Chairman Mao- Abe Lincoln; fair comparision?
Marc Andelman
deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
tyrants?
Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
regards,
Marc Andelman
Mark Pitcavage
I am not sure why a message like this even appears in this newsgroup.
However, let us be accurate. Abraham Lincoln was not responsible for
the deaths of anybody, but even if we were for some twisted reason to
lay the deaths of all Civil War soldiers at his door, they would not
number in the millions. Against, this, however, there is the
undisputed fact that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for freeing
millions and ending the worst form of despotism on American soil.
Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D.
The Militia Watchdog, http://www.militia-watchdog.org
fur...@agoron.com
>This post is hardly worth expounding upon, rather, I suggest you return
>under bridge you came from.
What then to make of Edmund Wilson's comparison of Lincoln, Bismark and Lenin?
"Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself
exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by
agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he
had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion, so that all
the bad potentialities of the policies he had initiated were realized. . . "
p. xviii-xix, Patriotic Gore
[Lenin, as we know was responsible for the deaths of millions.]
fur...@agoron.com
>I am not sure why a message like this even appears in this newsgroup.
As I point out in another post, Lincoln has been compared to Bismark and Lenin
by as respected an author as Edmund Wilson. Are we condemning Mr. Adleman
merely for lack of literary style,or maybe his brevity, as his content is
similar to that of Mr. Wilson. Both are wrong, imho, perhaps both are trolls?
David Campbell
Hitler and Pol Pot also unified their countries and were responsible for
the deaths of millions of people.
Abraham Lincoln's motivation for supporting the Civil War were
preservation of the Union and abolitionism. Mao's motivation was to
intsall a dictatorship and strip economic and civil liberties. Granted
that China wasn't in a better state than that prior to it's Civil War
This post is hardly worth expounding upon, rather, I suggest you return
under bridge you came from.
David Campbell
James F. Epperson
> Both were responsible for the
> deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> tyrants?
Mao certainly was responsible for the deaths of millions, but Lincoln's
responsibility is much less clear. The numbers involved are also more
than a little bit out of scale -- total deaths in the Civil War are at
most around 1 million, while Mao's total is several times that.
And your question is a leading one, to say the least. Mao was clearly a
tyrant. But tyrants don't hold elections in the middle of their tenure,
and agonize over whether or not they will win, as Lincoln did, so I think
it is a stretch at best to say Lincoln was a tyrant.
James F. Epperson http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
I see the eigenvalue in thine eye,
I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh.
Bernoulli would have been content to die
Had he but known such a-squared cos 2(phi)!
-- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
glblank
> On , David Campbell <da...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >This post is hardly worth expounding upon, rather, I suggest you return
> >under bridge you came from.
>
> What then to make of Edmund Wilson's comparison of Lincoln, Bismark and Lenin?
>
> "Each of these men, through the pressure of the power which he found himself
> exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by
> agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he
> had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion,
FWIW, I always find these comparison debates rather interesting, regardless of the
original posters intent. Let's not forget that it wasn't too long ago that a rather
lengthy thread appeared in this ng on Lincoln, hero or tyrant - which, imo, cuts to
the chase. As far as Lincoln being compared to any other figure in World history,
it can be an interesting debate or the source of mindless trolling. After all I am
sure one could come up with similarities between Pol Pot and Mother Theresa. They
both held a captive audience! But in a serious vein, I can see some similarities
between Bismarck, Lenin and Lincoln. All held court in a fledgling Republic, all
saw the need for unification under a strong central authority, all saw an enforced
unification as being preferable to giving in to a determined adversary with whom
armed conflict would have occurred (with bloody results) in the future had they not
taken steps to prevent it and all were master statesmen and politicians. The key
differences I believe Mike noted above. The differences can also be seen in the
types of government they ascribed to and may then be used to develop an argument as
to which form of government is superior to the rest. As Mike stated, "Each of these
men (Bismarck and Lenin), through the pressure of the power which he found himself
exercising, became an uncompromising dictator, and each was succeeded by agencies
which continued to exercise this power..." So then Lincoln was probably right when
he stated, "I chose not think that I influenced events, but that the events
influenced me." (I believe Lincoln got it from Tolstoy myself). So Lincoln can be
compared, in fact I believe he rises above the cast of characters used in
comparison. As far as the trolling, if in fact that was the original intent, let's
keep in mind who pulled the lanyard in Charlston Harbor.
Geoff
Patrick Carroll
>the deaths of anybody, but even if we were for some twisted reason to
>lay the deaths of all Civil War soldiers at his door, they would not
>number in the millions. Against, this, however, there is the
>undisputed fact that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for freeing
>millions and ending the worst form of despotism on American soil.
>Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D.
Now wait just a minute. I was happily ignoring this thread until now, but I
have to question the logic in Mark's assertion above.
Lincoln was either responsible for the war, or he wasn't. If the war involved
many deaths (albeit not millions), and Lincoln was responsible for the war,
then Lincoln was responsible for the deaths. Likewise, if the war resulted in
freeing millions and ending a form of despotism, and Lincoln was responsible
for the war, then Lincoln was responsible for the freeing and ending.
Personally, I'd say Lincoln was *not* (solely) responsible for the war. He
played a key role during the war--but that's all. Therefore, he was personally
responsible neither for the deaths nor the freeing and ending. He just played
a role which contributed, in important ways, to all that developed during the
war: the deaths, freeing, ending, and everything else.
But if someone wants to claim that Lincoln *was* responsible for the war, that
claim logically entails his being responsible for the negative aspects of the
war as well as the positive ones. Otherwise it's like saying, "I'm the boss,
and I'll take credit for all this group's productivity; but don't complain to
me about how hard you guys have to work."
Sorry, Mark, but I have to dispute your "undisputed fact."
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Roger Safian
"Marc Andelman" <drgo...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:NurMOKFpfO3rA7...@4ax.com...
> Both were responsible for the
> deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> tyrants?
First off, millions for the Civil War is pushing it. OTOH, the war in china
probably
claimed a number of lives at least an order of magnitude larger than ours.
Second, do you seriously believe that Lincoln was responsible for the war?
How, because he was elected, and had that not happened the war might not
have been fought? Are you fogetting who started the shooting? Do you
consider rape the womans fault, becuase if she wasn't there, the crime
wouldn't take place?
> Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
I guess you've forgotten about Taiwan, and Tianiman (sp) Square?
Frankly the US is a lot more unified than China.
Joe Dzikiewicz
>So then Lincoln was probably right when
>he stated, "I chose not think that I influenced events, but that the events
>influenced me." (I believe Lincoln got it from Tolstoy myself).
Unlikely. Tolstoy published "War and Peace" in 1869, his other novels later.
Maybe Tolstoy took it from Lincoln :-)
Other than that, I agree with your post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Joe Dzikiewicz
I can resist anything but temptation!
Nicholas Geovanis
> Both were responsible for the
> deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> tyrants?
>
> Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
I think that this is a poor comparison. For starters, total American Civil
War deaths were well under one million, certainly not "millions".
More importantly, the political and economic situations which the two
leaders faced were fantastically different from one another. After Sun
Yat-Sen's revolution, large parts of China were ungoverned by a central
authority and under the control of local warlords or were foreign
enclaves controlled by European powers. Mao spent a good part of the 1930s
and 1940s fighting an external invader, imperial Japan. Through much of
this period the war between the Nationalists and Communists was on hold,
in part because the USA was funding BOTH of them to fight Japan (have you
ever seen the famous photo of USAAF Gen. "Hap" Arnold with Chou En-Lai in
northern China during WWII, all smiles and lovey-dovey?). True, we heavily
favored the Nationalists over the Communists, but the Nationalists weren't
doing much fighting against Japan.
At the defeat of Japan, the USA (that is, another external enemy) began
actively supporting the Nationalists against the Communists, eventually
losing of course.
In great contrast, Lincoln faced an internal breakaway within a
quite-well-governed land with an undisputed central authority. There was
no invasion by external powers, indeed it was American imperial expansion
which precipitated the crisis (the lands stolen from Mexico after the
Mexican-American War), as many Whig leaders predicted would happen in 1848
(including then-congressman Lincoln).
But as we know, little of this is important to Mr. Andleman. He's much
more interested in convincing others that Jefferson Davis was preferable
to Abe Lincoln as a political leader. Ho hum.
> regards,
> Marc Andelman
+-------------------->
| Nick Geovanis Indeed I tremble for my country when
| IT Computing Svcs I reflect that God is just: that his
| Northwestern Univ justice cannot sleep forever...
V n-geo...@nwu.edu - Thomas Jefferson, 1781
Bruce Henderson
> Both were responsible for the
> deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> tyrants?
> Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
Yeah, I think that Lincoln and Boris Yeltsin is much more a correct
comparison. And isn't there a Russian general who is glorying in arresting all
and sundry as terrorists, buring and bombing civilians? You've got your
Sherman counterpart right there.
Bruce Henderson, Alexandria VA
David A. Campbell
And wasn't there an American general (George LeMay) who is glorying in burning
and
bombing civilians? You've got your Sherman counterpart right there. Didn't
they
arrest Japanese Americans as (possible) terrorists and throw them in internment
camps too? Oh oh oh, I'm sorry WWII was a good war. . .
No one should villainize Lincoln for his war time actions and his subordinates
unless prepared to villainize almost every other American war time leader.
Unless
of course you simply hate Lincoln and can only dream of how good life would be
if
the Confederacy had won. . .
David Campbell
Geoff Blankenmeyer
all
deaths of the CW on John C. Calhoun's grave marker and Nathan Bedford Forrest
for
Fort Pillow. And that gets us where?
Geoff
Geoff Blankenmeyer
Robert J. Kolker
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> > Both were responsible for the
> > deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> > tyrants?
> >
> > Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
>
> I think that this is a poor comparison. For starters, total American Civil
> War deaths were well under one million, certainly not "millions".
The death toll amounted to two percent of the total population (North
and South) and about four percent of the adult population. This
was on a par with Mao's butcher bill (40 to 60 millions). So on a
percentage basis Lincoln's butcher bill and Mao's butcher bill were
about the same.
Now one should ask one's self. Was the death of 500,000 White soldiers
worth the freedom of 4 million Negro slaves. How many of those White
soldiers would have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to
free Negro slaves? Not too many, I would venture to say.
Had the war not happened, 600,000 people would have lived and
not died, had children and made a difference down to our day. But
Lincoln's intransigence on the matter of Union wiped them out of
our time-line. Woe for the dead, and woe for the unborn of those
dead. It adds up to millions if you take it down to our time.
Ask yourself, did Lincoln have the right to spend lives in this manner?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Bruce Henderson wrote:
> >n Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> > Both were responsible for the
> > deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> > tyrants?
>
> > Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
> Yeah, I think that Lincoln and Boris Yeltsin is much more a correct
> comparison. And isn't there a Russian general who is glorying in arresting all
> and sundry as terrorists, buring and bombing civilians? You've got your
> Sherman counterpart right there.
Lincoln did to South Carolina approximately what Yeltsin did to Chechnaya.
The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
"David A. Campbell" wrote:
> Unless
> of course you simply hate Lincoln and can only dream of how good life would be
> if
> the Confederacy had won. .
Would life have been better for the 600,000 who perished? I dare say it
would have been.
Bob Kolker
David A. Campbell
which he created that led to the Civil War. Rather he was elected to his
position twice, the second time DURING the conflict. Obviously Lincoln was not
alone in his desire to reunify the country. If it were not the case, McClellan
would have been president in '64 and the war would have ended.
Secondly, the Emancipation Proclomation occured after Anteitam, long long before
the end of the war. If, as you presume, the Civil War as a war to end slavery
was not endearing to the North why then did the soldiers continue volunteering
through the end of the war. Whether their motivation was to preserve the union
or free the slaves, Northern soldiers volunteered throughout the war. And
whether the cost of 500,000 men for freeing 4,000,000 slaves was worth it, I
doubt there is much debate over that. The institution of slavery was an
abomination and looking back is more a stain on the concience of the United
States than the blood of those fallen in the Civil War could ever make. Or do
you support the institution of slavery or can defend it on some moral ground?
And finally, as for your hypothesis that if the 600,000 had not died we could
have cured cancer or settled the moon by now but for the loss of their genius
and their progeny: perhaps the Germans would have done the same had we not
killed millions of them during WWII. Perhaps, if we hadn't kill 115,000
Japanese in a night when we firebombed Tokyo that their children would have gone
on to great acolades. When asking yourself whether the Civil War was a just
war, consider what America could not have accomplished in the 20th Century had
we been divided. Could we have fought in WWI and WWII? Could we have been a
bastion to Communism? Could we have landed men on the moon. Probably not.
More than likely we wouldn't have even been able to keep Maximillian out of
Mexico. Modern history has gone a long way in showing the worthiness of the
sacrafice of those men.
David Campell
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Marc Andelman wrote:
> >
> > > Both were responsible for the
> > > deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> > > tyrants?
> > >
> > > Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
> >
David A. Campbell
dare say it would not have been. Considering what America has accomplished in the
140 years since the Civil War I say it was certainly worth the cost.
David Campbell
Scribe7716
wrote:
>The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
>destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?
The Union preserved and slavery ended, few wars have had such magnificent
outcomes.
trekk...@mailcity.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
> Had the war not happened, 600,000 people would have lived and
> not died, had children and made a difference down to our day. But
> Lincoln's intransigence on the matter of Union wiped them out of
> our time-line.
Or was it Jefferson Davis' intransigence??
> Woe for the dead, and woe for the unborn of those
> dead. It adds up to millions if you take it down to our time.
>
> Ask yourself, did Lincoln have the right to spend lives in this
manner?
All it would have taken was for Jeff Davis to
realize he had no cause- and send his boys home.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joe Dzikiewicz
>Lincoln did to South Carolina approximately what Yeltsin did to Chechnaya.
>The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
>destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?
For an example of a successful separation movement, consider India and
Pakistan. They have, since partition, fought three wars, and are on the short
list of most likely candidates for the first true nuclear war.
It's hard to say what would have happened between a future CSA and USA. But
it's not much of a stretch to imagine relations between them as being similar
to those between India and Pakistan.
And if we are counting lost potential, you really must compare the lost
potential of keeping 4 million blacks in slavery when totting up costs and
benefits. African-Americans have made significant contributions to this nation
in the past 135 years - contributions that would have been lost had slavery
continued.
And if we are going to make comparisons, then you really should compare
Jefferson Davis and the CSA to the Bosnian Serbs who fought to create a
separate Serbian state within Bosnia.
Nicholas Geovanis
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Marc Andelman wrote:
> >
> > > Both were responsible for the
> > > deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> > > tyrants?
> > >
> > > Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
> >
> > I think that this is a poor comparison. For starters, total American Civil
> > War deaths were well under one million, certainly not "millions".
>
> The death toll amounted to two percent of the total population (North
> and South) and about four percent of the adult population. This
> was on a par with Mao's butcher bill (40 to 60 millions). So on a
> percentage basis Lincoln's butcher bill and Mao's butcher bill were
> about the same.
The original poster didn't mention population percentages. He simply
stated that Lincoln was "responsible for the deaths of millions of
people". This is clearly incorrect, since total losses on both sides
didn't even total ONE million in the American Civil War.
Moreover, you have failed to address any of the points I made concerning
the huge differences in political and military situation between North
America of 1860 and China of 1930 (not least of which is that Lincoln's
war lasted about four years, while Mao's lasted more than 20).
And of course you're completely ignoring the fact that Lincoln and Mao
had opponents, who were equally necessary in order to produce a war, and
equally deadly.
> Now one should ask one's self. Was the death of 500,000 White soldiers
> worth the freedom of 4 million Negro slaves. How many of those White
> soldiers would have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to
> free Negro slaves? Not too many, I would venture to say.
Clearly you don't understand the Union soldier.
If he was black, as were almost 200,000 Union soldiers, he was in fact
fighting to free the slaves. Sorry if this fact upsets you.
If he was white, he was not fighting FOR the SLAVE, he was fighting
AGAINST the SLAVEMASTER. This is because he perceived the SLAVEMASTER to
be a threat to his liberties and a competitor for the Western lands on
which his hopes and dreams were based (of course I'm excluding the very
small number of true white abolitionists who served in the military.
Their motivation was primarily Christianity, as they understood it).
The alliance of these two forces produced the Unionist victory.
> Had the war not happened, 600,000 people would have lived and
> not died, had children and made a difference down to our day. But
<CUT>
> Ask yourself, did Lincoln have the right to spend lives in this manner?
It's downright foolish to think that huge historical events like the
American Civil War are made by one, single individual. Millions upon
millions were involved, each with a motivation of their own. If Lincoln or
Jefferson Davis (or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or....) hadn't
had something to offer their soldiers, the soldiers wouldn't have given
their lives. This is merely common sense.
> Bob Kolker
ECalistri
>
>> Had the war not happened, 600,000 people would have lived and
>> not died, had children and made a difference down to our day. But
>> Lincoln's intransigence on the matter of Union wiped them out of
>> our time-line.
>
> Or was it Jefferson Davis' intransigence??
>
>
>
>> Woe for the dead, and woe for the unborn of those
>> dead. It adds up to millions if you take it down to our time.
>>
>> Ask yourself, did Lincoln have the right to spend lives in this
>manner?
Another point Mr Kolker's analysis chooses to ignore is demographic in nature.
The killing off of a few percent of the adult men in a war does not
significantly effect the total population into the next generation. The number
of women, and the fertility rate are the determinants of the future population.
Eric
ECalistri
>
>> Both were responsible for the
>> deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
>> tyrants?
>>
>> Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe Lincoln?
Wouldn't a more interesting (and relevent) comparison be between Jefferson
Davis and Chairman Mao? Why did one lead a successful revolution and the other
a dismal failure? Why was Mao able to continue the fight so much longer than
Davis did? Why was Mao able to enlist outside aid when Davis failed
completely?
What parallels exist between their respective enemies, the Kuomintong (sp?) and
the Republicans?
Eric
Gary Charbonneau
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Lincoln did to South Carolina approximately what Yeltsin did to Chechnaya.
> The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and destruction
> was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?
It might be interesting to look at the constitutional issues involved in Chechnya.
Does the constitution of the Russian federation permit Chechnya to secede? Here's
what the Russian constitution says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 4
(1) The sovereignty of the Russian Federation shall apply to the entire country.
(2) The Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law shall be supreme
thrroughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation.
(3) The Russian Federation shall ensure the integrity and inviolability of its
territory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read the above, there is no legal right of unilateral secession in Russia. As
an interesting aside, I find near the very beginning of the constitution of the
would-be breakaway republic of Chechya the following statement: "The state
sovereignty of [the] Chechen Republic is indivisible." There is no constitutional
right of secession in Chechnya either. In other words, both the Russian Federation
and the Chechen Republic in their consitutions, define themselves as normal
nation-states, not free love arrangements voidable at will by any disgruntled local
group.
- Gary Charbonneau
Gary Charbonneau
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Now one should ask one's self. Was the death of 500,000 White soldiers
> worth the freedom of 4 million Negro slaves. How many of those White
> soldiers would have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to
> free Negro slaves? Not too many, I would venture to say.
Was an independent Confederacy worth the death of 500,000 white soldiers? If
not, how many dead white soldiers (to the nearest hundred thousand) was an
independent Confederacy worth?
- Gary Charbonneau
Patrick Carroll
>>> not died, had children and made a difference down to our day.
A difference for better or worse. Who's to say?
>>>But
>>> Lincoln's intransigence on the matter of Union wiped them out of
>>> our time-line.
Well, that was one factor. But it takes two to tango.
>>> Woe for the dead, and woe for the unborn of those
>>> dead. It adds up to millions if you take it down to our time.
Why woe? This reminds me of one of Drew Carey's comedy sketches: He saw the
pope travelling along in his bullet-proof "pope-mobile," which made him wonder,
"What's he afraid of? Dying and going to heaven? If the pope's afraid of
dying, what chance do the rest of us have?"
As precious as human life is, I think it's vain to presume that it's the most
precious thing in the universe--in the whole scheme of things. That's like
saying Earth must be the center of the universe, just because it's where we
live.
>>> Ask yourself, did Lincoln have the right to spend lives in this
>>manner?
Loosely speaking, yes. More precisely, he himself didn't spend any lives. But
as President, he did have the right to fulfill the role of commander-in-chief
and wage war in the nation's interest. A byproduct of war is, of course, the
loss of life (and destruction of property)--which makes it a serious
proposition. But that's the kind of decision national leaders have to make.
At least Lincoln only had to make that decision with regard to soldiers (most
of whom *voluntarily* put their lives on the line). Prior to D-Day, when it
looked like Allied carpet bombing might kill thousands of French civilians,
deGaulle gave his nod to it anyway: in his estimation, the liberation of
France was well worth that price. And what about Truman and his atomic bomb--a
supposed effort to save lives by taking lives? War forces the toughest
imaginable choices on responsible leaders.
But is the pacifist choice to just cave in really any better? Or does that
just leave a whole country weak and at the mercy of powerful forces around it?
Like it or not, it's a warring world. And a national leader had better know
how to wage war, when necessary, for the good of his country.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Another point Mr Kolker's analysis chooses to ignore is demographic in
>nature.
> The killing off of a few percent of the adult men in a war does not
>significantly effect the total population into the next generation. The
>number
>of women, and the fertility rate are the determinants of the future
>population.
>
>
One could argue, however, that the best and brightest of southerners were
killed in the ACW, grievously weakening the southern gene pool and leading to
less than sterling future generations.
Geoff Blankenmeyer
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Marc Andelman wrote:
>
> > Both were responsible for the
> > deaths of millions of people. Is it fair to compare the two
> > tyrants?
> >
> > Mao unified his country. Can the same be said for Abe
Lincoln?
>
> I think that this is a poor comparison. For starters, total
American Civil
> War deaths were well under one million, certainly not
"millions".
The death toll amounted to two percent of the total population
(North
and South) and about four percent of the adult population. This
was on a par with Mao's butcher bill (40 to 60 millions). So on a
percentage basis Lincoln's butcher bill and Mao's butcher bill
were
about the same.
You have to wonder, had Calhoun known that his rhetoric in 1850
would have
added up to so many deaths, would he have been so persistent in
setting the nation
up for such sacrifice. Remember, Calhoun was a supporter of the
federal
government in Jackson's time only to do an about face over the issue
of slavery.
Calhoun was considered to be the pre-eminent Southern statesman of
his time and it
was he who threw down the gauntlet of secession over the Wilmot
Proviso - which
never passed. In the end the South asked for war, nay, demanded
it... and took a
severe beating for its request. The morale, be careful of what you
ask for.
Now one should ask one's self. Was the death of 500,000 White
soldiers
worth the freedom of 4 million Negro slaves. How many of those
White
soldiers would have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to
free Negro slaves? Not too many, I would venture to say.
You may want to check your facts. Start with "Billy Yank." Written
by Bell Irvin
Wiley. A Southerner.
Had the war not happened, 600,000 people would have lived and
not died, had children and made a difference down to our day.
Indeed, the name John C. Calhoun does have its shame.
Geoff
trekk...@mailcity.com
ecal...@aol.com (ECalistri) wrote:
> The killing off of a few percent of the adult men in a war does not
> significantly effect the total population into the next generation.
The number
> of women, and the fertility rate are the determinants of the future
population.
You are right. Serial husbands!!
WalterM140
The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?>>
Lincoln can answer you:
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a
struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government,
whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial
weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all --
to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.
Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the
leading object of the government for whose existance we contend."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
Walt
John A. Stovall
wrote:
><<Lincoln did to South Carolina approximately what Yeltsin did to Chechnaya.
>The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
>destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?>>
An interesting essay related to this topic can be found at:
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/abelenin.html
The American Lenin
*****************************************************
Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes
to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.
Be Angry at the Sun
Robinson Jeffers
trekk...@mailcity.com
"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
> An interesting essay related to this topic can be found at:
>
> http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/abelenin.html
You mean: an absurd essay.
The author scribbles:
== History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious
==lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself ...
Lincoln was a principled man.
The author belches:
== to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices
==for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real
==capitalism, enlisted brute government force
Tariff walls --- to protect an industrial
society in its infancy..
What about the southern slave society that
didn't want to pay wages for a days work?
== In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated
==what amounted to no more than token resistance,
Token resistance? Beg to differ.
== Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more
==Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or
==afterward -- rolled into one.
Jeff Davis helped.
What is the pathetic author implying? That the Confederacy was
a "libertarian" society?
David A. Campbell
revisionist Libertarian propoganda. Any author who believes:
" If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he'd have
received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis."
and
"If libertarians ran things, they'd melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the
Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider
erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst
President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth."
has got some problems. . . To equate Lincoln's actions to the systematic
slaughter of 10,000,000 people based on their ethnicity and religion is beyond
the pale. There is no debating something like this. The best I can do is tell
others to skip this piece of trash..
David A. Campbell
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:56:01 GMT, walte...@aol.com (WalterM140)
> wrote:
>
> ><<Lincoln did to South Carolina approximately what Yeltsin did to Chechnaya.
> >The main difference is that Lincoln won and Boris did not. Death and
> >destruction was their legacy. Piles of dead people. And for what?>>
>
> An interesting essay related to this topic can be found at:
>
> http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/abelenin.html
>
D464015139
Unce Mao. What next that bastard from North Vietnam.(we used to call him uncle
Ho)
John A. Stovall
snipped
>What is the pathetic author implying? That the Confederacy was
>a "libertarian" society?
>
No, but rather he is reinforcing the basic premise (with rather
strong rhetoric) the basic premise of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's "
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men : A History of the American
Civil War" that the Civil war was the end of the American
Revolutionary ideals and the start of the single nation state rather
and a Union of Sovereign States joined in a voluntary compact.
You have read Hummel?
****************************************************
"The World's in a bad way, my man,
And bound to be worse before it mends;
Better to lie up in the mountain here
Four or five centuries, ............."
Said the old father of wild pigs,
Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain.
The Stars Go Over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
WalterM140
strong rhetoric) the basic premise of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's "
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men : A History of the American
Civil War" that the Civil war was the end of the American
Revolutionary ideals and the start of the single nation state rather
and a Union of Sovereign States joined in a voluntary compact.>>
That would be wrong. The sovereigns of the United States are the whole people
of the United States, not the states. The Supreme Court made this clear in a
number of rulings during the early period after the adoption of the
Constitution, including Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) and Maryland v. McCullough
(1819).
The states may not reserve a right to secession under the U.S Constitution.
You should go to Deja.com and do a search on this subject. It has been
discussed at great length in this forum.
Walt
trekk...@mailcity.com
"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ...........basic premise of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's "
> Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men : A History of the American
> Civil War" that the Civil war was the end of the American
> Revolutionary ideals
.......the growing southern slavocracy was a
repudiation of the American Revolution ...
> the start of the single nation state rather
> and a Union of Sovereign States joined in a voluntary compact.
They formed a single nation in 1787. It was
not a "voluntary compact" but an aim at
"more perfect union." I guess there was a
dispute about that in the 1860's.
The income tax in the North was a war-time measure
which died with the war. It took an amendment in the
next century, two world wars and a great depression
to get us to "big government."
Mark Pitcavage
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:54:31 -0500, trekk...@mailcity.com wrote:
>
>snipped
>>What is the pathetic author implying? That the Confederacy was
>>a "libertarian" society?
>>
>
>No, but rather he is reinforcing the basic premise (with rather
>strong rhetoric) the basic premise of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's "
>Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men : A History of the American
>Civil War" that the Civil war was the end of the American
>Revolutionary ideals and the start of the single nation state rather
>and a Union of Sovereign States joined in a voluntary compact.
>
>You have read Hummel?
Very few people other than rabid libertarians have read Hummel. It is
interesting as an ideological treatise, but like a lot of libertarian
works, it doesn't bear much relation to reality.
Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D.
The Militia Watchdog, http://www.militia-watchdog.org