Post reply

Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: August 17, 2022, 07:30:07 pm »

“Critical self-awareness” would actually be a good counter-phrase to promote when rightists start talking about CRT
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 17, 2022, 05:06:57 pm »

For the record, Lincoln opposed Manifest Destiny:

Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was always contested —Democrats endorsed the idea but the large majority of Whigs and many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant) rejected the concept.[7][8][9]
Lincoln opposed anti-immigrant nativism, and the imperialism of manifest destiny as both unjust and unreasonable.[45] He objected to the Mexican war and believed each of these disordered forms of patriotism threatened the inseparable moral and fraternal bonds of liberty and union that he sought to perpetuate through a patriotic love of country guided by wisdom and critical self-awareness.

This critical self-awareness is what rightists disparage as "CRT"!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 22, 2022, 08:26:39 pm »

Well spotted!

Americans face in a different direction to Westerners.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 06, 2022, 08:21:37 pm »

‘A breaking down of a color line in the White House’: Book explores Lincoln’s connection to the Black community during Civil War

In spring 1864, President Abraham Lincoln invited a guest to one of his private rooms in the White House — the room he often napped and read his Bible in.

His visitor was Caroline Johnson, a Black woman from Philadelphia who was known for making intricate wax fruit. While the nation was embroiled in the Civil War, the pair sat and discussed the fruit Johnson had gifted Lincoln and his wife.

“It shows in a very practical way, a breaking down of a color line in the White House that had been very strong before the war, and unfortunately, would return after the war,” said Jonathan W. White, an American studies professor at Christopher Newport University.
Johnson was among a slew of Black people invited to the White House between 1862 and 1865, making a bridge with members of the Black community for a short but notable time.
Lincoln routinely met with formerly enslaved people and those born free. His guests included Norfolk natives, such as Joseph Jenkins Roberts, who would become the president of Liberia, and Alexander T. Augusta, who was born free and became the highest-ranking African American officer in the Union Army during the war.
Colonization was a popular idea, the belief that Black people would have to relocate because the races couldn’t live together in freedom, White said. Lincoln had even met with Roberts, the Norfolk native, that year and Roberts encouraged Lincoln to send former slaves to Liberia, which had been established for them.

But Lincoln had a transcriptionist at the meeting with the five men, and he wanted his comments published in newspapers. White said white Northerners would think, “If Emancipation comes, we don’t have to be as concerned about it because the president is supporting colonization.”

The meeting is often used to depict Lincoln as racist, White said, even though Lincoln thought colonization should be voluntary.

“He never advocated for forced deportation,” White said.

Later, Lincoln’s interactions with the Black community evolved. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. He met with abolitionist and writer Frederick Douglass on several occasions. Douglass was initially critical of Lincoln but changed his mind after meeting him. Douglass often gave speeches and included stories about how kindly Lincoln treated him, describing it as one gentleman receiving another.

He considered Lincoln a friend and someone he respected.

In the spring of 1864, at least three delegations of Black people met with Lincoln to ask for his support with voting rights for Black men, including two men from Louisiana who gave him a petition signed by 1,000 people.

“In both of these cases, Lincoln showed sympathy towards their request,” White said.

The president told them he didn’t have the power to give the right to vote; he asked the Louisiana men to show how giving Black men the right to vote would help win the war, White said.

“These two men went away and they thought and a few days later, they wrote out a new petition,” he said. “In this one, they said, the white population of the South is overwhelmingly disloyal and the Black population of the South is overwhelmingly loyal to the Union. If you want to secure the peace after the war is over, the best way to do that is to give Black men the right to vote.”

Shortly after, Lincoln wrote a private letter to Louisiana Gov. Michael Hahn asking him to consider letting Black men vote, White said.

When the president invited Black people to the White House, he shook their hands and treated them kindly, White said. He listened, and policy changes came from the meetings, including voting rights for Black men. Lincoln also met abolitionist Sojourner Truth in October 1864. He showed her a Bible he received from Black people in Baltimore a month earlier. The two sat and examined it.

“I felt I was in the presence of a friend,” she said afterward.

Lincoln also mentioned limited voting rights for Black men in a speech at the White House on April 11, 1865, arguing that Black men who were educated or served in the Army deserve the right to vote.

“In the audience that night was John Wilkes Booth. Booth heard that and he said ‘That means n-word citizenship,’” White said.

That would be Lincoln’s last speech. Booth shot the president three days later.

“I think African Americans read about these meetings in the newspapers and they felt for the first time that they had a president who was actually concerned with their welfare,” White said. “Prior to the Civil War, Black people were more likely to be bought and sold as slaves by a sitting president than to be welcomed at the White House as a guest. That changes dramatically between 1862 and 1865 and they recognize that.”

Because of this, White suspects Black people across the nation felt a greater sense of loss at Lincoln’s death than most white people did.

Lincoln was able to stand up for American values precisely because did not care about being popular with the majority. Here is another example of this:

Lincoln personally reviewed each of 303 execution warrants for Santee Dakota convicted of killing innocent farmers; he commuted the sentences of all but 39 (one was later reprieved).[269][268] Lincoln sought to be lenient, but still send a message. He also faced significant public pressure, including threats of mob justice should any of the Dakota be spared.[268] Former Governor of Minnesota Alexander Ramsey told Lincoln, in 1864, that he would have gotten more presidential election support had he executed all 303 of the Indians. Lincoln responded, "I could not afford to hang men for votes."[270]

This is why being American has nothing to do with being democratic.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: January 11, 2022, 12:03:24 pm »

Lincoln summed up in a single sentence:
"He [Lincoln] knew the European doctrine that the king makes the gentleman; but he believed with his whole soul the doctrine, the American doctrine, that worth makes the man." - George William Curtis, The Good Fight (1865).

Another important thing about Lincoln is that he advocated against the stupid tradition of allowing the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of how to interpret the Constitution (even before he was President during wartime conditions). The Supreme Court during Lincoln's time was arguably the most racist and anti-American it had ever been in US history, and Lincoln's views on it will be important with the current composition of the Supreme Court (which has already been called illegitimate by Democratic Party leaders!)

Lincoln had already transformed the Constitution from a political compromise into a platform for defending moral principles

This interpretation lasted until at least 1991:
Thurgood Marshall (July 2, 1908 – January 24, 1993) was an American lawyer and civil rights activist who served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from October 1967 until October 1991. Marshall was the Court's first African-American justice. Prior to his judicial service, he successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court, including Brown v. Board of Education.
Marshall wanted to study in his hometown law school, the University of Maryland School of Law, but did not apply because of the school's policy of segregation
Marshall once bluntly described his legal philosophy as this: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up",[27] a statement which his conservative detractors argued was a sign of his embracement of judicial activism.[28][29]
In 1987, Marshall gave a controversial speech on the occasion of the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution of the United States.[30][page needed] Marshall stated:

    ... the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war and major social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.[31][32]

In conclusion, Marshall stated:

    Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.[32]

(Of course, to add insult to injury, Republicans replaced Marshall with an "Uncle Tom" whose wife was a Red Coup supporter.)

Thomas is often described as an originalist and as a textualist.[115][116] He is also often described as the Court's most conservative member,[24][117][118]
Some critics downplay the significance of originalism in Thomas's jurisprudence and claim Thomas applies originalism in his decisions inconsistently.[125][126][127][128] Law professor Jim Ryan and former litigator Doug Kendall have argued that Thomas "will use originalism where it provides support for a politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when "history provides no support" for a conservative ruling.[126]
Posted by: Polinc_Socjus
« on: November 27, 2021, 11:18:22 pm »

Neo-Confederates like to call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" despite confederate cadets from the South Carolina Military Academy first firing at an unarmed American vessel called The Star Of The West. We should instead call it the "War of Dixie Aggression" or just the "Dixie War," because Dixie is not synonymous with The South.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 27, 2021, 10:10:44 pm »

Seems like Lincoln thoroughly repudiated the Judeo-Masonic ideology of his predecessors.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 27, 2021, 09:25:49 pm »

Lincoln Broke Our Constitution. Then He Remade It.

Who created the Constitution we have today? As a law professor, I’ve always thought the best answer was “the framers”: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and the other delegates who attended the Philadelphia convention in the summer of 1787.

The Constitution they drafted has since been amended many times, of course, sometimes in profound ways. But the document, I’ve long reasoned, has also exhibited a fundamental continuity. We’ve always had one Constitution.

I no longer think this conventional understanding is correct. Over the course of several years of research and writing, I’ve come to the conclusion that the true maker of the Constitution we have today is not one of the founders at all. It’s Abraham Lincoln.

This might sound like mere rhetorical license, since Lincoln did not take office until 1861, some 70 years after the Constitution was ratified. And we all recognize that his presidency played an instrumental role in the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which, by making a decisive break with slavery, became a turning point in our nation’s history.

But I’m making a stronger argument. What has become clear to me is that even before the passage of those Reconstruction amendments — indeed, as a kind of precondition for them — Lincoln fatally injured the Constitution of 1787. He consciously and repeatedly violated core elements of that Constitution as they had been understood by nearly all Americans of the time, himself included.

Through those acts of destruction, Lincoln effectively broke the Constitution of 1787, paving the way for something very different to replace it. What began as a messy, pragmatic compromise necessary to hold the young country together was reborn as an aspirational blueprint for a nation based on the principle of equal liberty for all.

Today, when the United States is engaged in a national reckoning about the legacies of slavery and institutional racism, the story of Lincoln’s breaking of the Constitution of 1787 is instructive. It teaches us not only that the original Constitution was deeply compromised, morally and functionally, by its enshrining of slavery, but also that the original Constitution was shattered, remade and supplanted by a project genuinely worthy of reverence.

Let’s go back to the 18th century. Americans today tend to think of the Constitution of 1787 in exalted moral terms. But the history is otherwise: The original Constitution was a complex political compromise grounded in perceived practical necessity, not moral clarity.

The need to garner the support of smaller states, for example, gave us the Senate. More damning were the compromises over slavery, without which the Constitution could never have been ratified: the repugnant “three-fifths” provision, by which enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of political representation; the promised 20-year preservation of the slave trade; and the fugitive slave clause, which required even free states to support slavery by returning escapees to their putative masters. These compromises were reaffirmed and reinforced by further compromises enacted by Congress from 1820 to 1850.

In April 1861, when the Civil War began, Lincoln was thoroughly committed to the compromise Constitution, which he had endorsed and embraced for his whole political life. Indeed, the month before, in his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln promised to preserve slavery as a constitutionally mandated permanent reality.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists,” he said, vowing never to defy what was “plainly written” in the Constitution. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

But in the 18 months that followed, Lincoln violated the Constitution as it was then broadly understood three separate times.

First, he waged war on the Confederacy. He did this even though his predecessor, James Buchanan, and Buchanan’s attorney general, Jeremiah Black, had concluded that neither the president nor Congress had the lawful authority to coerce the citizens of seceding states to stay in the Union without their democratic consent. Coercive war, they had argued, repudiated the idea of consent of the governed on which the Constitution was based.

Second, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus unilaterally, without Congress, arresting thousands of political opponents and suppressing the free press and free speech to a degree unmatched in U.S. history before or since. When Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Supreme Court held that the suspension was unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored him.

Lincoln justified both of these constitutional violations by a doubtful theory of wartime necessity: that as chief executive and commander in chief, he possessed the inherent authority to use whatever means necessary to preserve the Union.

Third, and most fatefully, Lincoln came to believe that he also possessed the power to proclaim an end to slavery in the Southern states. When he finally did so, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, he eliminated any possibility of returning to the compromise Constitution as it had existed before the war.

Unlike his first two violations of the Constitution, which came quickly, Lincoln’s movement toward emancipation was agonized and slow, precisely because he knew that emancipation would have the effect of destroying the core of the constitutional compromise he had pledged to uphold.

As Lincoln explained in a letter to Senator Orville Browning of Illinois in September 1861, emancipation would be “itself the surrender of the government” he was trying to save. “Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S. — any government of Constitution and laws,” Lincoln asked, if a general or a president were able to “make permanent rules of property by proclamation?”

In the end, Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation turned on his realization that the war could not be won as he had originally hoped — namely, by inducing the Southern states to rejoin the Union on compromise terms similar to the status quo before the war. To proclaim the enslaved people of the South as emancipated was to announce that there was no going back. The original compromise Constitution would no longer be on offer, even if the South gave up and rejoined the Union.

Contemporary observers, even those unsympathetic to slavery, understood that the Emancipation Proclamation left the original Constitution in tatters. The retired Supreme Court justice Benjamin Curtis, who had dissented from the notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (in which the court held that Americans of African descent could not be citizens), said as much in a pamphlet condemning Lincoln’s declaration as a repudiation of the constitutional rule of law.

“By virtue of some power which he possesses,” Curtis wrote, Lincoln “proposes to annul laws, so that they no longer have any operation.”

In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln did just that. The 13th Amendment, which with Lincoln’s encouragement was passed by Congress and sent to the states in February 1865, outlawed slavery in the United States. But in a meaningful sense it merely formalized Lincoln’s guarantee, in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation nearly three years before, that whatever new constitutional order followed the war would no longer be a slavery-based compromise.

Likewise, the 14th and 15th Amendments, enacted after Lincoln’s death in April 1865, formally secured the equal protection of the laws and enfranchised African-American men. But Lincoln had already transformed the Constitution from a political compromise into a platform for defending moral principles by invoking its authority to end slavery.

In the last paragraph of the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, Lincoln declared “this act” to be “warranted by the Constitution” — notwithstanding the consensus view to the contrary, which he himself had long endorsed.

The fact that the Constitution of 1787 was not so much modified as broken and remade during and after the Civil War should be a starting point for nuanced conversations about the true meaning of the Constitution today. Indeed, even before Lincoln broke the Constitution, some of the most sophisticated thinkers about the nature of the Constitution were attuned to the complexities of the question.

Frederick Douglass, for example, began his career as an abolitionist in the late 1830s by rejecting the Constitution as immoral. Over time, however, his views changed. In 1850, he wrote that “liberty and slavery — opposite as heaven and hell — are both in the Constitution.” The Constitution, he concluded, was “at war with itself.”

Even this would turn out to be a transitional position for Douglass. In 1851, he declared that he now believed that slavery “never was lawful, and never can be made so.” He pointed out, as some defenders of the framers still do today, that the Constitution of 1787 did not actually use the word “slavery.” Douglass would hold this view for the next decade, until the war came. It was intended to leverage a redemptive reading of the Constitution to change the existing document into something new and better.

Of course, the “moral” Constitution made possible by Lincoln’s defiance of the Constitution of 1787 has too often been thwarted. About a decade after the Reconstruction amendments were ratified, the moral Constitution was betrayed by the imposition of segregation and disenfranchisement on Black Southerners. It took Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the modern civil rights movement to start redeeming the promise of Lincoln’s new Constitution.

Persistent inequality still afflicts the United States, including inequality before the law of the kind the moral Constitution prohibits. The reality is that Lincoln’s moral Constitution, like all constitutions, is not an end point but a vow of continuing effort. Through that Constitution, we define our national project and strive to achieve it, even if we never fully succeed.

As our enemies today increasingly explore Red secession from what they can anticipate will become a demographically Blue-dominated US, we should rhetorically lean into Lincoln more in order to justify military action to crush future secessionist attempts. Portraying Lincoln as more American than the 1787 guys is coherent with this.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 25, 2021, 08:43:37 pm »

When People Thought the First Thanksgiving Was Too Woke

Thanksgiving might seem like a fairly uncontroversial national holiday. That wasn't the case in Abraham Lincoln's day.
As non-controversial as Thanksgiving is today, you might imagine the proclamation met with universal acceptance. It did not.

Reflecting the sharp polarization in national politics, many Democrats and peace proponents refused to acknowledge the president’s proclamation of the new holiday, and some even denounced it as an attempt to impose a particular brand of New England fanaticism on the whole country. Lincoln’s proclamation unleashed the social resentments of many voters who resisted the growing influence of evangelical churches and the concurrent growth of social reform movements — from abolitionism and temperance to Sabbatarianism and women’s rights.

To borrow from today’s political lexicon, Lincoln’s opponents nursed an intense dislike of that era’s “wokeness.” Back then, they called it “ism” — referring to the set of religious social reform movements of the day that sought to refashion the nation’s social and political systems in line with evangelical Protestant sensibilities. These critics recoiled at the pace of social change that these movements represented and resented the suggestion that they think or pray a certain way. Conversely, many Republicans greeted the president’s proclamation as a sign that the government in Washington embraced their worldview.
But there was more to it. For years, many Southerners and pro-slavery Northerners had pilloried the Republican Party as an organization of religious fanatics bound by a commitment to extreme and even (for the time) zany evangelical reform movements — in the words of Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, “the black republican army is an allied army, composed of Know Nothings, Abolitionists, Free Soilers, Maine Liquor Law men, woman’s rights men, Anti-renters, Anti-Masons, and all the isms that have been sloughed off from all the honest parties in the country.”
In the same way that some Americans today lump their cultural resentments under the banner of “wokeness,” many conservatives in Lincoln’s day decried the Republican Party’s affinity for “isms” — “an abolition conglomerate of all the isms at war with the rights of the States,” “all the isms … combined in the superlative ism, which I denounce as demonism, ” as Gov. Henry Wise of Virginia stated the case. George Fitzhugh, a leading Southern polemicist before the war, echoed Douglas when he denounced the “Bloomers and Women’s Rights men,” the “I vote myself a farm men,” the “Millerites, and Spiritual Rappers, and Shakers, and Widow Wakemanites, and Agrarians, and Grahamites, and a thousand other superstitious and infidel isms."

While most Americans in Lincoln’s time identified as evangelical Christians, and while the ranks of War Democrats included many evangelicals, the churches were closely associated with many of the reform movements — including abolitionism — that Democrats so sharply opposed. Particularly in the Midwest, many Democrats resented the increasingly partisan tone that “political priests” assumed in their Sunday sermons and, as one newspaper editor wrote, the “fanatics [who] have assumed the cloak of religion to carry out schemes entirely at variance with the Almighty’s commandments.”

The war between the Old Testament and the New Testament is still ongoing:

Back to the main article:

It became increasingly popular for administration critics to lump the offending religious reform movements under the moniker of “Puritanism,” given the central role that New England played in organized abolitionism. It made little difference that Puritanism bore nothing in common with evangelical Christianity, either intellectually or theologically. By 1863, the term had become a political descriptor, devoid of its original meaning. The Republican Party, as one Confederate political cartoonist portrayed it, was built on the foundation of “PURITANISM,” supported by pillars that included “WITCH BURNING,” “SOCIALISM,” “FREE LOVE,” “SPIRIT RAPPING,” “RATIONALISM” and “NEGRO WORSHIP.”
As Americans sit down to their holiday meal this Thursday, we remain steeped in a debate over “isms“ — “wokeness” — “political correctness.” Just as it was with “Puritanism” in 1863, in today’s political landscape, the actual meaning of terms like “critical race theory” is less important than what such terms symbolize to many people who are unnerved by the pace of social change in American society, and, conversely, to those who welcome it.

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 25, 2021, 08:29:35 pm »


We have always claimed that Lincoln was on our side. For many years, rightists disputed this, claiming that Lincoln was actually a closet WN who only ended slavery in order to have an excuse to deport all "blacks" from the US ASAP. We have countered by pointing out that Lincoln only wanted to give freed slaves as individuals an additional option of leaving the US, without denying them the other option of staying in the US, whichever each individual might prefer for their own reasons. Finally, our enemies have conceded that we were correct all along, and have now switched to condemning Lincoln for being ethical on the issue:

White pathological altruism is a source of embarrassment for white nationalists. To avoid any suggestion pathological altruism is responsible for whites’ current predicament, entire storylines are sometimes fabricated out of whole cloth. The belief that if it wasn’t for Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the negro freedmen would have been deported is typical.

Although Lincoln sought to colonize blacks in Central America and the Caribbean, he always stressed the voluntarism of his migration schemes. In the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, Lincoln said “the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued” (emphasis added).

In the same year, during cabinet deliberations on various colonization schemes, someone suggested forced elimination of negroes from US soil, but Lincoln “objected unequivocally to compulsion.” If negroes were to be colonized abroad, “[t]heir emigration must be voluntary and without expense to themselves.” If the so-called “Butler anecdote” is historically reliable, Lincoln considered “get[ting] rid of the negroes” as late as April of 1865, but only their voluntary migration was considered.

In his last public address on April 11, four days before he was assassinated, Lincoln said:

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.

Conferring citizenship on the “talented tenth” meant Lincoln had abandoned all attempts at colonization. These schemes had to be “without compulsion,” which doomed them from the start. Lincoln’s child-like naiveté was eerily similar to the naiveté of modern Western leaders, who believe all white lands contain large quantities of wealth-producing and IQ-raising “magic dirt.” Surely, a man of Lincoln’s intelligence knew that most blacks would not abandon the comforts of white civilization for the jungles of Central America, where they would have to eke out subsistence livelihoods.

If Lincoln really wanted to “get rid of the negroes,” he would have simply rounded them up and forcibly deported them. His pathological altruism, not his assassination, was what prevented him from deporting blacks. Because he was forced to make concessions to pro-colonization whites, he made a few half-hearted, but deliberately unsuccessful attempts at ridding the country of blacks. Likewise, globalists would never rid themselves of their imported Third World electorates, but are forced to make concessions to more conservative whites out of political expediency. This white pathological altruism is the legacy of centuries of indoctrination in Christian ideals of universal love and brotherhood.

I am always happy to reach academic agreement with our enemies.


"Lincoln’s child-like naiveté"

I am happy to reach aesthetic agreements as well.


This is new to me, but not surprising considering how many slave owners were Jews:

(It goes without saying that the "Abraham" mentioned on the plaque is the Tanakh guy, not Lincoln!)


The CSA was bankrolled by Judah P. Benjamin (Jew) and his high finance connections in London.

Judah P. Benjamin, a Jewish member of the U.S. Senate, the Confederate Secretary of State, and Secretary of War, a close confidant of President Jefferson Davis, and the person who used his relationship with the international bankers to arrange to have another Jew, French banker Emile Erlanger, loan the Confederacy $7 million. No wonder he became known as the “brains of the Confederacy.” And, by the way, Secretary Benjamin was the owner of a 140-slave plantation.