It's official: Democrats have killed more people than the Nazis!!!

[Blackrook]

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchingstat.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/18/55772015-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/


If you blame the Nazis for all the deaths that happened during World War II, they are responsible for 48,231,700 deaths. That might not be fair, since the Soviets were unnecessarily brutal, as were the Japanese. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Nazis were to blame for ALL this carnage.

How about the Democrats?

Well, first of all, we must blame them for all the deaths during the Civil War, since it was the Democrats who started that war since they wanted to keep black people as slaves. The New York Times estimates that 750,000 Americans died during this war.

Also, it would be fair to blame the Democrat party for all lynchings that occurred in the South between the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights era:

That number is 4,743.

Finally, we must add the number of legal abortions that have happened in the United States since 1973. As the pro-abortion party, the Democrats are properly blamed for them all. That number is 55,772,015.

All told, the Democrat party has murdered 56,526,758 people.

So it's official. The Democrats have killed more people than the Nazis.

The only political party that has killed more people than the Democrats are the Communists.

Hey Democrats, how does it feel to score so high on the murder chart?

[fyrenza]

BLAM!!!

Unfortunately, what should be an epiphany?

Will be ... squelched and defended,

but WHEN does, "We were only trying to HELP,'

become "We've got to fall back and regroup, 'cuz this sitch turned into some horrible snafu!"?

[Libhater]

The only political party that has killed more people than the Democrats are the Communists

The democraps are indeed communists/atheists and thus are murderers of tens of millions of people/Christians,
and are responsible for all the misery our lower class leeches have heaped on society as a whole.

[Blackrook]

Democrats want to take away our guns. Why?

So we can't defend ourselves from the government, that's why.

[Ethereal]

Well, first of all, we must blame them for all the deaths during the Civil War, since it was the Democrats who started that war since they wanted to keep black people as slaves.

I would blame republicans for the war of northern aggression, since they were the ones who invaded the south. It was actually the republican party who gave us the progressive movement.

[iustitia]

Both sides in the Civil War were assholes, there were no good guys. That said, the south fired the first shot. And regardless of secession's legality, it was all predicated on bullshit. Everything's economics.

[Blackrook]

If Democrats had won the Civil War, black people would still be owned by Democrats. I really don't see a moral equivalence here. Unless you can explain to me that blacks were better off when they were slaves. But I don't think I'm going to buy that argument.

[Ethereal]

The north did not invade the south to free blacks from bondage. Don't be a fool.

[iustitia]

The north did not invade the south to free blacks from bondage. Don't be a fool.

Was he responding to you or I?

[Blackrook]

The north did not invade the south to free blacks from bondage. Don't be a fool.
And yet, that's what happened.

[Ethereal]

Was he responding to you or I?

Me, I think.

[iustitia]

And yet, that's what happened.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[Blackrook]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."Politicians don't always mean what they say.

[Ethereal]

And yet, that's what happened.

Is it?

http://ncronline.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_slideshow/public/stories/images/Prison.jpg?itok=8NV6DI8y

http://www.boingboing.net/filesroot/prison_population.jpg

[iustitia]

Politicians don't always mean what they say.

Then I'm not sure what your point is. Yes the Democrats supported slavery and were scumbags. Lincoln and the North were also assholes. The Civil War started because of slavery. That doesn't mean the North was fighting to end it. The cause of the war and our war objectives were not the same thing.

[fyrenza]

If Democrats had won the Civil War, black people would still be owned by Democrats. I really don't see a moral equivalence here. Unless you can explain to me that blacks were better off when they were slaves. But I don't think I'm going to buy that argument.

Rub your eyes ~ the black dims in the WH? OWN SLAVES, that they condescendingly call "servants."

[Fredy]

Rub your eyes ~ the black dims in the WH? OWN SLAVES, that they condescendingly call "servants."

Grow up.

[fyrenza]

Excuse me?

Are their "servants" not all black?
Do the Obozo's know their names?
Where they live?

Or are they not just background shadows,

there to "do" for those whom consider themselves above whatever the chore is?

[Fredy]

Excuse me?

Are their "servants" not all black?
Do the Obozo's know their names?
Where they live?

Or are they not just background shadows,

there to "do" for those whom consider themselves above whatever the chore is?

Did I stutter?

[fyrenza]

Like his <cough!> "heroic" predecessor, Clinton, I could imagine the NIC dipping his wick in whatever sparked his fancy,

emphasis on the FANny part of that ...

But I digress. <sigh>

[Peter1469]

I think that it is disingenuous to compare abortion in the United States to the democide committed by the 20th century totalitarians.

[Libhater]

I think that it is disingenuous to compare abortion in the United States to the democide committed by the 20th century totalitarians.

Its not just abortion that is at stake here. We in America are dealing with a leftist/totalitarian contingent that is hell bent on pushing through their secular ideals that include all forms that debase and or often deprive us of life itself including euthanasia and eugenics. A leftist has more concern for an animal's life or for the saving of a spotted owl then they do for the birth of a human and for the livelihood of ranchers, lumbermen, and others who work out in the forests etc.

[Cigar]

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm136/furiataurina1010/whining/cry%20babies/01sally_girl_throw_tantrum_hg_clr1.gif#tantrum%20c ry%20baby%20gif

[patrickt]

I think that it is disingenuous to compare abortion in the United States to the democide committed by the 20th century totalitarians.

What I think is disingenuous is for Americans to sneer and say, "We don't consider abortion killing."

If you follow the logic in the OP about the South starting the Civil War, you would have to admit the U.S. started the war with Japan by sinking the submarine before the Japanese attacked.

[Mainecoons]

I think that it is disingenuous to compare abortion in the United States to the democide committed by the 20th century totalitarians.

True, it appears their numbers of killings were less. :grin:

[Max Rockatansky]

How about the Democrats?

Well, first of all, we must blame them for all the deaths during the Civil War, since it was the Democrats who started that war since they wanted to keep black people as slaves. The New York Times estimates that 750,000 Americans died during this war.

The "War of Northern Aggression" was started by the Yankee Republican President and his abolitionist army. They invaded the South. Your premise is wrong.

[iustitia]

^no. SC fired the first shot at a federal military installation. Lincoln was an asshole but he did not fire the first shot.

[Max Rockatansky]

^no. SC fired the first shot at a federal military installation. Lincoln was an asshole but he did not fire the first shot.

Correct. That "federal military installation" was trespassing.

Firing "the first shot" is one thing. Invading another country is another. It was "The War of Northern Aggression" and President Lincoln invaded Virginia and the South.

Property owners have a right to kick out trespassers. The trespassers don't have a right to round up their friends and stage a home invasion killing everyone living there.

[iustitia]

lol

[jillian]

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchingstat.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/18/55772015-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/


If you blame the Nazis for all the deaths that happened during World War II, they are responsible for 48,231,700 deaths. That might not be fair, since the Soviets were unnecessarily brutal, as were the Japanese. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Nazis were to blame for ALL this carnage.

How about the Democrats?

Well, first of all, we must blame them for all the deaths during the Civil War, since it was the Democrats who started that war since they wanted to keep black people as slaves. The New York Times estimates that 750,000 Americans died during this war.

Also, it would be fair to blame the Democrat party for all lynchings that occurred in the South between the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights era:

That number is 4,743.

Finally, we must add the number of legal abortions that have happened in the United States since 1973. As the pro-abortion party, the Democrats are properly blamed for them all. That number is 55,772,015.

All told, the Democrat party has murdered 56,526,758 people.

So it's official. The Democrats have killed more people than the Nazis.

The only political party that has killed more people than the Democrats are the Communists.

Hey Democrats, how does it feel to score so high on the murder chart?

it's only a murder chart if you accept the lie a) that abortion is murder; and b) you believe everyone who's ever had an abortion is a democrat (Which is so beyond stupid i can't even contemplate it); and c) you believe that anything you post isn't from the nutterverse.

p.s. murder is a legally defined term. let me know when you understand that.

and comparing anything you disagree with to genocide is as vile and disgusting as anything i've seen a winger post.

and please, tell us again how pro freedom you are

[iustitia]

She's got a point. That only leaves them with slavery, the KKK, eugenics, rearming Germany, and aiding the Soviets.

[Mainecoons]

Only when things were going badly and Lincoln needed to drum up more support for his war of northern aggression did he free the slaves.

[Ethereal]

^no. SC fired the first shot at a federal military installation. Lincoln was an asshole but he did not fire the first shot.

They fired at an invading army in their sovereign territory.

[Ethereal]

Lysander Spooner said it best:

The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.

[patrickt]

Only when things were going badly and Lincoln needed to drum up more support for his war of northern aggression did he free the slaves.

President Lincoln did not free a single slave in the U.S. The last slave in the White House belonged to President Grant. President Lincoln graciously freed slaves in foreign country he was invading and left the slaves in the north enslaved. How big of him.

[patrickt]

^no. SC fired the first shot at a federal military installation. Lincoln was an asshole but he did not fire the first shot.

Bingo. And, the Japanese did not fire the first shot at Pearl Harbor therefore President Roosevelt started our involvement in the War in the Pacific. What a simplistic way some have of pretending the North didn't start the war after the South quite legally seceded.

[patrickt]

it's only a murder chart if you accept the lie a) that abortion is murder; and b) you believe everyone who's ever had an abortion is a democrat (Which is so beyond stupid i can't even contemplate it); and c) you believe that anything you post isn't from the nutterverse.

p.s. murder is a legally defined term. let me know when you understand that.

and comparing anything you disagree with to genocide is as vile and disgusting as anything i've seen a winger post.

and please, tell us again how pro freedom you are

A member of the Zimmerman Lynch Mob is now saying that murder has a definition. Amazing hypocrisy.

[Cigar]

A member of the Zimmerman Lynch Mob is now saying that murder has a definition. Amazing hypocrisy.



There is no such thing as a Zimmerman Lynch Mob ... "EVERY" issue George Zimmerman has found himself in was due to George Zimmerman and no one else.

[Codename Section]

Lysander Spooner said it best:

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.



^^This.

[Ethereal]

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were the arch-progressives. Every president since Lincoln has been a progressive, Democrat or Republican. After Marxism spread in the 1800's, virtually every country was infected by it. Look at what Marx calls for and see for yourself:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Some might argue that the federal government meets more of the criteria than I highlighted.

[Codename Section]

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were the arch-progressives. Every president since Lincoln has been a progressive, Democrat or Republican. After Marxism spread in the 1800's, virtually every country was infected by it. Look for what Marx calls for and see for yourself:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Some might argue that the federal government meets more of the criteria than I highlighted.


But they won't admit they're Marxists because they still get to keep 54% of their own money...for now.

[Mr. Freeze]

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were the arch-progressives. Every president since Lincoln has been a progressive, Democrat or Republican. After Marxism spread in the 1800's, virtually every country was infected by it. Look at what Marx calls for and see for yourself:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Some might argue that the federal government meets more of the criteria than I highlighted.


Having lived under a communist state and in the United States what most people don't like to admit is that we are no longer world's apart. It wasn't all terror and house checks in the Soviet Union or communist Poland, it was just the fear that it could happen.

Speech was guided, property was owned by the state but you could still earn your own money and buy things with it, you could go to the movies but they were censored as to what was "morally" appropriate, you had free schooling and if you excelled you had more schooling, it wasn't all that different from America today.

I didn't live during the purges, but during the latter half of the Soviet empire. Give the US a few more years and we will be where the Soviets were during Gorbachev.

[Max Rockatansky]

Only when things were going badly and Lincoln needed to drum up more support for his war of northern aggression did he free the slaves.

Agreed. President Lincoln himself admitted that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but to force States from leaving the Union.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

.....I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.


Yours,

A. Lincoln.

[Ivan88]

5186
Democrats and Republicans work together for war. There is no real difference between them.
Lincoln was working with Karl Marx to turn a dispute between brothers into a full scale Communist Revolution.
Since then, we have become the world's most successful Communist country with all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto in operation nation wide.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUvoKZa1ylP0kW2BlC6XAGn4jlqvvXk UIoNxfjd-D36N3rixCe4Qhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wPczWTfYL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MQ-BuTz1L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[Fredy]

I think that it is disingenuous to compare abortion in the United States to the democide committed by the 20th century totalitarians.

you misspelled intellectually dishonest

[Ivan88]

Lysander Spooner said it best:
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent.
Lysander Spooner's CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY should be read by all so called Constitutionalists.
However, his statement about consent is misleading:
In the American Declaration of Rights, 1774, the declarants stated that the American people never consented to be governed.
Thus, in American law, it is the public servants who consent to be governed by the American Man, who is the master and principal.

But, early on, the governed men sold out to the commercial interests and began taxing Americans to death. Taxes were much higher than under the English "oppression".

Some American Men in Massachusetts, commonly called The Shay Regulators, began regulating their public servants.

Samuel Adams and other so called "patriots" raised a private army and invaded Massachusetts and killed the Shay Regulators.

The Constitution was created to stop any more Shay Regulators from ever arising again. It pretends to honor American law, but does not.
Andrew Jackson overthrew the Supreme Court and attacked the Cherokee.
Lincoln also overthrew the Supreme Court and arrested, tortured and killed anyone he chose, and he chose most anyone who opposed his Communist Revolution.
Since Lincoln, The Supreme Court consults with Congress and the President before making any significant ruling.
http://proliberty.com/observer/shaysrebellion.jpg
Interview with Daniel Shay: http://proliberty.com/observer/20090205.htm
SS: Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about Shays’ Rebellion.

DS: Yes, Sir. But, first off, it wasn’t a rebellion, A rebellion is where people get disobedient to the rightful authorities. ... We weren’t rebelling,
... it’s like this: We had just fought the War for Independence. ...

So after the war, everything got bad. Folks were workin’ hard and having a bad time tryin’ to make it from day to day and, even though we didn’t have a king any more, we were still paying taxes to folks who dressed better’n we did and didn’t have dirt under their fingernails.

And no matter what you call them, if folks dress nice and don’thave dirt under their nails and they are giving the orders and you are doing the paying, well then you have a king.

SS: So what did you do?

DS: They’ve got it all figured out. They say,"These bumpkins won’t know who to shoot if we make it complicated. They’ll get off the land and hand over their money because we’ve papers and the law is on our side."

They sent some folks to talk to us.

Well, we didn’t see it that way. We could stay.

So the government sent lawmen to get us off our land. Sheriffs. Men with muskets.

SS: What happened?

DS: We had guns, too. So we shot ‘em.
............. see site for whole story
Sean Swain is a wrongfully-convicted political prisoner being held by the state of Ohio. Mr. Shays could not have "visited" him at a more appropriate time. While the times and circumstances have changed, the temptation for bankers and governments to throw people in prison and steal their property has not. If you would like to thank him for this inspired interview, write Sean Swain #243 205, PO Box 80033, Toledo, Ohio 43608.

[Mini Me]

5186
Democrats and Republicans work together for war. There is no real difference between them.
Lincoln was working with Karl Marx to turn a dispute between brothers into a full scale Communist Revolution.
Since then, we have become the world's most successful Communist country with all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto in operation nation wide.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUvoKZa1ylP0kW2BlC6XAGn4jlqvvXk UIoNxfjd-D36N3rixCe4Qhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wPczWTfYL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MQ-BuTz1L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

This is INSANE!

We are ruled by a FASCIST OLIGARCHY today.

The oligarchs love to yell "commie" to scapegoat the blame away from them.
Its an old trick they learned from Hitler.

[Mini Me]

Its not just abortion that is at stake here. We in America are dealing with a leftist/totalitarian contingent that is hell bent on pushing through their secular ideals that include all forms that debase and or often deprive us of life itself including euthanasia and eugenics. A leftist has more concern for an animal's life or for the saving of a spotted owl then they do for the birth of a human and for the livelihood of ranchers, lumbermen, and others who work out in the forests etc.

Well, enviro nutsos are that way. But that is a tiny percentage of the Dems that pushes the enviro radical agenda. Most normal folks are for a clean environment.

So where is the euthanasia and eugenics in the USA today? And don't try to tell me its abortion.

[iustitia]

I think we're overstating Lincoln's "progressivism". And the Communist claims I think are nonsense. Lincoln was a dick and overstepped his authority quite a few times, but the only thing connecting Lincoln to Marxism is Marx sending a letter to Lincoln, and Lincoln didn't give a shit. I think we need to see history linearly rather than retroactively.

[jillian]

I think we're overstating Lincoln's "progressivism". And the Communist claims I think are nonsense. Lincoln was a dick and overstepped his authority quite a few times, but the only thing connecting Lincoln to Marxism is Marx sending a letter to Lincoln, and Lincoln didn't give a shit. I think we need to see history linearly rather than retroactively.

you mean they *shouldn't* engage in revisionism?

[Peter1469]

you mean they *shouldn't* engage in revisionism?

Trying to link Lincoln to Marxism isn't revision, it is insanity.

[Mr. Freeze]

Trying to link Lincoln to Marxism isn't revision, it is insanity.

They were pen pals of sorts through ambassadors, and Marx held Lincoln in high esteem. He and his workers collective sent a lovely congratulatory letter to Lincoln to which he replied. You can read the back and forth through marxists.org

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm



(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)

[jillian]

Trying to link Lincoln to Marxism isn't revision, it is insanity.

i was trying to be nice.

[jillian]

They were pen pals of sorts through ambassadors, and Marx held Lincoln in high esteem. He and his workers collective sent a lovely congratulatory letter to Lincoln to which he replied. You can read the back and forth through marxists.org

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm



(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)

did he need to write something like "response to this letter does not imply endorsement of the recipient's political ideas?"

heck, talking to marx or lincoln would have been as interesting as anything.

[Mr. Freeze]

i was trying to be nice.


Sir:


I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.


So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.


The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.


Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.


I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams

[Mr. Freeze]

did he need to write something like "response to this letter does not imply endorsement of the recipient's political ideas?"

heck, talking to marx or lincoln would have been as interesting as anything.

Lincoln was of great interest to Soviets as he was considered a promoter or the "working man" we were taught about their relationship in our version of elementary school.

They wrote nice things about each other and through their secretaries.

I don't mean to imply they were "besties" but they were aware of each other and in agreement with the status of the working man.

[jillian]

Lincoln was of great interest to Soviets as he was considered a promoter or the "working man" we were taught about their relationship in our version of elementary school.

They wrote nice things about each other and through their secretaries.

I don't mean to imply they were "besties" but they were aware of each other and in agreement with the status of the working man.

that makes sense although i've never heard it before.

marx had some great ideas. he simply failed to take into consideration the fact that human nature was not consistent with his ideas.

[Mr. Freeze]

that makes sense although i've never heard it before.

marx had some great ideas. he simply failed to take into consideration the fact that human nature was not consistent with his ideas.

He wrote near the end of his life that "capitalism" had one feature that he had not taken into consideration and that was technological advancements. He agreed that without incentive people would not advance.

This was why Lenin created a special school for engineering and technology.

[jillian]

He wrote near the end of his life that "capitalism" had one feature that he had not taken into consideration and that was technological advancements. He agreed that without incentive people would not advance.

This was why Lenin created a special school for engineering and technology.

yes. but that isn't what i'm talking about… i'm talking about the fact that he believed the government would just "fall away"… he neglected human nature. humans never give up power or wealth willingly.

[Fredy]

Like his <cough!> "heroic" predecessor, Clinton, I could imagine the NIC dipping his wick in whatever sparked his fancy,

emphasis on the FANny part of that ...

But I digress. <sigh>

You imagine a lot of things that have no basis in reality.

You should get that checked. It's free under Obamacare.

[Max Rockatansky]

Interview with Daniel Shay: http://proliberty.com/observer/20090205.htm
SS: Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about Shays’ Rebellion.



Despite the slant, the Shay's Rebellion was an important event in our history that led to statehood for Vermont and caused Thomas Jefferson to write "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

[Blackrook]

Southerners discredit themselves when they cling to the past. The Constitution did not have a provision allowing states to secede from the union, which indicates the Founding Fathers did not want the states to have the power to secede from the union. Had the South won the war, our nation would now be divided into tiny principalities as Europe is, with constant warfare between them. Also, slavery would still be legal because the slaveholders would NEVER voluntarily give up their slaves. It's really stupid to say you would want something like this to happen.

[Mr. Freeze]

Southerners discredit themselves when they cling to the past. The Constitution did not have a provision allowing states to secede from the union, which indicates the Founding Fathers did not want the states to have the power to secede from the union. Had the South won the war, our nation would now be divided into tiny principalities as Europe is, with constant warfare between them. Also, slavery would still be legal because the slaveholders would NEVER voluntarily give up their slaves. It's really stupid to say you would want something like this to happen.

Neither did the British "constitution". You have no point, Sir.

[Fredy]

Neither did the British "constitution". You have no point, Sir.

So you agree that the various states in the South committed treason, because certainly the colonials did..

[Newpublius]

Southerners discredit themselves when they cling to the past. The Constitution did not have a provision allowing states to secede from the union, which indicates the Founding Fathers did not want the states to have the power to secede from the union. Had the South won the war, our nation would now be divided into tiny principalities as Europe is, with constant warfare between them. Also, slavery would still be legal because the slaveholders would NEVER voluntarily give up their slaves. It's really stupid to say you would want something like this to happen.

Slavery would be gone, give it a rest. Your logic about perpetual Balkanization is specious, if the logic were true it also would've applied to the original American secession from the British Empire.

[Newpublius]

So you agree that the various states in the South committed treason, because certainly the colonials did..

Opining that the Southern secession was contrary to the laws of the Union is analogous to the American Revolution's legality via a via British law. Of course both will suggest both actions were illegal. That's why the natural right of revolution is a natural right, not a legal one. American legal doctrine sets up a subtle distinction between the lawful right of revolution and unlawful rebellion.

[iustitia]

They were pen pals of sorts through ambassadors, and Marx held Lincoln in high esteem. He and his workers collective sent a lovely congratulatory letter to Lincoln to which he replied. You can read the back and forth through marxists.org

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm



(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)

The French aided us directly in the Revolutionary War and I'm pretty sure that didn't make us monarchists. Actually reading the minute correspondence between these two reveals nothing other than Marx congratulating Lincoln on reelection and Lincoln's office saying "yeah thanks".

[Blackrook]

The Southern states fought for the right to keep their fellow human beings in bondage. That is a despicable cause, and they deserved to lose. People should get over it.

And people who say there would no longer be slavery, please tell me when the South would have voluntarily given up their slaves?

Did the South voluntarily give up segregation and Jim Crow?

No, change had to be imposed on them.

Anyone who defends the South is defending the right to treat other human beings unfairly because they are of a different race than you.

That is a despicable cause, and the South deserved to lose.

I would think Southerners would like to admit that their ancestors were wrong, and be done with it.

[iustitia]

The Southern states fought for the right to keep their fellow human beings in bondage. That is a despicable cause, and they deserved to lose. People should get over it.

And people who say there would no longer be slavery, please tell me when the South would have voluntarily given up their slaves?

Did the South voluntarily give up segregation and Jim Crow?

No, change had to be imposed on them.

Anyone who defends the South is defending the right to treat other human beings unfairly because they are of a different race than you.

That is a despicable cause, and the South deserved to lose.

I would think Southerners would like to admit that their ancestors were wrong, and be done with it.No, neo-confederates aren't all secret slavery supporters. Often they're just libertarians naively believing the war was over state's rights which is a much better reason to wage a war over than slavery. They believe that secession was legal, slavery would have died out on its own as technology advanced and economics wouldn't support it, and that likely said states would've rejoined the union anyway down the line.

I don't agree with libertarian interpretation of the Civil War as again I think it's blatantly incorrect historically, but morally I think it's just as disingenuous to claim they're actually defending slavery.

[Max Rockatansky]

Southerners discredit themselves when they cling to the past.
I agreed that any group discredits themselves when they cling to the past. I can't tell you how many Yankee liberals think the Civil War was about slavery, but right now that very large number is at 100%.

As for you comment about secession. No permission needed. If you and I decide to go hunting together, I don't need your permission to go home. If you and I decide to enter a partnership together, I don't need your permission to quit and leave the business. The Constitution has rules for those who sign it. It does NOT state that States must do as their told and that they can never leave the Union.

You are correct about what would have happened if Southern states had been allowed to secede. History would have been far different and I seriously doubt we'd be a superpower. In fact, the outcome of WWII would likely be very different. While I don't agree that President Lincoln had the authority to do what he did and while I continue to believe the South had every right to secede, as history turns out, I'm glad it turned out the way it did.