There is no right and wrong

by campaign of hate 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @HMTM

  You are confusing the political parts of lincolns letter with his own wishes. I suggest you re read it. He specifically states that it is his "oft expressed wish" that all men everywhere be free. The part that was politics is all the bits before that where he talked about the union and preservation of it. But his last point, the conclusion he chose to wrap it all up, was his personal expressed wishes that all men be free.

  Further, the Emancipation Proclamation destroys your notion that it was merely political,

  And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

  And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

  And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

  And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

  I am more than willing to admit that religion has had some positive moral effects on society (though far less than bad). But in order for you to really make people believe that freeing the slaves was not a moral concern, you would have to (and apparently have) ignore Lincolns own words in the very letter you reference, as well as his claims of justice in the Proclamation and his deference to God, as well as convince them that these clear religious declarations are not moral in nature but instead political."Judgement of mankind"? Those are his words, do you think he believed their politics were being judged or their morals? Which is God more concerned with?
• 

  Hold Me-Thrill Me

  The concern of World War II as another example was moral in nature, not politcal. Whole nations spent their money and other assets fighting Nazism, and did so expecting to gain nothing but the end of the oppression of Hitler and his regime.

  This is a nice idea but it does not support the reality that the powers which primarily fought off the Nazis did not jump into the war at first blush when other weaker nations were falling. They jumped in when it became necessary to jump in.

  Britain and the U.S. did a "good" thing in fighting off the Nazis but they did not do it for "moral" reasons. We knew about the persecution of the Jews but refused to accept Jewish refugees. This is not a condemnation on my part but the recognition that governments' first priority is to do what they believe will be of benefit to themselves as well as what they believe their citizens will tolerate or not tolerate.

  I believe the United States is one of the best countries in history but I'm a little surprised by the historical rose colored glasses here.

  Frank
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  This is a nice idea but it does not support the reality that the powers which primarily fought off the Nazis did not jump into the war at first blush when other weaker nations were falling. They jumped in when it became necessary to jump in.

  Britain and the U.S. did a "good" thing in fighting off the Nazis but they did not do it for "moral" reasons. We knew about the persecution of the Jews but refused to accept Jewish refugees. This is not a condemnation on my part but the recognition that governments' first priority is to do what they believe will be of benefit to themselves as well as what they believe their citizens will tolerate or not tolerate.

  You're absoluty correct. And again, religion was the reason for the view of Jews in the Christian portions of the world at the time. The affect of the church brewed hatred was so old and well spread into society that even the JW religion felt the need to issue a letter declaring they didn't except money from the Jews.

  When you combine this fact with the mistakes that the American media made during World War I concerning the report of German atrocities you get a fact based picture of why America was slow to get involved and it has nothing to do with them not thinking it necessary and everything to do with their ignorance of what was going on and their not wanting to repeat mistakes made in the first War.

  The extermination of European Jewry began when the German army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Nazis attempted to keep the Holocaust a secret, but in August 1942, Dr. Gerhart Riegner, the representative of the World Jewish Congress in Geneva, Switzerland, learned what was going on from a German source. Riegner asked American diplomats in Switzerland to inform Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of America’s most prominent Jewish leaders, of the mass murder plan. But the State Department, characteristically insensitive and influenced by anti-Semitism, decided not to inform Wise.

  The rabbi nevertheless learned of Riegner’s terrible message from Jewish leaders in Great Britain. He immediately approached Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, who asked Wise to keep the information confidential until the government had time to verify it. Wise agreed and it was not until November 1942 that Welles authorized the release of Riegner’s message.

  Wise held a press conference on the evening of November 24, 1942. The next day’s New York Times reported his news on its tenth page. Throughout the rest of the war, the Times and most other newspapers failed to give prominent and extensive coverage to the Holocaust. During World War I, the American press had published reports of German atrocities that subsequently turned out to be false. As a result, journalists during World War IItended to approach atrocity reports with caution.

  
  Source
• 

  Hold Me-Thrill Me

  Jonathan Drake,

  Lincoln's letter was the letter of a national leader, the President of the United States. As President his main concern was the preservation of the Union. Though he personally believed in freedom he nonetheless would have set none of the slaves free if it meant the Union would be preserved.

  Lincoln's "own wishes" did NOT override his desire to keep the Union intact. His letter is a fine example of pragmatism which at times must trump personal belief. He was not a priest he was a politician, a President. His priority was the United States of America and its interests. He fulfilled his commission as President, he held the nation together.

  Frank
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Also, and I had to look this up before posting.

  America was involved before they knew about the holocaust anyway. But again, morality should be in part measured by the reaction. And it was because of the atrocities of World War II that this happened:

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again.

  
  

  Source
  
  

  Clearly, morality was at the forefront of all of this. It was not merely a political concern.

  Once the world saw what had happened, and the news was out and verified, THIS is how they responded - with a strictly morality concerned declaration.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Though he personally believed in freedom he nonetheless would have set none of the slaves free if it meant the Union would be preserved.
  

  This is absurd. Abolishing slavery did not need to happen in order to preserve the union and it had no effect at all on the outcome of the war. There was no reason to do it aside from believing it was the right thing to do - a strictly moral concern.
• 

  Vidiot

  Jonathan Drake - "the days of history being written by the victors are long over. What you say in this quote, vidiot is no longer correct in today's society. It's an idea from an ignorant age where reason and truth were non existent and relative perspectively. The only way the world will again be as you describe is if reason loses and religion regains control."

  Yeah, you're probably right.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Abolitionist Movement summary: The Abolitionist movement in the United States of America was an effort to end slavery in a nation that valued personal freedom and believed "all men are created equal." Over time, abolitionists grew more strident in their demands, and slave owners entrenched in response, fueling regional divisiveness that ultimately led to the American Civil War.
  

  Strictly moral concern.

  A bit of light research yields the information that Lincoln was a member of the National Union Party - a anti slavery Republican Party who's ideology was influenced by, wait for it - Abolitionism.
• 

  Hold Me-Thrill Me

  Eleanor Roosevelt I believe spearheaded the writing of that declaration but connecting that declaration to her husband's declared war on Japan is hard to do. Yes, after the fact, the declaration was good but that was after the war. Human rights before the war were not at the forefront though. American Japanese citizens were denied their human rights, American black soldiers (according to white veterans my father knew) were treated at times less honorably than captured German soldiers.

  Look, I'm not interested in criticizing governments. I'm just trying to point out that governments must act to preserve themselves. This is the way it is, the way it must be. How many Americans would support a war that might cost thousands of American lives just to give the people of a small African country potable water? But if that small African country has precious ore important to national security, or other political concerns, then let the war begin and give the people clean water as well.

  Truly, there is nothing wrong with that because governments exist to maintain themselves and their people's interests.

  Political=Government
  
• 

  Hold Me-Thrill Me

  I believe Lincoln's letter speaks for itself. He was politically for the Union at all cost but personally against slavery. His personal belief did not change his political aim or belief.

  
  Lincoln did not wage war to save the slaves. He waged war to save the Union. It was war we were discussing not moral personal beliefs.