John Legend and Charlamagne tha God Schooled Kanye West on History

[katsteve2012]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the U.S. government, of 3 million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy from "slave" to "free".

Now since there was also slavery in the north at this time, did the proclamation really end slavery or did it just end slavery in the confederate states which at the time were a separate nation with its own constitution?.

THe link I provided, answered those questions.


At length.

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".

Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

 

[Correll]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the U.S. government, of 3 million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy from "slave" to "free".

Now since there was also slavery in the north at this time, did the proclamation really end slavery or did it just end slavery in the confederate states which at the time were a separate nation with its own constitution?.

THe link I provided, answered those questions.


At length.

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.


[/QUOTE]
Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.[/QUOTE]


.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

 

[katsteve2012]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the U.S. government, of 3 million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy from "slave" to "free".

Now since there was also slavery in the north at this time, did the proclamation really end slavery or did it just end slavery in the confederate states which at the time were a separate nation with its own constitution?.

THe link I provided, answered those questions.


At length.

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.[/QUOTE]


.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.[/QUOTE]

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

 

[Correll]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke it changed the legal status, as recognized by the U.S. government, of 3 million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy from "slave" to "free".

Now since there was also slavery in the north at this time, did the proclamation really end slavery or did it just end slavery in the confederate states which at the time were a separate nation with its own constitution?.

THe link I provided, answered those questions.


At length.

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.[/QUOTE]

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.[/QUOTE]




Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

 

[katsteve2012]

THe link I provided, answered those questions.


At length.

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.[/QUOTE]




Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

 

[Correll]

No it did not. You never answer anything. But you always claim you do.

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.[/QUOTE]


Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

 

[katsteve2012]

President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.[/QUOTE]


Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.[/QUOTE]

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

 

[IM2]

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.[/QUOTE]

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.[/QUOTE]

It's time to ignore Correll. History doesn't agree with him and he's nothing but a racist roll.

 

[Correll]

And considering his long history of being anti-slavery, and making very strong anti-slavery statements,


that "justification", was not credible. It was a self serving justification designed to sell what he wanted to do, to people who were not very supportive of it.


Obviously.

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.[/QUOTE]

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.[/QUOTE]




1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

 

[Correll]

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.[/QUOTE]

It's time to ignore Correll. History doesn't agree with him and he's nothing but a racist roll.[/QUOTE]


Says the man that claims that the black right to vote was renewed in 2006.

 

[katsteve2012]

Sources:
10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation


He applied the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY to the southern states in rebellion, because his primary intention was to preserve the union, by any means necessary.

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.

In his own words:

"If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would".


Kanye West is listening to the wrong people.

All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.[/QUOTE]




1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.[/QUOTE]

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

 

[Correll]

.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.



All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.


Once he saw what was happening, ie Secession, he could have fired his VP, and then resigned, throwing the job of replacing him to the House, where demoralized republicans could have been easily dealt with by a victorious South.

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.[/QUOTE]

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.[/QUOTE]





The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

 

[yiostheoy]

John Legend and Charlamagne tha God Schooled Kanye West on History

The duo wanted to make sure Kanye knew the real history of the Republican Party's relationship with black people.

“John has texted with Kanye about politics before. In a snippet of texts exchanged between the two, which Kanye later posted on Twitter last Thursday, John explained that tweeting his support for Donald Trump could hurt his fanbase. "So many people who love you feel so betrayed right now because they know the harm that Trump's policies cause, especially to people of color," John wrote then. "Don't let this be part of your legacy. You're the greatest artist of our generation."

John Legend and Charlamagne tha God Schooled Kanye West on History

Hope he understands now.

So, which policies are those, and how do they specifically harm people of color?

Pumpkin Row you still workin' for the FBI ?!

 

[yiostheoy]

Wow. What a load of crap.

Here we go with this bullshit again. Lincoln is dead and decomposed. He believed blacks were inferior and tried sending blacks back to Africa. This is 2018, we're talking about Trump and todays republican party.

I'm not the one that brought it up. That was Penelope.


Lincoln ended slavery in this nation.


HIs position on slavery was pretty clear.


Just saying.

We had that argument and you were soundly thrashed.

Just sayin.

LOL! Your pathetic delusions are noted and laughed at.

Give us a link on how Abe ended slavery.

Remember that the E.P. pertained to states in rebellion only.

It took the 13th Amendment to end slavery everywhere in the USA.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade History.

 

[katsteve2012]

You've been corrected regarding this numerous times by several people.

Of course you are entitled to believe as you wish.....no matter how misaligned with factual history your belief is.

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.[/QUOTE]





The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.[/QUOTE]


Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, I made three points, and you don't specify which, if any of my points, you are referring to, with you vague and completely unsupported assertion.


Thus, all my points stand.






.1. Slavery was NOT going to survive in this nation once it was ended in the South. And it did not.

2. ANd as demonstrated in my posts and supported in my links, Lincoln also led the fight on the 13th Amendment, that did end slavery.


3. All Lincoln had to do to preserve the Union, was not run for the Presidency.

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.[/QUOTE]


Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.[/QUOTE]


Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

 

[katsteve2012]

Here you go again, with your "my points stand" B.S.

Your "points" stand with YOU, not ME.

I was not vague, nor did I need to search very far to refute what you state.

Lincoln CONTRIBUTED to ending slavery in order to save the union.

That is factual history. If he could have done so without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.

He said so himself.

He had no moral regard for those who were enslaved, and you have even been absurd enough in the past to compare him to being an "abolitionist".

His duty as he saw it, was to preserve a nation that was founded by whites FOR whites, and to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white workforce that existed in the north.

Which he accomplished.


The same slaves that were supposedly "freed", were introduced to Jim Crow laws immediately after slavery was abolishe.

Those are the real facts.

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.[/QUOTE]


Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.

 

[Correll]

Lincoln, like many politicians, said different things to different crowds at different times.


Most people, know that the thing to do, to resolve the question, as to which is the real politician is to look at which statements their actions match.


His actions were to wage war, against the Slave owning south, and the moment he had a good victory, to give him the context he wanted for the act, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

He also led the fight for the 13th, that freed the few remaining slaves outsider of the South.


It's pretty obvious that his weasel words about NOT being an abolitionist, were the bullshit ones, and the ones where he was so harsh against slavery, was who he really was.


That's the real facts.

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.[/QUOTE]

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.[/QUOTE]


His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.

 

[IM2]

The time of whites telling us how we are making up racism is over. That's the way it is. Times up.

 

[katsteve2012]

You apparantley have no idea what abolisionists stood for.

Lincolns ideology was not that of an abolitionist.

The true abolitionists of that era wanted immediate emancipation and full rights of citizenship.for freed slaves.

There is nowhere in history that Lincoln i
is recognized for sharing that belief system. He believed that whites were superior to blacks, and in his own words stated"

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes [back to Africa], and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan [of colonization].There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Whites and Blacks.

I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro...under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can NEVER do here [in America]. We cannever attain the ideal Union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, INFERIOR RACE among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable:

Those are not "weasel words" as you call them.

1. If Lincoln was not so rabidly anti-slavery, there would have been no danger to the Union, for the South would not have been terrified into secession.


2. Diplomacy aimed at those who did not share his agenda, not reflected in his policies.

Let's get back to real facts here. Lincoln had a mission.

His mission was to save the union.

Freeing slaves was not. Slaves were freed in order to facilitate his intention to save the union.

He was NOT an abolitionist, nor did he share their sentiments.

He kept a nation that was founded for white people, by white people, whole.

The only reason there was a threat to the Union was that the South was convinced that Lincoln was determined to end slavery.


Lincoln, the politician often denied that.


YOu believe him.


The South did not.


Considering that Lincoln did end slavery, I would say that his claims to NOT be anti-slavery, are not credible.

Yes. Of course you would say that, in your attempt to contradict actual history.

Focusing on results to judge contradictory words, is not ignoring actual history.

I interpret Lincoln to be what he was, based on what he said he believed.

Except that he said, like many people, especially politicians, different things at different times to different people.


So, you focus on the things he said, that supports you desire to minimize him, because of his white skin.

Speculation has never been overruled by facts, and never will be.

I'm the one citing historical FACTS, while you want to discuss SOME of what he said.

Instead of trying to rewrite his real intentions for ending slavery and attempting to glorify him as being the "rabidly anti slavery", abolitionist, humantitarian benefactor of blacks, who you insist should be grateful, feel free to post any historical information that supports the fact that he placed freeing slaves over saving the union.

I already pointed out that all he had to do, to avoid the threat to the Union, was to have not run for President. His election to the White HOuse, was what led to the Civil War.

You cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Except I've done it before and just did it again, right above.

Slavery was not financially beneficial to a whole union, and industrialized methods of growing and harvesting cotton were far more efficient than using slaves.

I've heard these claims before. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed in this thread.

Allowing slavery to be expanded to the north meant compromising a white labor force.

By the time period in question, the North was strongly anti-slavery on moral grounds, and would not let it expand north no matter what. That was not on the table.

Being a white supremacist, who stated that "an inferior race could not coexist as equals in this society",
he could not allow that to happen.

It was not on the table. HIs actions did not match those words.

Until you can post credible evidence to the contrary that supports your claim that freeing slaves took precedence over saving the union, I am through discussing this subject.

As we are discussing his internal thinking, asking for "evidence" is a dishonest move.

I've pointed out that as his election was what led to the Civil War, that all he really had to do, was not run for the Presidency.

His "internal thinking" is what YOU are discussing.....not I.

It is a waste of time actually far more dishonest to deviate from actual history in an attempt to substantiate a false narrative.

Your speculation on what his internal thinking was is just your opinion. I have provided way more links to information regarding his position on saving the union, which you have have answered with your personal opinion regarding his beliefs.


Until you provide credible proof that he did not prioritize saving the union over freeing the slaves, and that his beliefs were aligned with abolotiinists, I will have no further comments.[/QUOTE]


His actions and his choices show what his goals were.

You always look to a politicians words, instead of actions, to see what to believe?

You must be disappointed A LOT.[/QUOTE]

(YAWN) Im not ever disappointed at all. My bar is set very low as far as what I expect from politicians.

And I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to guess what they are thinking. That pertains to the living ones.

As for the dead ones, there is no need,because their statements are recorded history and part of their legacy.

That being said, the ball is in your court to prove that Lincoln freeing slaves took presedence over preserving the union and that he was aligned with abolitionists.