Vote who you think is/was THE greatest American.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did answer your question as to whether or not United States was a republic by pointing out the difference between the American Revolution and the secession of the Southern states in 1860. The Founding fathers based a republic form of government on the premise of equal rights and liberty -- the Confederacy was not based on this antecedental premise.

The Confederacy based their rights and liberty on the same class of people who had rights and liberty in the US in 1859. Was the US in 1859 not a republic?

But how does this necessarily lead to the conclusion that because radical Republicans were more strongly anti-racist, that Lincoln could not have been anti-racist because he was more moderate? The fact that Lincoln was more moderate does not necessarily equate with being racist.

No one was arguing that Lincoln was a racist! What I am saying is that Lincoln was not this ultra forward looking visionary that you seem to deify him as. And he was more interested in united the Union than anything to do with race.

And most of his race pronouncements as President was for oolitical ends. It was to galvanize slaves in the South or keep the Brits and French away.

I don't see how any of that = Lincoln was a racist.

[Bill3000]

I am the greatest American.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I did answer your question as to whether or not United States was a republic by pointing out the difference between the American Revolution and the secession of the Southern states in 1860. The Founding fathers based a republic form of government on the premise of equal rights and liberty -- the Confederacy was not based on this antecedental premise.

The Confederacy based their rights and liberty on the same class of people who had rights and liberty in the US in 1859. Was the US in 1859 not a republic?

But how does this necessarily lead to the conclusion that because radical Republicans were more strongly anti-racist, that Lincoln could not have been anti-racist because he was more moderate? The fact that Lincoln was more moderate does not necessarily equate with being racist.

No one was arguing that Lincoln was a racist! What I am saying is that Lincoln was not this ultra forward looking visionary that you seem to deify him as. And he was more interested in united the Union than anything to do with race.

And most of his race pronouncements as President was for oolitical ends. It was to galvanize slaves in the South or keep the Brits and French away.

I don't see how any of that = Lincoln was a racist.

"The same class of people" as in white men. That still doesn't change the fact that Southern leaders in the secession movement consciously ommitted words such as "all men are created equal." Think hard, and you will realize why they did that.


Ok, so you and I can agree that Lincoln was not racist but that he was not as forward-thinking as the more radical Republicans. I can agree with that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"The same class of people" as in white men. That still doesn't change the fact that Southern leaders in the secession movement consciously ommitted words such as "all men are created equal." Think hard, and you will realize why they did that.

But the question remains, apparently when originally drafted, those words didn't mean what some people considered they meant in 1860. Also, those words were never in the US Constitution. So, they weren't really a part of the 'republic' of the United States.

Ok, so you and I can agree that Lincoln was not racist but that he was not as forward-thinking as the more radical Republicans. I can agree with that.

And therefore, my point, Lincoln is given waaay too much credit for his views on race and the Radical Republicans are pilloried in history classes across the country (mostly for impeachment of Andrew Johnson, which may have been warrented seeing as how President Johnson was pardoning Confederate leaders because he wanted to be invited into their 'social circle' [Johnson had quite an inferiority complex], IMO, close to a bribe).

We should give far more credit to those Republicans, especially for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, and pushing for black rights.

I mean we should be learning about Thaddeus Stevens, who as a lawyer, represented blacks for free and his burial wishes:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASstevens.htm

Stevens health declined during his dispute with Andrew Johnson and he began making preparations for his funeral. This included the request that he should be buried among African Americans in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Thaddeus Stevens died on 11th August, 1868. Inscribed on his tombstone were the words: "I repose in this quiet and secluded spot, not from any natural preference for solitude; but finding other cemeteries limited as to race, by charter rules, I have chosen this that I might illustrate in my death the principles which I advocated through a long life, equality of man before the Creator".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"The same class of people" as in white men. That still doesn't change the fact that Southern leaders in the secession movement consciously ommitted words such as "all men are created equal." Think hard, and you will realize why they did that.

But the question remains, apparently when originally drafted, those words didn't mean what some people considered they meant in 1860. Also, those words were never in the US Constitution. So, they weren't really a part of the 'republic' of the United States.

Since I agree with you about the more radical Republicans, I want to focus on the point that I still disagree with.

To disparage the Declaration of Independence as unimportant in the establishment of United States ignores the implicit connection between liberty and a republic government.

I still maintain that the Founding fathers meant that liberty and a republic had strong, important connections with one another. Since you have not really confronted my argument about the difference between white slaveowners of the Enlightenment and white slaveowners of the latter years before the Civil War, let me ask you directly:

Do you agree or disagree with the argument that white slaveowners of the Enlightenment era had a different attitude towards slavery, race and liberty than white slaveowners from the 1840s onwards?

And before answering, I want to state that I understand that your argument with "all men are created equal" was meant to only include white men. But that still does not answer my question, because even given this, this does not preclude Thomas Jefferson, for example, from having a fundamentally different outlook on slavery than a latter slaveowner, such as Jefferson Davis. So please tell me what you think.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
THINK here, Funboy... THINK!

The reason the British and French backed away from supporting the CSA was because Lincoln tried to characterize the war as a fight against slavery and since both countries abolished slavery at least 30 years in the past (1833 for the Brits, IIRC, and earlier than that for the French), they didn't want to jump into a war to support slavery.

It would be better for you guys if you would look at some of Lincoln's speeches before his election to the presidency. They show a man deeply opposed to slavery, but who doubted whether white society would ever make room for them as equals. He knew of no peaceful way to change white society's prejudices, and since government in those days was much much more limited in its ability to impact society perhaps he was right. Do you think that if by some quirk of fate Thaddeus Stevens had become dictator of the USA after Lincoln's death he could have prevented the post-war de facto enslavement of blacks? How? By keeping the conscripted Union Army at war levels of enrollment?

France was not so anti-slavery as one might think. Remember that during the Civil War Napoleon III was adventuring in Mexico to place his nephew on the throne. Mexico was tieing up France's military resources.
In Britain there were key segments of the population staunchly behind Lincoln. There were still plenty of Evangelists left over from Briatin's struggle to abolish slavery throughout the empire. Even though on the surface the Civil War was not about slavery most Britons understood the true nature of the struggle. Even though this movement was strongest amongst the cotton mill workers, who were the most likely to suffer from a decline in the cotton trade, these workers actully took to the streets in protest when they thought that the British government might be giving aid to the Confederacy.
Then there's also the fact that the US initiated an immense naval construction program at the outset of the war. Towars the end of 1863 the US Navy surpassed the Royal Navy in numbers of ships.

[MrFun]

good points, Doc

[Imran Siddiqui]

They show a man deeply opposed to slavery, but who doubted whether white society would ever make room for them as equals.

So his answer was to let the Southern states back into the Union as quick as possible so they could continue on like they had before, just without slaves?

To disparage the Declaration of Independence as unimportant in the establishment of United States ignores the implicit connection between liberty and a republic government.

Liberty for WHO?

Do you agree or disagree with the argument that white slaveowners of the Enlightenment era had a different attitude towards slavery, race and liberty than white slaveowners from the 1840s onwards?

I disagree. I think they had similar attitudes to slavery. Some of them may have been more 'enlightened', but a great number of "founders" had no problems keeping slaves and had no thoughts of freeing them.

[MrFun]

thanks for your reply, Imran

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If that was all he did, then it wouldn't have accomplished anything. He would have been burned as a heretic like Jan Hus and others before him.

It was because of his and his disciples later actions (and protection by his Elector) that he was able to split the church.

Sorry dude, you don't know your history very well. The dude WAS almost killed for what he did. Tell me what exactly he did besides preaching and posting rhetoric. Nothing. It was other people who were inspired that took action and reacted.

His "disciples" spread like wildfire because of the seed he planted. If you look more closely, you'll see that Martin Luther was actually upset at their actions (which he had nothing to do with) because many of the Reformists were more like rioters, wrecking the churches as they went.

Oh please! The Civil Rights Bill was a long time coming, drawing strength from Truman's decision to integrate the military, Brown v. Board, the Mongomery bus boycott, and other movements like that. It's kind of ludicrous to say that no one in the mainstream gave a damn about civil rights, when the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to desegregate schools. When Eisenhower, in his respect for the Court, sent the 101st Airborne to forceable integrate Little Rock high schools. When Jackie Robinson appeared in the majors.

Civil Rights was a big issue and in the faces of the public all the time.

We can trace similar actions like that back through every President before Kennedy. Of course it was constantly evolving. But the Kennedys will always be known for the Civil Rights movement, Bobby much more than his brother.

Whether or not he hoenstly intended to do something about it, Kennedy campaigned and promised to take decisive action on the Civil Rights issue. He put it out there in a way that no other President had before then. People expected and demanded action, and gained confidence from the prestige of the President.

That site, by the way, I chose because of its balanced view of the situation. So you can quote all of it you want, since I've already read it. The parts about Bobby were all during John F Kennedy's administration or before. In your world, people never change, once they've done something, or believe something, they believe that ideal forever.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and also applies to your cynicism with regards to Lincoln. Regardless of Bobby's past, his committment to the Civil Rights movement was real and genuine.

But I think I trust Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King's opinion of the man over Imran Siddiqui's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry dude, you don't know your history very well. The dude WAS almost killed for what he did.

Another one who doesn't read posts. Where did I say that Luther wasn't almost killed?

Tell me what exactly he did besides preaching and posting rhetoric. Nothing. It was other people who were inspired that took action and reacted.

Speaking of not knowing history well. He created a religion. He translated the Bible into German vernacular (because he believed every man to be a priest). He built up allies among the Germanic princes, which helped because he invested in them ultimate power. He went through the Bible and reinterpreted the entire religion and went into detail on how Christianity was supposed to be. Then he went to work in forming his view of Christianity into reality.

It was more than just preaching and posting rhetoric. He was greatly involved in his movement. He didn't post the 95 theses and disappear!

But the Kennedys will always be known for the Civil Rights movement, Bobby much more than his brother.

Because of the posthumous deification of the Kennedy brothers.

Kennedy campaigned and promised to take decisive action on the Civil Rights issue. He put it out there in a way that no other President had before then. People expected and demanded action, and gained confidence from the prestige of the President.

They expected action when from your poll it recieved the lowest score of things that needed to be done in the year when Kennedy first became President?

And as your link did show many racial groups were frustrated that the government wasn't doing anything for Civil Rights.

The parts about Bobby were all during John F Kennedy's administration or before. In your world, people never change, once they've done something, or believe something, they believe that ideal forever.

When you are a poltician? Any change has to be viewed skeptically. Funny, when it is someone in the Bush administration, if they change, it is to get votes. If the Kennedys' changed, then it had to be because of conviction. Come on!

And such a large change in 5-10 years? Smacks of political oppertunism to me.

But I think I trust Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King's opinion of the man over Imran Siddiqui's.

Hey look, other political figures trying to join with a potential ally. Fine trust them if you wish. Naivety for the left's deified leaders seems to be something you've been engaging in more often.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Another one who doesn't read posts. Where did I say that Luther wasn't almost killed?

"Burned as a heretic." Same thing.

Speaking of not knowing history well. He created a religion. He translated the Bible into German vernacular (because he believed every man to be a priest). He built up allies among the Germanic princes, which helped because he invested in them ultimate power. He went through the Bible and reinterpreted the entire religion and went into detail on how Christianity was supposed to be. Then he went to work in forming his view of Christianity into reality.

Which were all nothing more than acts of communicating to people. "Rhetoric," in your words.

Interesting how you unevenly apply your standards as communication from one person being rhetoric, and when someone else (that just "coincidentally" supports your view) does nothing more than communication, it's just "rhetoric."

Because of the posthumous deification of the Kennedy brothers.

Yes, that's the sole reason for it. 100%. I want people to remember me as a civil rights leader. I am going to go out and have someone shoot me.

They expected action when from your poll it recieved the lowest score of things that needed to be done in the year when Kennedy first became President?

Yep, "they" being the people he was speaking to. BLACK PEOPLE, mostly. Duh.

When you are a poltician? Any change has to be viewed skeptically. Funny, when it is someone in the Bush administration, if they change, it is to get votes. If the Kennedys' changed, then it had to be because of conviction. Come on!

Provide an example to back up your strawman.

And such a large change in 5-10 years? Smacks of political oppertunism to me.

Hey look, other political figures trying to join with a potential ally. Fine trust them if you wish. Naivety for the left's deified leaders seems to be something you've been engaging in more often.

"Political figures." Nice. Two leaders who championed the oppressed, but I guess in your mind. they are nothing more than opportunists.

Next up let's hear your dismissal of Mother Teresa. You've already dismissed Lincoln.

And about the 5-10 year thing, according to your standards, we should judge Imran Siddiqui as being full of crap, considering that you have been 100% consistent over your entire life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Burned as a heretic." Same thing.

So you can't back it up and you try to make a leap in logic... riiiiight.

Which were all nothing more than acts of communicating to people. "Rhetoric," in your words.

Interesting how you unevenly apply your standards as communication from one person being rhetoric, and when someone else (that just "coincidentally" supports your view) does nothing more than communication, it's just "rhetoric."

Bull****. Luther was active in the creation of his own religious movement, securing political allies to save his religious movement, and fleshing out his own seperate religion.

Politicians only rarely form governments and they do it, like Luther did, by actually fleshing out things and creating a movement, not just speaking empty words.

I am going to go out and have someone shoot me.

It does wonders for how a politician is viewed. McKinley got the biggest mountain in North America named after him... and for what?

It'll really help your legacy for sure.

Yep, "they" being the people he was speaking to. BLACK PEOPLE, mostly. Duh.

Really, they expected more action from him than they did otherwise after half a decade where they made great strides in Civil Rights including the first Civil Rights Bill in 80+ years? Any backing up for that statement?

Provide an example to back up your strawman.

Bush's Perscription Drug payment plan.

"Political figures." Nice. Two leaders who championed the oppressed, but I guess in your mind. they are nothing more than opportunists.

So... people who champion the oppressed can't be politicians. WOW, Ted has divided up the world into such neat peaces . Champions of the oppressed can also use 'political language' to gain allies.

Next up let's hear your dismissal of Mother Teresa.

... You just think people are saints or sinners, don't you? I'm shocked with your new outlook on political life, you haven't heard the criticisms of Mother Teresa in terms of proseyltism of Indians before allowing them to be treated and how her underlings called her management style.

Time to let go of your ****-don't-stink view of people.

And about the 5-10 year thing, according to your standards, we should judge Imran Siddiqui as being full of crap, considering that you have been 100% consistent over your entire life.

If I was a politician, then that'd probably be a very fair way to judge me.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"Burned as a heretic." Same thing.

So you can't back it up and you try to make a leap in logic... riiiiight.

Not really. It's the same thing. Nice copout though.

Bull****. Luther was active in the creation of his own religious movement, securing political allies to save his religious movement, and fleshing out his own seperate religion.

First of all, it was more people seeking Luther out, not him seeking THEM out. The Prince that protected him had him kidnapped and locked up in a castle for over a year, for his own protection. And even if your recount is true, which it's not, this differs from things Kennedy was doing HOW?

Really, they expected more action from him than they did otherwise after half a decade where they made great strides in Civil Rights including the first Civil Rights Bill in 80+ years? Any backing up for that statement?

Yes, they did. Sorry dude, but you are just completely wrong on this. Kennedy banked alot of his Presidential campaign on civil rights. This is retold by every historian you read about him, whether they give a positive, or negative view of the man. It is fact.

No other President up until then had done so, and Kennedy was considered, "radical," for embracing this view. Which is why he is so revered. Other Presidents had done incremental steps to improve Civil Rights, but these were more reactive than proactive. Kennedy communicated to the entire nation that he wanted to do something about Civil Rights, so people expected more from him than ever before. Black people felt empowered.

Presidential candidate
Kennedy made his name as a supporter of civil-rights legislation and as a prominent internationalist, but his youth and his Roman Catholicism were considered serious barriers to the White House. His victory in all seven primaries that he entered, however, assured his place as Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1960. His programme was a radical one, covering promises to deal with both civil rights and social reform.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005485.html

Without inspiration, there is no legislation. Same thing with Martin Luther.

Bush's Perscription Drug payment plan.

I don't know enough about that plan to even comment on it. So, strawman.

So... people who champion the oppressed can't be politicians. WOW, Ted has divided up the world into such neat peaces . Champions of the oppressed can also use 'political language' to gain allies.

Of course they can be political. But you seem to have dismissed their humanity and summarized them according to what bills they may or may not have passed.

... You just think people are saints or sinners, don't you? I'm shocked with your new outlook on political life, you haven't heard the criticisms of Mother Teresa in terms of proseyltism of Indians before allowing them to be treated and how her underlings called her management style.

Time to let go of your ****-don't-stink view of people.

Not really. I can understand the complexities of people.

You on the other hand seem to think anyone who has any sort of popularity for doing good things, stinks. Unless they happen to be obscure and you think someone has never heard of them.

It must be hard to not enjoy things when others do. It all boils down to cynicism.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Further "interesting" results....

In California, Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan lead...
In Florida, Washington and George W. lead....
And, in Texas, W. and Elvis lead..........