The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document.
It was Declaration written in a period of full scale war.
No one takes the bulk of it seriously, where everything is blamed on the King. Everyone at the Convention had lived under English law their whole lives, and they knew very well that the King could not do the things he was accused of without Parliament.
But there is only one short sentence of criticism for the Parliament. That’s where our sympathizers were, a minority, though a strong one.
Not one delegate, including Jefferson who wrote it, took the phrase from French liberals, “All men are created equal,” seriously.
Most people don’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
America has only adopted one statement which summarizes what America exists for: “To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.”
If you trying to write the most total rejection of “a nation of immigrants” you possibly could, that is what you say.
The Gettysburg Address was delivered by a President who declared martial law during his reelection campaign. There was no question in Lincoln’s mind that he was declaring a Revolution” “dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.”
How many men would have fought for the Union if they were informed that they were not fighting for the unity of their homeland, not even for the good of their own children, but for one single proposition?
In 1857 the Supreme Court wrote a book-length decision, Missouri versus Dred Scot, which went into detail about how America was founded and dedicated to white people: “A black man has no rights under the Constitution that a white man need respect.”
The Gettysburg Address was a war measure.
Just as the Declaration of Independence was a war measure.
Literate grown men in 1776 did not declare something as absurd as “all men are created equal” without a really good excuse.
Literate grown men in 1776 did not say “I want to kill Englishmen” at just any time.
So, until the Gettysburg Address, America was officially established to ensure a future for our white children.
The revolution to a propositional state is only valid if you accept the military dictatorship that enforced it.
This nation IS dedicated to a proposition, and it is eleven words long.
#1 by shari on 05/18/2011 - 8:50 am
It would have been a huge insult to Union soldiers to be told they were fighting to make themselves equal to negroes, muslims, on and on. They wouldn’t have even thought of it.
#2 by BGLass on 05/18/2011 - 9:55 am
“…a huge insult to Union soldiers to be told they were fighting to make themselves equal to negroes, muslims, on and on…”
And a fact no one ever mentions is that the “union” army was largely a non-domestic, foreign-born, imported army.
About half of that army was NOT raised up in america. This fact seems key, imo.
Last I looked, the wiki entry (rofl), condemned the confederates for being “not as diverse as the union army,” the implication to be that the “union” was this multi-cult thing (which made it better, talk about revisionism). In reality, the confeds were statistically in the country usually at least 3 generations by then, with almost one-to-one overlap with revolutionary war soldiers in family, (just b/c they actually lived in the country, where much of union army had never been to the country before brought into fight). The union came from abroad, (literally half the soldiers). In other words, the north really either did not, nor COULD, muster any domestic army at all, not really. The whole deal puts them on the level of paid (or conscripted or whatever) mercenaries from elsewhere, although half were from u.s.
Also, Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war was a personal friend of Karl Marx, and they used the 48-ers from Marx’s failed deal in 1848 Germany, and literally, thousands of communists came to fight for the union.
Why it’s not just seen as the communist rev in america, idk. Not to mention, occurred on the very day of the publication of commie manifesto. Like all wars, lots of factions agree on something, but have various motivations.
Like “immigration” now. The pope would not encourage and pay for siphoned off taxes for the project, if South America were a Hindu area. Or full of Buddhist. Or German looking Prods. Or Zoroastrians.
He wants his people, his area of influence, control, taxation. The color of the people to him is not brown, but green, imo. Then: They say the business wants cheaper labor. The rightest-welfare-state military wants “republican” votes; the leftist social programs want their freebie votes (and votes for themselves who process the immigrants as teachers or social workers or whatever; the politicians want a land space that’s bigger to control.
But none of the factions want to live in the same world, lol. They will each HATE the “ideal” living situation the others would create, although they want whatever they want in terms of money, control and power over others to boss around.
All of them “want what they want.” They all suck at Big Picture Thinking. (Big picture to them is getting more of the “scarce resources” since they cannot create anything. They do not even think of creating things as a viable life possiblity.
#3 by BGLass on 05/18/2011 - 10:06 am
Really, any decent person would just be sick to their stomach.
#4 by BGLass on 05/18/2011 - 10:12 am
And—
What does EQUAL even MEAN?
Never have I heard this question asked. Equal is hobbling people who could succeed the most easily.
Creating the conditions of success for some, by hurting/harming the others who would have bested them.
#5 by Cleric Preston on 05/18/2011 - 6:01 pm
If the wording is inconveinient broaden the meaning until you get the meaning you want.
I’ve read the declaration of (American) Independance.It says about all ‘men’ being created equal,then about 6 paragraphs later it callthe amerindians ‘ruthless savages’.
It was adressed to ‘the candid nations’ candid from candidus meaning White.
Only by broadening (destroying) the meaning of words can you reach the point where people believe,Turks are Germans,Pakistanis are Englishmen and Chinese are Australians.
Aparently these days a ‘man’ is any homo sapien on the planet.It wasn’t always like this.
Destroy the definition,destroy the context and all you have left are….words.
#6 by Epiphany on 05/18/2011 - 8:21 pm
They, the Politically Correct, really wish to destroy the English language, not help non Whites. They use the non Whites against us, but that is the sole use of the non Whites for them, at all. Why do we need “Diversity” at all? If anything, it is dragging us down.