Germans. Still Evil?

Nowhere in the post is this said:huh:

Try rereading it again.
So what's the point of saying this if you're not trying minimize Andrew Jackson's malicious actions?

All this stuff was carried out by fairly complicated men. Andrew Jackson seemed pretty viscous in policy towards native Americans, yet adopted one, and wished to see them all, white, black and native in heaven upon his deathbed.

It doesn't matter if Andrew Jackson or Adolph Hitler were considerate or thoughtful in isolated cases. They're crimes against humanity were so massive that it greatly overshadows any glimmer of compassion they displayed to a few individuals.
 
So what's the point of saying this if you're not trying minimize Andrew Jackson's malicious actions?

It doesn't matter if Andrew Jackson or Adolph Hitler were considerate or thoughtful in isolated cases. They're crimes against humanity were so massive that it greatly overshadows any glimmer of compassion they displayed to a few individuals.
Well first of all history doesn't label Andrew Jackson as evil. You live in a country where he is the on the twenty dollar bill (and most of the rest represented owned slaves). Can you imagine putting Hitler on the twenty? Yet we do but a mass murderer on our currency. So you're sitting here claiming that history doesn't forgive his actions when clearly it's been fairly forgiving.

Two, I didn't forgive him, I said they were "complicated individuals". So clearly, I'd try reading it *sigh* again because the point is flying well far over your head.
 
Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery anymore than the Allies went to war to save the Jews. He let the border states that sided with the Union keep their slaves.

Alot of people are trying to re-write history to preserve the confederate cause and reputation.

But the South listed their reasons for seceding clearly and there main reason for demanding state rights is to preserve the right to own human beings:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
 
Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery anymore than the Allies went to war to save the Jews. He let the border states that sided with the Union keep their slaves.
Yeah, it really baffles me when people think we went after Hitler because he was a "bad man".
 
Well first of all history doesn't label Andrew Jackson as evil. You live in a country where he is the on the twenty dollar bill (and most of the rest represented owned slaves). Can you imagine putting Hitler on the twenty? Yet we do but a mass murderer on our currency. So you're sitting here claiming that history doesn't forgive his actions when clearly it's been fairly forgiving.

Two, I didn't forgive him, I said they were "complicated individuals". So clearly, I'd try reading it *sigh* again because the point is flying well far over your head.

Why don't you simply explain your reasons for pointing out how "complicated" Hitler was?
 
Alot of people are trying to re-write history to preserve the confederate cause and reputation.

But the South listed their reasons for seceding clearly and there main reason for demanding state rights is to preserve the right to own human beings:
I see you conveniently missed the point he made. Lincoln let the border states that sided with the Union keep their slaves.

That's not re-writing anything, it's a fact.

If the South didn't mean anything to us economically, we would've cut our losses and let them secede and have their slavery. We didn't care. It was manifest destiny and the Federal Government's desire to rule the continent from coast to coast that really drove us to war.
 
I see you conveniently missed the point he made. Lincoln let the border states that sided with the Union keep their slaves.

Can you quote that part for me?

That's not re-writing anything, it's a fact.

If the South didn't mean anything to us economically, we would've cut our losses and let them secede and have their slavery. We didn't care. It was manifest destiny and the Federal Government's desire to rule the continent from coast to coast that really drove us to war.

What proof do you have that Lincoln was motivated by greed?

and if you want to break down a nation to weaker, individual parts you need a better reason than "we want to own human beings!".
 
Because labeling him as evil, frankly, is really naive and thoughtless.

Naive and thoughtless?

So I can kill millions of people and anyone who labels me evil is being "naive and thoughtless" because I was a nice person in isolated cases?
 
Naive and thoughtless?

So I can kill millions of people and anyone who labels me evil is being "naive and thoughtless" because I was a nice person in isolated cases?
Yeah, it happens all the time, dude. As long as those you were nice to didn't lose a war you can pretty much write yourself as Jesus if you want to.

I mean you like George Washington? Think he's a hero? He was nice in isolated instances, but then treated black people like sh**. At his house they were fed AFTER the animals, meaning he thought less of them than his dogs.
 
All wars are just disputes over money, resources and or territory.

This is true but if someone wants my territory or to keep their territory to continue slavery or spread fascism then somebody has to stop them, correct?
 
Yeah, it happens all the time, dude. As long as those you were nice to didn't lose a war you can pretty much write yourself as Jesus if you want to.

I mean you like George Washington? Think he's a hero? He was nice in isolated instances, but then treated black people like sh**. At his house they were fed AFTER the animals, meaning he thought less of them than his dogs.

I never defended George Washington as a great and noble humanitarian and I'm full aware that there are some grey examples in history of good and bad people but other examples are clear cut.

Hitler is a clear cut example of a terrible and evil person.
 
This is true but if someone wants my territory or to keep their territory to continue slavery or spread fascism then somebody has to stop them, correct?
First of all "spreading fascism" is just some propaganda claim like "spreading democracy" and "spreading socialism". But there are hundreds of nations (ours included) that still practice slavery to this day so I don't understand what your point is. If it's my property usually, as far as geopolitics is concerned I can do whatever the hell I want on it, provided I don't step on someone more powerful than me.
 
I never defended George Washington as a great and noble humanitarian and I'm full aware that there are some grey examples in history of good and bad people but other examples are clear cut.

Hitler is a clear cut example of a terrible and evil person.
Well then so is American between the years of 2004-present. We've killed more civilians than Hitler in that time period, mostly under one man, but Obama is doing his fair share as well.
 
I'll always go with the words of Napoleon. He nailed it when he said "History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon."
 
Well then so is American between the years of 2004-present. We've killed more civilians than Hitler in that time period, mostly under one man, but Obama is doing his fair share as well.

Can you give your estimates?

Because Hitler had millions of civillain victims and according to my count America (2004-current) comes no where close.
 
Yeah, it happens all the time, dude. As long as those you were nice to didn't lose a war you can pretty much write yourself as Jesus if you want to.

I mean you like George Washington? Think he's a hero? He was nice in isolated instances, but then treated black people like sh**. At his house they were fed AFTER the animals, meaning he thought less of them than his dogs.

I guess that is why he ordered Martha to free them in his will. Oh wait...Yeah he was a slave owner, but he didn't give them to Martha who apparently refused to free her own slaves. And all the modern research I've come across indicates he was decent to his slaves, and I mean credible sources not romanticized public school history books.

He did have a formidable temper they say, but he was a quite and reserved man. It took a lot to get him to show it.
 
Last edited:
Are we really breaking evil down to a number of victims? Because if we are, Charles Manson is practically angelic by comparison.
 
First of all "spreading fascism" is just some propaganda claim like "spreading democracy" and "spreading socialism". But there are hundreds of nations (ours included) that still practice slavery to this day so I don't understand what your point is. If it's my property usually, as far as geopolitics is concerned I can do whatever the hell I want on it, provided I don't step on someone more powerful than me.

These are blanket statements.

Yes there are cases when winning a war has far reaching ideological results.

How would you explain to the conquered victims of a genocidal, fascist Nazi dictatorship that rules Europe, that the war Hitler won wasn't about freedom or democracy?

Ditto for people enslaved under a confederate republic well into the 20th century.
 
I guess that is why he ordered Martha to free them in his will. Oh wait...Yeah he was a slave owner, but he didn't give them to Martha who apparently refused to free her own slaves. And all the modern research I've come across indicates he was decent to his slaves, and I mean credible sources not romanticized public school history books.

He did have a formidable temper they say, but he was a quite and reserved man. It took a lot to get him to show it.

But how can a freedom fighter own people without being a hypocrite?
 
Are we really breaking evil down to a number of victims? Because if we are, Charles Manson is practically angelic by comparison.

I think if modern America intentionally killed as many people as Nazi Germany, he'd have a fair point but we didn't.
 
Are we really breaking evil down to a number of victims? Because if we are, Charles Manson is practically angelic by comparison.
Yeah. I hate when people try to play the "number of victims" game. If that's the case at the time of World War II Hitler turns into the nicest of the bunch. Stalin eclipsed his number several times over.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,444
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"