"Why It Won’t Stop With Statues." Article on why it can be expected that the mayhem will get worse

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VonDerTann said:
Now that you got your sarcastic soundbyte out, if you think what I said is wrong, feel free to provide a substantive analysis.
Click to expand...
In his defense if I remember right the Emancipation was a purely political move that didn’t free the slaves in the states already conquered. Nor did it free the indentured servants or slaves in states that were part of the union. Going purely by memory here. H. L. Mencken had a very scathing critique of it.
 
But Ruth – by that time there was no slavery in Northern states.

(As to those areas not in rebellion, the slaves were freed by the states during the war, or by the 13th Amendment- but the fact remains that the EP was a huge risk and by above point is correct).
 
Last edited:
You will have a hard time convincing anyone that the name “Lincoln” belongs in a pantheon with names like, I dunno, Benedict Arnold, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Epstein, etc. (I avoided Stalin & Hitler, as neither “walked on American soil” to my knowledge).
 
Last edited:
Side note, for anyone who thinks President Trump is too mean to the press, Lincoln locked up reporters.
 
VonDerTann said:
You will have a hard time convincing anyone that the name “Lincoln” belongs in a pantheon with names like, I dunno, Benedict Arnold, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Epstein, etc. (I avoided Stalin & Hitler, as neither “walked on American soil” to my knowledge).
Click to expand...
Thanks to the misinformation and propaganda spread about by the public schools. The evil of the persons you mentioned pale in comparison to Lincoln. He killed, or had killed, over 600,000 people in a senseless and illegal war. We were the only civilized country in over 60 years who ended slavery at such a cost. Compensated emancipation and other peaceful means to end slavery were the norm. Lincoln could have done the same, but instead, he was hell-bent on keeping the union together so that he could collect taxes and increase the power of the federal government. Ending slavery was just a tool, not a compassionate action towards the slaves.

In his own words, “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.”
 
Last edited:
WingedHussar said:
Side note, for anyone who thinks President Trump is too mean to the press, Lincoln locked up reporters.
Click to expand...
He not only locked up reporters, but had over 300 newspapers shut down, in many cases destroying their printing presses. Anyone expressing opposition to war were treated as traitors and jailed without due process. He did the same with churches and their ministers.
 
Sorry, Ruth, we will charitably have to agree to disagree.

(No one should have to defend the wisdom or strength of Abe Lincoln; and besides any response I’d give you’d just say was misinformation - admit it, you do kinda have a history of making that argument).
 
Last edited:
What do you care about the Constitution? You’re an anarchist, remember?
 
I’ve made very clear my position on this MANY times.

I’d be okay with it if we lived under a government that followed the Constitution, but as long as we have Democrats and Republicans in office, we will never live under a constitutional republic.

I have also made clear MANY times that anarchy is a utopian concept. Pure anarchy will never happen and I’m a realist who understands that. But I will continue to practice anarchy to the extent I am able and encourage others to do the same.

If you’ve read much of what I’ve written, you would already know this about me.
 
RuthAnne said:
I’ve made very clear my position on this MANY times.

I’d be okay with it if we lived under a government that followed the Constitution, but as long as we have Democrats and Republicans in office, we will never live under a constitutional republic.

I have also made clear MANY times that anarchy is a utopian concept. Pure anarchy will never happen and I’m a realist who understands that. But I will continue to practice anarchy to the extent I am able and encourage others to do the same.

If you’ve read much of what I’ve written, you would already know this about me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I’ve not read the full @RuthAnne bibliography. 😄

When you said “I’m an anarchist” I just took you at your word.
 
Hmmm…one post previously it was 600,000. Now it’s a million.

There wouldn’t be a country at all if it weren’t for Lincoln.
 
VonDerTann said:
Hmmm…one post previously it was 600,000. Now it’s a million.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should go back and read what I said. I made one reference to the over 600,000 lives that were lost at his hand, in other words, people killed, and I made another reference to the lives destroyed, which includes all those who were permanently injured, women raped, people’s homes and properties burned and pillaged, and all the other awful things that happen due to war. You don’t have to die to have your life destroyed. In reality, the number is probably much higher than a million.
VonDerTann said:
There wouldn’t be a country at all if it weren’t for Lincoln.
Click to expand...
A union is hardly a union when it is done involuntarily by force and bloodshed.
 
He could have let the South just separate. They would probably still have slavery.
 
He could have. It would have been a disaster, though.

What would have happened, I believe, is that very quickly you’d have seen some dispute between, say, Virginia and the other confederate states and Virginia becomes separate; Maine separates from the union, etc., and soon we have a Balkanization of the US, where what is now the US would have been an ever-shifting map of little countries, with many warring periodically with one another.

I suspect these little nations would not be anywhere near as technically advanced as the US is today. The world map would likely be very different: the US is really the only reason the west won WWI, and these little American states might, for example, have been ripe for the onset of communism.

The world would be much bloodier IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Lots of nations were held together by force at some point - think England and Scotland never fought?
 
VonDerTann said:
Lots of nations were held together by force at some point
Click to expand...
But secession was not only legal but some of the states only agreed to ratify the Constitution under the conditions that they were allowed to secede.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top