Abraham Lincoln on trial

[Old Rocks]

The wingnuts just lost an election. So, the people that were castigating the liberals as unpatriotic during the campaign, are now stating that they wish to destroy the USA. I guess we can clearly see how deep their patriotism runs.

The fucktards just "won" an election which will economically decimate the USA. I guess we can clearly see that government "education" has failed miserably.

.

LOL. After 8 years of GOP, the economy was headed for another Great Republican Depression. At present, we are seeing painfully slow growth, but growth, nonetheless. You people ran on a platform of repeating the same idiocy that put us in economically dire straights, and now you cannot understand why you lost.

The GOP took over with a nation at peace, a balanced budget, and we were actually starting to pay down the national debt. After the longest economic boom in the nations history, there was the normal downturn, a minor recession. And Clinton clearly told Bush that his biggest danger was terrorists, specifically Bin Laden. The Bush admin's reaction to that warning was that "Clinton has a concerning Bin Laden".

By the end of Bush's 8 years, we were headed for a Depression, we were in two wars that were carried off of the books, and one of those wars had been started on the basis of lies.

Now, after taking over when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, with the market at half it's previous value, and still headed straight down, our President has managed to stabalize our economy, and get us out of one of the wars, and we will be out of the other ones soon.

So, if at the end of his second term, our economy is doing well, and we are adding jobs every quarter, are you going to admit that our President has done well

 

[Votto]

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, defended the right of secession by saying that "To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised" and thought of "a government that can only exist by the sword," with "Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another" a moral abomination

(Jonathan Elliot’s Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p. 232).


.

We only listen to Hamilton when rationalizing that the General Welfare clause makes the nanny state Constitutional, even though Madison, the father of the Constitution, plainly said that this was not what the General Welfare clause was meant to do.

Other than for defending the nanny state, Hamilton was a raging lunatic, don't ya know!!!

 

[paperview]

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, defended the right of secession by saying that "To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised" and thought of "a government that can only exist by the sword," with "Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another" a moral abomination

(Jonathan Elliot’s Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p. 232).


.

Madison's reply to Hamilton:

"Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification."

November 10, 1860: No right to secede | Seven Score and Ten

The right of States to retain the right to secede was not only discussed at the Convention, it was rejected.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

Wut?

Lincoln sworn in March 4, 1861.

First shots fired April 12, 1861

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

 

[JoeB131]

[

My complaint is the willingness of progressives to violate the rule of law, all in the name of preserving federal power or making it stronger. As I said, they were also willing to violate natural law by allowing slavery to become Constitutional. Many here seem to scoff at the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they bought into the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they thought Lincoln an expert on such deception and could easily revoke the amendemnt later on.

This reminds me of Obamacare. I think progressives were more than willing to allow a mandate pass for corporate America to set tax rates on health care. In their minds, this is just a temporary step to a single payer system. In the interim, they are more than willing to endure whatever evil society may endure from this path. I say you are all nuts.

yeah, what a nutty concept, not letting people die of treatable diseases because they are poor.

That's just fucking crazy talk, man.

The rest of the world has single payer. They live longer, spend less and less of them are sent to the poorhouse because of a medical crisis.

But I'm glad to see what you are out about. You are upset of a notion of a government that looks out for people.

 

[Contumacious]

The wingnuts just lost an election. So, the people that were castigating the liberals as unpatriotic during the campaign, are now stating that they wish to destroy the USA. I guess we can clearly see how deep their patriotism runs.

The fucktards just "won" an election which will economically decimate the USA. I guess we can clearly see that government "education" has failed miserably.

.

LOL. After 8 years of GOP, the economy was headed for another Great Republican Depression. At present, we are seeing painfully slow growth, but growth, nonetheless. You people ran on a platform of repeating the same idiocy that put us in economically dire straights, and now you cannot understand why you lost.

:

Sorry, Jack. Can't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

You are right about Bush driving the economy into the ground. And you are also right about Romney being worse for the nation since more than likely he would have invaded Iran.

But Obama's decision to continue interfering with the economy , bailing out failing corporations and increasing taxes is not any better.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

My complaint is the willingness of progressives to violate the rule of law, all in the name of preserving federal power or making it stronger. As I said, they were also willing to violate natural law by allowing slavery to become Constitutional. Many here seem to scoff at the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they bought into the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they thought Lincoln an expert on such deception and could easily revoke the amendemnt later on.

This reminds me of Obamacare. I think progressives were more than willing to allow a mandate pass for corporate America to set tax rates on health care. In their minds, this is just a temporary step to a single payer system. In the interim, they are more than willing to endure whatever evil society may endure from this path. I say you are all nuts.

We heard this same kind of moaning, mewling, and puking when Social Security was instituted. The nation will be better and stronger with a universal single payer health care system, just as it is stronger with our Social Security system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was constitutional, Votto.

Lincoln had four goals: (1) preserve the Union, (2) preserve federal property, (3) keep slavery out of the territories and free states, and (4) make the South submit to constitutional and electoral process.

He succeeded across the board.

This is your rebuttal?

So in your opinion, trampling the Constitution is OK, just so long as it is done in the name of preerving the union? Was the "unon" worth 10,500 battles, 620,000 deaths, and 1,030,000 causualties? Is there a price too great to preserve the union or should any price be paid?

It seemed to me that the South had been given the option to preserve slavery by Lincoln. Had they taken the option by Licoln, would you still say that he was the greatest president in US history? It seems to me that all the South wanted was to be free from Washington and they desired to go peacefully. Is democracy so repugnant to you or should self determination take a back seat to the federal power in Washington?

While ridding ourselves of the dumb, inbred morons in the south would have its merits, Lincoln made the right call in doing whatever it took to keep the Union together.

Not surprising, the descendents of the same dumb assholes who died by the thousands today so a few rich douchebags can live in mansions and own slaves, are the same dumb assholes today who vote Republican and support "Right to Work" laws that allow big corporations run by rich douchebags to pay them less.

Would you have supported Lincoln to make slavery constitutional just to preserve the union?

 

[Barb]

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

My complaint is the willingness of progressives to violate the rule of law, all in the name of preserving federal power or making it stronger. As I said, they were also willing to violate natural law by allowing slavery to become Constitutional. Many here seem to scoff at the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they bought into the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they thought Lincoln an expert on such deception and could easily revoke the amendemnt later on.

This reminds me of Obamacare. I think progressives were more than willing to allow a mandate pass for corporate America to set tax rates on health care. In their minds, this is just a temporary step to a single payer system. In the interim, they are more than willing to endure whatever evil society may endure from this path. I say you are all nuts.

Progressives wanted a single payer system at the outset, and gave President Obama pure hell for the compromises he made. Still, we do understand the opposition he was up against, and the compromises he made still add up, for Americans, to a better health care system than our loved ones were forced to die under. Yes, I still want single payer, but at least now, if my 9 week old grandson outlives the cancer threatening his life and the chemo works and doesn't kill him, sometime when he's older, his childhood struggle won't be a "preexisting" condition rendering his case un insurable.

There should be ethical imperatives to government policies, whether you and yours like them or not. It is written into our national history and founding, as imperfect as that start was.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fucktards just "won" an election which will economically decimate the USA. I guess we can clearly see that government "education" has failed miserably.

.

LOL. After 8 years of GOP, the economy was headed for another Great Republican Depression. At present, we are seeing painfully slow growth, but growth, nonetheless. You people ran on a platform of repeating the same idiocy that put us in economically dire straights, and now you cannot understand why you lost.

:

Sorry, Jack. Can't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

You are right about Bush driving the economy into the ground. And you are also right about Romney being worse for the nation since more than likely he would have invaded Iran.

But Obama's decision to continue interfering with the economy , bailing out failing corporations and increasing taxes is not any better.

.

We were going off a fiscal cliff that makes the present threat look like small peanuts. To have let the auto industry die would have put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. To fail to do what is neccessary in the name of ideology is a form of insanity. As for increasing taxes, the primary driver of the present deficits are the Bush tax cuts. I say bring back the tax rates under Clinton for everybody. And add 5% on the incomes above one million. 5% at least, really, should make the Buffet Rule the law of the land. And all income should be taxed at the same rate.

 

[Contumacious]

LOL. After 8 years of GOP, the economy was headed for another Great Republican Depression. At present, we are seeing painfully slow growth, but growth, nonetheless. You people ran on a platform of repeating the same idiocy that put us in economically dire straights, and now you cannot understand why you lost.

:

Sorry, Jack. Can't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

You are right about Bush driving the economy into the ground. And you are also right about Romney being worse for the nation since more than likely he would have invaded Iran.

But Obama's decision to continue interfering with the economy , bailing out failing corporations and increasing taxes is not any better.

.

We were going off a fiscal cliff that makes the present threat look like small peanuts. To have let the auto industry die would have put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. To fail to do what is neccessary in the name of ideology is a form of insanity. As for increasing taxes, the primary driver of the present deficits are the Bush tax cuts. I say bring back the tax rates under Clinton for everybody. And add 5% on the incomes above one million. 5% at least, really, should make the Buffet Rule the law of the land. And all income should be taxed at the same rate.

HUH?

Is fascism/socialism not an ideology?

Is the fact that the POTUS has NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to bail out anything or anyone not a lawful reason.?!?!?

You know many thieves claim that the stolen money helped them tremendously. Ask Bernie Madoff.

Should we then legalize theft?

.

 

[PredFan]

As usual, the facts don't follow the progressive agenda, expecially historical facts.

Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states that it already existed in. Here is a link to facts about Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment:

Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment « Crossroads

Of particular interest is this quote by Lincoln:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

 

[paperview]

As usual, the facts don't follow the progressive agenda, expecially historical facts.

Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states that it already existed in. Here is a link to facts about Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment:

Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment « Crossroads

Of particular interest is this quote by Lincoln:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

 

[PredFan]

As usual, the facts don't follow the progressive agenda, expecially historical facts.

Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states that it already existed in. Here is a link to facts about Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment:

Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment « Crossroads

Of particular interest is this quote by Lincoln:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

I don't know, look it up and start a thread on it. You are missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point.

 

[paperview]

As usual, the facts don't follow the progressive agenda, expecially historical facts.

Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states that it already existed in. Here is a link to facts about Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment:

Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment « Crossroads

Of particular interest is this quote by Lincoln:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

I don't know, look it up and start a thread on it. You are missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point.

By your failure to understand my question, or even look into why that might be important, you, Pred, are missing the point.

 

[Contumacious]

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln- Douglas Debates


.

 

[Barb]

As usual, the facts don't follow the progressive agenda, expecially historical facts.

Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states that it already existed in. Here is a link to facts about Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment:

Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment « Crossroads

Of particular interest is this quote by Lincoln:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

You didn't read far enough into your own link

Here’s what strikes me as odd about some discussions about Lincoln and the Corwin amendment. Some of the very people who highlight it (hello, Mr. DiLorenzo) also claim that Lincoln was a dictator. Yet this is a case where Lincoln recognized constitutional restraints upon executive power. He might despise slavery, but he balanced that view with respect for the Constitution and the restraints it imposed upon the federal government (not simply the president) in times of peace. Moreover, given Lincoln’s willingness to see the measure pass, why then did secessionists see Lincoln as a threat to the preservation of slavery? If the new president was not going to touch slavery where it already existed, then why portray him as a threat to slavery? Now, there’s good reason for that: many people believed that if slavery did not expand territorially, it would be in trouble. An antislavery president would not endorse the efforts to curtail freedom of speech (that’s right, a constitutional right) that secessionists endorsed, and that would open up a discussion many white southerners did not want to have … indeed, feared to have. In short, secessionists still saw Lincoln’s election as a threat to slavery, and they admitted as much in launching their preemptive strike to break free of the United States.

It’s ironic that today people point to Lincoln’s willingness to let the Corwin amendment go forward as evidence that he really didn’t care about slavery. What do they know that the secessionists did not? And, for those people who claim that Lincoln was not antislavery, what are they to make of secessionist fears on this score? Were secessionists delusional? Were they cynically manipulating southern whites (in which case one would wonder why some white southerners today would want to celebrate a political process in which their ancestors were tricked)? Were secessionists simply liars? I think not, but those Confederate Romantics who point to the Corwin amendment as evidence that Lincoln didn’t really care about slavery have some explaining to do. As for me, I see all the fuss over Lincoln and the Corwin amendment as much ado about very, very little.

 

[paperview]

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln- Douglas Debates


.

As I told you in your stupid Speilberg thread on Lincoln:

There you go again...Like Thomas Jefferson, I could show you quotes that would convince you he was a deeply religious man.

I could also show you just as many quotes that would convince he was an atheist. (as many deemed him at the time)

Lincoln was complex, but anyone who has studied his history knows his dedication to the cause; Union first, anti-slavery as a backdrop. Pragmatism.

All you do is cherrypick quotes - no depth to your analysis. It's why most people dismiss you.


---

 

[Barb]

Sorry, Jack. Can't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

You are right about Bush driving the economy into the ground. And you are also right about Romney being worse for the nation since more than likely he would have invaded Iran.

But Obama's decision to continue interfering with the economy , bailing out failing corporations and increasing taxes is not any better.

.

We were going off a fiscal cliff that makes the present threat look like small peanuts. To have let the auto industry die would have put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. To fail to do what is neccessary in the name of ideology is a form of insanity. As for increasing taxes, the primary driver of the present deficits are the Bush tax cuts. I say bring back the tax rates under Clinton for everybody. And add 5% on the incomes above one million. 5% at least, really, should make the Buffet Rule the law of the land. And all income should be taxed at the same rate.

HUH?

Is fascism/socialism not an ideology?

Is the fact that the POTUS has NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to bail out anything or anyone not a lawful reason.?!?!?

You know many thieves claim that the stolen money helped them tremendously. Ask Bernie Madoff.

Should we then legalize theft?

.

You mean to suggest we haven't already?

We have.

It's just a matter of WHO the theft is perpetrated against. The ONLY reason Madoff was prosecuted is because HE stole from the one %. Given HIS economic standing, he wouldn't have been tried except in the arena of public opinion, THAT on the internet, and even then not until he was already good and dead.

Sometimes I feel sorry for ones like you; clearly you had to have been shielded from the harsher realities of life by well-meaning relatives. Other times I think you must be predatory opportunists yourselves to come out the sides of your mouth with such blatant bullshit.

I'm torn between wanting to see my fellow human beings AS fellows, and the stark and terrifying reality your willful ignorance suggests.

 

[Contumacious]

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

Was Lincoln in favor of the Dred Scott decision?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln- Douglas Debates


.

As I told you in your stupid Speilberg thread on Lincoln:

There you go again...Like Thomas Jefferson, I could show you quotes that would convince you he was a deeply religious man.

I could also show you just as many quotes that would convince he was an atheist. (as many deemed him at the time)

Lincoln was complex, but anyone who has studied his history knows his dedication to the cause; Union first, anti-slavery as a backdrop. Pragmatism.

All you do is cherrypick quotes - no depth to your analysis. It's why most people dismiss you.


---

decisions, decisions...

Who am I gonna believe, you or my lying eyes?

.