Abe Lincoln: What they won't teach in school.

[cnm]

I think many don't do that to be honest, maybe not even the majority when extrapolating what I read on these fora to the population at large.

 

[peach174]

All we need to know about Lincolns views towards slavery is that the south seceded rather than face a Lincoln presidency.

Are you saying the the SOuth was right the Lincoln was going to be their enemy while in office, despite his promises otherwise?

So what did the south do? They MADE Lincoln their enemy

By seceding, they accelerated the abolition of slavery by a decade or more.

I am sick of libs being vague and then accusing me of putting words in their mouth.

Your phrasing "so what did the South do" implies agreement that Lincoln was going to be the enemy of the South in the Oval Office, despite his promises otherwise.

But then you claim the South "made him their enemy by seceding.

IMO, Lincoln was a strong abolitionist who's later "pro-slavery" comments were lies made in a desperate attempt to avoid a war.

Do you agree or disagree? A yes and no answer would be good. You can add as much nuance as you want AFTER you clearly state your answer.

Lincoln was willing to do whatever necessary to preserve the union without war. He had no power or intention to unilaterally end slavery. Best he could do was limit the expansion of slavery to new territories and maybe institute some long term solutions that would eventually lead to the end of slavery

By seceding....the South sealed their doom

The limits of expansion of slavery to new territories was done way before Lincoln.
Louisiana Purchase - 1803 - President Jefferson
Missouri Compromise - 1820 - President Monroe (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 1857
Treaty of Guadalupe - 1848 - President Polk

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery was doomed by 1860. The south insisted on going to war to preserve it
It would have ended anyway with a gradual expansion of slave rights and freeing new generations. They still would have been second class citizens.

 

[Esmeralda]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

 

[peach174]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

 

[Esmeralda]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

 

[rightwinger]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Carefully selected facts without historical context are

 

[peach174]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Carefully selected facts without historical context are

That is what liberals do all the time.

 

[chikenwing]

Desperate times call for desperate measures

Abe Lincoln was the right man for the job

History kinda proves that out.

 

[Correll]

Are you saying the the SOuth was right the Lincoln was going to be their enemy while in office, despite his promises otherwise?

So what did the south do? They MADE Lincoln their enemy

By seceding, they accelerated the abolition of slavery by a decade or more.

I am sick of libs being vague and then accusing me of putting words in their mouth.

Your phrasing "so what did the South do" implies agreement that Lincoln was going to be the enemy of the South in the Oval Office, despite his promises otherwise.

But then you claim the South "made him their enemy by seceding.

IMO, Lincoln was a strong abolitionist who's later "pro-slavery" comments were lies made in a desperate attempt to avoid a war.

Do you agree or disagree? A yes and no answer would be good. You can add as much nuance as you want AFTER you clearly state your answer.

Lincoln was willing to do whatever necessary to preserve the union without war. He had no power or intention to unilaterally end slavery. Best he could do was limit the expansion of slavery to new territories and maybe institute some long term solutions that would eventually lead to the end of slavery

By seceding....the South sealed their doom

I mostly agree.

What you describe is someone who was already the South's enemy.

I agree that it was unlikely he had some radical and immediate plan to eliminate slavery.

I agree that his most likely attack would be long term solutions that would weaken politically and economically the South so that in the medium term a future Abolitionist President would eliminate slavery.

THe pro slavery quotes that are being posted are IMO, weasel worded lies of a principled politician who was determined to end slavery wanted to do it without a war.

The South was thus Doomed regardless of whether they seceded or not.

The South could have gotten better terms if they had remained in the union. Slavery probably would have whimpered away rather than ending with the stroke of the pen. They also could have negotiated some compensation for the loss of their slaves

As it was, they cost 600,000 lives and lost their slaves anyway

Secession was a rash decision and cost the South dearly

That "whimpering away" would have been a long period of the Federal Government, dominated by the larger North, slowing strangling the economy of the South.

I agree that that would have been a BETTER course of action than a war they were almost certain to lose.

But it is certainly understandable that they didn't want to remain part of a nation where the majority of the population and the Federal Government was going to be waging an economic and political war against them for the rest of their lives or until they were destroyed, whichever came first.

 

[rightwinger]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Carefully selected facts without historical context are

That is what you are posting

Revisionist history at its worst

 

[peach174]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Carefully selected facts without historical context are

That is what you are posting

Revisionist history at its worst

Give an example

 

[rightwinger]

So what did the south do? They MADE Lincoln their enemy

By seceding, they accelerated the abolition of slavery by a decade or more.

I am sick of libs being vague and then accusing me of putting words in their mouth.

Your phrasing "so what did the South do" implies agreement that Lincoln was going to be the enemy of the South in the Oval Office, despite his promises otherwise.

But then you claim the South "made him their enemy by seceding.

IMO, Lincoln was a strong abolitionist who's later "pro-slavery" comments were lies made in a desperate attempt to avoid a war.

Do you agree or disagree? A yes and no answer would be good. You can add as much nuance as you want AFTER you clearly state your answer.

Lincoln was willing to do whatever necessary to preserve the union without war. He had no power or intention to unilaterally end slavery. Best he could do was limit the expansion of slavery to new territories and maybe institute some long term solutions that would eventually lead to the end of slavery

By seceding....the South sealed their doom

I mostly agree.

What you describe is someone who was already the South's enemy.

I agree that it was unlikely he had some radical and immediate plan to eliminate slavery.

I agree that his most likely attack would be long term solutions that would weaken politically and economically the South so that in the medium term a future Abolitionist President would eliminate slavery.

THe pro slavery quotes that are being posted are IMO, weasel worded lies of a principled politician who was determined to end slavery wanted to do it without a war.

The South was thus Doomed regardless of whether they seceded or not.

The South could have gotten better terms if they had remained in the union. Slavery probably would have whimpered away rather than ending with the stroke of the pen. They also could have negotiated some compensation for the loss of their slaves

As it was, they cost 600,000 lives and lost their slaves anyway

Secession was a rash decision and cost the South dearly

That "whimpering away" would have been a long period of the Federal Government, dominated by the larger North, slowing strangling the economy of the South.

I agree that that would have been a BETTER course of action than a war they were almost certain to lose.

But it is certainly understandable that they didn't want to remain part of a nation where the majority of the population and the Federal Government was going to be waging an economic and political war against them for the rest of their lives or until they were destroyed, whichever came first.

Cotton was still king and a major economic force

Just because the plantation owners wanted more profit off of free labor was no justification

 

[Preacher]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

 

[rightwinger]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

 

[Preacher]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

Yep sure do. I rely on facts and history not propaganda and hearsay

 

[rightwinger]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

Yep sure do. I rely on facts and history not propaganda and hearsay

Your motivation is clearly evident

 

[Preacher]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

Yep sure do. I rely on facts and history not propaganda and hearsay

Your motivation is clearly evident

As is yours my boy as is yours.

 

[regent]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

Yep sure do. I rely on facts and history not propaganda and hearsay

The three best presidents since historians began rating presidents in 1948, are Lincoln, Washington and FDR.

 

[Preacher]

My oldest is homeschooled so she gets to learn the truth not propaganda.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts aren't propaganda. To liberals yes it is to real people its not.

So, it isn't possible anything you teach her is propaganda? Right. LOL You are teaching her only one perspective on reality: yours. That is propaganda.

Facts are not propaganda.

Thank you.

Facts are not propaganda.

Teaching only one side, facts or not, and omitting the facts of another side is teaching propaganda. Nothing is black and white. Reality has many shades of gray, many perspectives. Teaching only one perspective on reality is propaganda.

Why teach lies when she can be taught facts? I went through her school work list she has to learn about Caesar Chavez and her online teacher is a negro...I wonder if she realizes Chavez HATED negro's?

You don't have to explain any more...we see where you are coming from

Yep sure do. I rely on facts and history not propaganda and hearsay

The three best presidents since historians began rating presidents in 1948, are Lincoln, Washington and FDR.

I am sure those historians are oh so neutral. I could care less what some historian says. If I wanted some politically connected historians views I would ask them. I don't therefore I don't.