In 1855, when Lincoln was helping to form the Republican Party out of the remnants of the Whig Party around a simple moral question, the extension of slavery, a lifelong friend asked him if he was a Know-Nothing, a member of the new "American Party," which has arisen in opposition to German Catholic immigrants in the big cities.
Lincoln, who epitomizes the difference between being religious and being church-going, wrote back in 1855:
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.'' We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.'' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.'' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
I posted a "House Divided" polemic against Zionism here.
Next it will be how Abraham Lincoln was really a Moslem, persecuted by the jews. Which I guess would include Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee.
Abraham Lincoln, anti-Zionist?
greetings from Abraham Lincoln over the centuries.
Please acknowledge that nitwit dies with this message.
I seem to recall Liberia. A colony established so that blacks could return to their homeland, if they so desired.
Great analogy Chris, the American founders of that nation were purged from power 40 years ago. They held dominion for about a century, I guess that gives the Ashkanazi another 40 years of power in Palestine.
This from the bufoon Chris who thinks the Dalai Lama is a Moslem.
Interesting article, Joachim. I don't believe that many racial egalitarians existed in the North in 1861. I also know that many in the North profited hansomely from the slave trade, so I never quite buy the traditional view of the Civil War as being fought over slavery, norality or racial egalitarianism. I don't defend slavery, but I do have problems with the Israel analogies often thrown around.
I guess Northerners could respond that slavery in the South made them morally responsible in a similar way that Americans can respond to Zionists that American support makes Americans responsible for crimes against the Palestinians. The problem is that Americans don't deal with either issue honestly. Since that's the case, why mix the issues? Shouldn't Israel just stand on its own?
http://www.slavenorth.com/denial.htm
Abraham Lincoln was PRO-Zionist. He openly expressed support for creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Zionism became political movement in the United States and Britain as early as the 1830's-1840's. This was long before there were many Jews in the US so it was NOT the result of some mythical lobby.
The Lincoln cult is narcissistic, and irrelevant to the present-day US.
I could not find any web pages that discussed Lincoln's alleged Zionism.
If I am not mistaken, Darby's version of premillennial dispensationalism goes back to the 1830s, but to me it has always looked like a sophisticated way to bring Christianity into line with racist and imperialist ideas of the early 19th century.
My Backgrounder on Christian Zionism can be found here.
Joachim,
Your backgrounder on Christian Zionism is interesting, but I think that neoconfederates is the wrong term for the religious nuts you describe. I know the fundie types you mention, and they are usually too wrapped up in rapture and Israel mythology to have much in common with confederates old or new. The people I would view as neoconfederates are those who believe that the South has interests that would be best served in a loose confederation of states separate from Washington, and they tend to be religiously more moderate, and often hostile to Israel from my experience.
I even wonder if the breakdown of neoconfederates and religious fundamentalists would fall along the traditional lines of revolutionaries to loyalists in the colonial era and confederates to unionists prior to the Civil War?
On a side note, I would bet that the fundie churches would be more likely to be mixed-race to some degree than the churches of the more moderate religious neoconfederate types. I could be wrong because I spend very little time in churches or in political meetings of any sort, but I know enough people of each type to feel comfortable generalizing.
Presumably due to pressure from The Zionist Lobby, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed in 1863 that "restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans."
The only know-nothing is Phil, who despite being incapable of stating facts, wonders why his journalism career is in the toilet and he is relegated to writing for his neo-Nazi audience.
Joe, Amen.
One hundred years from now, Israeli historians will tell of the idiots, like Phils Phools, who tried to convince Islamic fascists that they had a chance.
Chris, I understand that there are Islamic radicals who would wish non-Muslims harm even if America weren't invading Muslim nations and supporting Israel. So? That still doesn't make Israel America's ally, or of any interest to me. Americans need to deal with the Zionist threat before they can look at the threat posed by radical Islam. I don't know how this will happen in America without violence, but it needs to happen eventually.
"Next it will be how Abraham Lincoln was really a Moslem, persecuted by the jews. Which I guess would include Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee.
Posted by: Sword of Gideonthe point"
No. The Jews only cared about money, North or South versions. The Confederacy had Jews at the top of its
regime. The history of the jews goes way back in supporting & benefiting from slavery–so long as the slaves were not jews. The North–well it had all the jews defrauding the Union to sell cotton to the French and Brits, and scam the Union soldiers at and on every battlefield parameter. Grant knew this. Lincoln did all he could to preserve the Union. He knew the value of Jewish bankers. He made the Emancipation Proclamation as a propaganda piece, knowing full well it was constitutionally illegal (slaves were property, change there required judicial due process), and not practical since he obviously couldn't enforce it, at the time he so proclaimed it.
The study of the Rothschild family will go a long way to understand the Jewish factor in the last 200 plus years of western nations.
But Todd, there is no Zionist threat. It is very boring that you keep stating such. One would think you are either an idiot or a neo-nazi to think there is a zionist threat.
I'm so bored.
Yeah, Todd, there's no Zionist threat because chris berel says so. You must be an idiot or a neo-nazi to think so. Get with the truth like Joe The Plumber, you uppity goy!