John Legend and Charlamagne tha God Schooled Kanye West on History

[Correll]

The time of whites telling us how we are making up racism is over. That's the way it is. Times up.

Controversies about the word "niggardly" - Wikipedia


"On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget.[5] This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (Howard is white), identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25, Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it"




The time of whites pretending that you have a valid issue, when you are just stupid, is what is over.

 

[Correll]

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.[/QUOTE]

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.[/QUOTE]



Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

 

[katsteve2012]

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.[/QUOTE]



Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?[/QUOTE]

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or preserving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

 

[Correll]

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?[/QUOTE]

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.[/QUOTE]


It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

 

[katsteve2012]

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.[/QUOTE]


It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

 

[Correll]

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.


Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.


I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.




I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.





Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.


I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.


By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.


It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.



As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.[/QUOTE]



Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

 

[katsteve2012]

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.[/QUOTE]



Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

 

[Correll]

His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,[/QUOTE]



You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

 

[katsteve2012]

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,[/QUOTE]



You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?[/QUOTE]

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

 

[Correll]

Hitler talked a lot of shit about wanting Peace.

Is that what you judge him by, or his actions?

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?[/QUOTE]

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby[/QUOTE]



It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

 

[katsteve2012]

The subject matter is about Lincoln.as to whether his priority was ending slavery or pres

erving the union and the validity of your assertion that he was aligned with abolitionists is what is being questioned.

If you wish to discuss Hitler, then maybe you should start a thread about him.

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby[/QUOTE]



It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?[/QUOTE]

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Correll]

It's completely relevant to your method of judging historical figures by their words, and not their actions.

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?[/QUOTE]

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.[/QUOTE]


NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

 

[katsteve2012]

Irrelevant. What is in question was in my previous response to you.

And your attempt to dodge a direct question by bringing a dictator from a diffrrent continent into comparison is absurd.

The fact is that you cannot produce anything factual that answers the question.

Go talk to someone else.

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.[/QUOTE]


NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

 

[Correll]

Just putting your stated method of judging historical figures by their words and not their actions, in another context to see if it makes sense.


And it doesn't.

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.[/QUOTE]


Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.

 

[tinydancer]

Legend schooled no one. His recollection of "history" is pathetic.

 

[IM2]

Legend schooled no one. His recollection of "history" is pathetic.

Actually he did. I know you republicans like that all tale about how you are the party of racial equality but you're the same people who say you weren't alive during slavery then want to take credit for ending slavery. That's doubletalk.

 

[katsteve2012]

Thr subject matter is Lincoln, and you csnnot support your speculation regarding his "internal thoughts" with anything that is historically factual.

Unless you own the only functioning time machine in the world and traveled back to the 19th century and spoke to him personally, you do not know his "internal thoughts" but speak as if you do.

That makes less sense than anything,

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.[/QUOTE]


Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.[/QUOTE]

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

Look it up, because I am through spoon feeding information to you.

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites. As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

 

[Correll]

You want to judge politicians by their words, I want to look at their actions.


Unless you use different methods of judging on different politicians the comparison idea i suggested is reasonable.


Do you, use different methods sometimes? And why?

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.[/QUOTE]

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?[/QUOTE]


My understanding is that he did not have the power to rule by decree in the States of the Union that were not in open revolt.

But, of course. once slavery was destroying in the South, the back bone of political power of slavers, would be utterly destroyed.

That alone would lead in short order to the end of slavery.

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

Standard lib practice of imagining an answer and then gloating about it. That all took place in your head and has nothing to do with me.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

That was certainly one of the benefits of it. No doubt.


It also, put a great deal of pressure on the European powers, that the South hoped for support from, to not intervene as they would now be, instead of simply supporting a regional rebellion, would be "pro-slavery"

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites.

I've seen other blacks spout similar ideas to what you are claiming. If 20% of blacks agree with you, then you would be "speaking for them" in that you would be saying what they believe.

It is hard to credit that you were confused by that.


Oh, and, I'm pretty comfortable that I do speak for the vast majority of whites, when I give Lincoln not only credit for ending slavery, but credit for being strongly anti-slavery all along, despite his political lies otherwise.

As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

I did not ask, nor try to dictate to you at all, on whom you do or do not celebrate.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

My point about the need to share and celebrate a common national history, in order to be a unified and harmonious society, stands.

 

[katsteve2012]

9

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?[/QUOTE]


My understanding is that he did not have the power to rule by decree in the States of the Union that were not in open revolt.

But, of course. once slavery was destroying in the South, the back bone of political power of slavers, would be utterly destroyed.

That alone would lead in short order to the end of slavery.

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

Standard lib practice of imagining an answer and then gloating about it. That all took place in your head and has nothing to do with me.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

That was certainly one of the benefits of it. No doubt.


It also, put a great deal of pressure on the European powers, that the South hoped for support from, to not intervene as they would now be, instead of simply supporting a regional rebellion, would be "pro-slavery"

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites.

I've seen other blacks spout similar ideas to what you are claiming. If 20% of blacks agree with you, then you would be "speaking for them" in that you would be saying what they believe.

It is hard to credit that you were confused by that.


Oh, and, I'm pretty comfortable that I do speak for the vast majority of whites, when I give Lincoln not only credit for ending slavery, but credit for being strongly anti-slavery all along, despite his political lies otherwise.

As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

I did not ask, nor try to dictate to you at all, on whom you do or do not celebrate.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

My point about the need to share and celebrate a common national history, in order to be a unified and harmonious society, stands.

[/QUOTE]

This is not about me, so back to the subject matter. Here is some help for you that is crystal clear.


Lincoln's Efforts to Preserve the Union Essay - 1407 Words | Bartleby

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?[/QUOTE]


My understanding is that he did not have the power to rule by decree in the States of the Union that were not in open revolt.

But, of course. once slavery was destroying in the South, the back bone of political power of slavers, would be utterly destroyed.

That alone would lead in short order to the end of slavery.

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

Standard lib practice of imagining an answer and then gloating about it. That all took place in your head and has nothing to do with me.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

That was certainly one of the benefits of it. No doubt.


It also, put a great deal of pressure on the European powers, that the South hoped for support from, to not intervene as they would now be, instead of simply supporting a regional rebellion, would be "pro-slavery"

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites.

I've seen other blacks spout similar ideas to what you are claiming. If 20% of blacks agree with you, then you would be "speaking for them" in that you would be saying what they believe.

It is hard to credit that you were confused by that.


Oh, and, I'm pretty comfortable that I do speak for the vast majority of whites, when I give Lincoln not only credit for ending slavery, but credit for being strongly anti-slavery all along, despite his political lies otherwise.

As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

I did not ask, nor try to dictate to you at all, on whom you do or do not celebrate.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

My point about the need to share and celebrate a common national history, in order to be a unified and harmonious society, stands.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, in your world, what a "unified and harmonious society " looks like is a denial of actual history for the sake of positioning long dead, "historical figures" as the benefactors of todays black citizens.

Even if they believed that those who they "benefitted"
were inferior to them.

That mindset could be compared to that of giving food, water, and an occasional walk to a dog, and viewing that as an "honorable gesture".



You should have been around in the 19th century. You would have been a perfect fit for that era.

I choose to reject your "point", but will respect your personal
need to bask in that illusion.

Have a nice life.

 

[Correll]

9

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?

My understanding is that he did not have the power to rule by decree in the States of the Union that were not in open revolt.

But, of course. once slavery was destroying in the South, the back bone of political power of slavers, would be utterly destroyed.

That alone would lead in short order to the end of slavery.

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

Standard lib practice of imagining an answer and then gloating about it. That all took place in your head and has nothing to do with me.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

That was certainly one of the benefits of it. No doubt.


It also, put a great deal of pressure on the European powers, that the South hoped for support from, to not intervene as they would now be, instead of simply supporting a regional rebellion, would be "pro-slavery"

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites.

I've seen other blacks spout similar ideas to what you are claiming. If 20% of blacks agree with you, then you would be "speaking for them" in that you would be saying what they believe.

It is hard to credit that you were confused by that.


Oh, and, I'm pretty comfortable that I do speak for the vast majority of whites, when I give Lincoln not only credit for ending slavery, but credit for being strongly anti-slavery all along, despite his political lies otherwise.

As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

I did not ask, nor try to dictate to you at all, on whom you do or do not celebrate.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

My point about the need to share and celebrate a common national history, in order to be a unified and harmonious society, stands.

[/QUOTE]

It still boils down to judging words vs actions.


And you didn't answer my question. Do you use other methods to judge other politicians and if so, how do you decide which method to use?

I answered your question, and included a link for you to read regarding how Lincolns priority was to save the union. So that you may gain a better understanding of history.

What my "methods" are for judging other politicians is really irrelevant to the topic.

NO, if you use a different, and obviously flawed method to judge Lincoln than you do other politicians,


then it is obvious that your intent is to reach a certain conclusion, ie one that lets you dismiss the contributions of a famous white republican.

Indeed. The operative word is "IF". You do not know nor will I discuss how I judge other politicians, because the subject was about Lincoln.

Because you know that you judge politicians based not on reaching a true conclusion, but on reaching a "Conclusion" that serves your modern political agenda.


And giving credit that is due to a white Republican, is something you want to avoid if at all possible.

What is clear is that you do not seem to be able to grasp that we disagree on what his top priority was during his administration.

No, it's obvious that I grasp that.

You want to pretend that it was to preserve the Union.

Well I look to how he was so strongly anti slavery and then actually ended slavery.

I have no "intent " here except to report history as it is written, and refuse to engage in speculation about his "internal thoughts" like you.

No, you report on SOME of his comments, as it is written, ignoring others, and ignoring his actual ACTIONS.

You have even gone so far as to characterize him as an "abolitionist", which is not even remotely true.

He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.

There is a ton of historical evidence in speeches, letters and (that you are too obstinate to read) that supports the fact that preserving the union was his priority.

Politician bullshit. If he wanted to avoid the Civil War, all he had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

Had he lived to finish his term, in his own words he would have removed the slaves from America and recolonized them in a new land based on his belief in their inferiority and being unfit to exist as equal citizens in America.

Lol! Sure he would have. Hey, was he the only white person in America, at that time that thought blacks were not equal to whites?

What is REALLY obvious here is that you are attempting to redirect my thinking in order to glorify a "white republican", which is a passive aggressive way of engaging in race baiting .

If black culture and black people refuse to celebrate even a white historical figure that ENDED SLAVERY,


then we have no chance of existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society.


You, to the extent that you speak for blacks, are proof that EVERYTHING that has been done, in an effort to advance, protect and celebrate civil rights, in pursuit of making a better, more equal and just America,


was a fools mission and doom to fail before it even began.

You need to look in the mirror at YOUR flawed logic and lack of understanding of documented history.

I'm not the one insisting that we ignore the historical figures ACTIONS, in judging his beliefs.

No, you do not have any grasp of actual history. If it was Lincolns first "priority" to end slavery as you insist, why would he have just issued the Emancipation Proclamation to ONLY affect the 11 states that were part of the confederacy, as opposed to abolishing slavery in the entire country?[/QUOTE]


My understanding is that he did not have the power to rule by decree in the States of the Union that were not in open revolt.

But, of course. once slavery was destroying in the South, the back bone of political power of slavers, would be utterly destroyed.

That alone would lead in short order to the end of slavery.

The answer to that is documented history that you refuse to acknowledge.

Standard lib practice of imagining an answer and then gloating about it. That all took place in your head and has nothing to do with me.

He did so in order to cripple the economic system in the confederacy, which provided leverage in winning the war, and was was a pivotal step in forcing them back into the union. That was a documented "action", that is obvious.

That was certainly one of the benefits of it. No doubt.


It also, put a great deal of pressure on the European powers, that the South hoped for support from, to not intervene as they would now be, instead of simply supporting a regional rebellion, would be "pro-slavery"

Furthermore, I do not "speak for blacks", and YOU do not speak for whites.

I've seen other blacks spout similar ideas to what you are claiming. If 20% of blacks agree with you, then you would be "speaking for them" in that you would be saying what they believe.

It is hard to credit that you were confused by that.


Oh, and, I'm pretty comfortable that I do speak for the vast majority of whites, when I give Lincoln not only credit for ending slavery, but credit for being strongly anti-slavery all along, despite his political lies otherwise.

As far as celebrating a "white historical figure", that is is not why I am wasting time typing anything to you. It is not for you dictate to me or anyone who I celebrate, nor is it for me to do to anyone else.

I did not ask, nor try to dictate to you at all, on whom you do or do not celebrate.

Lastly, I can only laugh at you of all people having the nerve to even comment on
"existing as a unified but diverse and multicultural society."

That was a good one. You have a sense of humor.

I will agree to disagree. I have no more time to teach.

My point about the need to share and celebrate a common national history, in order to be a unified and harmonious society, stands.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, in your world, what a "unified and harmonious society " looks like is a denial of actual history for the sake of positioning long dead, "historical figures" as the benefactors of todays black citizens.[/QUOTE]


For yours and IM2 benefit, I've been discussing the impact of Lincoln on BLACKS, but the elimination of slavery, and the positive effects of it, are not just a benefit to BLACKS but to ALL modern Americans, including Whites.

And I'm kind of disappointed that you never asked about that.

And, yes, if we cannot celebrate any shared heritage because you can't celebrate anyone with White Skin, then, as I said, to the extent that you speak for blacks, the dream of having a "unified and harmonious, but diverse society" was always a fools dream.

Even if they believed that those who they "benefitted"
were inferior to them.

Correct. Judging historical figures based on modern standards is just an excuse for your racism.

That mindset could be compared to that of giving food, water, and an occasional walk to a dog, and viewing that as an "honorable gesture".

I don't think that Lincoln nor America would have spent so many lives for "dogs", so, don't project your insecurities on to them.