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

[IM2]

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

You were never a slave...

That play is old. It doesn't work.

So you were a slave owned by the southern white society?

Also what are you doing to stop modern day slavery from sex trafficking to force labor?

Like I said that is old, it won't work, and it only displays your childishness..

No, it shows that you use the past to justify your bigoted hatred. You never lived a life of a slave nor lived under Jim Crow laws or told your place was at the back of the bus.

If you are mistreated it is because you are a race baiting bigot.

The only people I feel sorrow for are Native Americans but for you and everyone else that are not Native American can crawl on your cross and die as false martyrs ..

Well I did live under Jim Crow. And I have sat in places where I was not served. I have sat in places where I was the last served after every white person got served even those who came in after me. I have been stopped about 100 ties for doing nothing by police.. I have been denied jobs and promotions because of my ace. I am not a bigot, but that's all you got to say when you can't really can't' out debate me and when you support racism yourself..

That you were not a slave shit just don't flush. It doesn't end the fact that slavery existed. Jim Crow existed. American apartheid was nation wide. It existed. The damage created by all that still ligers today in physical ways when you look at the blight in black communities in our cities that have never been fixed because of racist white city councils. So then you are just another amateur dumb ass white dude arguing for the sake of arguing and you enter a gunfight with a plastic knife thinking you can hurl insults and that's going to work.

 

[IM2]

In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.

In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.

So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.

Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.

No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.

Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.

So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.

Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.

You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.

Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...

At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...

I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.

So I am having hysteria?

Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...

You were never a slave.

Deal with it.

Native Americans were genocide and had their land stolen.

Deal with it.

Oh, I hope you do not celebrate Christmas because of you do, well you were not Christ...

Just your stupid logic...

Also I am Canadian...

If you are Canadian then your ass has nothing to say.

Deal with it.

 

[IM2]

No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.

Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.

So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.

Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.

You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.

Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...

At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...

I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.

So I am having hysteria?

Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...

you seem overwrought on the subject.

I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

 

[bgrouse]

Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.

You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.

Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...

At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...

I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.

So I am having hysteria?

Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...

you seem overwrought on the subject.

I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.

It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.

 

[IM2]

I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.

So I am having hysteria?

Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...

you seem overwrought on the subject.

I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.

It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.

Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.

 

[bgrouse]

So I am having hysteria?

Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...

you seem overwrought on the subject.

I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.

It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.

Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.

So when are you going to post the law that excludes blacks?

 

[Likkmee]

Fuck that. My GGGgranny died on the trail of tears. Chocktaw

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.

"Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.


Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia

 

[Correll]

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

Which contradicts nothing in my post. Indeed, in my post I implicitly addressed that very point. So, your post was complete filler.



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.

 

[Correll]

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.

Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.

"Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.


Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia

What about this do you think supports your view in what way?

Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,

the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.

"Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.


Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia

What about this do you think supports your view in what way?

Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,

the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.

Are you serious?

*Clearly states that Lincoln was not viewed as an abolitionist.

*He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:

"Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"

This is not what you have insisted. The above does not support a "radical anti slavery posture" as you have insisted he subscribed to.

*Lastly, I have stated from the outset that he was against slavery expanding because he saw it as necessary to protect the existing labor force. You have claimed over and over that he was focused on the moral aspect first and foremost. I never denied that he expressed moral opposition to slavery....but it is a HISTORICAL FACT that moral opposition was not the party platform.

 

[IM2]

you seem overwrought on the subject.

I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.

It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.

Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.

So when are you going to post the law that excludes blacks?

You post volumes of pure unadulterated racist bullshit and then your punk ass has the unmitigated gall to ask me to show you a mother fucking law that excludes blacks.

 

[Slash]

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.

Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.

"Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.


Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia

What about this do you think supports your view in what way?

Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,

the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.

Are you serious?

*Clearly states that Lincoln was not viewed as an abolitionist.

*He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:

"Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"

This is not what you have insisted. The above does not support a "radical anti slavery posture" as you have insisted he subscribed to.

*Lastly, I have stated from the outset that he was against slavery expanding because he saw it as necessary to protect the existing labor force. You have claimed over and over that he was focused on the moral aspect first and foremost. I never denied that he expressed moral opposition to slavery....but it is a HISTORICAL FACT that moral opposition was not the party platform.

You do realize that the Republican party was a new liberal party that were off-shoots of the Whigs who wanted slavery to be stopped. Literally anti-slavery was the Republican party's platform. "Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men" was their motto even. They wanted Free Men, working on Free land, able to labor what they wanted. It wasn't "slavery here but not there". The Republican party couldn't even get on the ballot in the deep south.

You realize one of his first orders as president was freeing the slaves in DC (the only place the president had power to free the slaves" You realize that every state that seceded said that him being an abolitionist was a reason why.

It's funny how people love to remove context. Like when Lincoln was on the campaign trail in slave states. Those speeches are where all the "hey I'm not a full on abolitionist" talks come from that people pull out today. Him trying to get votes in states where slavery was the top issue. It's like Hillary saying that she supports the 2nd amendment when talking to the midwest, or Trump saying in more liberal area's that he's not against transgender. It was a campaign speech. Do you really believe those are the end all?

He was a moderate abolitionist sure. Didn't want to kill millions to end slavery (just like Trump saying he want's to negotiate rather than fight N. Korea doesn't mean he supports them). He hated the term, as it was politically toxic. But the South knew he was. His actions showed he was.

 

[bgrouse]

Sure.

The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.

It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?

You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.

So yes, shut up.

I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.

It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.

Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.

So when are you going to post the law that excludes blacks?

You post volumes of pure unadulterated racist bullshit and then your punk ass has the unmitigated gall to ask me to show you a mother fucking law that excludes blacks.

I see. You're full of shit. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[katsteve2012]

"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.

Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.

"Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.


Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia

What about this do you think supports your view in what way?

Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,

the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.

Are you serious?

*Clearly states that Lincoln was not viewed as an abolitionist.

*He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:

"Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"

This is not what you have insisted. The above does not support a "radical anti slavery posture" as you have insisted he subscribed to.

*Lastly, I have stated from the outset that he was against slavery expanding because he saw it as necessary to protect the existing labor force. You have claimed over and over that he was focused on the moral aspect first and foremost. I never denied that he expressed moral opposition to slavery....but it is a HISTORICAL FACT that moral opposition was not the party platform.

You do realize that the Republican party was a new liberal party that were off-shoots of the Whigs who wanted slavery to be stopped. Literally anti-slavery was the Republican party's platform. "Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men" was their motto even. They wanted Free Men, working on Free land, able to labor what they wanted. It wasn't "slavery here but not there". The Republican party couldn't even get on the ballot in the deep south.

You realize one of his first orders as president was freeing the slaves in DC (the only place the president had power to free the slaves" You realize that every state that seceded said that him being an abolitionist was a reason why.

It's funny how people love to remove context. Like when Lincoln was on the campaign trail in slave states. Those speeches are where all the "hey I'm not a full on abolitionist" talks come from that people pull out today. Him trying to get votes in states where slavery was the top issue. It's like Hillary saying that she supports the 2nd amendment when talking to the midwest, or Trump saying in more liberal area's that he's not against transgender. It was a campaign speech. Do you really believe those are the end all?

He was a moderate abolitionist sure. Didn't want to kill millions to end slavery (just like Trump saying he want's to negotiate rather than fight N. Korea doesn't mean he supports them). He hated the term, as it was politically toxic. But the South knew he was. His actions showed he was.

I understand the history of how the Republican party came into existence.

The fact remains that newly freed black slaves were not part of the plan of "free land and free men".

You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.

 

[Slash]

I understand the history of how the Republican party came into existence.

The fact remains that newly freed black slaves were not part of the plan of "free land and free men".

You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.

Yes they were part of the free land and free men. They were the entire point of it.

And yes. Early on, Lincoln did throw around the idea of IF black former slaves WANTED to return home, that might be an option. When you read some of the emancipation letters from the south you can see why. I think it was the Governor of Alabama that basically said in a letter, that he'd be all for freeing the slaves. But most likely they'd begin to feel that they were actual people. And of course whites couldn't put up with that so they'd have to end up killing them all off, and that'd be tough for the whites to live with. It's a pretty brutal letter that basically explained the thought at the time that there was NO WAY blacks and whites could live together as free men in the south.

Granted the emancipation proclamation made that entire thought a moot point and that ended the idea of doing something similar to Liberia at the time. When Lincoln accepted freedmen as soldiers on Jan. 1, 1863, he guaranteed a biracial future for the country, because no president could ask a man to fight for his country and then tell him it was no longer his country.

So while he THOUGHT about that as a voluntary idea if they would want to as a potential option, him putting blacks to work for wages and putting them in the military is the path he chose to ACT on. You do realize some of the dirtiest politics in White House history was Lincoln fighting to get the 13th amendment passed. That his signature on that amendment is the ONLY presidential signature to ever be on an amendment. If you thought Obama thought strongly about Obamacare, that was nothing compared to how Lincoln fought to get a USA with blacks and whites both able to work together as free men.


Granted revisionists of history would like to say that he tried to forcibly return all slaves rather than just explore the option of a voluntary return, because that suits the story they wish that we had for whatever reason.


Put it this way. Every president since the end of WWII has had an option to use nuclear weapons. Probably talked about it, had a plan to use them. They all aren't mass murderers hell bent on nuclear annihilation. Every president has chosen not to use them since WWII. I'll go with what people actually stand up and do.

 

[katsteve2012]

I understand the history of how the Republican party came into existence.

The fact remains that newly freed black slaves were not part of the plan of "free land and free men".

You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.

Yes they were part of the free land and free men. They were the entire point of it.

And yes. Early on, Lincoln did throw around the idea of IF black former slaves WANTED to return home, that might be an option. When you read some of the emancipation letters from the south you can see why. I think it was the Governor of Alabama that basically said in a letter, that he'd be all for freeing the slaves. But most likely they'd begin to feel that they were actual people. And of course whites couldn't put up with that so they'd have to end up killing them all off, and that'd be tough for the whites to live with. It's a pretty brutal letter that basically explained the thought at the time that there was NO WAY blacks and whites could live together as free men in the south.

Granted the emancipation proclamation made that entire thought a moot point and that ended the idea of doing something similar to Liberia at the time. When Lincoln accepted freedmen as soldiers on Jan. 1, 1863, he guaranteed a biracial future for the country, because no president could ask a man to fight for his country and then tell him it was no longer his country.

So while he THOUGHT about that as a voluntary idea if they would want to as a potential option, him putting blacks to work for wages and putting them in the military is the path he chose to ACT on. You do realize some of the dirtiest politics in White House history was Lincoln fighting to get the 13th amendment passed. That his signature on that amendment is the ONLY presidential signature to ever be on an amendment. If you thought Obama thought strongly about Obamacare, that was nothing compared to how Lincoln fought to get a USA with blacks and whites both able to work together as free men.


Granted revisionists of history would like to say that he tried to forcibly return all slaves rather than just explore the option of a voluntary return, because that suits the story they wish that we had for whatever reason.


Put it this way. Every president since the end of WWII has had an option to use nuclear weapons. Probably talked about it, had a plan to use them. They all aren't mass murderers hell bent on nuclear annihilation. Every president has chosen not to use them since WWII. I'll go with what people actually stand up and do.

From what source did you obtain the thought that "free men and free land included former slaves? And that Lincolns idea of repatriation would be on a "voluntary basis"?

You do realize that he thought blacks to be inferior to whites.

He even considered repatriation to Central America.


Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?

 

[ChrisL]

I really don't know what you want from us white people? What is it that you want from us?

 

[Slash]

From what source did you obtain the thought that "free men and free land included former slaves? And that Lincolns idea of repatriation would be on a "voluntary basis"?

You do realize that he thought blacks to be inferior to whites.

He even considered repatriation to Central America.


Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?

You just posted a website that says "The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead"

 

[katsteve2012]

From what source did you obtain the thought that "free men and free land included former slaves? And that Lincolns idea of repatriation would be on a "voluntary basis"?

You do realize that he thought blacks to be inferior to whites.

He even considered repatriation to Central America.


Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?

You just posted a website that says "The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead"

I realize what the website says. It was one of a very few I could find that state what you insist. That was my point since you did not post any links that support what you state.

I still cannot find anything out there that validates "free land" for former slaves