D
distracted
Guest
.
i can see why liberals wouldn’t have any comments to Post 17…
i can see why liberals wouldn’t have any comments to Post 17…
- Status
L
Lujack
Guest
Okay, Black was a member of the liberal bloc on the Court, this is true. However, Black’s unique judicial philosophy has never really been shared by anybody else. For all his liberalism, he also did not believe the Constitution protected a right to privacy, dissenting in Griswold v. Connecticut (which is a very important case), believed that illegally obtained evidence should be permitted at trials, and thought that warrantless wiretapping should be permitted.
Conservatives should familiarize themselves with Black’s judicial philosophy; some of his arguments are among the best for certain conservative positions (since I believe that there is a right to privacy, but that it was misapplied in Roe v. Wade, I’m not as interested, but there are many people who think disposing of the right to privacy is the best way to get that decision overturned).
I don’t think you’ll find many liberals who’ll ever cite Hugo Black as a leading light; his philosophy was so odd (mortally opposed to any government restrictions on any free speech, but absolutely supportive of government restriction of protests and demonstrations to nearly the point of banning them; he has a dichotomy like that on every issue) that nobody but Hugo Black could really love it. His KKK membership is inexcusable, especially because he never renounced it, but he never seemed to adhere to their principles, marking himself as an “immediate desegregationist” during the 1950’s.
well… they SHOULD have rights, that is…
Holmes did indeed uphold a compulsory sterilization law. In that respect, though, he was a man of the 1920’s; dozens of states had enacted these laws, and only one of the nine justices dissented in that case, and he didn’t even feel strongly enough about it to dissent. To focus only on Holmes and ignore that three of the Four Horsemen (conservative supreme justices opposed to the New Deal) also voted to uphold is madness.sounds kinda Hitler-like… doesn’t it… ?
Sad as it may be to admit, there was a consensus in the US during that period that such abhorrent laws were acceptable. But why should we be surprised by that? Jim Crow was considered acceptable, too. Holmes view here is abhorrent, but it reflects the way America was in the 1920’s; it shouldn’t be used to discount his other judicial opinions, which are absolutely brilliant.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the emancipation of the slaves would lead inevitably to race war; do we compare him to Charles Manson and refuse to acknowledge him as an important founding father?
L
Lujack
Guest
I responded now. You don’t really have much leeway to call anybody out, though, considering that you never actually respond to any of my responses, choosing instead to throw out new and unrelated points..
i can see why liberals wouldn’t have any comments to Post 17…
You haven’t even tried to defend the ridiculous assertion that the KKK has liberal roots, and that’s the subject of the thread!
D
distracted
Guest
yes, i had forgotten about that… always thought it kinda strange… for a liberal to rule that way…
not that interested in WHAT? abortion?? hmmm… maybe that’s because you are already born and need not worry about being mutilated in the womb…
oh please… Madness???
yeah, you’re right… and no one in Nazi Germany was wrong when not opposing whatever the Nazis wanted to do…
all that is needed for evil to prevail…
D
distracted
Guest
I’m done.
i don’t respond to hostile people and i have responded far too often already to your posts which are usually hostile and hateful…
gone against my own policy too many times… but forget it in the future…
you know, you may want to check that anti-charity attitude you have…
after sins against sexual purity, more people go to Hell for sins against charity than any other sin…
(… can’t say I’m not concerned for your soul)…
L
Lujack
Guest
People are more complicated than black/white, liberal/conservative. Hugo Black was an odd man.
No, not abortion! I’m not interested in the line of attack that there is no right to privacy, because I believe a right to privacy does exist. Because you want to know, this is my preferred Constitution-based argument against Roe v. Wade:not that interested in WHAT? abortion?? hmmm… maybe that’s because you are already born and need not worry about being mutilated in the womb…
oh please… Madness???
Although a right to privacy exists for the mother, that right to privacy is not the only right in play. It is a lesser right than the right of the fetus to live, so when the two rights come into conflict, the right to life trumps the right to privacy.
Black would argue that there is no right to privacy, something that I don’t think is true; I merely think that the right to privacy is outweighed by the right to life.
First of all, Holmes’s majority opinion in that case is abhorrent, but it is nowhere near as abhorrent as the Holocaust; the mortal evil of sterilizing “imbeciles” does not compare at all to the machine-like slaughter of millions.
Secondly, Holmes is no different in defending sterilization than Thomas Jefferson defending slavery; do we call Jefferson evil and toss everything he’s done out? Answer that question, please.
L
Lujack
Guest
Come on, distracted. You started the thread saying that you didn’t trust anything I said because you don’t trust liberals. Now you tell me to be more charitable. Every post on this thread contains some insult, explicit or implicit, towards me. Get the plank out of your own eye.
S
Swan
Guest
I have a practical suggestion for anyone who thinks the KKK is liberal: go to to their website(s) and read what they have to say. I did this while I was getting my Master’s in education for a diversity thesis. Most of those organizations are happy to tell you where their ideals came from, whose ideas they follow, etc. Look, read, and see how many true liberal beliefs they espouse.
L
LookAWayDixieLd
Guest
Unfortunately it seems rather a trend that when you disagree with some liberals, they get testy and express immense hate for those who show them things outside of their box.
By the way Abraham Lincoln was convinced that blacks and whites should not live in the same cities or even country. His wife Mary Todd, was daughter of a prominent slave-owning family from Kentucky.
Here is a quote form Lincoln in 1858 supporting segregation and separation of the races. During his public debates with Stephen Douglas in Illinois, Lincoln made it very clear that he sided with those of the Free-Soil party, which sought to confine the Negroes to the South so as not to compete with White labor in the Territories:
“I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.”
— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858
And this public statement in October, 1858. Here is more of Lincoln on racial segregation and what he thought about black folks.
“What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from [slavery] while in the territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them — that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have… Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home — may find some spot where they can better their condition — where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people every where, the world over [reply to Douglas on 15 October 1858].”
By today’s standards Lincoln would have been called a full fledge racist.
See post #9. These are just a couple of Lincoln’s statements there are many more just like these.
M
moonletters
Guest
I liked this thread, not only for its historical components, but for the way that Lujack, Chad and dixie have argued their points in complete sentences, referencing what they are denouncing and all in all being excellent debaters. Thanks for bringing sanity and scholarship to this thread, it made it interesting and much more worthwhile than it would have been otherwise.
L
Lujack
Guest
I haven’t shown immense hatred for anybody or anything. I am a big Lincoln fan, though.Unfortunately it seems rather a trend that when you disagree with some liberals, they get testy and express immense hate for those who show them things outside of their box.
Jefferson Davis was a prominent slaveholder from Mississippi. So were all his cabinet members.
You are also repeating some of the old myths about Lincoln being a colonization advocate, which was true for a time, but only briefly. After a meeting with black leaders at the White House, Lincoln realized how little enthusiasm there was for emigration among blacks, and he never moved on it again. At the time of his death, he was working to secure voting rights for blacks in Louisiana and in the north for returning veterans of the US Colored Troops.
He also, however, said this:
I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the EQUAL OF EVERY LIVING MAN.
And at the time of his death, he was in favor of making blacks and whites politically equal; he supported the granting of voting rights to literate African-Americans. In fact, a speech he gave advocating black citizenship was what prompted John Wilkes Booth to take his assassination plot to the final stage.
He also said this:
This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
And this:
That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.
We should also note that all of Lincoln’s most conservative remarks were made in Southern Illinois, an area known as Little Egypt, which was the most pro-slavery area in the entire state. He still had to try to get elected, after all. When Honest Abe was free to speak his mind and act on his conscience, results speak for themselves: the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment, and voting rights for blacks.
By today’s standards, everybody in the 1860’s would have been called a full-fledged racist. But Abraham Lincoln was far less racist than most of them, maybe even all of them. After all, this is Frederick Douglass on Lincoln:By today’s standards Lincoln would have been called a full fledge racist.
In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race. He was the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color, and I thought that all the more remarkable cause he came from a State where there were black laws.
And this was from a man who was close friends with William Lloyd Garrisson and Wendell Phillips, two of the leading abolitionists of the day. Yet it was Lincoln who he singled out for this remarkable honor.
L
LookAWayDixieLd
Guest
Lincoln, was in fact life long colonist, also said this:
In an address delivered at Springfield, Illinois on 26 June 1857, Lincoln openly declared himself in favor of racial segregation and the eventual deportation of the Blacks back to their native Africa:
“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together… Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be affected by coloniza tion… The enterprise is a difficult one, but “where there is a will there is a way”; and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”
Less than five months prior to delivering the final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln addressed a delegation of free Blacks at the Executive Mansion with these words:
…"Why… should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave the country? This is, perhaps, the first question for consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
You here are freemen, I suppose… but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys… Owing to the existence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery.
I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition — the country engaged in war — our white men cutting one another’s throats — none know ing how far it will extend — and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other… It is better for us both therefore to be separated… [speech delivered at the Executive Mansion on 14 August 1862]"
The issuance of Lincoln’s Proclamation brought no change in his position:
"I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.
I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal…
Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable [address delivered at Washington, D.C.; in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V, pages 371-375].
Even just two weeks before Lincoln died he was planning for colonization. The Northern General Butler, from Boston had this to say.
In his autobiography, Benjamin Butler referred to a conversation he had with Lincoln in early April 1865 in which Lincoln said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.” Butler suggested that the Blacks be shipped down to dig the Panama Canal, to which suggestion Lincoln replied, “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that; but how will it affect our foreign relations?” He then suggested that Butler present the plan in writing to Secretary Seward to obtain his assistance in formulating the details (Butler’s Book, Volume II, pages 903-907). However, an assassin’s bullet less than two weeks later squelched any further discussion of these plans for the deportation of America’s Blacks.
This was just two weeks before Lincoln died.
So maybe as we were all taught in school Honest Abe was not so Honest. The evidence of history shows he was a one term congressman from Illinois who talked out of both sides of his mouth.Now let’s see, an Illinois politician who had one term in the US Congress and speaks out of both sides of his mouth…hmmm…This just has such a familiar ring, to it but I just can’t think right now, who could possibly be like this in 2009 US Presidential politics??? Oh well I know it will come to me later.
D
distracted
Guest
Hitler was the steroetypical liberal: into environmentalism, vegetarianism , big governemtn … anti-poverty… (his way of ending poverty was ending the lives of poor people through eugenics.)
***proponents of eugenics these days are liberals… NOT conservatives… ***
eugenics holds that some genes are superior to others… and that we should try to always weed out the “inferior” ones…
the Christian position is that there are no inferior / superior humans. Yes, someone may have a high IQ and someone else not so high. but the person with the low IQ has talents and abilities the other does not… and etc… God created NO inferior humans (in the Christian view… particularly the Catholic view which holds all human life to be sacred).
(even if one could say that, say, mental retardation, is an inferior quality… Life trumps all… Life is sacred, created by God and only God should take it (excluding self defense, war, etc…) Parents of retarded children would argue with the person who says their child’s life is of no value …)
yes, it is the liberals who are into eugenics…
they support Planned parenthood, which is the most Hilter-like organization that exists.
rather ironic that BHO supports Planned P’s agenda… when one of their first objectives when they started out was to exterminate Blacks… and other “weeds”… Yes, M Sanger called them weeds… Hitler called them “useless eaters”…
and tht is still their goal… except that since Sanger 1st started out, they have added more groups of people to their list of “undesirables”, Catholics being one…
D
distracted
Guest
.
hate is not always bad…
it is right to hate evil…
Psalm 97: God loves those who hate evil.
i hate the hate that some on the Left espouse…
of course that means i will be accused of being hateful toward humans…
well, i hate certain concepts and ideas… .
I am hateful toward that which is hate-worthy… (concepts that, when implemented, lead to human misery)
hate is not always bad…
it is right to hate evil…
Psalm 97: God loves those who hate evil.
i hate the hate that some on the Left espouse…
of course that means i will be accused of being hateful toward humans…
well, i hate certain concepts and ideas… .
I am hateful toward that which is hate-worthy… (concepts that, when implemented, lead to human misery)
D
distracted
Guest
Frederick Douglas’ biography should be required reading for all Americans - and then they will see that deporting Blacks back to Africa would have been one of the best things the uS gov’t could have done…
I’ve read some of it and it is the saddest stuff i have ever read… heart-breaking, horrifying. Not all slave owners treated their slaves like that but many did…
reading this stuff did not make me ashamed to be White… it made me ashamed to be a human being…
and if it weren’t for the Catholic Church i may have been just as bad (??) I would like to think not… but one just never knows… what one would be if it weren’t for … [whatever]
at least if they’d been deported they would have again been with their own people…
and yet, many were born on American soil and were citizens… so those ones should have been given a choice… no, probably all of them should have been given the choice… AFTER being freed…
L
Lujack
Guest
You know what, I refuse to debate this any further. Instead of responding to any of my specific points, you just come out with tracts of long quotes. Since its clear you have no interest in participating in a general debate on the subject, and onlky want to spread lost cause propaganda, I’m out. Lincoln’s body of work stands on its own; attempted distortions by neo-Confederates cannot tarnish the life’s work of the great man.
L
LookAWayDixieLd
Guest
Mr. Douglas was an interesting gentleman and had this to say… Ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, “There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down … and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government.”Frederick Douglas’ biography should be required reading for all Americans - and then they will see that deporting Blacks back to Africa would have been one of the best things the uS gov’t could have done…
I’ve read some of it and it is the saddest stuff i have ever read… heart-breaking, horrifying. Not all slave owners treated their slaves like that but many did…
reading this stuff did not make me ashamed to be White… it made me ashamed to be a human being…
and if it weren’t for the Catholic Church i may have been just as bad (??) I would like to think not… but one just never knows… what one would be if it weren’t for … [whatever]
at least if they’d been deported they would have again been with their own people…
and yet, many were born on American soil and were citizens… so those ones should have been given a choice… no, probably all of them should have been given the choice… AFTER being freed…
The Catholic Church has a long history of against slavery and anyone who support it. Kind of like Abortion today, anyone who bought, sold or even support slavery, Pope Eugene IV Encyclical below decreed automatic Excommunication and Church did not mess around with soft peddling the issue either. This coming January will be the 575th Anniversary of the Encyclical.
Pope Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, January 13, 1435
On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Duhum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope states that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their home and enslaved:
“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetu-al slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold then to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them . . . Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (servituri subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money. [4]”
The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly sixty years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already have the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries. Eugene IV is clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within fifteen days. Those who do not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.
Another fact is that of the the total African Slave Trade on the Atlantic and Indian Ocean the United States accounted for less than 10%.
D
distracted
Guest
Whites and Blacks are equal in importance to God. they should therefore be of equal importance to all humans. They are not inferior in any way and i can’t believe you actually believe this stuff you have written. God created man, male & female, Black and White… and every other kind of apparent difference. Maybe God made us all so different (yet we really aren’t as different as some seem to think) becaues he was going to use this to test us… to see if we would really love others as we love ourselves, as Jesus said… or not…
I am repulsed by this idea that Whites are superior to Blacks or that any race is superior to another.
Whites have “raped” the world… done all kinds of hideous evils… If anything, one could make the argument that it is Whites who are inferior (morally). Most Blacks in Africa were just living out their lives until they were sold into slavery… and yes, i know the argument about how it was that Black chiefs were involved in the business of slavery so you dont’ even have to bother with that one…
I’m sorry if this sounds rude but your attitude is not in conformity with what Jesus taught us…
not to sound like a protestant but there is nothing in the Bible saying or alluding to the notion that Blacks are inferior… When the Bible says “man this, or man that” it doesn’t even mean man, literally, but women also… .and definitely those of a different race than ourselves…
D
distracted
Guest
no argument for that last post??
if people are segregated by the state… they will be treated differently… and differently usually translates into inferior / superior…
and if we are all equal in imporance to God, why should man separate people by race or anything else?
people nturally segregate themselves anyhow… Blacks tend to hang w/ Blacks and Whites w/ Whites and Cathlics w/ Catholics and etc…
that’s all we need is more of that…
if people are segregated by the state… they will be treated differently… and differently usually translates into inferior / superior…
and if we are all equal in imporance to God, why should man separate people by race or anything else?
people nturally segregate themselves anyhow… Blacks tend to hang w/ Blacks and Whites w/ Whites and Cathlics w/ Catholics and etc…
that’s all we need is more of that…
S
Sonny1954
Guest
I’m sorry, but as a historian, I know that this is nonsense. The KKK has its roots in racial segregation, not political liberalism. Yes, many Klansmen in the 1920s were Democrats. That was because virtually ALL white southerners were Democrats. And they were Democrats precisely because the hated President Lincoln had been a Republican. White southerns remained (most uneasily) in the Democratic coalition until Nixon’s successful “Southern Strategy” in the 1972 elections. Now most white southerns are Republican, which ideologically makes more sense. Southern conservative Democrats nearly also voted with Congressional Republicans on domestic issues from the early 1940s through the 1960s.
If you read original Klan hate literature, they berated Liberals for promoting racial integration and being for making common cause with “Jewish Intellectuals” and blue-collar Catholic union workers.
The KKK was and remains a reactionary movement, not a liberal one.
If you read original Klan hate literature, they berated Liberals for promoting racial integration and being for making common cause with “Jewish Intellectuals” and blue-collar Catholic union workers.
The KKK was and remains a reactionary movement, not a liberal one.
- Status