrees that some reviled presidents were truly electoral mistakes. Others have been rehabilitated over time. Could this ever happen to Bush, or are his intrinsic disabilities so crippling that he's destined to ignominy?

Well, ya know those words like "racist" and "bigot" are pretty worn out. They are usually thrown at people who don't tow the liberal line. Was Lincoln a "racist"? Well first somebody has to define that word. I think that most people would say he was. But so what? There is nothing wrong with that. You are allowed to have opinions that are popular or unpopular. I don't fault Lincoln for what he said. I merely like to point out that he was not what people think he was.

One's beliefs can be critisized but you cannot critisize one for holding those beliefs.

I disagree about the IQ thing. Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard. His grades were higher than John Kerry's when they both were at Yale, according to the NY Times (shock!).


P.S. If you were not such a little guy I would challenge you to one of those oil soaked submission wrestling matches! he he he

 

[mitch768292]

Mitch. Come on. Everyone has dealt with that shit a long time ago. It was all mooted at the time of discussions re: the Jefferson liaison, years ago. There are myriad existential dilemmas, quandaries and contradictions dogging US race relations since the founding. The last presidential election should have given us all the excuse to talk about happier stuff. That whole discourse is so over.

Oh hell no Slim. You are wrong, God love ya!

You are saying "lets don't talk about history that goes against popular myth. Lets don't talk about anything that we can't refute." The truth is not always pleasant and never PC. It needs to be talked about.

If that quote had come from Jeff Davis, Oh, I can hear the howls now: "evil racist" "bigot" "neanderthal" "cruel" "ignorant" "inhumane", etc, etc....

Since the left cannot refute the quote itself, they simply say, "Oh lets don't talk about those unpleasant facts. Oh, lets hush this up and sweep it under the rug." Bullshit.

Now mind you, I have no problem with what Lincoln said, or the fact that he said it. If were alive today I would feel the same way. As I said earlier, one can disagree with his opinion, but one must not attack him for having an opinion that one disagrees with.

Let me also say for the record, he was never very popular in my part of the country and I do not see him as a saintly hero. He shit all over the constitution and then spat on it. Secession was just as legal as the declaration of independence.

The fact that "held the union together" is nothing noble because it is contrary to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, see below. King George also tried to "preserve the union" between the colonies and the British empire. Will you also praise the King?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

[slimvintage]

Oh hell no Slim. You are wrong, God love ya!

You are saying "lets don't talk about history that goes against popular myth. Lets don't talk about anything that we can't refute." The truth is not always pleasant and never PC. It needs to be talked about.

If that quote had come from Jeff Davis, Oh, I can hear the howls now: "evil racist" "bigot" "neanderthal" "cruel" "ignorant" "inhumane", etc, etc....

Since the left cannot refute the quote itself, they simply say, "Oh lets don't talk about those unpleasant facts. Oh, lets hush this up and sweep it under the rug." Bullshit.

Now mind you, I have no problem with what Lincoln said, or the fact that he said it. If were alive today I would feel the same way. As I said earlier, one can disagree with his opinion, but one must not attack him for having an opinion that one disagrees with.

Let me also say for the record, he was never very popular in my part of the country and I do not see him as a saintly hero. He shit all over the constitution and then spat on it. Secession was just as legal as the declaration of independence.

The fact that "held the union together" is nothing noble because it is contrary to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, see below. King George also tried to "preserve the union" between the colonies and the British empire. Will you also praise the King?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Everything you say is true, but in saying it you're not actually answering what I wrote in that little post. Apart from keeping historical transgressions by people in power alive in humanity's mind (the Holocaust for example) which I think is very valid, the tendency on the part of retrograde elements in the South to dwell on, and fuel, past rancor and insult seems to me to be counterproductive to getting on with, and getting the most out of, the factual present. I say that Americans in the 21st Century should have the luxury of putting racism aside, along with polio, smallpox and other similar scourges, but not that historians should hush their own mouths about factual data.

It's a terrible question to ask, but would you prefer to live in an agricultural society, with abysmal, and legally imposed, differences in the standards of living between rich and poor, and in which a part of the population has no rights, is subject to killing hard labor, treated like livestock, bought and sold like cattle? Than to live in modern Atlanta, one of the most "northern" cities in the US, where charming and prosperous, well educated and attractive blacks make up a fair percent of the population?

 

[mitch768292]

Everything you say is true, but in saying it you're not actually answering what I wrote in that little post. Apart from keeping historical transgressions by people in power alive in humanity's mind (the Holocaust for example) which I think is very valid, the tendency on the part of retrograde elements in the South to dwell on, and fuel, past rancor and insult seems to me to be counterproductive to getting on with, and getting the most out of, the factual present. I say that Americans in the 21st Century should have the luxury of putting racism aside, along with polio, smallpox and other similar scourges, but not that historians should hush their own mouths about factual data.

It's a terrible question to ask, but would you prefer to live in an agricultural society, with abysmal, and legally imposed, differences in the standards of living between rich and poor, and in which a part of the population has no rights, is subject to killing hard labor, treated like livestock, bought and sold like cattle? Than to live in modern Atlanta, one of the most "northern" cities in the US, where charming and prosperous, well educated and attractive blacks make up a fair percent of the population?

Slim,
You are joking, right? Your description of Atlanta is way off base. How about: crooked city government; giant ghetto; incredibly vicious crime; unsafe; falling apart; decaying; outrageously expensive; high taxes; oh, I could go on and on. Nothing pretty about it. I want out of this town!

Think Detroit, Newark, Oakland, etc. Do you get the picture?

 

[tampa24]

Having visited Atlanta several times I'm led to believe that true picture of the city and metro area lies somewhere in between the 2 pictures you guys paint. Atlanta proper does have some gritty impoverished areas like all major U.S. cities. It has plenty of people I'd be afraid to get on an elevator with.

But overall I see it as a very vibrant multi-cultural mix. There is a growing and thriving black middle class who have the same access to the American dream of all the rest of white America. Suburbs of Atlanta such as Marietta are very affluent. The people I have met there are proud to be so close to a major world city like Atlanta. And they are proud to say they are from Atlanta. (Even if that's not technically accurate)

But I must admit Mitch that you are the one living through it so if it's not to your liking I'm sorry. I hope you can find somewhere that you are happy. Do you have any places in mind in the Carolinas?

 

[tucsonjayce]

I was wondering Mitch....

Oh hell no Slim. You are wrong, God love ya!

You are saying "lets don't talk about history that goes against popular myth. Lets don't talk about anything that we can't refute." The truth is not always pleasant and never PC. It needs to be talked about.

If that quote had come from Jeff Davis, Oh, I can hear the howls now: "evil racist" "bigot" "neanderthal" "cruel" "ignorant" "inhumane", etc, etc....

Since the left cannot refute the quote itself, they simply say, "Oh lets don't talk about those unpleasant facts. Oh, lets hush this up and sweep it under the rug." Bullshit.

Now mind you, I have no problem with what Lincoln said, or the fact that he said it. If were alive today I would feel the same way. As I said earlier, one can disagree with his opinion, but one must not attack him for having an opinion that one disagrees with.

Let me also say for the record, he was never very popular in my part of the country and I do not see him as a saintly hero. He shit all over the constitution and then spat on it. Secession was just as legal as the declaration of independence.

The fact that "held the union together" is nothing noble because it is contrary to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, see below. King George also tried to "preserve the union" between the colonies and the British empire. Will you also praise the King?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Mitch:

I was wondering why a strict constructionist like you would propose that secession was lawful? I don't see anything in the document that addresses secession. And while the Declaration of Independence may express the views and intent of the founding fathers, it has no basis in law. Only the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution have basis in law, actually they ARE the basis of our law. Maybe there were some liberal judges in the south that were legislating from the bench when they offered opinions that secession was legal. Sound familiar?

Anyway just wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Luv ya guys!

Jayce

 

[mitch768292]

Mitch:

I was wondering why a strict constructionist like you would propose that secession was lawful? I don't see anything in the document that addresses secession. And while the Declaration of Independence may express the views and intent of the founding fathers, it has no basis in law. Only the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution have basis in law, actually they ARE the basis of our law. Maybe there were some liberal judges in the south that were legislating from the bench when they offered opinions that secession was legal. Sound familiar?

Anyway just wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Luv ya guys!

Jayce

Then there was nothing legal about the revolution in 1776 was there? Let me get out my 1881 autographed edition of Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" and find the citiations and legal arguments. Nothing in the constitution forbids it either.

 

[mitch768292]

Having visited Atlanta several times I'm led to believe that true picture of the city and metro area lies somewhere in between the 2 pictures you guys paint. Atlanta proper does have some gritty impoverished areas like all major U.S. cities. It has plenty of people I'd be afraid to get on an elevator with.

But overall I see it as a very vibrant multi-cultural mix. There is a growing and thriving black middle class who have the same access to the American dream of all the rest of white America. Suburbs of Atlanta such as Marietta are very affluent. The people I have met there are proud to be so close to a major world city like Atlanta. And they are proud to say they are from Atlanta. (Even if that's not technically accurate)

But I must admit Mitch that you are the one living through it so if it's not to your liking I'm sorry. I hope you can find somewhere that you are happy. Do you have any places in mind in the Carolinas?

Charleston comes to mind first and foremost. I'm not black so that is why I think this place sucks.

 

[tampa24]

Activist Southern judges legislating from the bench? Oh my... LOL

 

[mikeyank]

Charleston comes to mind first and foremost. I'm not black so that is why I think this place sucks.

???? I have not been there, but friends tell me that Atlanta is a very cosmopolitan city? Why does it suck, if you are not black?

Mike

 

[tucsonjayce]

The Revolution

The Revolution was technically treason. The Declaration of Independence sets out the moral justification for Independence, not the legal one.

The only way any revolution can be "legitimate" is when you win.

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin

And while you can construe that the document's silence on the subject gives the states the power to secede, one can also argue that since the founding fathers put in a way to join the union but are silent on leaving it means it's a one way street.

Yours,

Jayce