[Red_Army]

Triggerhappy, he was defining the word nazi, in relation to Darwin because he was a racist. That said Fascists and Socialists are far from the same. The word socialist doesn't change that. Pick up the book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for good info on socialist vs. fascist conflict in Germany.

[Ixa]

First and foremost, is this for real?

Yes. And it is not taken out of context.

Secondly, how can you honestly call Lincoln a "Nazi"? You are all jumping to really juvenile conclusions.

Who is 'you'? I never called him a Nazi.

Thirdly, how can you say Lincoln was using the blacks as cannon fodder?

I would suggest reading a history book on the subject.

If that was the case, then why were blacks only 10% of the Federal Army?

Only?

And why would he have waited until late 1863 and 1864 to arm, equip, and train this so-called "cannon fodder"?

Why not?

[Red_Army]

Nobody called Lincoln a nazi. I called Darwin a nazi for being a racist. This is obviously not true as he wasn't a National Socialist. I just use the term as a demeaning remark about people who are extremely prejudiced against others based on race, religion, etc.

[The Immortal Goon]

Lincoln only liberated black slaves so that they could be enlisted in the army to be used as cannon fodder. They couldn't be enlisted as slaves.

And it took the bottom out of the Confederate Economy.

The Civil War was the last western bourgeois revolution. Good, wipe out the last bit of landed aristocracy in the country, I'm not shedding any tears.

I don't really care why Lincoln did it either. The fact is that he did it.

-TIG

[Potemkin]

And it took the bottom out of the Confederate Economy.

The Civil War was the last western bourgeois revolution. Good, wipe out the last bit of landed aristocracy in the country, I'm not shedding any tears.

I don't really care why Lincoln did it either. The fact is that he did it.

Quoted for truth. No matter what his personal beliefs or feelings towards Black people, Lincoln played an objectively progressive role at that period in history, and the South an objectively reactionary one. Whether we would want Lincoln as a drinking buddy is irrelevant.

[Captain Hat]

Yes. And it is not taken out of context.

I need proof. Give me a link.

Who is 'you'? I never called him a Nazi.

Don't worry about it, I was refering to another person's post. My fault there.

I would suggest reading a history book on the subject.

You didn't answer my question. The black troops were not cannon fodder and on many occassions were not committed to combat because some Federal commanders deemed the black soldiers as of a poorer quality to those of the whites. I would suggest you read a history book.

Only?

Yes, only. Do you have any idea what the size of the Federal Army was by the time the black formed 10% of it? Most likely over 1.5 million. And, as I have stated, not many of them saw action. Most black troops were relegated to garrison or non-combat duty rather than be sent to the front. Certaintly doesn't sound like they were cannon fodder to me.

Why not?

If Lincoln wanted the blacks to be cannon fodder for the war, why did he not free them in 1862? Or in 1861 for that matter. Why did he wait until the war was nearing its end to increase black recruitment?

[era o divertimento]

I think it starts sliding into an ethical argument of how one should be judged even if they are acting correctly for their era.

Being that we have no signed manuscript describing Lincoln's innermost, non-political thoughts on the subject, I struggle to see where it matters what he thought or whether he is held up as a "hero."

[Ombrageux]

Quite the generalisation.

Fine, then the vast majority of Westerners thought that none-westerners were either:
- retarded (blacks)
- 'noble savages' (Native Americans and Africans)
- barbarians (Turks and other muslims)
- untrustworthy (east Asians)

This is completely normal and completely wrong. However, 400 years of conquering primitive pagans, enslaving them and ruling them with an iron fist with, apparently, the only difference being the color of one's skin is bound to make any people a bunch of racist cunts.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

In the context of history I will certainly continue to see Abraham Lincoln in a very positive light. I guess you would prefer to stand by the Confederates? Lincoln, in case you didn’t know, also had somewhat of a warm heart for labor rights. However, outside the context of history Lincoln could hardly be considered as significant, and even less so relevant to our times.

Besides, there were even some exceptional Marxists within the First International who too were inclined to a racist comment here and there. One only needs to mention the case of E. B. Bax to disturb some nerves. Moreover, by the looks of things, Salvador Allende could have been an outright fascist in his youth. Would this force you to stand in line with the Contras?

[era o divertimento]

Aside from both getting snuffed, Sugejn, I'm not sure what the connection between Allende and Lincoln is?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is likely that both were racist at one time in their life, yet both played extremely progressive roles in history.

[era o divertimento]

hmm, not to degrade either, but I don't see that the comparison works. However quibbling over historical comparisons is kind of silly, so feel free to run with it.

I would be interested to see someone start a thread in History about some theories of what would have been the result of Lincoln living. And even Allende, as well, though I would be hard-pressed to imagine him having any major breakthroughs from Chile.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

However quibbling over historical comparisons is kind of silly, so feel free to run with it.

Thanks, but I don't think I asked for your permission with regards to any of this. As a matter of fact, that second paragraph was intended solely as a raply to Ixabert; you know, from one lefty to another, so that maybe you were not even supposed to see how the comparison works.

[era o divertimento]

Oh. My bad. I'm pretty obtuse in regards to secret-leftistspeak

[rothbard_king]

The important point is that Lincoln:

Imprisoned thousands of dissidents as well as some senators.
Shut down dissident newspapers and arrested the editors.
Was complacent and encouraging when generals:
The first draft (slavery) in US history.

destroyed private property of southerners as well as holding civilians hostage and executing them at random.
Rape of southern women and also slaves.

[Maksym]

Captain Hat, what “proof” are you exactly looking for? If you analyze the events leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, it becomes clear Lincoln’s intention was preserving the Union. It has become folklore that the Civil War’s main ambition was to end slavery, but this is not the case at all. The CSA were given an ultimatum on September 22nd 1862, if they did not rejoin the Union then slavery would be abolished.

[Captain Hat]

Maksym, you misunderstand me. I was asking Ixabert for proof that Lincoln said what was quoted, not proof of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Consequently, Ixabert has failed to supply such proof of the Lincoln quote, thus far.

[Messiah]

Is this some failed attempt at humour wrapped in flagrant anti-semitism, or do you have ADD?

Are people with ADD, stupid?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Maksym, you misunderstand me. I was asking Ixabert for proof that Lincoln said what was quoted, not proof of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Consequently, Ixabert has failed to supply such proof of the Lincoln quote, thus far.

Are you serious? He doesn't really need to prove anything. Racism in Lincoln is well documented.

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor 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 I believe 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."


* Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate (18 September 1858).

[Andres]

And he was certainly right. It was a huge problem, because many of the people were racist. It would have been very difficult for the country to all of the sudden have equality for blacks. Think of the social turmoil it would've caused. That's not to say that Lincoln didn't wish it could happen personally.

I think you are being extremely naive

From macsen:

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation

I hate to bring this up, but Darwin's theory is, by his own admission, far outside the bounds of true science. His "theory" is nothing more than a religious belief.

Now, this was just a moronic, out off topic statement.