John Legend and Charlamagne tha God Schooled Kanye West on History

9
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.
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.[/QUOTE]

I am.likely far more secure than you are. And using an analogy about a general sentiment is not unusual.

Lincoln was prepared to whatever was necessary to save the union. I his own words:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Of course, as usual you will deny that he really meant what he said. And those were not his "internal thoughts"

One would could alnost get the impression that you've repeated that lie so much, that you may be starting to believe that Lincoln told you that personally.

SMGDH.
 
Last edited:
9
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.
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]

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.[/QUOTE]

I am.likely far more secure than you are. And using an analogy about a general sentiment is not unusual.

Lincoln was prepared to whatever was necessary to save the union. I his own words:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Of course, as usual you will deny that he really meant what he said. And those were not his "internal thoughts"

One would could alnost get the impression that you've repeated that lie so much, that you may be starting to believe that Lincoln told you that personally.

SMGDH.[/QUOTE]


1. I did not complain about you using an analogy. I disagreed with your analogy. It greatly overstated the case.

2. Lincoln talked some shit. But all he really had to do, to save the Union, was not run for the Presidency.
 
9
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.
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.

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.[/QUOTE]

I am.likely far more secure than you are. And using an analogy about a general sentiment is not unusual.

Lincoln was prepared to whatever was necessary to save the union. I his own words:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Of course, as usual you will deny that he really meant what he said. And those were not his "internal thoughts"

One would could alnost get the impression that you've repeated that lie so much, that you may be starting to believe that Lincoln told you that personally.

SMGDH.[/QUOTE]


1. I did not complain about you using an analogy. I disagreed with your analogy. It greatly overstated the case.

2. Lincoln talked some shit. But all he really had to do, to save the Union, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

I did not "overstate" anything. As usual, what I stated went way over your head.

"Lincoln talked some shit"?

WTF?

That "shit" as you call it, is a documented statement that is a part of HISTORY.

You don't make sense.
 
9
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.



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.

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


He abolished slavery, which was their primary goal.


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



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?


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.



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.
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.

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.


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.[/QUOTE]

I am.likely far more secure than you are. And using an analogy about a general sentiment is not unusual.

Lincoln was prepared to whatever was necessary to save the union. I his own words:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Of course, as usual you will deny that he really meant what he said. And those were not his "internal thoughts"

One would could alnost get the impression that you've repeated that lie so much, that you may be starting to believe that Lincoln told you that personally.

SMGDH.[/QUOTE]


1. I did not complain about you using an analogy. I disagreed with your analogy. It greatly overstated the case.

2. Lincoln talked some shit. But all he really had to do, to save the Union, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

I did not "overstate" anything. As usual, what I stated went way over your head.

"Lincoln talked some shit"?

WTF?

That "shit" as you call it, is a documented statement that is a part of HISTORY.

You don't make sense.[/QUOTE]



1. In my opinion, your analogy of Lincoln considering blacks as dogs was overstated.

2. Lincoln talked shit. That it is "Documented statement that is part of history", does not change the fact that his words, did not match his actions. THUS, his words were shit.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top