The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ptarmigan on July 30, 2008, 11:49:44 PM
-
Here is who I think are the most evil people in history.
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Mullamar Omar
Idi Amin
Osama bin Laden
9/11 Hijackers
Elizabeth Bathory
Jim Jones
-
I dunno, Ptarmigan.
That list is too top-loaded with recent personages.
Many historians rate Tamurlane (circa 700 years ago) as monstrously evil.
Compared with him, Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan were benefactors of humanity.
Or take Adolph Hitler, who of course was evil; yet there were others with him more evil than him, their destruction being more limited, because they themselves had lesser power than their boss. Reinhard Heydrich and Julius Streicher come to mind. If either of these guys had had the power their boss did, each of them would have made Adolph Hitler look like a benefactor of humanity.
-
I dunno, Ptarmigan.
That list is too top-loaded with recent personages.
Many historians rate Tamurlane (circa 700 years ago) as monstrously evil.
Compared with him, Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan were benefactors of humanity.
Or take Adolph Hitler, who of course was evil; yet there were others with him more evil than him, their destruction being more limited, because they themselves had lesser power than their boss. Reinhard Heydrich and Julius Streicher come to mind. If either of these guys had had the power their boss did, each of them would have made Adolph Hitler look like a benefactor of humanity.
I know Tamurlane is evil. He was known for his cruelty. However, some people, mostly in Central Asia view him as a hero. Heydrich and Streicher were true monsters, but they were under Hitler. It would not surprise me if they were just as bad as Hitler, if they were the leaders instead of Hitler. The people I listed are reviled by almost everyone, except by fringe element types and wackos.
-
I saw a special on Vlad the Impaler, the real Dracula the other night on History.
He could probably give those folks a run for their money in the evil department.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler
-
I saw a special on Vlad the Impaler, the real Dracula the other night on History.
He could probably give those folks a run for their money in the evil department.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler
He was mostly seen as a hero. His bad press came from the Ottomans and the boyers. He was a member of the Order of the Dragon which was an organization to stop the spread of Islam from the Ottoman empire into Eastern Europe.
Of course, compared to today, even people like Henry VIII could be seen as evil. Cruel little boys playing God. Many people today have this romantic notion of the past but the truth is now is the best time to be alive, ever. And it has been this way for a long time.
There is no Golden Age. No Eden. Such stories reflect a longing for a reunion with God. But the separation never happened, except in our imagination and we are all still safe at home. Evil is a sort of fiction that has no actual substance, much like a vampire cannot cast a reflection, because they don't actually exist. Or like in Parsifal, because Parsifal knew no guilt, he was able to catch the Spear of Destiny and banish Klingsor's kingdom because, not suffering from unconscious guilt, Parsifal could project nothing to sustain Klingsor's kingdom, which is a kingdom that can only be sustained if we judge ourselves. A kingdom of imagined guilt and fear of punishment. This is also the reason that Amfortas could not heal. There was no real wound, there never was any real wound at all but Amfortas thought there was and he thought he had failed the Grail Knights but no such failure is possible.
"Be whole, absolved and atoned! For I now will perform your task. O blessed be your suffering, that gave pity's mighty power and purest wisdom's might to the timorous fool!"
The reason Parsifal was a fool was because he didn't buy into the world of forms and therefore he couldn't be fooled.
So, much like beauty, the embodiment of evil is also much in the eye of the beholder. And the zeitgeist of the beholder.
So for me, today, that guy who cut off the head of his fellow passenger is the embodiment of evil. You can look back at Henry VIII and Ghengis Kahn and Vlad Tepes and put them and their actions into context and divine some reason for their evils. This guy up in Canada is the total embodiment of shadow. A monster right out of the sticky depths of the tar pits of the id. Most of the people on Ptarmy's list, you know who they are. If you live in their land you can try to escape. You know who the bad guy is. This bus thing is so random and chaotic that "evil" is the only word that seems to apply.
-
Carrottop - for obvious reasons
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
-
Caligula
Uday and Qusay
Richard Rameriz
Fred Phelps
King Herod
Anton Lavey
L. Ron Hubbard
Andrei Chikatilo
Jim Jones
Muslims in Rowanda, Chechnya, and Dafur
Marilyn Manson (joke that he is he has led more people away from God than most anyone I could name)
-
Carrottop - for obvious reasons
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
QED
-
Caligula
Uday and Qusay
Richard Rameriz
Fred Phelps
King Herod
Anton Lavey
L. Ron Hubbard
Andrei Chikatilo
Jim Jones
Muslims in Rowanda, Chechnya, and Dafur
Marilyn Manson (joke that he is he has led more people away from God than most anyone I could name)
Before you start busting out the wide paint brush here...
Rwanda was not a "religious" genocide. The conflict was over two ethnic peoples. This could even be "blamed" on the Belgians before anything involving religion.
The genocide was caused by 1 mans lust for power, and perpetrated by an army populated by ignorant people who had been "held down" by the Tutsis for more then 70 years and saw their chance to strike back.
-
Ed Asner !
-
I would go as far as to suggest Muhammed. (The founder of Islam "Muhammed") Islam has presented itself as an evil religion and there are several stories of Muhammed's pedophilia, insanity and other evilness.
Ohh...... and I side with Milosovec and the other guy they just "caught". Those men were merely protecting Bosnia from the evil spread of Islam. If anything, they belong with Vlad the Impaler!! As stated before, Vlad the Impaler is recognized locally as an hero, not the beast people have made him out to be. It truly surprises me that these people were able to recognize Islam for what it really is.
-
I would go as far as to suggest Muhammed. (The founder of Islam "Muhammed") Islam has presented itself as an evil religion and there are several stories of Muhammed's pedophilia, insanity and other evilness.
Ohh...... and I side with Milosovec and the other guy they just "caught". Those men were merely protecting Bosnia from the evil spread of Islam. If anything, they belong with Vlad the Impaler!! As stated before, Vlad the Impaler is recognized locally as an hero, not the beast people have made him out to be. It truly surprises me that these people were able to recognize Islam for what it really is.
I agree. However, it wasn't what they did it was how they did it.
-
Posters at Political Forum/Boards who slum at Right leaning forums and pretend to have America and American Culture as something they believe in and agree with !
-
I would go as far as to suggest Muhammed. (The founder of Islam "Muhammed") Islam has presented itself as an evil religion and there are several stories of Muhammed's pedophilia, insanity and other evilness.
Ohh...... and I side with Milosovec and the other guy they just "caught". Those men were merely protecting Bosnia from the evil spread of Islam. If anything, they belong with Vlad the Impaler!! As stated before, Vlad the Impaler is recognized locally as an hero, not the beast people have made him out to be. It truly surprises me that these people were able to recognize Islam for what it really is.
I agree. However, it wasn't what they did it was how they did it.
Like any of the Muslims will ever be prosecuted for their "war crimes" .......
[Admin Hat]
DonPeyote, exactly JUST what does this statement mean ?? You're new here, so I'm asking for clarification of intent:
Posters at Political Forum/Boards who slum at Right leaning forums and pretend to have America and American Culture as something they believe in and agree with !
[/Admin Hat]
-
Posters at GOPUSA , Neutral Underground, The New left leaning Protest Warrior forum, the old original Protest Warrior, Politico,JTF,Delphi,Powerline feedback,IC database,Liberty Forum,Chronwatch, Conservative Underground... who are Closit Socialist Dem/libs pretending to be Libertarians or even conservatives and they are experts at subterfuge and are very selective about when and who they will risk rocking the forum boat with an attack on thus they usually become pillars of the board community and enjoy huge post counts when in all actuality they are the most dangerous troublemakers (As bad as Obama web war room soldiers) Hope that is what you were asking for clarity on (And as for me being a Liberal plant Others here know me and will vouch for my Nationalist Republican Pro America leanings)
-
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
WTF??? :whatever:
-
Posters at GOPUSA , Neutral Underground, The New left leaning Protest Warrior forum, the old original Protest Warrior, Politico,JTF,Delphi,Powerline feedback,IC database,Liberty Forum,Chronwatch, Conservative Underground... who are Closit Socialist Dem/libs pretending to be Libertarians or even conservatives and they are experts at subterfuge and are very selective about when and who they will risk rocking the forum boat with an attack on thus they usually become pillars of the board community and enjoy huge post counts when in all actuality they are the most dangerous troublemakers (As bad as Obama web war room soldiers) Hope that is what you were asking for clarity on (And as for me being a Liberal plant Others here know me and will vouch for my Nationalist Republican Pro America leanings)
So basically anyone who's ever exposed you as the whackjob you are and kicked you out is now evil?
:whatever:
Oh and BTW you left one name off of there.
-
Posters at GOPUSA , Neutral Underground, The New left leaning Protest Warrior forum, the old original Protest Warrior, Politico,JTF,Delphi,Powerline feedback,IC database,Liberty Forum,Chronwatch, Conservative Underground... who are Closit Socialist Dem/libs pretending to be Libertarians or even conservatives and they are experts at subterfuge and are very selective about when and who they will risk rocking the forum boat with an attack on thus they usually become pillars of the board community and enjoy huge post counts when in all actuality they are the most dangerous troublemakers (As bad as Obama web war room soldiers) Hope that is what you were asking for clarity on (And as for me being a Liberal plant Others here know me and will vouch for my Nationalist Republican Pro America leanings)
So basically anyone who's ever exposed you as the whackjob you are and kicked you out is now evil?
:whatever:
Oh and BTW you left one name off of there.
If you consider Mods & admins at conservative forum/boards who saddle up with Lib/Dem Socialistic Elitist Troublemakers over Right leaning Troublemakers with an odd sense of humor then yes . And BTW I can post at many of those and other forums INCLUDING THE DU but why bother when there are mod admins who treat newcomers as you do
-
If you consider Mods & admins at conservative forum/boards who saddle up with Lib/Dem Socialistic Elitist Troublemakers over Right leaning Troublemakers with an odd sense of humor then yes . And BTW I can post at many of those and other forums INCLUDING THE DU but why bother when there are mod admins who treat newcomers as you do
Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.
(http://graphics.boston.com:80/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2005/12/14/1134594035_4687.jpg)
After all this time you still haven't learned that.
-
If you consider Mods & admins at conservative forum/boards who saddle up with Lib/Dem Socialistic Elitist Troublemakers over Right leaning Troublemakers with an odd sense of humor then yes . And BTW I can post at many of those and other forums INCLUDING THE DU but why bother when there are mod admins who treat newcomers as you do
Sarge treats everyone the same -- newbie or not. He justs ask that you make sense and not be a BS artist. Or at least that is my observation of his treatment of people -- I can't actually speak for him.
-
Sarge treats everyone the same -- newbie or not. He justs ask that you make sense and not be a BS artist. Or at least that is my observation of his treatment of people -- I can't actually speak for him.
Thank you sir. And you re pretty much correct.
What Don here fails to realize he is neither new to me nor am I new to him.
I've done this strange dance of his before.
Maybe one day he'll sober up and it will come to him.
-
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
WTF??? :whatever:
Didn't know that ?
Did you know that he was the only prez to get elected with NO southern electoral votes ? Think that was ever going to happen again ?
Did you know that Honest Abe went through a lot of generals until he found ones who would provide the brutality levels he wanted ?
If you're interested in all the shameful details, read this...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419FE6E5FVL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
-
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
WTF??? :whatever:
Didn't know that ?
Did you know that he was the only prez to get elected with NO southern electoral votes ? Think that was ever going to happen again ?
Did you know that Honest Abe went through a lot of generals until he found ones who would provide the brutality levels he wanted ?
If you're interested in all the shameful details, read this...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419FE6E5FVL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
Oh, I see.
One book written by someone with an agenda should substitute for over a hundred years of biographies by thousands of authors.
So if I write a book about how Southern Conspiracy Nuts should all be tossed in a loonie bin, that should be sufficient proof to do so?
-
Add to the list: Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who would rather sacrifice all the blood of innocent boys in the South than give up owning other human beings.
-
Abraham Lincoln - sent 500,000 plus to their deaths to insure his re-election
Sherman & Grant - were soulless enough to make Lincoln's dream come true
WTF??? :whatever:
Didn't know that ?
Did you know that he was the only prez to get elected with NO southern electoral votes ? Think that was ever going to happen again ?
Did you know that Honest Abe went through a lot of generals until he found ones who would provide the brutality levels he wanted ?
If you're interested in all the shameful details, read this...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419FE6E5FVL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
Oh, I see.
One book written by someone with an agenda should substitute for over a hundred years of biographies by thousands of authors.
So if I write a book about how Southern Conspiracy Nuts should all be tossed in a loonie bin, that should be sufficient proof to do so?
Most of Lincoln's most ardent historian admirers admitted that he was a dictator. This author quotes from those guys as well as a wide variety of publications of the day to demonstrate the points he makes.
Now if you're not interested, don't read the book. I'm not the author or publisher, I stand to gain nothing. But if you are the least bit curious, read it. Check the references. Discover the whitewashing of this "great" president. You'll be as surprized as I was.
-
If you're going to have that kind of attitude about it...then you should add Generals Ike, Patton, MacArthur, Bradley, Schwartzkoph, McCaffery and Petraeus along with Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan Bush 41 and 43 to that list huh?
-
Add to the list: Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who would rather sacrifice all the blood of innocent boys in the South than give up owning other human beings.
Southern volunteers vs northern conscripts including boatloads of Irish immigrants who could pony up $200 (a fortune at the time) or join the Union forces.
If slavery was the issue, why was Lincoln unwilling to pursue the path that had been leading to bloodless emancipation the world over in the same period ?
Read the book.
Or this one which will also explain how racist Lincoln was...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm
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.
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.
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.
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."
Henry Clay Whitney, a close friend of Lincoln, is quoted by Bennett as saying the proclamation was "not the end designed by him (Lincoln), but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of the slaves and the payment for them to their masters - at least to those who were loyal."
-
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.
No agenda there -- Black America is looking for Reparations and if they have to throw their emancipator under the bus to get them, so be it.
-
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.
No agenda there -- Black America is looking for Reparations and if they have to throw their emancipator under the bus to get them, so be it.
I hope you stretched out before you convoluted yourself with that one !
So tell me, how many slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation ?
-
Oh GATOR!!!!!!!!!!! I missed you ever so much!!!!!!!! :whatever:
-
Enough of the revisionist Lincoln crap please.
Dishonest About Abe
A review of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas DiLorenzo
By Thomas L. Krannawitter
This article appeared in the Spring 2002 issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Click here to send a comment.
With malice towards all and charity towards none of Abraham Lincoln's principles and actions, The Real Lincoln is the latest attempt to finish the job so ignobly begun by John Wilkes Booth in April 1865. Although Lincoln breathed no more after that, his character and reputation lived on, to be sniped at ever since. The Lincoln haters are an increasingly diverse lot, with strange and not always compatible purposes. The alleged purpose of Thomas DiLorenzo's invective is to defend constitutionalism and free market economics. He claims to demonstrate that Lincoln was an enemy of both, as well as a hypocrite on the subject of "racial equality." What he mainly demonstrates, however, is that his aim is not nearly as good as Booth's.
As the title suggests, The Real Lincoln purports to go beyond the mountains of revisionist historiography to reveal Lincoln's genuine principles and purposes. According to DiLorenzo, these had nothing to do with the perpetuation of free government and the problem of slavery: The "real" Lincoln did not care a whit about the "peculiar institution." At the core of the "real" Lincoln's ambition was an unqualified and unwavering commitment to mercantilism, or socialism as DiLorenzo sometimes intimates. Lincoln would stop at nothing to impose the "Whig economic system" upon America, and any opinion he voiced regarding slavery was merely instrumental in advancing this end. Lincoln's "cause," in the words of DiLorenzo, was "centralized government and the pursuit of empire." According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln said this "over and over again," although DiLorenzo does not trouble himself to produce a shred of evidence for this assertion.
If the "real" Lincoln needed to resort to war to advance his cause, he was happy to do it: "Lincoln decided that he had to wage war on the South," because only military might would destroy "the constitutional logjam behind which the old Whig economic policy agenda had languished." In the end, writes DiLorenzo, "[lincoln] wanted war" and "was not about to let the Constitution stand in his way." Lincoln was devoted to undermining the Constitution in the name of tariffs and internal improvement schemes. In its place Lincoln hoped to build a centralized mercantilist-socialist state, with himself at the helm.
Of course Lincoln and his Republican party supported tariffs, as had many Federalists, Democrats, and Whigs before them. They understood, as DiLorenzo does not, that all economics is political economics, and that in a world dominated by monarchs it made sense to encourage the expansion of American manufacturing power through tariffs. According to DiLorenzo's libertarian-public choice analysis, Alexander Hamilton and his Whig followers — Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Lincoln above all — were arch-villain "statists" for supporting tariffs, while Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John C. Calhoun were defenders of "free trade." DiLorenzo seems not to know that the first protective tariff in American history (1816) was introduced by Calhoun and supported by Madison and Jefferson, and opposed by Webster. DiLorenzo is so blinded by his commitment to purely theoretical free trade that he is oblivious to the real growing division between pro-slavery and pro-freedom forces in America in the 1850s. He cannot see that tariffs were in the service of free trade because they were in the service of freedom: tariffs advantaged free labor and put the squeeze on slave-labor economies.
In fact, DiLorenzo's "new look" shows us nothing new. From the time of Jefferson Davis's The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, the anti-Lincoln columns have marched over and over the same tired ground. Edgar Lee Masters's Lincoln the Man, which DiLorenzo quotes approvingly, was a breathless compilation of every slander ever made against Lincoln. But if DiLorenzo's message is old hat, the incompetence of the messenger is surely unprecedented. The book is a compendium of misquotations, out-of-context quotations, and wrongly attributed quotations — one howler after another, yet none of it funny.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp
*edited to meet Fair Use standards see forum rules*
Thanks! --DixieBelle
-
Interesting formerlurker, thanks for posting. :)
-
Well done former.
I think that should just about put this crap about Lincoln to rest.
-
Enough of the revisionist Lincoln crap please.
Walter E Williams doesn't seem to think its revisionist crap. Of course he did take the time to read the book and all.
DiLorenzo Is Right About Lincoln
by Walter E. Williams
In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.
Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.
March 22, 2005
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
*edited to meet Fair Use standards - see forum rules*
Thanks! --DixieBelle
-
Enough of the revisionist Lincoln crap please.
Walter E Williams doesn't seem to think its revisionist crap. Of course he did take the time to read the book and all.
DiLorenzo Is Right About Lincoln
by Walter E. Williams
In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.
Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.
March 22, 2005
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
*edited to meet Fair Use standards - see forum rules*
Thanks! --DixieBelle
1) so did the person who wrote the review of the book;
2) Lewrockwell will rot your brain. Just say no. You will thank me later.
-
1) so did the person who wrote the review of the book;
2) Lewrockwell will rot your brain. Just say no. You will thank me later.
I don't care much about Lew but Dr Williams has earned my respect.
Some book reviewer with a book of his own to sell ? And that title, Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Ideals of Our Greatest President... ideals are what he's defending, maybe not the history itself ? That swhat all the other Lincoln defenders had to do because the actual documented history is indefensible.
(http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/bookmed/21/9780742559721.jpg) ?
So read both and make up your own minds.
*edited to fix quote tags - DixieBelle*
-
1) so did the person who wrote the review of the book;
2) Lewrockwell will rot your brain. Just say no. You will thank me later.
I don't care much about Lew but Dr Williams has earned my respect.
Some book reviewer with a book of his own to sell ? And that title, Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Ideals of Our Greatest President... ideals are what he's defending, maybe not the history itself ? That swhat all the other Lincoln defenders had to do because the actual documented history is indefensible.
(http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/bookmed/21/9780742559721.jpg) ?
So read both and make up your own minds.
I'll pass on the Lewrockwell version thanks. You clearly did not read the review I posted which details the "documented history" and how DiLorenzo failed on all marks in presenting it to support his argument.
Revisionist history is pretty much all Lewrockwell dabbles in. Libertarians lost their grip on reality the day they signed on to their platform. Really not impressed that Williams supports that drivel.
*edited to fix quote tags - DixieBelle*