John Kelly calls Robert E. Lee an "honorable man"

[g5000]

It's widely believed by the sore losers who want to sanitize as much of the humiliation of losing the Civil War as they can. It's basically all in service of their egos and nothing more.

Robert E. Lee is a traitor who is in the 9th Circle of Hell with Brutus, Judas, Benedict Arnold, and all the other traitors through history (if you believe in that sort of thing).

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

 

[MikeK]

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

When an individual, or a group of individuals, pick up guns and say, Fuck You!, as George Washington and the Colonial rebels did to the British, that was not treason. It was rebellion.

The bullshit is that bureaucratic brainwash nonsense you've chosen to swallow like a true Tory. Treason is betrayal of trust. The Confederate rebels betrayed nothing and no one. Like Washington, they said, Fuck You!

 

[bripat9643]

Calling Robert E Lee honorable ignores his leadership led to the killing of tens thousands of US soldiers ...that is disrespectful to the Flag

Nothing could be more honorable than killing Yankees.

 

[bripat9643]

It's widely believed by the sore losers who want to sanitize as much of the humiliation of losing the Civil War as they can. It's basically all in service of their egos and nothing more.

Robert E. Lee is a traitor who is in the 9th Circle of Hell with Brutus, Judas, Benedict Arnold, and all the other traitors through history (if you believe in that sort of thing).

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

Nonsense. Lincoln committed treason when he told the occupying troops to stay put.

Your article is nothing but Yankee propaganda. Look at the date it was published.

 

[bripat9643]

The snowflakes like to think that Union Soldiers thought like they think. Nothing could be further from the truth. Union soldiers were white supremacists. They believed the black man was an inferior species. They disliked slavery only because they didn't want to compete with slave labor. They would have been perfecly happy to ship all black people back to Africa.

That's true. It was endemic. It had to be. Can't justify keeping an entire race in slavery in perpetuity without it.

No, it isn't true.

The truth is that Southerners detested manual labor. They confounded hard work with "n*gger work". They were lazy and stupid and backward.

The North was not afraid of hard work. They were much more industrious as a result.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18


Time, however, continued to advance, and the Anglo-Americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the West. They met there with a new soil and an unwonted climate; they had to overcome obstacles of the most various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the South going up towards the North, those of the North descending to the South. But in the midst of all these causes the same result occurred at every step; in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more prosperous than those in which slavery flourished. The farther they went, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay the slaves whom they employ, but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are purchased only when they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth, in sickness as well as in health. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum and appears to enrich only him who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.38

The influence of slavery extends still further: it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

But it is true. Most white Americans at the time believed that the slaves were an inferior race deserving of their bonds of captivity. Not all southerner lived the life of a plantation owner either. Many had to toil in the hot sun day in and day out.

You're on the right track, sir! The crime statistical FBI/DOJ numbers prove that today's black community is a violent crime epidemic who, at 13% of the population, manage to commit MANY times more crime than all other American demographics put together. It's a statistical FACT, not my racist opinion. Being the PROVEN lowest-average-I.Q. race on this planet (early 80s), it's understandable that blacks have a difficult time functioning in a first-world society.

Don't you believe it. It was because of the systemic racism that they were regulated to near third world segregated shit holes even when they left the South. Excluded from the American dream for over a hundred years. Even today remnants of that systemic racism still linger. It was plain to see during the last 8 years.

Blacks did steadily better by every socio-economic measure until LBJ started the war on poverty. Then all the stats stopped improving or even declined.

 

[g5000]

It's widely believed by the sore losers who want to sanitize as much of the humiliation of losing the Civil War as they can. It's basically all in service of their egos and nothing more.

Robert E. Lee is a traitor who is in the 9th Circle of Hell with Brutus, Judas, Benedict Arnold, and all the other traitors through history (if you believe in that sort of thing).

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

Nonsense. Lincoln committed treason when he told the occupying troops to stay put.

Your article is nothing but Yankee propaganda. Look at the date it was published.

Fort Sumter was federal property.

As soon as the South attacked it, they became traitors.

 

[Asclepias]

Good grief anyone who could afford slaves pretty well had them for crying out loud. Whites had them. Blacks had them. First Nations had them. WTF is with this shit of applying today's standards to history.

The only problem with your claim is that 98% of Blacks who had slaves owned their family members so they couldnt be enslaved by some perverted white boy that preyed on little Black queens.

Haha...the crazy shit you come up with in your fictional twisted world.
What percentage of "white boys" do you honestly believe are sexually attracted to smelly primates?
Apparently you have never been close to a white womans vagina...If you had you would know that one would have to be super fucked up in the head to prefer primate puss.

I would assume about 80% of white guys are sexually attracted to animals. I mean look at all the animals they rape. How the fuck do you rape a dolphin? However we are talking about white boys that are pedos and raped young Black queens. Stay focused.

 

[Asclepias]

Great interview by Laura Ingraham with Kelly. John Kelly was very impressive.

Because Lee was a jaboni.

IT IS JABRONI!



And Lee would have kicked yer ass into submission! White guys in the old days were not politically correct.

They were still white though so I would kicked his ass just like I kick white boys asses nowadays. I come from a long line of cracka killas. All those white peckawoods still missing in Mississippi are probably the result of my families work.

This guy is pretending to be black.

Youre pretending to be a human but I know youre just a recessive, inbred, monkey.

 

[Timmy]

Funny how so many liberalfilth snowflakes get soooo triggered simply because I repeated what plenty of Union soldiers wrote about Robert E. Lee 150 goddamned YEARS ago - they said he was a true Southern gentleman, in spite of the Civil War. They're the ones who said it, so why get mad at me for it?

The snowflakes like to think that Union Soldiers thought like they think. Nothing could be further from the truth. Union soldiers were white supremacists. They believed the black man was an inferior species. They disliked slavery only because they didn't want to compete with slave labor. They would have been perfecly happy to ship all black people back to Africa.

That's true. It was endemic. It had to be. Can't justify keeping an entire race in slavery in perpetuity without it.

No, it isn't true.

The truth is that Southerners detested manual labor. They confounded hard work with "n*gger work". They were lazy and stupid and backward.

The North was not afraid of hard work. They were much more industrious as a result.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18


Time, however, continued to advance, and the Anglo-Americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the West. They met there with a new soil and an unwonted climate; they had to overcome obstacles of the most various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the South going up towards the North, those of the North descending to the South. But in the midst of all these causes the same result occurred at every step; in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more prosperous than those in which slavery flourished. The farther they went, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay the slaves whom they employ, but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are purchased only when they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth, in sickness as well as in health. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum and appears to enrich only him who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.38

The influence of slavery extends still further: it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

But it is true. Most white Americans at the time believed that the slaves were an inferior race deserving of their bonds of captivity. Not all southerner lived the life of a plantation owner either. Many had to toil in the hot sun day in and day out.

You're on the right track, sir! The crime statistical FBI/DOJ numbers prove that today's black community is a violent crime epidemic who, at 13% of the population, manage to commit MANY times more crime than all other American demographics put together. It's a statistical FACT, not my racist opinion. Being the PROVEN lowest-average-I.Q. race on this planet (early 80s), it's understandable that blacks have a difficult time functioning in a first-world society.

Stats from a bias justice system .

 

[WillMunny]

Great interview by Laura Ingraham with Kelly. John Kelly was very impressive.

Because Lee was a jaboni.

IT IS JABRONI!



And Lee would have kicked yer ass into submission! White guys in the old days were not politically correct.

They were still white though so I would kicked his ass just like I kick white boys asses nowadays. I come from a long line of cracka killas. All those white peckawoods still missing in Mississippi are probably the result of my families work.

This guy is pretending to be black.

Youre pretending to be a human but I know youre just a recessive, inbred, monkey.

What a typical nagger - projecting your idiot, moron race's own DETESTABLE qualities onto various races of REAL human beings. Thank you for proving how transparently stupid black crybabies really are. Do you realize how FACILE it is for this white guy to intellectually take you black IDIOTS the FUCK apart and have you shining my shoes as you belong?

 

[bripat9643]

That's true. It was endemic. It had to be. Can't justify keeping an entire race in slavery in perpetuity without it.

No, it isn't true.

The truth is that Southerners detested manual labor. They confounded hard work with "n*gger work". They were lazy and stupid and backward.

The North was not afraid of hard work. They were much more industrious as a result.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18


Time, however, continued to advance, and the Anglo-Americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the West. They met there with a new soil and an unwonted climate; they had to overcome obstacles of the most various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the South going up towards the North, those of the North descending to the South. But in the midst of all these causes the same result occurred at every step; in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more prosperous than those in which slavery flourished. The farther they went, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay the slaves whom they employ, but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, but they are purchased only when they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth, in sickness as well as in health. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum and appears to enrich only him who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.38

The influence of slavery extends still further: it affects the character of the master and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic, but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. The white inhabitant of Ohio, obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the chief aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path that fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a cultivator with the same indifference, and supports with equal constancy the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money has lost a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

It is true. Northern states had what they called the "black codes" which where far harsher than segregation in the South and often didn't allow blacks to live in the state.

Just read what Lincoln had to say on the subject of blacks before the war:

"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor 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 will ever FORBID the two races living together on 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."

— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146


"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."

— Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273


"See our present condition---the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another's throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another.

"Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated."

— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371​

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

Letter by Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges

So where does he say blacks are equal to whites?

Here's a hint, dumbass: he never did.

Well he wasn't around when the 14th got ratified.

LIke most Americans at the time, he still would have claimed that Blacks were not equal to whites.

 

[MikeK]

I would assume about 80% of white guys are sexually attracted to animals. I mean look at all the animals they rape. How the fuck do you rape a dolphin? However we are talking about white boys that are pedos and raped young Black queens. Stay focused.

The dolphin thing wasn't rape. The dolphin did it for a fish. The Black "queens" weren't raped either. They did it for money and drugs.

 

[bripat9643]

It's widely believed by the sore losers who want to sanitize as much of the humiliation of losing the Civil War as they can. It's basically all in service of their egos and nothing more.

Robert E. Lee is a traitor who is in the 9th Circle of Hell with Brutus, Judas, Benedict Arnold, and all the other traitors through history (if you believe in that sort of thing).

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

Nonsense. Lincoln committed treason when he told the occupying troops to stay put.

Your article is nothing but Yankee propaganda. Look at the date it was published.

Fort Sumter was federal property.

As soon as the South attacked it, they became traitors.

The ambassador's house in Mexico City is American property. Would Mexico be guilty of treason if they told the Americans there to leave and then used force to make them leave.

Furthermore, if South Carolina was still part of the union, which it wasn't, only then would it be treason. If they seceded, then it might be an act of war if Ft Sumter was Union territory, but it wasn't. It was only property owned by the federal government.

 

[Unkotare]

.... only a fool applies today’s standards to people who lived over 150 years ago.....

Such as?

 

[bodecea]

American negro people and redskins still owned more slaves than republicans.

Let's see the proof of that.

 

[Unkotare]

..... if you would have lived in the U.S. between 1619 and 1860 and been even semi successful you would have owned a slave or two as well......

Only if you lived in certain states, and in those only if you lacked moral judgement.

 

[bodecea]

Honorable man...committing TREASON against the United States of America.

Kelly just forgot to mention that part.

Secession is not treason.

But firing on a federal installation when you are still part of the U.S. is.

 

[Unkotare]

It's widely believed by the sore losers who want to sanitize as much of the humiliation of losing the Civil War as they can. It's basically all in service of their egos and nothing more.

Robert E. Lee is a traitor who is in the 9th Circle of Hell with Brutus, Judas, Benedict Arnold, and all the other traitors through history (if you believe in that sort of thing).

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

Nonsense. Lincoln committed treason when he told the occupying troops to stay put.

Your article is nothing but Yankee propaganda. Look at the date it was published.

Fort Sumter was federal property.

As soon as the South attacked it, they became traitors.

The ambassador's house in Mexico City is American property. Would Mexico be guilty of treason if they told the Americans there to leave and then used force to make them leave.

Furthermore, if South Carolina was still part of the union, which it wasn't, only then would it be treason. If they seceded, then it might be an act of war if Ft Sumter was Union territory, but it wasn't. It was only property owned by the federal government.

Secession was illegal and therefore illegitimate. SC was a part of the Union though traitors therein were in rebellion. The traitors were treated rather more gently than they deserved.

 

[bripat9643]

You wouldn't happen to be one of our Negro citizens, would you?

FYI; Brutus was a traitor, Judas was a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Those individuals were categorical traitors because they betrayed a sacred trust. Neither General Lee nor any other ordinary Confederate soldier betrayed any trust. The Confederates openly declared their position and their intention, which was secession from the Union. That is called rebellion -- not treason.

They were commonly known as "rebels," not traitors.

Bullshit.

As soon as they attacked Fort Sumter, they committed treason.

The Law of Treason.

Nonsense. Lincoln committed treason when he told the occupying troops to stay put.

Your article is nothing but Yankee propaganda. Look at the date it was published.

Fort Sumter was federal property.

As soon as the South attacked it, they became traitors.

The ambassador's house in Mexico City is American property. Would Mexico be guilty of treason if they told the Americans there to leave and then used force to make them leave.

Furthermore, if South Carolina was still part of the union, which it wasn't, only then would it be treason. If they seceded, then it might be an act of war if Ft Sumter was Union territory, but it wasn't. It was only property owned by the federal government.

Secession was illegal and therefore illegitimate. SC was a part of the Union though traitors therein were in rebellion. The traitors were treated rather more gently than they deserved.

Show me where the Constitution says it's not permitted.

 

[bripat9643]

Honorable man...committing TREASON against the United States of America.

Kelly just forgot to mention that part.

Secession is not treason.

But firing on a federal installation when you are still part of the U.S. is.

They weren't pat of the United States after they seceded, douchebag.