On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln (Team
of Rivals most recently).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:43:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln (Team
of Rivals most recently).


True that he didn't think of it a legitimate government but rather as
a bunch of rebels but I doubt that he thought of it as a democratic or
non-democratic bunch of rebels, which was your point that I was
answering.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:43:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
news:htqmo5pnl72k4agl8l02voq7ohgn975kni@4ax. com...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but
the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the
particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that
understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is
in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to
the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place
on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense
that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy?
Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln
(Team
of Rivals most recently).


True that he didn't think of it a legitimate government but rather as
a bunch of rebels but I doubt that he thought of it as a democratic or
non-democratic bunch of rebels, which was your point that I was
answering.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Heh... ok.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com