"What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"

[Correll]

Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.

He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.


And that it the standards he should be judged by.


It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.

Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated "back" to Africa.

My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.


But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.

Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.

Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.

So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?


You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

 

[katsteve2012]

You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.

He wanted to end the war.

He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.


I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.

THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.


Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.


SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.


But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,

His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost. And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.

"
With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
.
Source:
Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery

And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.


And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,

AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.


You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.

Your lunacy knows no boundaries. I don't need to "minimize" anything, especially over old history that I know and you are obviously oblivious to.

The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.

Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.

You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.

The "Evul,(lol) Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".

You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.

My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".

That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense


Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.

So put away the "race card". You're wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.

I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.

You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.

You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.

He wanted to end the war.

He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.


I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.

THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.


Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.


SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.


But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,

His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost. And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.

"
With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
.
Source:
Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery

And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.


And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,

AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.


You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.

The war was fought to save the union, and the only thing being "deconstructed" here is your made up nonsense which is based on what you have "assumed" Lincolns intent was through your own warped interpretation of events that have been historically recorded in a completely different context than what you have the apptitude to even comprehend.

The root cause of your ignorance is that to your unethical, disingenuous core you believe that black citizens of today owe a debt of gratitude for a war that was fought to preserve a union that they remained 2nd class citizens in for 100 years after the war ended....and thats some stupid bullshit. You also think that ANY gains, no matter what they are that have been recognized by black citizens since then, have been at the expense of white people. Lincoln WAS NOT "radically anti slavery" in fact he was viewed by many as neutral on the subject.

If you find that statement to be offensive, too fucking bad. Thats truth, and you cannot change it.

The war was fought over slavery.

Your inability to show gratitude to those who fought and died for your ancestors is a lack of character on your part.

That blacks did not go from slavery to equality as defined by a 21st century lefty is no excuse for your behavior.

This guy was viewed as "neutral" on slavery?

LOL!!!

Those who consider or considered him "neutral" on the subject are fools.

You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.

He wanted to end the war.

He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.


I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.

THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.


Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.


SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.


But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,

His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost. And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.

"
With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
.
Source:
Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery

And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.


And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,

AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.


You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.

Your lunacy knows no boundaries. I don't need to "minimize" anything, especially over old history that I know and you are obviously oblivious to.

The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.

Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.

You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.

The "Evul,(lol) Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".

You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.

My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".

That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense


Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.

So put away the "race card". You're wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.

I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.

You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.

You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.

He wanted to end the war.

He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.


I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.

THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.


Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.


SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.


But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,

His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost. And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.

"
With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
.
Source:
Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery

And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.


And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,

AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.


You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.

The war was fought to save the union, and the only thing being "deconstructed" here is your made up nonsense which is based on what you have "assumed" Lincolns intent was through your own warped interpretation of events that have been historically recorded in a completely different context than what you have the apptitude to even comprehend.

The root cause of your ignorance is that to your unethical, disingenuous core you believe that black citizens of today owe a debt of gratitude for a war that was fought to preserve a union that they remained 2nd class citizens in for 100 years after the war ended....and thats some stupid bullshit. You also think that ANY gains, no matter what they are that have been recognized by black citizens since then, have been at the expense of white people. Lincoln WAS NOT "radically anti slavery" in fact he was viewed by many as neutral on the subject.

If you find that statement to be offensive, too fucking bad. Thats truth, and you cannot change it.

The war was fought over slavery.

Your inability to show gratitude to those who fought and died for your ancestors is a lack of character on your part.

That blacks did not go from slavery to equality as defined by a 21st century lefty is no excuse for your behavior.

This guy was viewed as "neutral" on slavery?

LOL!!!

Those who consider or considered him "neutral" on the subject are fools.

Pininterst quotes? You really are an idiot and a damn fool.


The war was fought to halt seccession of southern states, stopnthe expansion of slavery to northern territories in order to PRESERVE A WHITE LABOR FORCE andbto preserve the union. That is factual history and you cannot rewrite it.

No matter how hard you try to.

Now. On the subject of "my character" and "behavior."..............

Fuck off, asshole. You are just an anonymous, irritating jerkoff on a public website.

I and ONLY I determine where my gratitude is placed.

 

[katsteve2012]

Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated "back" to Africa.

My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.


But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.

Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.

Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.

So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?


You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

 

[Correll]

My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.


But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.

Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.

Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.

So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?


You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

 

[katsteve2012]

Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.

Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.

So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?


You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

 

[Correll]

Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.

So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?


You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

 

[katsteve2012]

Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.

It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

 

[Mudda]

On the 4th of July I would hope that all black people celebrate the founding of this country and the fact that they';re not all stuck in Africa right now.

 

[Correll]

1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.

2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit. Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.


I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.

You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.




Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.


THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,


shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.

 

[Conservative65]

And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight to win your freedom from Britain either.

So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.

What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

For the rest of the speech:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm

No one alive today was a slave or owned slaves.

 

[Conservative65]

What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?

Find a slave and we'll ask him.

Go find soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..

Go find a slave and ask him what he thinks about the speech. How long are those that never were slaves going to blame those of us that never owned slaves for their faults?

 

[katsteve2012]

Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion. It is about your made up history.

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.


I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.

You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.




Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.


THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,


shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.

"Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?

Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.

Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that you are attempting to make him.
Period.

"American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.

"In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."




After the Civil War, the "Radical Republicans," who oversaw the Reconstruction of the South, brought blacks into electoral politics. Blacks naturally joined the GOP rather than the white supremacist Southern Democrats. In these golden years, black Republicans got the vote and even won elective office (Mississippi elected the nation's first African-American senator in 1870). Led by the GOP, the nation ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which ended slavery and gave black men full citizenship and the franchise.

Source:
The Party of Lincoln ...

 

[Correll]

You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.

I responded to that, and you ignored my response.

THus, no response to my post.

If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.

AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.

AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.


I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.

You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.




Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.


THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,


shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.

"Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?

Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.

Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.

It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.

Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.

His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.

Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that you are attempting to make him.
Period.

"American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.

No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.

Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.

"In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."

I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.

And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.

 

[IM2]

What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?

Find a slave and we'll ask him.

Go find soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..

Go find a slave and ask him what he thinks about the speech. How long are those that never were slaves going to blame those of us that never owned slaves for their faults?

As long as people like you believe the same things those who owned slaves believed.

 

[IM2]

I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.

But I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.

I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.

LMAO

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.


I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.

You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.




Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.


THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,


shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.

"Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?

Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.

Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.

It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.

Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.

His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.

Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that you are attempting to make him.
Period.

"American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.

No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.

Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.

"In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."

I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.

And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.

Well Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He believed blacks were inferior. And that's just the way it is

 

[Papageorgio]

If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.

If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.

Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.

I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.


I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.

You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.




Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.


THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,


shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.

"Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?

Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.

Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.

It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.

Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.

His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.

Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that you are attempting to make him.
Period.

"American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.

No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.

Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.

"In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."

I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.

And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.

Well Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He believed blacks were inferior. And that's just the way it is

Yep, that's the way it is.

 

[IM2]

If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.

I didn't. But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.

And that's the way it is.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.

I didn't. But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.

And that's the way it is.

I admit. I didn't read any post but the first and last posts, so I made my comments on those two and nothing else.

 

[IM2]

If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.

I didn't. But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.

And that's the way it is.

I admit. I didn't read any post but the first and last posts, so I made my comments on those two and nothing else.

Not a problem.