...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[JakeStarkey]

You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.

Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!

I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?

Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.

When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states. Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US. We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.

I'm from New England. Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why. And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.

In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power. They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.

Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery. How about that?

A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den. Pretty nifty, eh?

It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.

The gag rule was the issue that drove John Q. Adams to define the South as anti-American and antithetical to Constitutional ideals, such as free speech and petition. He argued that the nature of a slave culture undermined everyone's freedom.

He was right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Think carefully before you answer.

Wouldn't know. I do know it was the best strategic decision, and that it was made for that reason, not because it was moral.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.

Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!

I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?

Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.

When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states. Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US. We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.

I'm from New England. Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why. And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.

In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power. They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.

Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery. How about that?

A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den. Pretty nifty, eh?

It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.

New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.

Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.

The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.

Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.

As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your answer is in your first paragraph.

Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery. That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.

This from a guy who believes the Constitution says something it does not, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said his interpretation is wrong. Forgive me if I prefer to ask for clarification from someone who can at least get facts straight, and does not feel a need to distort them.

Son, SCOTUS does not disagree with me (you do), and what SCOTUS has to say has nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War.

Now you can debate on the issues and leave personality out of it, or you will continue to fail.

You are correct, SCOTUS does not disagree with you. I mis phrased that, you disagree with SCOTUS. You claimed that the Constitution prohibits swearing oaths through religion, yet every oath acknowledges God, which means they acknowledge a religion.

The court has been remarkable in its inconsistency in ruling on the separation of church and state. They have struck down allowing religious displays in some cases, and allowed them in others, The resultant muddle of precedents allows anyone who who wants to prognosticate think he can be an authority.

The truth is that even when lower courts correctly rule that Congress selling a parcel of land upon which a cross is built did not meet the requirement to remove the display said cross they can get overruled by SCOTUS. The ruling that a parcel of land in the middle of a national park did not qualify as government endorsement of religion stands up to logic only if you are a conservative christian.

Whatever it is you think the constitution say about religion, the truth is even legal scholars and judges don't know what it says.

 

[paperview]

I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?

Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.

When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states. Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US. We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.

I'm from New England. Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why. And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.

In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power. They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.

Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery. How about that?

A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den. Pretty nifty, eh?

It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.

New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.

Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.

The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.

Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.

As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.

Slavery was abolished in New England. That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state. All what? 12 of them?

New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.

Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.

Peruse. No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:

[/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
[FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[elvis]

First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.

So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?

Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:

"The liability of private individuals for committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II."
​

Legal Definition of War Crimes

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Clearly addresses individuals

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
...

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute


Refuted and dismissed

those were state actors. bin Laden is a non-state actor. Individuals who are state actors can be war criminals. Is that better, fuckface?

 

[Kalam]

Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for?

No.

Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

No.

See? That wasn't so hard.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KevinKennedy believes in a false history.

When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history. He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War. My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.

"Kennedy" is not my real last name, so it doesn't matter if you give my name out.

I'm not surprised that these students didn't accept my arguments regarding Lincoln, providing this story is true. I've found that most students, and people in general, will believe the version of history they learned in middle school no matter what evidence is provided against it.

I learned very little about the history of the civil war in school.

Most of my knowledge comes from touching and transcribing thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are in museums now.

Also from reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.


.

Wasn't referring to you in any backhanded way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Think carefully before you answer.

Well I believe I've already addressed that in this thread, and the answer is no.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states. Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US. We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.

I'm from New England. Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why. And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.

In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power. They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.

Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery. How about that?

A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den. Pretty nifty, eh?

It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.

New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.

Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.

The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.

Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.

As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.

Slavery was abolished in New England. That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state. All what? 12 of them?

New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.

Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.

Peruse. No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:

[/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
[FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]

[/FONT][/FONT]

Nevertheless, there were slaves in NE into the mid 1800s, at least half a century after slavery was "officially" abolished. My opinion on the matter is that laws and intentions do not matter as much as facts, and the fact is that there were slaves in the northern states throughout the Civil War.

I did not say that slavery was a major issue in secession. I claimed, and still do, that it was not the primary cause of the war. There were slave states on both sides of the conflict, and until someone explains why people had to go to war with someone else to free slaves they owned I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war. That simply does not make sense to me, nor, I suspect, most people capable of critical thinking.

 

[syrenn]

I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war.

The civil war started over the issue of states rights, not over slavery. Slavery only became an issue half way though the war. Lincoln needed something to substantiate the war, something more to justify the incredible carnage. This was a war that for the first time people could see, the advent of photography was coming into its own and brought the bloody mess up front and personal.

Lincoln was up for re-election with an unpopular war on his hands. The book "Uncle toms Cabin" was fresh in the minds of people and it gave a " greater cause" that northerners could understand and grasp. Lincoln needed a greater purpose for making this country into the UNITED STATS other then economical reasons.

 

[JBeukema]

First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.

So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?

Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:

"The liability of private individuals for committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II."
​

Legal Definition of War Crimes

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Clearly addresses individuals

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
...

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute


Refuted and dismissed

Hi, you have received -122 reputation points from elvis.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
good evening, proletarian, you ****.

Regards,
elvis

Note: This is an automated message.

So you're the sort to get mad when the facts don't agree with your bullshit, I see

 

[JBeukema]

Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.

The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence. And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.

You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief. So what, you are wrong.

The States have all powers not expressly denied them or given to the Fed.

10th amendment

 

[JBeukema]

His legacy will not be diminished, KK.

A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?

They were not better off as slaves

Tell it to your hero. He said they were.

and all of the white race bears the guilt for racism, segregation, and colonization.

Bullshit. Take your race-baiting ass elsewhere. I am not responsible for for anything another man's ancestors did to yet another man's ancestors anymore than you are responsible for any crime your grandfather committed. Grow the **** up, move on, and take responsibility for your own damned self and your own actions and stop blaming the evil White Devil for your own fuckups.

(1) get a grip on reality

Looked in a mirror lately?

(2) research and tell us where Lincoln stood on the African American, civil rights, and voting the day before he was shot.

I already showed you what he really believed:

How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in retrospect?

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857

"Negro Equality! Fudge!! How long in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"


Fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 : "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and black races, (Applause) - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurers of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on equal terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race..."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

[/FONT]"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862

"We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273


"The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Peoria, Illinois

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861

What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley


Lincoln never gave a damn about the slaves- they were merely pawns he could use to secure his own power and keep the Confederates subject to Union rule.

"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of." ​

Ben Butler responded to this by saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. ​

suck on it

 

[JBeukema]

The union never fought to for Negroe. They fought only for the self-interest of the Union.

 

[JBeukema]

In this case, the history has been competently written. The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong. Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.

Both Union and CSA were wrong.

If you really look at history, you'll see that there's often nobody who's really in the right or fighting for any real principles or cause.

 

[JBeukema]

Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Think carefully before you answer.

They were wrong in slaughtering countless civilians.

There motivation was hazy- they mostly cared about saving the lives of their own men.


If you think the world is as simple as a dichotomous right and wrong in all situations [or very often at all], you are a fool.

 

[paperview]

How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in retrospect?

<blah blah>

It's interesting when you take those "quotes" (some of which were manufactured) in context.
I'm out for the morning soon, soon, but I'll let a few of these suffice:

You posted:

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857
​

Here is the actual speech:

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro-citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. [Renewed applause.]
This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. [Laughter and applause.] If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. [Loud applause and laughter.] Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. [Cries of "good,'' "good,'' and applause.] That is all I have to say about it.
​

See what the liars did with that quote? Do you see it?

You posted:

"Negro Equality! Fudge!! How long in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?"
​

No one ever heard Lincoln utter these words. No transcript exists where these words are used by Lincoln.

"In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)
​

Here is the actual speech at Peoria: Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise
I dare anyone to read that speech in full and tell me what they come away with.
To the point though, another out of context quote. What was actually said:

In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too. But in this remark of the Judge, there is a significance, which I think is the key to the great mistake (if there is any such mistake) which he has made in this Nebraska measure. It shows that the Judge has no very vivid impression that the negro is a human; and consequently has no idea that there can be any moral question in legislating about him. In his view, the question of whether a new country shall be slave or free, is a matter of as utter indifference, as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his farm with tobacco, or stock it with horned cattle. Now, whether this view is right or wrong, it is very certain that the great mass of mankind take a totally different view. They consider slavery a great moral wrong; and their feelings against it, is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice; and it cannot be trifled with. It is a great and durable element of popular action, and, I think, no statesman can safely disregard it.​

You quote:

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862 ​

What he actually said:

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District, not but I would be glad to see it abolished, but as to the time and manner of doing it. If some one or more of the border-states would move fast, I should greatly prefer it; but if this can not be in a reasonable time, I would like the bill to have the three main features---gradual---compensation---and vote of the people"
​

Lincoln clearly supported emancipation in DC, but, as he makes clear time and again, was concerned about the timing and the means.

And this?

"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of."
​

Lie. Lincoln never said that.

I could go on, but I have business to do. See? The Lincoln haters have to LIE to make their "point." Ask yourself: Why?

 

[Dr Grump]

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united

What about keeping th British Empire united?

The United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't misquote me, Quantum. I said the Constitution prohibits religious test oaths. It does.

Don't try to hijack the thread again about religion and the Constitution. That is not what the OP is about.