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



## IM2

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

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






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

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









*


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *



Find a slave and we'll ask him.


----------



## Toro

In Mistress Cruella's dungeon?


----------



## IM2

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find  soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..
Click to expand...


I don't need to know a revolutionary soldier to be indebted to him and to celebrate his contribution. 

However, it would be presumptuous of me to pretend to know what a slave would feel about the holiday given there aren't any to ask.

P.s.  Does all your discourse need to be rude?


----------



## IM2

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find  soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to know a revolutionary soldier to be indebted to him and to celebrate his contribution.
> 
> However, it would be presumptuous of me to pretend to know what a slave would feel about the holiday given there aren't any to ask.
> 
> P.s.  Does all your discourse need to be rude?
Click to expand...


Yes you do need to find a revolutionary soldier to know how they feel just as much. Because this is a speech given by Frederick Douglass who did know what it was like to be a slave just as much as you talk about how you know what those revolutionary soldiers who are not here to ask would know about the revolutionary war.. And yes, as long as you practice this type of obtuse behavior, then you are the rude one and you will get rude back.


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> you will get rude back.



And you don't see any correlation between rude discourse and the declining fortunes of the left?


----------



## waltky

OP wrote: _And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either._

And neither are there any survivors from that era...

... as they have passed away a long time ago...

... and their descendants are now free.


----------



## Mousterian

Free to get a shit job (if they're lucky), or die by some redneck hiway policeman's gun.


----------



## Sunni Man

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm*


With your crappy attitude, I doubt you are invited to many 4th of July picnics and BBQ's   .....      ...


----------



## Freewill

I was at the memorial day parade and the people were cheering the vets as they should.  One car contained Daughters of the American Revolution and they were cheered and I wondered why.  Only one looked like she might have been in the Revolutionary War.  Basically they were cheering for people who belonged to a club.


----------



## Sunni Man

Freewill said:


> I was at the memorial day parade and the people were cheering the vets as they should.  One car contained Daughters of the American Revolution and they were cheered and I wondered why.  Only one looked like she might have been in the Revolutionary War.  Basically they were cheering for people who belonged to a club.


They were cheering the direct descendent's of people who had fought in the American Revolution.  ....


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *




Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.


----------



## Freewill

Sunni Man said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was at the memorial day parade and the people were cheering the vets as they should.  One car contained Daughters of the American Revolution and they were cheered and I wondered why.  Only one looked like she might have been in the Revolutionary War.  Basically they were cheering for people who belonged to a club.
> 
> 
> 
> They were cheering the direct descendent's of people who had fought in the American Revolution.  ....
Click to expand...

Yeah, why?


----------



## Correll

Mousterian said:


> Free to get a shit job (if they're lucky), or die by some redneck hiway policeman's gun.




Or get a good job, find a good woman, raise a fine family and die surrounded by loving grandchildren.

The choices are theirs.

Just like for all of us.


----------



## Meathead

IM2 said:


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


You weren't a slave either, so quit whining.


----------



## jon_berzerk

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *




did you know that the first slave owner in the America was black


----------



## sakinago

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution. 

"However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.

As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."

"Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."

Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News


----------



## IM2

sakinago said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
Click to expand...


I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.

This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.


----------



## IM2

jon_berzerk said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that the first slave owner in the America was black
Click to expand...


Did you know that is untrue?

Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too.


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too



Republicans made it illegal ... that I can tell you.


----------



## sakinago

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
Click to expand...

Unless we're happy that we got the constitution and that those who came before us gave it to us, bunch of farmers vs the most powerful military in the world...and they repelled them twice. I think that's a good reason to celebrate it. I'm also happy the British beat napaleon, and the allies defeated the Axis powers...so because my ancestors came from Japan, should I instead be angry at that? The us threw the Japanese in concentration camps, should I be holding a grudge about that? The Japanese committed many many war crimes, mainly to their neighbors but also to US POWs, should I be apologizing for that?


----------



## koshergrl

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
Click to expand...

There are lots of slaves being held by pimps in IM2's neighborhood. 
Also by Mexican and muslim sex traffickers.


----------



## sakinago

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans made it illegal ... that I can tell you.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
Click to expand...

For someone who cares so much about slavery, you're pretty quite about the slavery going on today. There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history, around 2 million of them are child sex slaves alone. And that's not counting the people in countries where they basically are slaves going by the nomenclature of citizens.


----------



## Bonzi

Funniest thread.....ever.....


----------



## IM2

sakinago said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless we're happy that we got the constitution and that those who came before us gave it to us, bunch of farmers vs the most powerful military in the world...and they repelled them twice. I think that's a good reason to celebrate it. I'm also happy the British beat napaleon, and the allies defeated the Axis powers...so because my ancestors came from Japan, should I instead be angry at that? The us threw the Japanese in concentration camps, should I be holding a grudge about that? The Japanese committed many many war crimes, mainly to their neighbors but also to US POWs, should I be apologizing for that?
Click to expand...


If we were not there so we can't be held responsible or blame those in the past for things is what you believe relative to certain issues then it applies to all issues. If you cannot hold people responsible for the wrongs you cannot credit them for the right.

You got reparations for what happened. But if I as a black man says that we deserve reparations your Japanese ass will sing like the whites about how we aren't owed anything.

Blacks got no  freedom by any of these things. It was not independence day for blacks. Or native americans and had your Japanese ancestors been here at the time for them either. This is not about holding a grudge, it is about pointing out the truth. You ain't white. You're an Asian. You get the same treatment we do.

So keep on kissing the white mans ass.


----------



## IM2

sakinago said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans made it illegal ... that I can tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who cares so much about slavery, you're pretty quite about the slavery going on today. There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history, around 2 million of them are child sex slaves alone. And that's not counting the people in countries where they basically are slaves going by the nomenclature of citizens.
Click to expand...


Here we go with another dumb white man argument from the Asian dumb ass. I'm talking about the fiction that all Americans won freedom on July 4th, 1776.


----------



## Tilly

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

Who are you going to aks?


----------



## norwegen

All the slaves I know think the Fourth of July is Independence Day.


----------



## Anathema

IM2 said:


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



I've got a whole side if my family tree full of them, thank you very much.


----------



## sakinago

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans made it illegal ... that I can tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who cares so much about slavery, you're pretty quite about the slavery going on today. There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history, around 2 million of them are child sex slaves alone. And that's not counting the people in countries where they basically are slaves going by the nomenclature of citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go with another dumb white man argument from the Asian dumb ass. I'm talking about the fiction that all Americans won freedom on July 4th, 1776.
Click to expand...

I am currently living a free nation...I assume you are too. So it did happen. Sure it took 80 years for some, but it did happen.


----------



## sakinago

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless we're happy that we got the constitution and that those who came before us gave it to us, bunch of farmers vs the most powerful military in the world...and they repelled them twice. I think that's a good reason to celebrate it. I'm also happy the British beat napaleon, and the allies defeated the Axis powers...so because my ancestors came from Japan, should I instead be angry at that? The us threw the Japanese in concentration camps, should I be holding a grudge about that? The Japanese committed many many war crimes, mainly to their neighbors but also to US POWs, should I be apologizing for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were not there so we can't be held responsible or blame those in the past for things is what you believe relative to certain issues then it applies to all issues. If you cannot hold people responsible for the wrongs you cannot credit them for the right.
> 
> You got reparations for what happened. But if I as a black man says that we deserve reparations your Japanese ass will sing like the whites about how we aren't owed anything.
> 
> Blacks got no  freedom by any of these things. It was not independence day for blacks. Or native americans and had your Japanese ancestors been here at the time for them either. This is not about holding a grudge, it is about pointing out the truth. You ain't white. You're an Asian. You get the same treatment we do.
> 
> So keep on kissing the white mans ass.
Click to expand...

My treatment is fine. And I don't kiss asses, I'm just grounded in reality that tribalism exist everywhere, in every race, in every nation. It's a part of human nature. Slavery is as old as human civilization, as well as atrocities. All nations are guilty. ALL, including Africa, Asia, and America before the imperialist "White man" came over. These weren't magical places of harmony before whitey. That's hogwash. Was the constitution hypocritical with slavery going on as Douglas said, yes, but it was also one of the first and very succsessful documents to end despotism, and government tyranny. If you want to put on blinders to one specific group so you can be mad at them, go ahed. Don't get mad at anyone else who doesn't.


----------



## OldLady

Freewill said:


> I was at the memorial day parade and the people were cheering the vets as they should.  One car contained Daughters of the American Revolution and they were cheered and I wondered why.  Only one looked like she might have been in the Revolutionary War.  Basically they were cheering for people who belonged to a club.


They're good geneaologists.
I'm eligible, but my mother wouldn't join because they wouldn't allow Marian Anderson to perform at one of their shindigs because she was black.  My mother didn't have much interest in civil rights but she was DAMNED serious about good music and Marian was an outstanding singer.  The DAR got such a lot of flack for that decision that she was invited and did perform for them several times over her career.  Just to be fair.


----------



## koshergrl

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
Click to expand...



I see quite a few non white people lolol...

and my ancestors were responsible for winning independence from Britain. They also fought with the Union Army. 

I'll go ahead and celebrate the fourth, if you don't mind.


----------



## OldLady

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
Click to expand...

This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see quite a few non white people lolol...
> 
> and my ancestors were responsible for winning independence from Britain. They also fought with the Union Army.
> 
> I'll go ahead and celebrate the fourth, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a lot more white people whose ancestors did fight in the revolutionary war than you think. Lot of interbreeding going on in this country as everywhere else. I'm somehow apparently distantly related to genghis Kahn. Don't know how that happens, but I guess it did


----------



## boedicca

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
Click to expand...



You'll have to go to Africa, Asia or the Middle East to find a slave today.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless we're happy that we got the constitution and that those who came before us gave it to us, bunch of farmers vs the most powerful military in the world...and they repelled them twice. I think that's a good reason to celebrate it. I'm also happy the British beat napaleon, and the allies defeated the Axis powers...so because my ancestors came from Japan, should I instead be angry at that? The us threw the Japanese in concentration camps, should I be holding a grudge about that? The Japanese committed many many war crimes, mainly to their neighbors but also to US POWs, should I be apologizing for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were not there so we can't be held responsible or blame those in the past for things is what you believe relative to certain issues then it applies to all issues. If you cannot hold people responsible for the wrongs you cannot credit them for the right.
> 
> You got reparations for what happened. But if I as a black man says that we deserve reparations your Japanese ass will sing like the whites about how we aren't owed anything.
> 
> Blacks got no  freedom by any of these things. It was not independence day for blacks. Or native americans and had your Japanese ancestors been here at the time for them either. This is not about holding a grudge, it is about pointing out the truth. You ain't white. You're an Asian. You get the same treatment we do.
> 
> So keep on kissing the white mans ass.
Click to expand...


^^^ Racist Race Baiter Strikes Again ^^^

Here's what IM2anidiot doesn't grok:   the U.S. Constitution is based on Western Civilization Enlightenment Principles which eventually led to an end to slavery, while slavery still continues to be practiced throughout much of the world.  

And he is very much holding onto a grudge.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.


----------



## OldLady

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.
> 
> View attachment 136844


You too?  Well, you and Im2 can keep each other company at least.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

OldLady said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.
> 
> View attachment 136844
> 
> 
> 
> You too?  Well, you and Im2 can keep each other company at least.
Click to expand...


Oh, no, I don't agree with the OP at all.  He's nuts.  I have other reasons for my feelings.


----------



## OldLady

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.
> 
> View attachment 136844
> 
> 
> 
> You too?  Well, you and Im2 can keep each other company at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no, I don't agree with the OP at all.  He's nuts.  I have other reasons for my feelings.
Click to expand...

Yet you can't celebrate our country's birthday.
You think you're not free.  You don't respect America.  So how are you different?


----------



## IM2

OldLady said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
> But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
> This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.
Click to expand...


What I am saying is that the claims of this day being one to celebrate how we all won freedom when blacks and others did not is a fallacy. The sad thing is  celebrate fake news.  For blacks that is fake news. So then since I would not have been free on that day in 1776 it is not sad for me to not celebrate it. For those who were freed from the British celebrate away. Let me say this to end my post. There ae people out there, some who post here who refuse to celebrate MLK day. While almost every place of business is close don the 4th, people still work on MLK day. If not for MLK blacks may very well still not be afforded the very rights that constitution says every human was supposed to have. So if whites can feel they don't have to celebrate the king holiday and we don't get all this kind of guff and Asians lecturing people about that, then I do think I have my right as an American to not celebrate a day that had nothing to do with my freedom without hearing all this guff as well.


----------



## OldLady

IM2 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
> But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
> This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the claims of this day being one to celebrate how we all won freedom when blacks and others did not is a fallacy. The sad thing is  celebrate fake news.  For blacks that is fake news. So then since I would not have been free on that day in 1776 it is not sad for me to not celebrate it. For those who were freed from the British celebrate away. Let me say this to end my post. There ae people out there, some who post here who refuse to celebrate MLK day. While almost every place of business is close don the 4th, people still work on MLK day. If not for MLK blacks may very well still not be afforded the very rights that constitution says every human was supposed to have. So if whites can feel they don't have to celebrate the king holiday and we don't get all this kind of guff and Asians lecturing people about that, then I do think I have my right as an American to not celebrate a day that had nothing to do with my freedom without hearing all this guff as well.
Click to expand...

Of course you have the right.  But you're not the only one who had some issues back in 1776, you know.  I couldn't have voted.  Or owned property if I were married.  I couldn't divorce due to getting the shit beaten out of me by my husband.  Children 6 and 7 years old were working 12 hour days in factories so the family would have something to eat at the end of the day.  White men who didn't own property weren't able to vote.  Native Americans were being squeezed out of their territorial lands.
Lots to complain about, but we're all functioning, bitching Americans equal in the eyes of the law *now.  *
So I'm done with the guff.


----------



## sakinago

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.
> 
> View attachment 136844
> 
> 
> 
> You too?  Well, you and Im2 can keep each other company at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no, I don't agree with the OP at all.  He's nuts.  I have other reasons for my feelings.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're a free nation, but we're close compared to most, and while I'd like it to be a freer nation, it's still a good one to live in. The idea behind America is great, and that's what I celebrate on the 4th.


----------



## jon_berzerk

IM2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that the first slave owner in the America was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that is untrue?
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too.
Click to expand...



no it is very much true 

*The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.*

it is a fact 

look it up some time retard


----------



## IsaacNewton

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?*
> For the rest of the speech:
> *http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm*



Powerful writer and speaker. Thank you for posting this, it should be read by all.


----------



## IM2

jon_berzerk said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that the first slave owner in the America was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that is untrue?
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it is very much true
> 
> *The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.*
> 
> it is a fact
> 
> look it up some time retard
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, I have done the research. Hugh Gwynn  from Virginia owned he first slave in America and he did so some 15 years before Johnson.  However blacks did not make slavery legal n the United States.


----------



## jon_berzerk

IM2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that the first slave owner in the America was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that is untrue?
> 
> Now try telling me that blacks made slavery legal in America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it is very much true
> 
> *The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.*
> 
> it is a fact
> 
> look it up some time retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, I have done the research. Hugh Gwynn  from Virginia owned he first slave in America and he did so some 15 years before Johnson.  However blacks did not make slavery legal n the United States.
Click to expand...





1655 John Casor became the first person to be declared a slave for life  in the courts

that is a fact


----------



## PredFan

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Hey you racist fuck! Did you read it? Do you know it was in 1852? Do you know it is not 1852 right now?

How fucking stupidly racist are you really?


----------



## hjmick

IM2 said:


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




Sorry, race baiter, my ancestors did indeed fight in the Revolutionary War... and the Civil War for the north... and damn near every war after...



You know what? You are truly one presumptuous little troll...


----------



## IM2

OldLady said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
> But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
> This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the claims of this day being one to celebrate how we all won freedom when blacks and others did not is a fallacy. The sad thing is  celebrate fake news.  For blacks that is fake news. So then since I would not have been free on that day in 1776 it is not sad for me to not celebrate it. For those who were freed from the British celebrate away. Let me say this to end my post. There ae people out there, some who post here who refuse to celebrate MLK day. While almost every place of business is close don the 4th, people still work on MLK day. If not for MLK blacks may very well still not be afforded the very rights that constitution says every human was supposed to have. So if whites can feel they don't have to celebrate the king holiday and we don't get all this kind of guff and Asians lecturing people about that, then I do think I have my right as an American to not celebrate a day that had nothing to do with my freedom without hearing all this guff as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you have the right.  But you're not the only one who had some issues back in 1776, you know.  I couldn't have voted.  Or owned property if I were married.  I couldn't divorce due to getting the shit beaten out of me by my husband.  Children 6 and 7 years old were working 12 hour days in factories so the family would have something to eat at the end of the day.  White men who didn't own property weren't able to vote.  Native Americans were being squeezed out of their territorial lands.
> Lots to complain about, but we're all functioning, bitching Americans equal in the eyes of the law *now.  *
> So I'm done with the guff.
Click to expand...


I know full well what women have experienced. It is why I am so amazed at the ignorance of so many women here   And we are not all equal under the eyes of the law. I realize all of the things you say. But I also realize that white men who did not own property were free, They got paid to work and could end up owning property.  I do know both sides. I know the Indians got done, but they get reparations until the world ends for what they have endured. Still the historians who have documented this situation have stated that  blacks under the system of chattel slavery were done the worst.

I recognize all the positive things this nation has. What I am not going to do is pretend the negatives don't exist, and that racism is over.


----------



## IM2

PredFan said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you racist fuck! Did you read it? Do you know it was in 1852? Do you know it is not 1852 right now?
> 
> How fucking stupidly racist are you really?
Click to expand...


It's not 1776 right now either dumb ass.


----------



## sakinago

IM2 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
> But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
> This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the claims of this day being one to celebrate how we all won freedom when blacks and others did not is a fallacy. The sad thing is  celebrate fake news.  For blacks that is fake news. So then since I would not have been free on that day in 1776 it is not sad for me to not celebrate it. For those who were freed from the British celebrate away. Let me say this to end my post. There ae people out there, some who post here who refuse to celebrate MLK day. While almost every place of business is close don the 4th, people still work on MLK day. If not for MLK blacks may very well still not be afforded the very rights that constitution says every human was supposed to have. So if whites can feel they don't have to celebrate the king holiday and we don't get all this kind of guff and Asians lecturing people about that, then I do think I have my right as an American to not celebrate a day that had nothing to do with my freedom without hearing all this guff as well.
Click to expand...

Your free now, thanks to the DOI, and the constitution that Douglas used in that speech. I hate to say it, but sadly without the south, there would be no America today. And slavery wasn't   Solely practiced in America at the time, it was widely practiced in Europe, with blacks doing a large majority of the slave catching and then trading them for guns, metals, etc. It wasn't just carried out by whites, certainly they played their role, but blacks did as well.


----------



## IM2

hjmick said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, race baiter, my ancestors did indeed fight in the Revolutionary War... and the Civil War for the north... and damn near every war after...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what? You are truly one presumptuous little troll...
Click to expand...


So? You didn't fight to win the war. So why are we giving you credit for something that happened before you were born.?.

According to those like you if we are talking about events that happened before you were born they don't count and you should not be blamed. So then you should not get credit and since the war ended 241 years ago it doesn't count anymore.


----------



## IM2

sakinago said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is sad.  Okay, if you don't want to get all jazzed up about the 4th of July, fine, but it's our biggest party after Christmas, around here anyway.  For one, it is during one of the four months of the year our furnaces don't run and we can pretty much plan an outside event.  Including a parade.  We do love parades for some reason.  And the fireworks are the highlight, except when it's too foggy to see them, which happens half the time.   A lot of folks around here DO have a Revolutionary ancestor or more, and some of them fought right here and it's written in the books and everything.
> But it's more about celebrating our nation's birthday and our nation's freedom, and I don't see anything wrong with either of those things, really.
> This country is not all bad.  It doesn't hurt to have a birthday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the claims of this day being one to celebrate how we all won freedom when blacks and others did not is a fallacy. The sad thing is  celebrate fake news.  For blacks that is fake news. So then since I would not have been free on that day in 1776 it is not sad for me to not celebrate it. For those who were freed from the British celebrate away. Let me say this to end my post. There ae people out there, some who post here who refuse to celebrate MLK day. While almost every place of business is close don the 4th, people still work on MLK day. If not for MLK blacks may very well still not be afforded the very rights that constitution says every human was supposed to have. So if whites can feel they don't have to celebrate the king holiday and we don't get all this kind of guff and Asians lecturing people about that, then I do think I have my right as an American to not celebrate a day that had nothing to do with my freedom without hearing all this guff as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your free now, thanks to the DOI, and the constitution that Douglas used in that speech. I hate to say it, but sadly without the south, there would be no America today. And slavery wasn't   Solely practiced in America at the time, it was widely practiced in Europe, with blacks doing a large majority of the slave catching and then trading them for guns, metals, etc. It wasn't just carried out by whites, certainly they played their role, but blacks did as well.
Click to expand...


Yawn! It doesn't matter if slavery was not practiced in America when the American constitution said all people are equal. We aren't talking about me being free now.  I am taking about the hypocrisy in the argument that we cannot discuss that the founders owned slaves because they are no longer here but we can continue crediting them even while they are not her. That how racist laws made then cannot be discussed because they are too far in the past but if things credits whites from 240 years ago we can discuss them.


----------



## Darkwind

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


You should run off and axe a few and the report back to us.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?


----------



## PredFan

IM2 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you racist fuck! Did you read it? Do you know it was in 1852? Do you know it is not 1852 right now?
> 
> How fucking stupidly racist are you really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 1776 right now either dumb ass.
Click to expand...


That's irrelevant, you racist moron.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
Click to expand...


No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.


----------



## IM2

PredFan said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you racist fuck! Did you read it? Do you know it was in 1852? Do you know it is not 1852 right now?
> 
> How fucking stupidly racist are you really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 1776 right now either dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant, you racist moron.
Click to expand...


Oh it's relevant alright.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
Click to expand...

Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human being. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.


----------



## Darkwind

IM2 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> You should run off and axe a few and the report back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooo......close.  you almost had a thought of your own.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you come up with your own thoughts, let me know.
Click to expand...

LOL....
You remind Me of My little sister when she was 10.  She too would repeat it back as if that was the biggest burn imaginable.  It's kind of like, "I know I am, but what are you".

Only a child could find that witty.

Now, I've read this thread and I've reached the conclusion you are trolling this forum and this thread.  There is no amount of talking, thought, proof, or discussion that will deter you from your racist remarks and actions.  So, I've decided to just have a little fun.   Depending on how well the system works over the next few minutes will determine if I make it back.  However, if I don't.  Please, don't take it personally.  I've never really taken you seriously, to begin with.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human being. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
Click to expand...


A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.


----------



## IM2

Darkwind said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> You should run off and axe a few and the report back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooo......close.  you almost had a thought of your own.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you come up with your own thoughts, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL....
> You remind Me of My little sister when she was 10.  She too would repeat it back as if that was the biggest burn imaginable.  It's kind of like, "I know I am, but what are you".
> 
> Only a child could find that witty.
> 
> Now, I've read this thread and I've reached the conclusion you are trolling this forum and this thread.  There is no amount of talking, thought, proof, or discussion that will deter you from your racist remarks and actions.  So, I've decided to just have a little fun.   Depending on how well the system works over the next few minutes will determine if I make it back.  However, if I don't.  Please, don't take it personally.  I've never really taken you seriously, to begin with.
Click to expand...


What you think is of no consequence to me. Especially since I have said nothing racist. I am the OP son. The section of this forum is called Race and racism. So then I cannot be trolling. You just cant take the truth in what is being said to you.

Good riddance


----------



## MaryL

A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.[/QUOTE]
Well, there went evey shred of credibility you ever had, out the window,   POOF. you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
Click to expand...




MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
Click to expand...



yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.





> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.



My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.


----------



## jon_berzerk

^^^--LOL--^^^


----------



## IM2

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
Click to expand...


Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> Whites did not die to free the slaves.



Between 600,000 to 700,000 died in the Civil War to end slavery.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.
Click to expand...

 Didn't you do this before?  The ol' swicheraroo. You bait and don' t debate. You have lost my respect  with these childish games of yours.


----------



## flacaltenn

IM2 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
Click to expand...


By that logic, Lincoln probably should have followed thru on the plan to repatriate the freed slaves back in Africa. So that untold generations of folks who DON'T WANT TO BE AMERICAN wouldn't feel obligated to celebrate the VERY EXISTENCE of this country. 

I don't think ANYONE should be here against their will. Not refugees from the Mid East, certainly not 4th gen post slaves..

We can fix this...     Just tell us WHERE --- you'd be more comfortable so we get the paperwork right.


----------



## flacaltenn

OldLady said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it's funny that Americans still think they're living in a free country.
> 
> View attachment 136844
> 
> 
> 
> You too?  Well, you and Im2 can keep each other company at least.
Click to expand...


How free can you possibly be with the Planets largest ever Domestic Spying operation being implemented? With a dysfunction press? With 2 parties locked in meaningless grade school taunts? With College campuses becoming fascisticly anti-free speech? 

We've lost a LOT of ground...


----------



## PredFan

IM2 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you racist fuck! Did you read it? Do you know it was in 1852? Do you know it is not 1852 right now?
> 
> How fucking stupidly racist are you really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 1776 right now either dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant, you racist moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it's relevant alright.
Click to expand...


No idiot, it isn't and you lies won't make it so.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Mod Note:

I've got 15 posts marked for deletion because they are ALL PERSONAL and contain no topical contribution.  Gonna do this WITHOUT getting personal.  Or at least -- we're gonna DISCUSS the specific topic IF you make it personal.. 
*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

We all think we learned about how bad certain things were but the Internet has shown me that we will never truly know.

Go to Pinterest or Google for slavery images, Holocaust, war wounds, 
 Vivisection, congenital defects necessitating abortion, the treatment of so-called "food animals" and so on and so on.

OP - thanks for your OP.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## PredFan




----------



## PredFan

IM2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
Click to expand...


No, they are not irrelevant, no one said they were irrelevant you are just making shit up. The country was founded on this day 241 years ago, that is far from irrelevant. What a slave thought about it is irrelevant due to the fact that that salve isn't alive today and we have no slaves. The celebration is relevant, your racist diatribe isn't.


----------



## jon_berzerk

PredFan said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not irrelevant, no one said they were irrelevant you are just making shit up. The country was founded on this day 241 years ago, that is far from irrelevant. What a slave thought about it is irrelevant due to the fact that that salve isn't alive today and we have no slaves. The celebration is relevant, your racist diatribe isn't.
Click to expand...


exactly


----------



## flacaltenn

PredFan said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not irrelevant, no one said they were irrelevant you are just making shit up. The country was founded on this day 241 years ago, that is far from irrelevant. What a slave thought about it is irrelevant due to the fact that that salve isn't alive today and we have no slaves. The celebration is relevant, your racist diatribe isn't.
Click to expand...


I'll go so far as to credit Douglas for HIS words in 1852. Because HE had a valid gripe. And I would have been impressed with his admonishment at the time that HE made it. But 160 years later, it sounds pretty lame to be demanding that everyone feel the same way NOW in 2017. 

Even for folks who have had 4 or 5 generations of American experience since slavery existed.. 

We don't CHANGE history just to keep people from being uncomfortable.


----------



## K9Buck

Mousterian said:


> Free to get a shit job (if they're lucky), or die by some redneck hiway policeman's gun.



They're also free to move to an African nation where there whites are a very small minority.


----------



## MaryL

Is there point to all this? Slavery WAS BAD, people died to end it. this isn't 1865. blacks can and should work harder to get past this, they aren't, they en mass blame white  racism. Yes, racism is real. It isn't holding blacks back Blacks are holding themselves back.


----------



## Tilly

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human being. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
Click to expand...


Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.

...Just as the blacks that whitey bought were already in chains, enslaved by their fellow blacks, and sold by their fellow blacks. 
Just as one among the first slave owners in the US was a black man. 

Why ain't you mad about that?
Answer: because that wouldn't feed your hate.


----------



## Tilly

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human being. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying whites did not die to end slavery?


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human being. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
Click to expand...


460,000 Union deaths were not "a bunch"?  Frankly, you seem totally unable to acknowledge the truth and that makes you sound ignorant.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *




Are you independent yet?  just wondering.  

You know, maybe your right, lets just ask all black people to skip all fourth of July celebrations from this day forward, Let them not partake in the hippocricy of white people who dare have an ounce of pride in the country in which they live. The fourth of July marks an era of history, where certain people made certain sacrifices in the founding of the US. For some reason you and your type would like to find every part of American history you can use to show what a terrible place this is, and what terrible people we are.  But thats just you rattling your chains. People who were slaves would probably be ashamed of you for not moving forward in a way they wish they could have... if they had the opportunity you have today


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Mudda

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


The black ungratefulness for being saved from Africa goes way back I see. He must be Black Lives Matter's hero.


----------



## Freewill

koshergrl said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglas never fought in the revolutionary war...but he became a strong supporter of the constitution.
> 
> "However, as Frederick Douglass matured in his political views, he evolved in his personal position regarding the Law of the Land. In fact, Douglass made one of the most dramatic changes in position regarding the value of the U.S. Constitution in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
> 
> As Douglass read and studied more, and became more aware of other abolitionists, he began to pull away from Garrison’s orbit of persuasion. On December 3, 1847, after Douglass came back from a tour of England and Ireland, he used funds entrusted to him to start his own weekly abolitionist newspaper that he called The North Star. This initiated a substantial break with his previous supporter. Garrison felt largely responsible for the rise in prominence of the former slave, but ironically opposed the move to establish a separate abolitionist news organization. He may have regarded it as some needless competition for his own newspaper. Nonetheless in The North Star, Douglass replicated Garrisonian views that the Constitution was intentionally pro-slavery."
> 
> "Frederick Douglass had even publically debated with Lysander Spooner and Gerrit Smith who were abolitionists that supported the Constitution. In 1846, Spooner, an ardent abolitionist, had written a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery which proposed the opposite perspective of Garrison, in which Spooner expressed that the Founders had not deliberately legalized slavery. Eventually, Frederick Douglass made public a dramatic change of opinion about the Constitution in his newspaper, and later in a public speech, he proclaimed it as “a glorious liberty document.” Such a dramatic personal shift in opinion reflected a larger split within the abolition movement in general due to perceptions regarding the Constitution and the proper way for the nation to deal with the institution of slavery."
> 
> Read more at Frederick Douglass and defending the U.S. Constitution | Communities Digital News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about Frederick Douglass.  I don't need an education on him from some idiot.
> 
> This thread not about the bullshit posted in the above quote. This thread is about the fact that on July 4th, 1776 no one black in this nation won any independence or freedom. It is also about the fact that no one here today fought in that war, no one here was alive during that war, and since most of you are descending from people who came here after that war, none of your relatives fought in this war. None of you or your ancestors are responsible for winning this independence for whites, so therefore we should not be celebrating he fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see quite a few non white people lolol...
> 
> and my ancestors were responsible for winning independence from Britain. They also fought with the Union Army.
> 
> I'll go ahead and celebrate the fourth, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...


you do realize that video wasn't shot in 1776?

If "your people" means black people, they also fought for the confederate army.


----------



## Divine Wind

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either.....


.....and no one here is a slave or is a slaver.  Nice job shitting all over the 4th of July, but that's expected of what passes for "liberalism" these days; anti-American, anti-Constitutional, pro-Socialist, very Authoritarian partisans.


----------



## Mudda

Black people are pissed, Indians are pissed and arabs are pissed about July 4th. Who fucking cares?


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.



The U.S. didn't exist in 1640 nor 100 years later in 1740.


----------



## Desperado

Who gives a rat's ass that they say


----------



## paperview

MaryL said:


> ... Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. ...


Recheck your math, Mary.


----------



## IM2

williepete said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. didn't exist in 1640 nor 100 years later in 1740.
Click to expand...

 
Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.



There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.


----------



## IM2

Divine.Wind said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either.....
> 
> 
> 
> .....and no one here is a slave or is a slaver.  Nice job shitting all over the 4th of July, but that's expected of what passes for "liberalism" these days; anti-American, anti-Constitutional, pro-Socialist, very Authoritarian partisans.
Click to expand...


That's my point dumb ass.  You are reliving 241 years ago.  But if we talk about how we were not free on the 4th of July, 1776 as blacks we should shut up and stop living in in the past. The hypocrisy in this is apparent.  You shit on the 4th not me, because of your hypocrisy.


----------



## IM2

williepete said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
Click to expand...


No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
Click to expand...


We did not exist as the United States, as you claimed.

We existed as a colony of Great Britain/England.


----------



## paperview

IM2 said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.

You should have said "America."


----------



## IM2

WillHaftawaite said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not exist as the United States, as you claimed.
> 
> We existed as a colony of Great Britain/England.
Click to expand...


Tell me something I don't know. But since I did not create this thread to argue whether or not the United States existed formally in 1640 then you are simply wasting space.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not exist as the United States, as you claimed.
> 
> We existed as a colony of Great Britain/England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me something I don't know. But since I did not create this thread to argue whether or not the United States existed formally in 1640 then you are simply wasting space.
Click to expand...


No, but you did make this statement.



IM2 said:


> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.



the 'United States' did not exist as a country for over a century after your claim.


----------



## williepete

Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, Britain and Denmark brought African slaves to the New World long before there was a country called the United States.

The colonies declared independence from Great Britain in 1776 but Great Britain did not recognize the U.S. as a country until the matter was officially settled by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. 82 years later after our Civil War, the institution of slavery that was brought to the New World  by the above named countries was abolished by the ratification of the 13th amendment. Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until 1888. In the big picture of slavery in the New World, the area that would become the U.S. was not one of the big players. Brazil was the largest importer by far.

So what to the slave is the Fourth of July? It marked the dawn of an era that would see the end of slavery in the United States. Slavery that still exists in many parts of the world.


*Country / Destination                    Slaves Delivered*

  Brazil -                                                    4,000,000     
  Spanish Empire -                                    2,500,000    
  British West Indies -                                2,000,000     
  French West Indies -                               1,600,000     
  British North America & U.S. -                    500,000
  Dutch West Indies -                                    500,000     
  Danish West Indies -                                     28,000     
  Europe -                                                    200,000    
*Total* *11,328,000*

http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/facts and figures.htm


----------



## boedicca

What to a slave is July 4th?

A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.

If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate of less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years). 

And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?


----------



## IM2

paperview said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
Click to expand...


Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.


----------



## IM2

williepete said:


> Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, Britain and Denmark brought African slaves to the New World long before there was a country called the United States.
> 
> The colonies declared independence from Great Britain in 1776 but Great Britain did not recognize the U.S. as a country until the matter was officially settled by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. 82 years later after our Civil War, the institution of slavery that was brought to the New World  by the above named countries was abolished by the ratification of the 13th amendment. Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until 1888. In the big picture of slavery in the New World, the area that would become the U.S. was not one of the big players. Brazil was the largest importer by far.
> 
> So what to the slave is the Fourth of July? It marked the dawn of an era that would see the end of slavery in the United States. Slavery that still exists in many parts of the world.
> 
> 
> *Country / Destination                    Slaves Delivered*
> 
> Brazil -                                                    4,000,000
> Spanish Empire -                                    2,500,000
> British West Indies -                                2,000,000
> French West Indies -                               1,600,000
> British North America & U.S. -                    500,000
> Dutch West Indies -                                    500,000
> Danish West Indies -                                     28,000
> Europe -                                                    200,000
> *Total* *11,328,000*
> 
> http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/facts and figures.htm



Many parts of the world did not have documents saying all men are created equal while enslaving people .It did not mark the beginning of anything but 189 years of legalized on paper white oppression  on people of color and white male oppression of women.


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> 189 years



82.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?



There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.

You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.


----------



## IM2

williepete said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## paperview

williepete said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82.
Click to expand...

Historical tidbit -- of all the slaves brought over via the international slave trade, they accounted for only 1% of all the slaves that ever existed in this country.


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am spending my ire on American racism.



Translation:  "I live in the best country in the world to be a POC and I enjoy more opportunity here than any country in the world but instead of taking advantage of my opportunities, I live in a warped fantasy world of self-induced ire."

Well, Happy Fourth of July anyway. You are a very, very fortunate person.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
Click to expand...



In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.

Here, try reading this for some perspective:

Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
Click to expand...


I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.


----------



## IM2

*BLACKS and the 4th of July......*


----------



## IM2

*Why Black people SHOULDN'T celebrate the 4th of july!*


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> The fact could have been ended in this nation when the nation started.



I hear you. Even a casual student of history learns early that history is packed to the brim with shoulda's, coulda's and woulda's. Getting hung up over just one is just a little, well 

Hurts your credibility.


----------



## IM2

Black People Stop Celebrating The 4th Of July 2016


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
Click to expand...



And one other thing:  there were a lot of white slaves/indentured servants in the U.S. as well.


IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
Click to expand...



Oh blah blah blah so sleepy zzzzzzzz


Slavery could have ended by blacks not enslaving blacks in Africa to begin with.

But the didn't do that.

And it's hardly a surprise that you are reluctant to learn anything about actual American history and ideology.


----------



## IM2

williepete said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact could have been ended in this nation when the nation started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. Even a casual student of history learns early that history is packed to the brim with shoulda's, coulda's and woulda's. Getting hung up over just one is just a little, well
> 
> Hurts your credibility.
Click to expand...


Yeah getting hung up on freedom and equality hurts my credibility. Talk about crazy.


----------



## OldLady

I get your argument and you have a right to your point of view, but what does it accomplish?  I'm an inveterate "fixer," which is not always the best thing, but I'm curious.  Dissociating from the rest of the country moves you forward how?

If you want to holler at racists, you've come to the right place.  Is that all you're here for?  If you want to see things equalized for blacks in this country, how does it help to completely disenfranchise from whites?


----------



## Tilly

IM2 said:


> Black People Stop Celebrating The 4th Of July 2016


Do you think anyone cares if you don't celebrate the 4th?


----------



## Tilly

IM2 said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact could have been ended in this nation when the nation started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. Even a casual student of history learns early that history is packed to the brim with shoulda's, coulda's and woulda's. Getting hung up over just one is just a little, well
> 
> Hurts your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah getting hung up on freedom and equality hurts my credibility. Talk about crazy.
Click to expand...

Instead of continuing to whine ad nauseum, let's hear your solutions


----------



## williepete

IM2 said:


> Yeah getting hung up on freedom and equality hurts my credibility.



Big time! You have more freedom, equality and opportunity in this country as a POC than anywhere in the world. Anywhere.

Hurts your credibility to the point of coming across as silly.

Happy Fourth of July! My first drink today at our neighborhood BBQ will be in your honor. In honor of how fortunate you are to live in this country.


----------



## OldLady

I wish you a happy day, anyway, Im2.  I'm off to burn a hotdog or two and like Willie, I will raise a glass to you.  I don't agree that you are terribly "fortunate," but all things are relative, and maybe on the 5th, we can continue making things a little better.


----------



## Yarddog

boedicca said:


> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?






IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
Click to expand...



Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either. 
A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And one other thing:  there were a lot of white slaves/indentured servants in the U.S. as well.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh blah blah blah so sleepy zzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended by blacks not enslaving blacks in Africa to begin with.
> 
> But the didn't do that.
> 
> And it's hardly a surprise that you are reluctant to learn anything about actual American history and ideology.
Click to expand...


Thus beginneth todays lesson

OK, so the African sold each other. Now why did the white man buy the Africans? Because the African certainly did not travel over here to America with slaves on their ships to sell whites now did they? Nor were they wondering through Europe advertising how they had slaves for sale. These Africans did not see each other as your racist ass does. An African from one tribe did not see the other Africans simply as another black man. Just like Germans do not see English as just another white man.


That excuse don't work.

I know plenty about real American history

*Indentured Servants* 


The thing is about white slaves is that some how they disappeared.

So while you try and try arguing a disingenuous argument , you need to understand that for me to know what I do, I had to study history. Real American history. You are the one lacking and whatever you call real America ideology, well that's a joke.

Now go eat your BBQ.

Thus endeth todays lesson.


----------



## IM2

OldLady said:


> I wish you a happy day, anyway, Im2.  I'm off to burn a hotdog or two and like Willie, I will raise a glass to you.  I don't agree that you are terribly "fortunate," but all things are relative, and maybe on the 5th, we can continue making things a little better.



Same to you oldlady. You aren't willie. So I will say this to you. We might disagree on this one,  but in general we agree on far top many issues for me to hold anything against you. Enjoy your day.


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
Click to expand...


The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And one other thing:  there were a lot of white slaves/indentured servants in the U.S. as well.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh blah blah blah so sleepy zzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended by blacks not enslaving blacks in Africa to begin with.
> 
> But the didn't do that.
> 
> And it's hardly a surprise that you are reluctant to learn anything about actual American history and ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus beginneth todays lesson
> 
> OK, so the African sold each other. Now why did the white man buy the Africans? Because the African certainly did not travel over here to America with slaves on their ships to sell whites now did they? Nor were they wondering through Europe advertising how they had slaves for sale. These Africans did not see each other as your racist ass does. An African from one tribe did not see the other Africans simply as another black man. Just like Germans do not see English as just another white man.
> 
> 
> That excuse don't work.
> 
> I know plenty about real American history
> 
> *Indentured Servants*
> 
> 
> The thing is about white slaves is that some how they disappeared.
> 
> So while you try and try arguing a disingenuous argument , you need to understand that for me to know what I do, I had to study history. Real American history. You are the one lacking and whatever you call real America ideology, well that's a joke.
> 
> Now go eat your BBQ.
> 
> Thus endeth todays lesson.
Click to expand...



You are obsessed with Race Baiting revisionist blather.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
Click to expand...



Dude, you are sorely ignorant of history.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
Click to expand...


Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.


----------



## williepete

Happy Birthday America from all those who appreciate her!


----------



## williepete




----------



## williepete




----------



## williepete

American Veterans proud of their country:





African-American veterans of the Vietnam and Korean Wars, all of whom earned the Purple Heart medal during their service, stand together during a ceremony honoring their sacrifice organized by American Legion Post 16 and the City of Lynchburg.
251 VVN – Black soldiers who received Purple Heart honored |


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
Click to expand...



A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


We still celebrate the 4th of July because it is our history of when our country was free from British rule.


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.


----------



## hunarcy

hunarcy said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
Click to expand...


And I would point out that the nation of Liberia was established to accept former slaves who wanted to return to Africa.  If you are here, it's because your ancestors CHOSE to stay in the United States.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong about talking about slavery, it happened, it was wrong, it is still wrong. The problem is when white people today only are accused of benefitting from it, white people today are being linked to it, etc etc.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
Click to expand...

It is relevant today because we, as a country, no longer belong to Britain.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
Click to expand...

If you chose to not celebrate July 4th, that's your business. We are all free to choose what we do or do not want to celebrate. Yes, we do have that right. If you choose to dwell on the horrible past, that is also your right.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
Click to expand...



You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
Click to expand...


Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default. 

They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era. 
In some cases even less.

*Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.*

*Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.*

*I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*

*As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*

*I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery. 
. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*

*I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*

*Yours,
A. Lincoln.
*


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
Click to expand...


Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.

So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.

There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.

If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.


----------



## IM2

MizMolly said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing wrong about talking about slavery, it happened, it was wrong, it is still wrong. The problem is when white people today only are accused of benefitting from it, white people today are being linked to it, etc etc.
Click to expand...


Well you did benefit from it. And that's just the way it is.


----------



## IM2

hunarcy said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I would point out that the nation of Liberia was established to accept former slaves who wanted to return to Africa.  If you are here, it's because your ancestors CHOSE to stay in the United States.
Click to expand...


And I will point out that I don't give a damn what Libera was for. The fact is that they were Americans and they did not have to go any damn where.


----------



## IM2

MizMolly said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead, Fred. We are post racial, slavery is  dead and gone. Things have changed since abolition, haven't you heard? Over 65 thousand  anonymous white guys  fought to free the slaves. Racism is bad, you are totally right about that.  And why haven't  blacks got over it?  There is two sides to a equation. Lets be honest here, why haven't blacks tried harder to get over this racial inertia? That's  is the bigger question. What the hell does it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is relevant today because we, as a country, no longer belong to Britain.
Click to expand...


You had nothing to do with this.  You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago. Stop living in the past.


----------



## IM2

MizMolly said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you chose to not celebrate July 4th, that's your business. We are all free to choose what we do or do not want to celebrate. Yes, we do have that right. If you choose to dwell on the horrible past, that is also your right.
Click to expand...


Pathetic.


----------



## IM2

hunarcy said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
Click to expand...


Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is relevant today because we, as a country, no longer belong to Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had nothing to do with this.  You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago. Stop living in the past.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago.



Nor were you



IM2 said:


> Stop living in the past.


Take your own advice


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
Click to expand...




He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.


But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table. 


His actions reveal his words to be lies.


----------



## sealybobo

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you will get rude back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't see any correlation between rude discourse and the declining fortunes of the left?
Click to expand...

That's like saying you're going to punish your slave for talking back. Should he be happy? Will you be nicer to your rape victim if they don't fight back?

I see a correlation between the rich owning our government and middle class whites slipping into poverty.


----------



## fncceo

sealybobo said:


> That's like saying you're going to punish your slave for talking back.



I will NEVER have a slave that talks back ...






Particularly not a protocol droid...


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
Click to expand...


Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..


----------



## Iceweasel

IM2 said:


> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.


Blacks weren't the only humans suffering from slavery. Your devotion to racism limits that. The website isn't big enough to list man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages, nor does perpetual hand wringing accomplish anything fruitful. People listen to losers like you or they make the best of things. The later types are those that gain success in the world.


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..


WE? How old are you?


----------



## katsteve2012

Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
Click to expand...


Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
Click to expand...

Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.


----------



## Divine Wind

IM2 said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. didn't exist in 1640 nor 100 years later in 1740.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually America did exist as a colony of Britain.
Click to expand...

Actually, you don't have the brains or the spine to admit you are wrong and WilliePete was correct.  The United States didn't exist until after we revolted against Britain in 1776.  For you to say "_Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640_"  and not admit you fucked up just shows how cowardly and/or stupid you are.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
Click to expand...



^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^


----------



## Cossack1483

The Immigration Bill  0f 1789 puts things in perspective.  Times may change ; the Inner White does not.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
Click to expand...


It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
Click to expand...


 "We" won our freedom from the British, so then "we" can be slaves.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.
Click to expand...



You first, hun.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is relevant today because we, as a country, no longer belong to Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had nothing to do with this.  You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago. Stop living in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor were you
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop living in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your own advice
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If there is a response to me in there, I couldn't find it.


----------



## IM2

Iceweasel said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks weren't the only humans suffering from slavery. Your devotion to racism limits that. The website isn't big enough to list man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages, nor does perpetual hand wringing accomplish anything fruitful. People listen to losers like you or they make the best of things. The later types are those that gain success in the world.
Click to expand...


Yawn! There is no devotion to racism here. And I am not going to quit pointing  out these issues just because your white ass thinks you can make me stop by calling me a racist. You are making excuses, and that's all the good you are. You are an irresponsible white American conservative full of excuses for your  own poor behavior while always wanting to demand that others behave in ways you never have.  YOU are a sorry piss poor example of an human being You provide us reason to justify abortion. I am  well respected man in my community with support and strong friendships with leaders of both major political parties in this state.  You are a nothing. It is YOU who is a loser..


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You first, hun.
Click to expand...


Nope, its all  on you.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You first, hun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, its all  on you.
Click to expand...


I'm not greedy.  You're first in line given your excessively repetitious Race Baiting.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You first, hun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, its all  on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not greedy.  You're first in line given your excessively repetitious Race Baiting.
Click to expand...


It's all on you because you repeat this dumb shit when I  am not race baiting. So I am not going to stop doing what I do just because your sorry white ass can't take the truth.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1776, slavery was widely practiced througout the world.  The Founders based our nation upon principles which caused the abolition of slavery.   Sad that you don't appreciate it.
> 
> Here, try reading this for some perspective:
> 
> Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
Click to expand...



I have learned from an early age that slavery was wrong, racism is wrong, discrimination is wrong.  I have no need to have someone try to convince me I need to hate myself for being born whatever race I was born into. Which is pretty much the premise of your thread.  If I don't work, If I don't try hard, I end up living under a freeway overpass. Same goes for black people the fact that there was once segregation in this country does nothing for me if I don't try to work and get ahead.  The fact that more white people have gone to college or have connections does absolutely nothing for me, and you seem to think that takes away from black people today. Your one of those who likes to lump every one together as a group.  So please tell me how "Things have happened for me as a group"  when you really dont know my life.  you come in here with a lot of assumptions about people because they have light colored skin then wonder why you get the reaction you do


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks weren't the only humans suffering from slavery. Your devotion to racism limits that. The website isn't big enough to list man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages, nor does perpetual hand wringing accomplish anything fruitful. People listen to losers like you or they make the best of things. The later types are those that gain success in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn! There is no devotion to racism here. And I am not going to quit pointing  out these issues just because your white ass thinks you can make me stop by calling me a racist. You are making excuses, and that's all the good you are. You are an irresponsible white American conservative full of excuses for your  own poor behavior while always wanting to demand that others behave in ways you never have.  YOU are a sorry piss poor example of an human being You provide us reason to justify abortion. I am  well respected man in my community with support and strong friendships with leaders of both major political parties in this state.  You are a nothing. It is YOU who is a loser..
Click to expand...


*And I am not going to quit pointing out these issues*

Whiners gotta whine.


----------



## IM2

Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
Click to expand...


Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
Click to expand...


Could that have anything to do with demographics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
Click to expand...


Tell us about your wealth.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Racist Race Baiting Race Baiter Race Baits Yet Again! ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's July 5th now loon. You can stop repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You first, hun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, its all  on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not greedy.  You're first in line given your excessively repetitious Race Baiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all on you because you repeat this dumb shit when I  am not race baiting. So I am not going to stop doing what I do just because your sorry white ass can't take the truth.
Click to expand...



Then quit Race Baiting, you Racist Race Baiter you.


----------



## boedicca

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks weren't the only humans suffering from slavery. Your devotion to racism limits that. The website isn't big enough to list man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages, nor does perpetual hand wringing accomplish anything fruitful. People listen to losers like you or they make the best of things. The later types are those that gain success in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn! There is no devotion to racism here. And I am not going to quit pointing  out these issues just because your white ass thinks you can make me stop by calling me a racist. You are making excuses, and that's all the good you are. You are an irresponsible white American conservative full of excuses for your  own poor behavior while always wanting to demand that others behave in ways you never have.  YOU are a sorry piss poor example of an human being You provide us reason to justify abortion. I am  well respected man in my community with support and strong friendships with leaders of both major political parties in this state.  You are a nothing. It is YOU who is a loser..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And I am not going to quit pointing out these issues*
> 
> Whiners gotta whine.
Click to expand...



I prefer "Whingers Gotta Whinge".


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
Click to expand...



^^^ So many underlying assumptions that pin the Bogometer ^^^

Most wealth is EARNED, not inherited.   If white people have more, perhaps you should consider the Culture and Values which cause people to Work-Earn-Save instead of engaging in your Neverending-Incessant-Racist-Race-Baiting-Victimology Schtick.

I reject your ideology of Collective-Inherited-Guilt.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
Click to expand...



Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.


----------



## boedicca

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
Click to expand...



There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.

My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to a slave is July 4th?
> 
> A beacon of hope that he may one day be free.  That has happened in the U.S.
> 
> If the OP really cared about Slavery, he'd spend his ire on the issue of present day slaves...of which there are an estimated 21 Million worldwide (compare that to the aggregate less than half a million that were imported to North America over 240+ years).
> 
> And note, Latin and South America imported over 90% of the slaves from Africa.  Why doesn't the OP hold those societies accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There never should have been that beacon of hope. Blacks should have been free in July 4th, 1776 just like whites. This is the problem with your arguments. You want to  pretend that saying it offered a beacon of hope for freedom for those slaves like is supposed to be a positive that we should be happy for. Why don't I hold those other societies responsible? Because I don't live in those other societies and most of those societies got rid of the colonizers who imported the slaves into those paces in the first place.
> 
> You don't get to tell me what I am going to spend my ire on. I live here in America, I am  spending my ire on American racism.  You aren't interested in todays slavery, You only mention it because I talk about how whites are still practicing racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not reading your bullshit. I know what's what. The fact is slavery could have been ended in this nation when the nation started. Not on principles that lead to an end of slavery eventually. I don't have to appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have learned from an early age that slavery was wrong, racism is wrong, discrimination is wrong.  I have no need to have someone try to convince me I need to hate myself for being born whatever race I was born into. Which is pretty much the premise of your thread.  If I don't work, If I don't try hard, I end up living under a freeway overpass. Same goes for black people the fact that there was once segregation in this country does nothing for me if I don't try to work and get ahead.  The fact that more white people have gone to college or have connections does absolutely nothing for me, and you seem to think that takes away from black people today. Your one of those who likes to lump every one together as a group.  So please tell me how "Things have happened for me as a group"  when you really dont know my life.  you come in here with a lot of assumptions about people because they have light colored skin then wonder why you get the reaction you do
Click to expand...


This is snot about teaching you to hate yourself

This about you and others recognizing the contradictions in your arguments in this specific thread,

Spare me the lie of an argument about someone making things about groups. The laws of this nation made things about groups. So them you tell me who the laws of this nation do not apply to you but apply to others.

Understand this, I have read thread after thread  where you whites make assumptions about us a  people because we are darker than you. So  don't try that double standard here. I knew what kind of reaction I was going t get. I am not surprised by your refusal to take responsibility, and your immaturity. I  don't worry about your responses because I can post and at the end of my post can predict what each one of you are going to say. You and others here seem to believe that you have the right to judge and criticize us, But when we turn the tables using  the standards you use on us suddenly it's wrong. The lot of you conservatives live with a child like mentality.  For you to be so stupid as to cry about someone teaching your ass how to hate yourselves after there are countless threads here with you whites trying to teach us to hate ourselves is a show of just how childlike the conservative  white mind truly is..

And none of this going to register with you. You probably will now try that  lame conservative trick of you didn't answer my question or you didn't show me, when I should not have to show you anything, because the truth is that you already know.


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
Click to expand...


Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.


----------



## Divine Wind

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.
> 
> Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who claimed the US had slaves in 1640.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
Click to expand...


Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,


----------



## Divine Wind

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,
Click to expand...

Says the guys who claimed the US had slaves in 1640.


----------



## IM2

Divine.Wind said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.
> 
> Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who claimed the US had slaves in 1640.
Click to expand...


Yawn.  The US did have slaves in 1640. Your playing semantics is just another example of the childlike nature of the white conservative mind.


----------



## Hugo Furst

IM2 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.
> 
> Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who claimed the US had slaves in 1640.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  The US did have slaves in 1640. Your playing semantics is just another example of the childlike nature of the white conservative mind.
Click to expand...


The US didn't exist in 1640


----------



## Yarddog

boedicca said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
Click to expand...


Yeah you could just about guarantee that black kids who come from families that had both mother and father at home ended up staying in school and being financially successful at much higher rates than black kids who came from single parent homes.  and the same is probably true on average for white kids or any other race.


----------



## IM2

boedicca said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ So many underlying assumptions that pin the Bogometer ^^^
> 
> Most wealth is EARNED, not inherited.   If white people have more, perhaps you should consider the Culture and Values which cause people to Work-Earn-Save instead of engaging in your Neverending-Incessant-Racist-Race-Baiting-Victimology Schtick.
> 
> I reject your ideology of Collective-Inherited-Guilt.
Click to expand...


Like I care what you reject.

Now seriously you white folks do not want us to emulate your culture and how it made it's wealth.


----------



## IM2

WillHaftawaite said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.
> 
> Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who claimed the US had slaves in 1640.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  The US did have slaves in 1640. Your playing semantics is just another example of the childlike nature of the white conservative mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US didn't exist in 1640
Click to expand...


Semantics.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have learned from an early age that slavery was wrong, racism is wrong, discrimination is wrong.  I have no need to have someone try to convince me I need to hate myself for being born whatever race I was born into. Which is pretty much the premise of your thread.  If I don't work, If I don't try hard, I end up living under a freeway overpass. Same goes for black people the fact that there was once segregation in this country does nothing for me if I don't try to work and get ahead.  The fact that more white people have gone to college or have connections does absolutely nothing for me, and you seem to think that takes away from black people today. Your one of those who likes to lump every one together as a group.  So please tell me how "Things have happened for me as a group"  when you really dont know my life.  you come in here with a lot of assumptions about people because they have light colored skin then wonder why you get the reaction you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is snot about teaching you to hate yourself
> 
> This about you and others recognizing the contradictions in your arguments in this specific thread,
> 
> Spare me the lie of an argument about someone making things about groups. The laws of this nation made things about groups. So them you tell me who the laws of this nation do not apply to you but apply to others.
> 
> Understand this, I have read thread after thread  where you whites make assumptions about us a  people because we are darker than you. So  don't try that double standard here. I knew what kind of reaction I was going t get. I am not surprised by your refusal to take responsibility, and your immaturity. I  don't worry about your responses because I can post and at the end of my post can predict what each one of you are going to say. You and others here seem to believe that you have the right to judge and criticize us, But when we turn the tables using  the standards you use on us suddenly it's wrong. The lot of you conservatives live with a child like mentality.  For you to be so stupid as to cry about someone teaching your ass how to hate yourselves after there are countless threads here with you whites trying to teach us to hate ourselves is a show of just how childlike the conservative  white mind truly is..
> 
> And none of this going to register with you. You probably will now try that  lame conservative trick of you didn't answer my question or you didn't show me, when I should not have to show you anything, because the truth is that you already know.
Click to expand...



Maybe it's not about teaching white people to hate themselves, but it is most certainly about pressuring white people to assume a mantle of Collective and Inherited Guilt for somethign done centuries before they were born.

I reject such nonsense.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,
Click to expand...



LAIR!  White people have most certainly accumulated wealth by adhering to such principles.  Those are core and traditional American Values.

And good for your grandmother to teach you proper values.  Perhaps other black people would benefit from such teaching.


----------



## boedicca

Yarddog said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you could just about guarantee that black kids who come from families that had both mother and father at home ended up staying in school and being financially successful at much higher rates than black kids who came from single parent homes.  and the same is probably true on average for white kids or any other race.
Click to expand...




Kids from single parents homes of any racial make up do far less well in life than those raised in cohesive two parent families.

It's not a race issue.  It's an issue of Culture and Values.


----------



## boedicca

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ So many underlying assumptions that pin the Bogometer ^^^
> 
> Most wealth is EARNED, not inherited.   If white people have more, perhaps you should consider the Culture and Values which cause people to Work-Earn-Save instead of engaging in your Neverending-Incessant-Racist-Race-Baiting-Victimology Schtick.
> 
> I reject your ideology of Collective-Inherited-Guilt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I care what you reject.
> 
> Now seriously you white folks do not want us to emulate your culture and how it made it's wealth.
Click to expand...



LAIR.  I would be delighted to see anyone succeed through honest work and to accumulate plenty of wealth to ensure self-sufficiency.

Unlike you, I don't ascribe to zero sum game identity politics.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE? How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  More of the same old white conservative denials and excuses.
> 
> Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through.
Click to expand...



I never said racism doesnt exist in America. It surely does. But I don't need a peer reviewed study to tell me there are more good people out there than bad. If your living in Academia and not the real world then.... maybe you need that. Usually the underlying thread to you white guilt people is expropriation of wealth isnt it?  It's not in my power to change history. I can only control what is in my life, to the extent that I can.  It is in each person's hands to make their own success. Can we help each other ? yes.  Should we? yes sure.  But I'm not going to accept the hatred from the left in order to do that.


----------



## williepete

boedicca said:


> It's not a race issue. It's an issue of Culture and Values.


----------



## Divine Wind

IM2 said:


> ...The US did have slaves in 1640.....


Proof positive that you don't have a fucking clue about the history of the New World much less global human history.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IM2 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out where I used the word "We".
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,
Click to expand...

*
Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles.*

How'd they do it?
What's the white secret?


----------



## Yarddog

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles.*
> 
> How'd they do it?
> What's the white secret?
Click to expand...



If I go to the bar everyday, gamble it all away,  spend it all, party all night long and become an alcoholic, I wont end up living under an overpass because "Whites" have exploited people of other races.  Obviously I can fall back on those "white" principles once I lose my job and run out of money.


----------



## Divine Wind

boedicca said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you could just about guarantee that black kids who come from families that had both mother and father at home ended up staying in school and being financially successful at much higher rates than black kids who came from single parent homes.  and the same is probably true on average for white kids or any other race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kids from single parents homes of any racial make up do far less well in life than those raised in cohesive two parent families.
> 
> It's not a race issue.  It's an issue of Culture and Values.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.  Genetically, all humans are >99.5% alike.  The main differences between us are cultural, not genetic.  Skin color is no different than two identical trucks with two different paint jobs.


----------



## boedicca

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, misread it. Too much we stuff in the "community". Yes, blacks were treated badly but it's not an excuse today. Many are quite successful and living WAY better than me in this city alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering  that the facts show us that whites have 15 times the wealth of blacks and Hispanics, you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have 15 times the wealth of Blacks and Hispanics in my neighborhood? really?  The fact is, today Blacks and Hispanics can do something about it. They can get scholarships, loans, there is plenty of education available for them today in the United States, as long as they don't major in African American studies. Companies are more than willing to hire minorities and they can start their own businesses as well.  If they are making 15 times less as a "Group", then I guess they can do something about it. Its in their hands.  The whole point is kind of fucking riddiculous because your happiness or success in life is not predicated on what someone else has and what you don't. Now thats kind of 5th grade mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.
> 
> My dad took me to the bank to open my first savings account when I was in 2nd grade.  Both of my parents stressed getting an education, developing a work ethic, and saving-investing (as opposed to credit fueled instant gratification).  These values are healthy, and are the basis for how most people accumulate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn. My grandmother started a bank account for me when I was born. Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles. If they did, no one would be here saying anything different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles.*
> 
> How'd they do it?
> What's the white secret?
Click to expand...



Clearly it must be all of that oppressing poor people.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very brave of you to take a strong stand against slavery, after white guys defeated it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
Click to expand...



He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.

You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.


----------



## Iceweasel

IM2 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks weren't the only humans suffering from slavery. Your devotion to racism limits that. The website isn't big enough to list man's inhumanity to man throughout the ages, nor does perpetual hand wringing accomplish anything fruitful. People listen to losers like you or they make the best of things. The later types are those that gain success in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn! There is no devotion to racism here. And I am not going to quit pointing  out these issues just because your white ass thinks you can make me stop by calling me a racist. You are making excuses, and that's all the good you are. You are an irresponsible white American conservative full of excuses for your  own poor behavior while always wanting to demand that others behave in ways you never have.  YOU are a sorry piss poor example of an human being You provide us reason to justify abortion. I am  well respected man in my community with support and strong friendships with leaders of both major political parties in this state.  You are a nothing. It is YOU who is a loser..
Click to expand...

I don't have or need an excuse. You can keep making a fool of yourself trying to make white feel guilty about their skin color but you'll get the same responses. You may be well respected by racists but that means nothing to me. I'm the reason to justify abortion? Yeah, I know your type, a race baiting hater.


----------



## Iceweasel

IM2 said:


> Now seriously you white folks do not want us to emulate your culture and how it made it's wealth.


I don't care one way or the other. Blacks can succeed or listen to your drivel.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of whites did not die to end slavery. That is an inaccurate statement. In every thread all you do is talk about how slavery is over when the thread topic has never been slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there went evey shred a of credibility you ever had, out the window,  you might as well deny the earth is round. What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My credibility is just fine You are the one with none. Whites did not die to free the slaves. This thread is about how you guys want to tell everyone to not talk about slavery because it was 150 years ago but yet you talk abut something that happened 241 years ago that you had nothing to do with. Rush Limbaugh  has nothing to do with this thread topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing wrong about talking about slavery, it happened, it was wrong, it is still wrong. The problem is when white people today only are accused of benefitting from it, white people today are being linked to it, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did benefit from it. And that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

So ironic how you think you know what whites benefitted from, like we are all one person, yet you scoff at any whites suggesting they know anything about blacks.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No white guys fought to free the slaves. But this thread is about the fourth of July. A day that happened 240 years ago which means its too long ago to be celebrated or discussed by your standards, it is too old for this because none of you were here on July 4th , 1776. because this happened 241 years ago, it is irrelevant to today based upon the argument many of you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? I am trying hard to figure out what the hell you saying here.  As a one to one human thing. Yes,  a bunch of white people died to end slavery. We all get that slavery  was bad. It's gone with the freakin' wind. 150 + years ago. Limbaugh is like Colbert or Kathy Griffin. Entertainers that use outrage like  waving a a red flag in front of a bull. We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes the United states has been without slavery almost twice as long as it had it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the US had slaves beginning in 1640.  But this thread is not about the white folks claims of how slavery is over.and how it was 150 years ago s get over it. The issue here is that July 4, 1776 was 241 years ago and by your own standard things that happened that long ago are irrelevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is relevant today because we, as a country, no longer belong to Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had nothing to do with this.  You were not here when it happened. It happened 241 years ago. Stop living in the past.
Click to expand...

You are the one living in the past, constantly complaining about past injustice


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
Click to expand...

Why is it an issue? It was wrong, nothing can change it.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery could have ended when the Benin Empire and Nigerians stopped building their economy around the slave trade. But wait, they didnt. They didn't have a document saying all people were created equal either.
> A lot of things could have been, should have been, and then weren't. America , is a great country that a lot of people around the world are trying to come to for self advancment. To bad you can't be part of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Benin Empire and Nigeria have nothing to do with what happened in America.. Lets stop using Africa as an excuse. Part of the supposed greatness pf this nation that I participate in is the right to air my grievance peacefully as a citizen. This is the right people like you want to try silencing. That you try doing this is un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to grieve and i have the right to give my opinion.  The Benin Empire and other west Africans have everything to do with what happened in America. They were dealing in the slave trade long before Europeans got involved and the networks were already in place. And Europeans were taken as slaves first through the eastern slave trade anyway, slavery was nothing new to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have that right but you also have the right to be told how you are wrong by someone black  who has studied the issue of slavery deeper than you have. You see the trade of slaves were done by transactions, The slaves came over here from Benin on either Dutch or Portuguese ships primarily This means that a Dutchmen or a Portuguese individual or shipping company purchased the slaves. The slaves were not given away. So then if there is no purchase there is no slave trade.
> 
> So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.
> 
> There fore to say that slavery in the America/United States could have ended with the law written in in the constitution which forbade slavery immediately is correct.  You offer noting but excuses. But this is par for the course around here. You guys have an excuse for everything whites do that is wrong. You guys are quick to tell others how they are making excuses, but you feel it fine that you can. That is childish.
> 
> If we don't talk about slavery and try discussing how whites benefitted from segregation, well that didn't happen either. I mean you guys lie to yourselves completely about how things have happened for you here in this country. And it is very sad that people choose to live with such a refusal to accept reality to such an extent as you conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have learned from an early age that slavery was wrong, racism is wrong, discrimination is wrong.  I have no need to have someone try to convince me I need to hate myself for being born whatever race I was born into. Which is pretty much the premise of your thread.  If I don't work, If I don't try hard, I end up living under a freeway overpass. Same goes for black people the fact that there was once segregation in this country does nothing for me if I don't try to work and get ahead.  The fact that more white people have gone to college or have connections does absolutely nothing for me, and you seem to think that takes away from black people today. Your one of those who likes to lump every one together as a group.  So please tell me how "Things have happened for me as a group"  when you really dont know my life.  you come in here with a lot of assumptions about people because they have light colored skin then wonder why you get the reaction you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is snot about teaching you to hate yourself
> 
> This about you and others recognizing the contradictions in your arguments in this specific thread,
> 
> Spare me the lie of an argument about someone making things about groups. The laws of this nation made things about groups. So them you tell me who the laws of this nation do not apply to you but apply to others.
> 
> Understand this, I have read thread after thread  where you whites make assumptions about us a  people because we are darker than you. So  don't try that double standard here. I knew what kind of reaction I was going t get. I am not surprised by your refusal to take responsibility, and your immaturity. I  don't worry about your responses because I can post and at the end of my post can predict what each one of you are going to say. You and others here seem to believe that you have the right to judge and criticize us, But when we turn the tables using  the standards you use on us suddenly it's wrong. The lot of you conservatives live with a child like mentality.  For you to be so stupid as to cry about someone teaching your ass how to hate yourselves after there are countless threads here with you whites trying to teach us to hate ourselves is a show of just how childlike the conservative  white mind truly is..
> 
> And none of this going to register with you. You probably will now try that  lame conservative trick of you didn't answer my question or you didn't show me, when I should not have to show you anything, because the truth is that you already know.
Click to expand...

You are judging and criticizing whites. What responsibility are you expecting from whites?


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I would point out that the nation of Liberia was established to accept former slaves who wanted to return to Africa.  If you are here, it's because your ancestors CHOSE to stay in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I will point out that I don't give a damn what Libera was for. The fact is that they were Americans and they did not have to go any damn where.
Click to expand...


That's exactly right and the whole point.  They were Americans who CHOSE to stay.  They'd be appalled and ashamed of your attitude.


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no United States colony of Britain. You wrote U.S. existed in 1640. Distracts from your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not distract from my credibility. You wan to play word games and then play the game of we did not exist until the constitution was ratified That's childish and you do this to avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a matter of language.  He is right.  The U.S. did not exist in 1640.
> 
> You should have said "America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I know this and I don't care. This thread was not created to argue this and the most important and correct fact I did state was that on July 4th 1776, blacks were not free from any tyranny and that if we cannot discuss slavery or the racism of the founders because it is too long ago, then we should not be celebrating this day that happened 241 years ago. If I am living in the past because i mention slavery and the damages caused to blacks, the you are living in the past  by celebrating this day. If we are supposed to be grateful to whites wo did not fight to win our freedom from slavery in the civil war then whites certainly need to be grateful to the slaves who fought in the revolutionary war who gained no freedom after it was done and those slaves who gave their lives whites to be free from Britain. And if no one here was around for slavery, no one today was around on July 4th 1776. So ifi we cannot hold those in the past accountable for their racism we cannot credit them without being hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks were freedmen in 1776.  Other former slaves won their freedom by fighting for the patriot side.  Your hatred renders you blind to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you see the problem with that is I know some blacks were freedmen. But the issue here is that EVERY black should have been a freedmen not just some.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, but the fact is that they weren't.  However, today in the United States, slavery is illegal and people like you who want to use something that hasn't been legal for 152 years to claim you're oppressed now or owed something now is a non-starter.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
Click to expand...


It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past, 
up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist". 

Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.

And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.


That's like saying defeating Hitler was not the primary objective, preserving Europe was. The secession was the problem but slavery was the cause. You can read why the various states made their stance and slavery was the primary reason. 

This is all interesting historically and we should all know our history but only fools live in history.


----------



## theHawk

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Move back to Africa if you hate it in America so much.

But we know you won't.  You'd rather live as an "oppressed" black person in America than live anywhere in Africa.


----------



## katsteve2012

theHawk said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move back to Africa if you hate it in America so much.
> 
> But we know you won't.  You'd rather live as an "oppressed" black person in America than live anywhere in Africa.
Click to expand...


Where did the OP imply that he "hated America"? Futhermore, where did he say that he is "from Africa"? It's ratger difficult to "move  back" to somewhere that you're not from.


----------



## katsteve2012

Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying defeating Hitler was not the primary objective, preserving Europe was. The secession was the problem but slavery was the cause. You can read why the various states made their stance and slavery was the primary reason.
> 
> This is all interesting historically and we should all know our history but only fools live in history.
Click to expand...


I think that Hitler being defeated is in no way comparable to how slavery by default was abolished. Hitler was a madman who was slaughtering WHITE people. 

Slavery was a money making enterprise in America that made WHITE people wealthy, and when that venture became obsolete and a hinderance to industrialization, the southern states wanted it to continue.

I don't personally "live" in history, and have no emotional investment in the past, but I do object when people attempt to illustrate the Civil War as a humanitarian effort by white people to liberate slaves from bondage. 

The war was about the business of preserving and advancing the union, not liberating slaves.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bloody war is not fought to end something by default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
> up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
Click to expand...



Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.

Your denial is strong.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Preserving the union was first and foremost. Slaves were absolutely freed by default.
> 
> They were considered to be the equivalent of cattle during that era.
> In some cases even less.
> 
> *Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.*
> 
> *Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.*
> 
> *I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.*
> 
> *As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.*
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time saveslavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is noteither to save or to destroy slavery.
> . What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.*
> 
> *I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalwish that all men every where could be free.*
> 
> *Yours,
> A. Lincoln.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
> up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.
> 
> Your denial is strong.
Click to expand...


YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.

In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".

Too funny.


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying defeating Hitler was not the primary objective, preserving Europe was. The secession was the problem but slavery was the cause. You can read why the various states made their stance and slavery was the primary reason.
> 
> This is all interesting historically and we should all know our history but only fools live in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that Hitler being defeated is in no way comparable to how slavery by default was abolished. Hitler was a madman who was slaughtering WHITE people.
> 
> Slavery was a money making enterprise in America that made WHITE people wealthy, and when that venture became obsolete and a hinderance to industrialization, the southern states wanted it to continue.
> 
> I don't personally "live" in history, and have no emotional investment in the past, but I do object when people attempt to illustrate the Civil War as a humanitarian effort by white people to liberate slaves from bondage.
> 
> The war was about the business of preserving and advancing the union, not liberating slaves.
Click to expand...

Hitler wasn't the point. The point was that he was the reason we went into Europe. Slavery was the reason the states left, as I already explained.

And the south wanted it to continue because there was no farm machinery to replace them, unlike the industrialized north. You want to ignore history and facts for some reason. That said technology would have soon solved the problem, lots of blood spilled for nothing. Blacks still lived horribly even though they were "free".


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.
> 
> 
> But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.
> 
> 
> His actions reveal his words to be lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
> up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.
> 
> Your denial is strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.
> 
> In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".
> 
> Too funny.
Click to expand...

You have a big problem.

Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
*October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois*

_Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.
_
"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.


----------



## katsteve2012

Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
> up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.
> 
> Your denial is strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.
> 
> In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a big problem.
> 
> Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
> *October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois*
> 
> _Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.
> _
> "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
> 
> But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.
Click to expand...




Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.
> 
> You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
> up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".
> 
> Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's  most important objective was to save the union.
> 
> And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.
> 
> Your denial is strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.
> 
> In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a big problem.
> 
> Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
> *October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois*
> 
> _Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.
> _
> "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
> 
> But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.
Click to expand...


No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.


----------



## Iceweasel

katsteve2012 said:


> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.


There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.


----------



## IM2

I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?

It is sad to read a  bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their  existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery.  No one white died to free me. That's a lie.

This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing.  This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.

I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie  I did not celebrate July for this year either.  And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.

So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.


----------



## Mudda

IM2 said:


> I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?
> 
> It is sad to read a  bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their  existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery.  No one white died to free me. That's a lie.
> 
> This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing.  This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.
> 
> I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie  I did not celebrate July for this year either.  And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.
> 
> So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.


July 4th celebrates America which clearly you hate. If you hate it so much here, why don't you go somewhere that you'd enjoy? I know I would. But then again, you're probably on a no-fly list, so that means you can't go to Africa, where having flies land on your face in a national pastime. Sort of like a poor hump's version of baseball and catching flies.


----------



## Iceweasel

IM2 said:


> I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?
> 
> It is sad to read a  bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their  existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery.  No one white died to free me. That's a lie.
> 
> This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing.  This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.
> 
> I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie  I did not celebrate July for this year either.  And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.
> 
> So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.


But this is a horrible country, You complain all day everyday so your black ass is highly hypocritical. 

"We were not free"??? WTF, you don't live in reality. You are a slave to history and not mentally stable. You are a person but you think you are a race of beings.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?
> 
> It is sad to read a  bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their  existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery.  No one white died to free me. That's a lie.
> 
> This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing.  This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.
> 
> I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie  I did not celebrate July for this year either.  And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.
> 
> So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.




And yet you had the nerve to claim in another thread, that Rush supposedly claiming the blacks were being taught to hate America was "Racist".


And here you are, obviously hating America. Some one taught you to do that.

Do you consider yourself an American?


----------



## ProudVeteran76

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> I agree. Let their present ancestors go back to their own " native" countries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## ChrisL

So?  Don't celebrate the 4th then.  Sit at home and pout instead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChrisL said:


> So?  Don't celebrate the 4th then.  Sit at home and pout instead.



Just like every other day for him......


----------



## katsteve2012

Iceweasel said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
Click to expand...


That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
Click to expand...


And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
Click to expand...



This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes. 








Seems to be talking morality.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be talking morality.
Click to expand...


Really?  Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?

Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.


----------



## blastoff

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


What to the slave?  I dunno.  As soon as I come across one I'll ask though.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be talking morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?
> 
> Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.
Click to expand...



1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.


2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be talking morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?
> 
> Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.
> 
> 
> 2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.
Click to expand...


Hilarious. Do you really believe some of the things that  you post? 

The "majority" of white male voters did not vote for Lincoln. He won 40% of the popular vote and did so without the support of any southern states. 

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be talking morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?
> 
> Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.
> 
> 
> 2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious. Do you really believe some of the things that  you post?
> 
> The "majority" of white male voters did not vote for Lincoln. He won 40% of the popular vote and did so without the support of any southern states.
> 
> 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines
Click to expand...




I stand corrected. 

Instead of winning an absolute majority of white male voters, he "only" won a strong plurality, leading to more electoral votes than all his opponents combined.

His election was still a mandate for the anti-slavery movement, as evidence by the fact that the nation was torn in two, before he even took office.


----------



## Marion Morrison

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
Click to expand...


Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.


----------



## IM2

The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.

Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.




Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE. 


Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters? 


MMMM?!


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What this shows was a racist law that denied blacks our constitutional right to vote. If blacks were boters there probably woud bt no slavery to support.
Click to expand...



That also.

But, as I said, 

Lincoln, who was obviously morally opposed to slavery, won in an election where only white males could vote.


THis nation, as a whole, had a moral problem with slavery, and willing fought a horrible war to end it.


----------



## IM2

I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,

First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.




I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated. 

I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.


But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.


THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.


----------



## katsteve2012

Marion Morrison said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".
> 
> There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.
> 
> I am not one of the those who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
Click to expand...


Yes they were mustreated


Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
Click to expand...


40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.

Your attempts to portray Lincoln as an abolitionist who opposed slavery no matter what the risks were are an epic fail.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
Click to expand...


I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
Click to expand...


Men who died did so to preserve America.

There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.

If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
Click to expand...


Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
Click to expand...


And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.

And what did they all have in common?

They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.
> 
> And what did they all have in common?
> 
> They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.
Click to expand...


Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father who served.  One uncle died.  My father took a bullet for this country while fighting to save the US from Hitler. The uncle who died could not get buried with the whites and the others, well you know exactly what happened.


----------



## Marion Morrison

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.
> 
> And what did they all have in common?
> 
> They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father who served.  One uncle died.  My father took a bullet for this country while fighting to save the US from Hitler. The uncle who died could not get buried with the whites and the others, well you know exactly what happened.
Click to expand...


It seems you choose not to celebrate the 4th of July because you still consider yourself a slave? Amirite?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
Click to expand...







He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.

If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.



This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.


So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.


It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
Click to expand...



YOu expressed your disagreement, but you did NOTHING to support it.


I'm citing the election of a man morally opposed to slavery, documented history and you are just airily dismissing it, as your argument.


You fail.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
Click to expand...




I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.


Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
Click to expand...


Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.

You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".









Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
Click to expand...


I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.
> 
> Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
Click to expand...




1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win. 

Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory. 

This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.


2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.


3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.


4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.


----------



## AKIP

> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.



Yes, but the FALLACY of that is to assume that the nation chose the candidate BECAUSE of his moral opposition to slavery. 

That is like saying that America choose the most verbally obnoxious candidate, in Trump, ....hence the reason why he was elected is because he is verbally obnoxious....Ergo....America wants an obnoxious President.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
Click to expand...


You are trying to portray those who voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 as being "heroic" which is an absolute joke.

So before I entertain your lunacy any further, exactly what was the "great sacrifice" that these "exalted, supreme white males" made by voting for Lincoln?

Lastly if you did some historical research, you would find that there was a lot for your "heroes" to gain in that era by voting for Lincoln.....like free land grants to western settlers via the Homestead Act, which waz a Republican platform. 

The so called "morality" of people that they considered less than human being enslaved is a romanticized myth for fools.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
Click to expand...


This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu expressed your disagreement, but you did NOTHING to support it.
> 
> 
> I'm citing the election of a man morally opposed to slavery, documented history and you are just airily dismissing it, as your argument.
> 
> 
> You fail.
Click to expand...


I am dismissing your crap based upon  correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.


----------



## Marion Morrison

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to portray those who voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 as being "heroic" which is an absolute joke.
> 
> So before I entertain your lunacy any further, exactly what was the "great sacrifice" that these "exalted, supreme white males" made by voting for Lincoln?
> 
> Lastly if you did some historical research, you would find that there was a lot for your "heroes" to gain in that era by voting for Lincoln.....like free land grants to western settlers via the Homestead Act, which waz a Republican platform.
> 
> The so called "morality" of people that they considered less than human being enslaved is a romanticized myth for fools.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.
> 
> And what did they all have in common?
> 
> They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
Click to expand...


It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca


Marion Morrison said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to portray those who voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 as being "heroic" which is an absolute joke.
> 
> So before I entertain your lunacy any further, exactly what was the "great sacrifice" that these "exalted, supreme white males" made by voting for Lincoln?
> 
> Lastly if you did some historical research, you would find that there was a lot for your "heroes" to gain in that era by voting for Lincoln.....like free land grants to western settlers via the Homestead Act, which waz a Republican platform.
> 
> The so called "morality" of people that they considered less than human being enslaved is a romanticized myth for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.
Click to expand...


Please share your thoughts as to why. 
I have never stated that he was bad, 

I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.

But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......

As we have seen in this thread.


----------



## Marion Morrison

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.
> 
> And what did they all have in common?
> 
> They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to portray those who voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 as being "heroic" which is an absolute joke.
> 
> So before I entertain your lunacy any further, exactly what was the "great sacrifice" that these "exalted, supreme white males" made by voting for Lincoln?
> 
> Lastly if you did some historical research, you would find that there was a lot for your "heroes" to gain in that era by voting for Lincoln.....like free land grants to western settlers via the Homestead Act, which waz a Republican platform.
> 
> The so called "morality" of people that they considered less than human being enslaved is a romanticized myth for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please share your thoughts as to why.
> I have never stated that he was bad,
> 
> I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.
> 
> But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......
> 
> As we have seen in this thread.
Click to expand...


He went way outside the powers of the president. Jailed the opposition press in the North (against 1st amendment). Took over residences (also against the Constitution). I'm not in the mode for all instances, ok?

Sorry. Yet no one president has been as dictatorial as Lincoln.

He would have died within 3 weeks anyway if he hadn't been shot.

How sane was his brain as riddled with syphilis  as it was?


----------



## IM2

Marion Morrison said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  200,000 blacks who fought for freedom but were denied equal opportunity and real freedom when they were done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that lasted a long time after the Civil War. I had 7 uncles on my mothers side who all served in the military, over a period of 40 years.
> 
> And what did they all have in common?
> 
> They served their country, and when they returned home, they could not even get served a sandwich....unless it was through a backdoor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to portray those who voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 as being "heroic" which is an absolute joke.
> 
> So before I entertain your lunacy any further, exactly what was the "great sacrifice" that these "exalted, supreme white males" made by voting for Lincoln?
> 
> Lastly if you did some historical research, you would find that there was a lot for your "heroes" to gain in that era by voting for Lincoln.....like free land grants to western settlers via the Homestead Act, which waz a Republican platform.
> 
> The so called "morality" of people that they considered less than human being enslaved is a romanticized myth for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please share your thoughts as to why.
> I have never stated that he was bad,
> 
> I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.
> 
> But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......
> 
> As we have seen in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He went way outside the powers of the president. Jailed the opposition press in the North (against 1st amendment). Took over residences (also against the Constitution). I'm not in the mode for all instances, ok?
> 
> Sorry. Yet no one president has been as dictatorial as Lincoln.
> 
> He would have died within 3 weeks anyway if he hadn't been shot.
> 
> How sane was his brain as riddled with syphilis  as it was?
Click to expand...


Do you live in the north or the south?


----------



## Mudda

I dunno. IM2 how DO you feel on July 4th?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.
> 
> Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
Click to expand...



Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that. 

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu expressed your disagreement, but you did NOTHING to support it.
> 
> 
> I'm citing the election of a man morally opposed to slavery, documented history and you are just airily dismissing it, as your argument.
> 
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am dismissing your crap based upon  correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

A


Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you actually believe you are making a logical and intelligent argument. But this is a joke,
> 
> First off the fact that only white men could vote shows that the constitutional rights of all who were not white men had been violated. Number 2, had blacks been voting its highly doubtful that slavery would have been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu expressed your disagreement, but you did NOTHING to support it.
> 
> 
> I'm citing the election of a man morally opposed to slavery, documented history and you are just airily dismissing it, as your argument.
> 
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am dismissing your crap based upon  correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And your point is?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> A
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with the fact that the constitutional rights of blacks were violated.
> 
> I agreed that if blacks had the vote, that slavery would not have been as issue.
> 
> 
> But, that does not change nor challenge the fact that the actual all white male electorate voted for the anti-slavery Lincoln.
> 
> 
> THis nation had a moral issue with slavery to the point that men were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands to end it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you like repeating this argument about how morally torn this nation was bout slavery and how Lincoln was anti slavery and how all those whites went to war and died to end slavery, but that's simply not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu expressed your disagreement, but you did NOTHING to support it.
> 
> 
> I'm citing the election of a man morally opposed to slavery, documented history and you are just airily dismissing it, as your argument.
> 
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am dismissing your crap based upon  correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is?
Click to expand...


Beyond your reach, apparently.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were mustreated
> 40% of the popular vote which also exlcluded  the southern states does not equate to winning "bigly"....unless you are using a math system that has yet to be shared with the masses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men who died did so to preserve America.
> 
> There were also 200,000 Black union soldiers as well.
> 
> If you follow your usual form, you will minimize their contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
Click to expand...



Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won with a 10 point margin over his closest opponent.
> 
> If Hillary had won with a 10 point margin you lefties would be gloating to the nth degree.
> 
> 
> 
> This nation choose the presidential candidate that was MOST anti-slavery available, one that was on record as being morally opposed.
> 
> 
> So opposed that pro-slavers were wiling to fight and die by the hundreds of thousands rather than live under his administration.
> 
> 
> It is morally wrong of you to minimize the choices of the US voters of that time, and the price they paid for that choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to support your claim that my "form" would be to minimize their contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: The Voices in your head is not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
Click to expand...





1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you nuts? Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with an election that happened in 1860. And never in over 50 years of studying history have I seen anyone who completely ignores the economic and business aspect of the Civil War.
> 
> You  are not the "morality police", so get off of your high horse and do not confuse my unwillingness to buy into your one sided perception of history with a "moral wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not your therapist. Read what you post. You will see a pattern of one sided, half truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
Click to expand...


So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were. Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states. Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that you were confused by my mentioning of Hillary is noted and dismissed as not credible. My point stands. If  Hillary had won by a 10 point margin, you lefties would be gloating about the hugeness of her win.
> 
> Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.
> 
> This nation choose the candidate with the biggest moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> 
> 2.  You are lying about people who made great sacrifices to do the right thing. It takes no special judge to see that that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 3. I see that you were unable to support your claim and too intellectually dishonest to thus drop your claim. That is typical for a lefty.
> 
> 
> 4. I have not ignored the economic and business aspects of the war. I was talking specifically about the voters in the 1860 and 1864 elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
Click to expand...



Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.



> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.



I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here. 

Just giving you a reality check. 

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.






> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.




You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery. 

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
Click to expand...


This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.

No, America did not originate slavery, however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.

Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?

That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.

As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.

The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.

That was NOT Lincolns belief system.

"
In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
Click to expand...


Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.

So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
Click to expand...



Blah, blah, blah. 



> No, America did not originate slavery,



Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.




> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.




Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.

An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly. 



> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?




Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.

That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.




> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.




Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?



> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"




I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman, 

he would have responded something like this.







Also,


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What's next, a full page ad?

The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
Click to expand...


What about the Blacks who sold their fellow Blacks into Slavery in the first place?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
Click to expand...




Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.

You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.


And that's racist.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
Click to expand...


Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
Click to expand...


None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.

Your words are utter nonsense.

Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.

Which is racist and utterly stupid.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
Click to expand...


"Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.

Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.

As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.

So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.

And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!

That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.

If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
Click to expand...


Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.

You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check.  I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.
> 
> So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
Click to expand...


Do you just sit and think of statements to make that have no logical foundation just for the hell of it?

It does not matter if those who fought in the Civil War were alive or not when slavery was started in America. The fact is that there was also an opposing side that fought to KEEP slavery in effect.

Furthermore, as you probably DID NOT know, one the many economic reasons for  wanting to stop the expansion of slavery to the north was to protect the white labor force that was already present in that part of the country. So there was absolutely a vested interest  beyond "morality" for the Union troops to stop the progression of slavery.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
Click to expand...


You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".


"In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.

Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."

Source:
The Civil War


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.
> 
> Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.
> 
> As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.
> 
> So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.
> 
> And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!
> 
> That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.
> 
> If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.
Click to expand...





You are denying people the respect their deserve for their actions and sacrifices because of something someone ELSE did.


YOu are the  bad guy here. 




Lincoln paid with his life for doing what he thought was morally right, ie ending slavery.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
Click to expand...





Didn't care? 

Are you insane? You just dismissed the whole abolitionist movement.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just sit and think of statements to make that have no logical foundation just for the hell of it?
> 
> It does not matter if those who fought in the Civil War were alive or not when slavery was started in America. The fact is that there was also an opposing side that fought to KEEP slavery in effect.
> 
> Furthermore, as you probably DID NOT know, one the many economic reasons for  wanting to stop the expansion of slavery to the north was to protect the white labor force that was already present in that part of the country. So there was absolutely a vested interest  beyond "morality" for the Union troops to stop the progression of slavery.
Click to expand...



Sure, a MINORITY of whites fought to keep slavery alive. I'm not asking you to respect them. 

That fact that they shared skin color with their enemies who were fighting and dying to END slavery, does not detract from the NOble Sacrifices of those who were fighting to end slavery.


Lincoln and Davidson were both white. IT is insane of you to think that that shared skin color means that both are responsible for the other's actions.

Also, racist.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's next, a full page ad?
> 
> The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
Click to expand...





Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.


But it serves your purpose to.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose and fought and sacrificed, deserve respect for their choices and battles and sacrifices.
> 
> You want to deny them their due, because some one else, long ago, long before them, did something wrong, and had the same skin color.
> 
> 
> And that's racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
Click to expand...


I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.

The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.
> 
> Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.
> 
> As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.
> 
> So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.
> 
> And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!
> 
> That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.
> 
> If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying people the respect their deserve for their actions and sacrifices because of something someone ELSE did.
> 
> 
> YOu are the  bad guy here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln paid with his life for doing what he thought was morally right, ie ending slavery.
Click to expand...


 Lincoln lost his life because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what he said he would do at the outset...preserved the union. 
Morality was secondary. 

I bet you believe in Santa Claus tok


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those people did not pick Lincoln because he wanted to end slavery They did not fight to end slavery. They do not deserve credit for what they did not do,.You don't get to call me a racist because I tell the truth.. I said had they done what you claim, all they were doing was creating their own fuck up and that is nothing to celebrate. I'm quite sure you are of the opinion that Jews should be thankful to the Germans because the Germans stopped gassing them. Your claim is exactly like you saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
Click to expand...



1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.

2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.
> 
> Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.
> 
> As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.
> 
> So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.
> 
> And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!
> 
> That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.
> 
> If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying people the respect their deserve for their actions and sacrifices because of something someone ELSE did.
> 
> 
> YOu are the  bad guy here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln paid with his life for doing what he thought was morally right, ie ending slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln lost his life because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what he said he would do at the outset...preserved the union.
> Morality was secondary.
> 
> I bet you believe in Santa Claus tok
Click to expand...




You are the one who is believing the politician with every reason to lie, instead of looking at his statements when he was not under the gun and looking at his actions.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the people that fought the Civil War were alive when slavery was instituted in colonial America.
> 
> Your words are utter nonsense.
> 
> Racist nonsense, as you are treating all whites as a single entity.
> 
> Which is racist and utterly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
Click to expand...


"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended, Jim Crow began and the KKK was founded.

And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.

 Now it's obvious that you are a white nationalist loon who actually believes that the war was fought on a moral platfom and that Lincoln was a "humanitarian" who was on a mission of empathy to liberate slsves from captivity. What is even more hilarious is your belief that he was elected by a nation of noble, empathetic white males who believed the same nonsense that you are spinning in this thread.

Slaves were the equivalent of FARM ANIMALS in that era, which means they were not even considered human, and they became an obsolete source of labor in a nation that was being advanced towards industrialization. You can continue to try to convince yourself that the lie you believe is true, but it is not and you can't change history.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.
> 
> Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.
> 
> As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.
> 
> So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.
> 
> And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!
> 
> That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.
> 
> If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying people the respect their deserve for their actions and sacrifices because of something someone ELSE did.
> 
> 
> YOu are the  bad guy here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln paid with his life for doing what he thought was morally right, ie ending slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln lost his life because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what he said he would do at the outset...preserved the union.
> Morality was secondary.
> 
> I bet you believe in Santa Claus tok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is believing the politician with every reason to lie, instead of looking at his statements when he was not under the gun and looking at his actions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always an excuse. Those people lived their whole lives in a nation with legalized slavery and didn't care idiot. None of those white people who fought in the civil war fought for slavery. The 200,000 blacks did..I am treating those whites as they were at that time.
> 
> You don't get to invent what racism is. Just understand that I and it appears that steve too, will not be crediting people for fixing a fuck up that never should have been. What you think is not going to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
Click to expand...




1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.

2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, America did not originate slavery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.
> 
> An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished  that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.
> 
> That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.
> 
> The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.
> 
> That was NOT Lincolns belief system.
> 
> "
> In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:
> 
> "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,
> 
> he would have responded something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Blah Blah Blah" is a common response  when someone makes an ignorant statement like you did, and knows how stupid what they stated sounds after they are called out for it.
> 
> Everyone knows that slavery did not originate in America, so no need to thank me for making that statement......and as an editorial comment, I do not give a damn about the "emotional investment" of anyone, especially complete strangers on a message board. If someone makes a choice to act stupidly over long ago history, that is not my problem.
> 
> As far as the rest of your lame reasoning, "my upbringing" was likely of a much better quality than yours.....mainly because I was taught at an early age that just because a person sells bullshit, I am not obligated to buy it.
> 
> So if it bothers you that I do not feel an ounce of gratitude for the events that led to the abolishment of a system that NEVER should have existed, TOO BAD.
> 
> And as as far as "a black mans right to marry a white woman"?!
> 
> That is yet another stupid as well as humorous statement to add to your growing portfolio of bloopers....you cherry picked ONE. irrelevant  thing out of an entire speech that illustrates how far Lincoln was from being the "abolitionist" that exists in your feeble mind.
> 
> If it was not obvious that you are actually serious, I would recommend that you  take your slapstick comedy on the live performance circuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying people the respect their deserve for their actions and sacrifices because of something someone ELSE did.
> 
> 
> YOu are the  bad guy here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln paid with his life for doing what he thought was morally right, ie ending slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln lost his life because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what he said he would do at the outset...preserved the union.
> Morality was secondary.
> 
> I bet you believe in Santa Claus tok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is believing the politician with every reason to lie, instead of looking at his statements when he was not under the gun and looking at his actions.
Click to expand...

So Lincoln was actually a closet Abolitionist who did not let onto this fact until he was elected?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Click to expand...


There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome. 

The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.

As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Click to expand...



Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.



> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.




The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.




> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.




Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
Click to expand...


You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Click to expand...



Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...


KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.

You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
> felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
> 
> 
> "In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
> 
> Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
> 
> Source:
> The Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Click to expand...


Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
> 
> 
> But it serves your purpose to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
Click to expand...



It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.

ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
Click to expand...



I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.

Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress. 


Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery. 

IE, he did end slavery. 


Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
> 
> The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
> 
> ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
Click to expand...


A fact is not a claim.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
> 
> 2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
> 
> ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fact is not a claim.
Click to expand...




A claim is nothing but an opinion until it is supported.

I asked for that support and katsteve could not support it.

THat makes it nothing but unsupported opinion at this time.


YOu are welcome to stop filling these pages with meaningless shit, and back up his claim if you agree with it.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
Click to expand...


You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.

Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.

Your assessment is simply incorrect.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
> 
> ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fact is not a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A claim is nothing but an opinion until it is supported.
> 
> I asked for that support and katsteve could not support it.
> 
> THat makes it nothing but unsupported opinion at this time.
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to stop filling these pages with meaningless shit, and back up his claim if you agree with it.
Click to expand...


No what katsteve did was tell you to go do some research about Jim Crow and black codes. What he said in regard to these policies was fact. And it is supported by plenty of evidence. And you are welcome to kiss the innermost  moistest parts of my ass. Only a absolutely clinically insane loony toon nutjob would ask somebody to show supporting evidence to back a statement that Jim crow and back codes were just as bad as slavery when we all know what these things were.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
Click to expand...



In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.

You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.


You two being black is irrelevant .


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
Click to expand...


What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
> 
> And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...


Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.


----------



## IM2

This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
Click to expand...



Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
> 
> 2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
Click to expand...




So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position. 


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.




I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to  get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
> 
> You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
Click to expand...


I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.

Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.
Click to expand...


You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
Click to expand...


I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to whitey because he died to free us from slavery.

Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your bitch as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to whitey because he died to free us from slavery.
> 
> Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your bitch as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to whitey because he died to free us from slavery.
> 
> Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your bitch as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.
Click to expand...


For your interest. The link below is to book that my grandmother gave me a few years before she passed at almost 100 years of age. She used to talk to me for hours about how Jim Crow was just as bad as slavery and many of her stories were passed on to her from her own parents and grandparents.

The New York Times: Book Review Search Article


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to whitey because he died to free us from slavery.
> 
> Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your bitch as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your interest. The link below is to book that my grandmother gave me a few years before she passed at almost 100 years of age. She used to talk to me for hours about how Jim Crow was just as bad as slavery and many of her stories were passed on to her from her own parents and grandparents.
> 
> The New York Times: Book Review Search Article
Click to expand...


Thank you.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
Click to expand...




1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
> 
> Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
> 
> 
> Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
> 
> IE, he did end slavery.
> 
> 
> Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.
> 
> Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.
Click to expand...




Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways. 

Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.
Click to expand...



Nope, I've just documented that the effect of the various efforts to discrimination in favor of blacks, results in discrimination AGAINST whites. 

Your request to see, stated in plain text, open and formal discrimination is just a dodge.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
> 
> The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
> 
> 
> Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
Click to expand...



Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery. 

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.



Also, as you requested.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
Click to expand...


I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.

To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.

SMGDH.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I've just documented that the effect of the various efforts to discrimination in favor of blacks, results in discrimination AGAINST whites.
> 
> Your request to see, stated in plain text, open and formal discrimination is just a dodge.
Click to expand...


You have shown no law or policy that intentionally denies whites of a damned thing. You have shown equal rights policies and whine about how allowing others equal rights as whites discriminates against whites. That's what you have done.

Oh, you got it wrong, I'm not dodging anything, I simply am not going to waste my time showing you proof of how Jim Crow was the same or worse than slavery when everyone knows it was.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning  is always some stupid, infantile  statement about "poor maligned white people"
> 
> I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it.  Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
> 
> It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
> 
> As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed  ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
Click to expand...


This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.

As you requested


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who repeated claims  over and over again, not katsteve.  Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
> 
> Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
> 
> Your assessment is simply incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.
> 
> Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.
> 
> Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.
Click to expand...


That man would be you.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
Click to expand...




I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.


If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem. 

Actually, he would probably have lost the election.


So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.



(I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
> 
> Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
> 
> Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
> 
> Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
Click to expand...



your words, 


*"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*


in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.


THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.


Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.




*Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
> 
> You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
> 
> 
> You two being black is irrelevant .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.
> 
> Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.
> 
> Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That man would be you.
Click to expand...




I'm not the one making a claim and refusing to back it up, THat's you.

You are lying with the truth of your actions, right above in this  thread.

Here, I will cut and paste them to rub it in your face.

YOUR WORDS:"I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say."



FYI, asking someone to back up their claim is not childish.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
Click to expand...


You are not a moderator here, and I dont take orders from you, asshole.

And no, you "think" you are clear, but you are the one dodging.

What reason would he have for being anti slavery? Are you serious? I never said he was not. Your intention is to place him and anyone who cast a vote for him on a moral pedastal in order to glorify the only ones who were allowed to even vote in that era, which is laughable.

It is very clear in all historical accounts that the country could not effectively advance towards industrialization if slavery had remained intact.
The reasons for fighting the war and being anti slavery were rooted in the same issues. 

Did you ever take a history class?

Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
Click to expand...


You poor victim.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a moderator here, and I dont take orders from you, asshole.
> 
> And no, you "think" you are clear, but you are the one dodging.
> 
> What reason would he have for being anti slavery? Are you serious? I never said he was not. Your intention is to place him and anyone who cast a vote for him on a moral pedastal in order to glorify the only ones who were allowed to even vote in that era, which is laughable.
> 
> It is very clear in all historical accounts that the country could not effectively advance towards industrialization if slavery had remained intact.
> The reasons for fighting the war and being anti slavery were rooted in the same issues.
> 
> Did you ever take a history class?
> 
> Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Click to expand...




1. I can point out that you are an ass, and demand that you stop, based on the human norm of people not wanting to be asses.  If you actively want to be an ass, than, correct, I cannot compel you to stop. I will keep pointing it out and hoping though.


2. Can't see your link. Explain why having slaves picking cotton in the South meant that steel mills could not be built in the North.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor victim.
Click to expand...



That was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

What you did there was admit that you could not refute or even challenge anything I said. But you are too much of a dishonest lib to admit that. 

My point stands, and you are nothing but a propaganda spewing troll.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.
> 
> What you did there was admit that you could not refute or even challenge anything I said. But you are too much of a dishonest lib to admit that.
> 
> My point stands, and you are nothing but a propaganda spewing troll.
Click to expand...


Word vomit without substance. You never had a point or even a lucid thought.

You are a classic example of what cognitive dissonance looks like. Myopic, history denying fool.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a moderator here, and I dont take orders from you, asshole.
> 
> And no, you "think" you are clear, but you are the one dodging.
> 
> What reason would he have for being anti slavery? Are you serious? I never said he was not. Your intention is to place him and anyone who cast a vote for him on a moral pedastal in order to glorify the only ones who were allowed to even vote in that era, which is laughable.
> 
> It is very clear in all historical accounts that the country could not effectively advance towards industrialization if slavery had remained intact.
> The reasons for fighting the war and being anti slavery were rooted in the same issues.
> 
> Did you ever take a history class?
> 
> Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I can point out that you are an ass, and demand that you stop, based on the human norm of people not wanting to be asses.  If you actively want to be an ass, than, correct, I cannot compel you to stop. I will keep pointing it out and hoping though.
> 
> 
> 2. Can't see your link. Explain why having slaves picking cotton in the South meant that steel mills could not be built in the North.
Click to expand...


1. You could see the link just fine. You have a mental block when it comes to factual history.

2. You have a pattern of getting rattled when anyone disagrees with your quest to glorify privileged white males of the past as heroes, and those of today  as victims of blatant discrimination. So you are welcome to "demand, hope and pray" as you wish. 

You ask some if the most ridiculous questions ever. The south had a goal of expanding slavery into northern territories, andvtge north had a committment to maintaining a a white labor force. The two could not coexist. Any elementary or middle school student knows this.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.
> 
> What you did there was admit that you could not refute or even challenge anything I said. But you are too much of a dishonest lib to admit that.
> 
> My point stands, and you are nothing but a propaganda spewing troll.
Click to expand...


*Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*

And that is supposed to mean exactly what? Slavery existed during their lifetimes, that is a fact.  I am not going to give whites credit for doing something about a problem they created. That's how its going to be. All your childish name calling is not going to change that.

Your point stands only with you. I've refuted your shit since I got here. YOU cannot support your assertion by showing policies that completely denied whites of opportunity. You argue anti white discrimination by showing examples where whites have gotten the majority of opportunities above all others and your claim is they deserve or are entitled to all of the opportunities. And if they don't get all the opportunities then you cry about anti white discrimination. You're an idiot.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.
> 
> Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.
> 
> Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That man would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one making a claim and refusing to back it up, THat's you.
> 
> You are lying with the truth of your actions, right above in this  thread.
> 
> Here, I will cut and paste them to rub it in your face.
> 
> YOUR WORDS:"I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say."
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, asking someone to back up their claim is not childish.
Click to expand...


I don't need to waste my time backing up a FACT that you know to be the truth.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
> 
> You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
> 
> And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of  you about Jim Crow?
> 
> What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
> 
> That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
Click to expand...


He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.
> 
> What you did there was admit that you could not refute or even challenge anything I said. But you are too much of a dishonest lib to admit that.
> 
> My point stands, and you are nothing but a propaganda spewing troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> And that is supposed to mean exactly what? Slavery existed during their lifetimes, that is a fact.  I am not going to give whites credit for doing something about a problem they created. That's how its going to be. All your childish name calling is not going to change that.
> 
> Your point stands only with you. I've refuted your shit since I got here. YOU cannot support your assertion by showing policies that completely denied whites of opportunity. You argue anti white discrimination by showing examples where whites have gotten the majority of opportunities above all others and your claim is they deserve or are entitled to all of the opportunities. And if they don't get all the opportunities then you cry about anti white discrimination. You're an idiot.
Click to expand...


Truth indeed.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as you requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.
> 
> As you requested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your words,
> 
> 
> *"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."*
> 
> 
> in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> 
> THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.
> 
> 
> Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*
> 
> Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.
> 
> What you did there was admit that you could not refute or even challenge anything I said. But you are too much of a dishonest lib to admit that.
> 
> My point stands, and you are nothing but a propaganda spewing troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word vomit without substance. You never had a point or even a lucid thought.
> 
> You are a classic example of what cognitive dissonance looks like. Myopic, history denying fool.
Click to expand...


Here is my point for you AGAIN. 



*neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.*

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.
> 
> Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.
> 
> Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That man would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one making a claim and refusing to back it up, THat's you.
> 
> You are lying with the truth of your actions, right above in this  thread.
> 
> Here, I will cut and paste them to rub it in your face.
> 
> YOUR WORDS:"I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say."
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, asking someone to back up their claim is not childish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to waste my time backing up a FACT that you know to be the truth.
Click to expand...



Your opinion is not fact, no matter how confidently you claim it is.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
> 
> That is an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
Click to expand...



I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.
> 
> 
> I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.
> 
> I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.
> 
> You hsve a comprehension issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
Click to expand...


So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.

*"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Click to expand...

You will always be a slave. People like you are what keeps blacks from succeeding.


----------



## IM2

miketx said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will always be a slave. People like you are what keeps blacks from succeeding.
Click to expand...


Nah, people like me are why we keep moving forwards no matter what pussies like you try doing.

You're a scrub son.


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will always be a slave. People like you are what keeps blacks from succeeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, people like me are why we keep moving forwards no matter what pussies like you try doing.
> 
> You're a scrub son.
Click to expand...

He claims he moves forward yet all he can speak about is slavery. You're on the back of the bus and you don't even realize it.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?
> 
> 2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Click to expand...



1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.

2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions. 

Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!


----------



## IM2

miketx said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will always be a slave. People like you are what keeps blacks from succeeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, people like me are why we keep moving forwards no matter what pussies like you try doing.
> 
> You're a scrub son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he moves forward yet all he can speak about is slavery. You're on the back of the bus and you don't even realize it.
Click to expand...


Bah this thread was started about the fourth of July. The white boy here is the one talking about slavery. In fact I have created threads about things that happened after slavery and YOUR bitch ass kept taking about slavery. So you are the one going backwards.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.
> 
> To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated  repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
Click to expand...


*"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Click to expand...




If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.

And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.
> 
> 
> If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.
> 
> Actually, he would probably have lost the election.
> 
> 
> So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> (I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
Click to expand...


A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
Click to expand...


The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
Click to expand...




HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.


His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.

He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.

"Mr. Anti White Discrimination".....the world is out to get you. Its getting boring trying educate a thick headed dunce about remedial history.

LMAO at your idiocy.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
Click to expand...


He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.   

That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
Click to expand...



Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.


Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
Click to expand...



If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union. 


HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union. 


I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
Click to expand...


Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit. 

If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.

The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.

 And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have lost the election basically because he really wasn't anti slavery, but pro union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted plenty of quotes showing that he was anti-slavery, quotes backed up by his documented historical actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?. The people did not vote for Lincoln based on slavery. They did not fight any war to free the slaves. None of that is true. Lincoln did not care about the slaves, he states such. If he could have kept the union with slavery he would have done it. Now you don't quote that, but he said it and that was shown too.  The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states he did not free northern slaves That was shown to you also. You are just a dishonest little boy trying t push a bogus argument that is not based on fact.
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. His campaign platform was clearly anti-slavery. The voters knew that. The southerns knew it, it was why they rebelled.
> 
> 2. His statements in the period leading up to the Civil War were obviously failed attempts at diplomacy, as betrayed by his earlier more numerous words from when he was NOT under the gun, AND by his actions.
> 
> Unless you think it was an accident that he ended slavery. lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
Click to expand...


*"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "
*
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


*"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "
*
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "*
> 
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
Click to expand...




I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult. 

Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?

Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was truly his intent, than his campaign platform of preventing expansion of slavery into new southern states, and ensuring the eventual end of slavery in the US, was a huge mistake on his part, as it was a direct challenge to the interests of the Southern States.
> 
> And I said ABOVE, his actions made a lie of the quote you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
Click to expand...





If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.


The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.

He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration. 

EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
Click to expand...



His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.


It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions. 


You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
Click to expand...


And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "lie" is in your warped imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
Click to expand...


*I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "
*
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

Stop trying tp revise history. Lincoln did not give a damn about black people.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
Click to expand...


A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
Click to expand...



1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.

2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity. 

3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> HIs campaign platform showed his intent, to end slavery.
> 
> 
> His later words do not outweigh his campaign platform, nor his actions.
> 
> He did not "ACCIDENTALLY" end slavery in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "
> *
> Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
> 
> Stop trying tp revise history. Lincoln did not give a damn about black people.
Click to expand...




And you believe a politicians words over the evidence of his actions.


Sucker.


I guess that explains why you are a dem, too.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...



i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.


How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
Click to expand...


Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
.
Just face it, you've lost the argument.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
Click to expand...


I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
Click to expand...


Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?

I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that. 

But, now that we cleared that up. 


My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question. 



i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.


How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
Click to expand...


Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.
Click to expand...



Actually you and kat are making the same argument as klansmen, ie that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was a racist who believed in segregation.


YOur inability to understand anyone who disagrees with you, is just you being a normal liberal.


Your belief that your bullshit assumptions are good reason to insult other people, is just you being an ass.


But I repeat myself.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
Click to expand...



Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?


Only in your own little mind, fool.




i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.


How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you and kat are making the same argument as klansmen, ie that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was a racist who believed in segregation.
> 
> 
> YOur inability to understand anyone who disagrees with you, is just you being a normal liberal.
> 
> 
> Your belief that your bullshit assumptions are good reason to insult other people, is just you being an ass.
> 
> 
> But I repeat myself.
Click to expand...


I understand full well.  Based upon historical fact you are the one assuming. Klansmen are not making the argument me and Kat are. They are the ones who believe we should be grateful to whites for their efforts in fighting a war to free us from slavery, And that's your argument conehead.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lifetime of what? He believed blacks were inferior and that the races needed to be separate. Shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
Click to expand...


I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.

You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you and kat are making the same argument as klansmen, ie that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was a racist who believed in segregation.
> 
> 
> YOur inability to understand anyone who disagrees with you, is just you being a normal liberal.
> 
> 
> Your belief that your bullshit assumptions are good reason to insult other people, is just you being an ass.
> 
> 
> But I repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand full well.  Based upon historical fact you are the one assuming. Klansmen are not making the argument me and Kat are. They are the ones who believe we should be grateful to whites for their efforts in fighting a war to free us from slavery, And that's your argument conehead.
Click to expand...



I've heard white supremacists claim that the civil war was NOT fought over slavery.

If my opinion is based on historical facts, and it is, then I am not the one assuming. 


I've never heard a white supremacist who was interested in black gratitude.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
Click to expand...




Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.


YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract, 

but you never answer my point, nor my question.

I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.

The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we aren't supposed to be insulted by your consistent denial of our efforts to gain our own freedom by telling us how grateful we should be to whites fpr fighting to free us that was not so. Stop crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you and kat are making the same argument as klansmen, ie that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was a racist who believed in segregation.
> 
> 
> YOur inability to understand anyone who disagrees with you, is just you being a normal liberal.
> 
> 
> Your belief that your bullshit assumptions are good reason to insult other people, is just you being an ass.
> 
> 
> But I repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand full well.  Based upon historical fact you are the one assuming. Klansmen are not making the argument me and Kat are. They are the ones who believe we should be grateful to whites for their efforts in fighting a war to free us from slavery, And that's your argument conehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard white supremacists claim that the civil war was NOT fought over slavery.
> 
> If my opinion is based on historical facts, and it is, then I am not the one assuming.
> 
> 
> I've never heard a white supremacist who was interested in black gratitude.
Click to expand...


You are a white supremacist fool.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah all those slaves he freed in states that had seceded from the union.
> .
> Just face it, you've lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
Click to expand...


I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.


----------



## Yarddog

Really?  NO WHITE GUYS FOUGHT TO FREE SLAVES?  Not one right? thats what you just said.  First off the abolition movement was started by Quakers and other Christians who argued slavery was against their principals. Doesnt matter so much what Lincoln said or thought.  thats up for argument but the fact is, a lot of white guys signed up to fight because they thought slavery was wrong.  And most of those would have been poor whites, yeah the ones you dont like because they were white.  Anti slavery sentiment was still a recruiting tool wether or not the elites were fighting the south over slavery or economic reasons. Fact is , there is always the human factor that history books do not show and a lot of whites you would consider stupid bought into the whole free the slave thing.  You say, No white guys fought to free slaves.  That means not one. I'll say at least THREE of them did.

Celebrations like 4th of July are times meant to respect the dead and sacrifices they made.  It wasnt a perfect world by far and it is not.  
I don't even want you to celebrate the 4th of July, or celebrate this country. Maybe your right. America has been to hard on blacks. So please just sit it out for now on and lets just let it be about white people. We still have the right to respect our dead who died in battles. Never mind the fact that blacks also died, but whatever.
You want to WIN. so you you win. Your the winner.



The Civil War Was Won By Immigrant Soldiers

"One immigrant mother gave testimony in 1863 to an antislavery convention as to why her 17-year-old son was fighting for the Union. “I am from Germany where my brothers all fought against the Government and tried to make us free, but were unsuccessful,” she said. “We foreigners know the preciousness of that great, noble gift a great deal better than you, because you never were in slavery, but we are born in it.”

Following the failed Revolution of 1848, thousands of young Germans fled to America. They took up arms in what they saw as yet another battle in the revolutionary struggle against the forces of aristocracy and slavery. “It isn’t a war where two powers fight to win a piece of land,” one German enlistee wrote to his family. “Instead it’s about freedom or slavery, and you can well imagine, dear mother, I support the cause of freedom with all my might.”

In another letter written to his family in Europe, a German soldier gave a pithy explanation of the war: “I don’t have the space or the time to explain all about the cause, only this much: the states that are rebelling are slave states, and they want slavery to be expanded, but the northern states are against this, and so it is civil war!”

So it was civil war, but for many foreign-born soldiers and citizens, this was much more than America’s war. It was an epic contest for the future of free labor against slavery, for equal opportunity against privilege and aristocracy, for freedom of thought and expression against oppressive government, and for democratic self-government against dynastic rule. Foreigners joined the war to wage the same battles that had been lost in the Old World. Theirs was the cause not only of America, but of all nations.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He saved the Union.  Slavery had to end in order to accomplish that.
> 
> That was his intent and you need to STFU and quit trying to rewrite history from your perspectivr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
Click to expand...


His "historical policies" are a public record that emphasize preserving the Union. You are making up your personal preferences and believe your own fantasies.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little too factual for his pointed, sheet wearing head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
Click to expand...


What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
Click to expand...



Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The insult in question was implying I was in the Klan, you fool.
> 
> 2. Showing respect for others efforts on your behalf in no ways demeans or belittles the efforts of blacks who have fought for their freedom. That you don't understand that is a sign of your emotional immaturity.
> 
> 3. Your spin on my calling Kat on his asshole behavior is noted and dismissed. You are the crybaby here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the insult because you are making the same argument as those who are members of the klan make. There was not all that fighting on our behalf by whites that you have made up. Just face the truth and shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you and kat are making the same argument as klansmen, ie that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was a racist who believed in segregation.
> 
> 
> YOur inability to understand anyone who disagrees with you, is just you being a normal liberal.
> 
> 
> Your belief that your bullshit assumptions are good reason to insult other people, is just you being an ass.
> 
> 
> But I repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand full well.  Based upon historical fact you are the one assuming. Klansmen are not making the argument me and Kat are. They are the ones who believe we should be grateful to whites for their efforts in fighting a war to free us from slavery, And that's your argument conehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard white supremacists claim that the civil war was NOT fought over slavery.
> 
> If my opinion is based on historical facts, and it is, then I am not the one assuming.
> 
> 
> I've never heard a white supremacist who was interested in black gratitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a white supremacist fool.
Click to expand...



You are a moron, who does not understand the meaning of many of the words you use.

Also, as your post was nothing but an unsupported and unfair and vile insult, 

you are a vile piece of shit.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware that LIncoln waged a war to bring those states back into the Union and thus, his freeing of them was then effective?
> 
> I mean, that's what I was referring to, because I thought you had to know about that.
> 
> But, now that we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> My point stands. My question was not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
Click to expand...



I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he had not had an anti-slavery plank in his platform, there would have been no threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> HIs obvious intent to end slavery caused the threat to the Union.
> 
> 
> I can see why you want me to STFU, as it is very easy for me to reveal that you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His intent was to save the Union. He never placed anything else above that in order of importance.
> 
> The south fought for their "states rights" and their intent to expand to slavery to the northern states  or seceed and maintain it in the south.
> 
> And I don't care if you STFU or not. It is your right to continue to look like a  dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln got his way, as expressed in this 1860 campaign platform, and prevented slavery from being expanded to new states, this would have quickly led to the Free States gaining unchecked dominance in Congress and a lock on the Presidency, leading to an ever increasingly hostile to slavery, Federal Government.
> 
> 
> The election of Lincoln was an existential threat to the political and economic elite of the South, of that time, as their whole class was based on slavery.
> 
> He talked some diplomatic and/or political smack down the road to try to walk that back, when it was called for, but no one with any sense would ignore his actions and believe those statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a politician. His job was to work across party lines as the president. Your belief in what he "actually believed" is pure speculation, nor is it supported in any public address on record during his administration.
> 
> EVERY important transcript of his public speeches reveal that he was most concerned about and committed to preserving the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His job was to work across party lines, hence speeches and letters that contradict his life long opposition to slavery, his campaign platform, and his actions during his Presidency.
> 
> 
> It is not pure speculation when it is backed up by a lifetime of documentation and his actual actions.
> 
> 
> You are the one cherry picking his statements that serve your partisan political purposes without and consideration of context or Lincoln's historical policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His "historical policies" are a public record that emphasize preserving the Union. You are making up your personal preferences and believe your own fantasies.
Click to expand...



HIs historical policies include a campaign platform that was so anti-slavery that it literally torn the nation apart.

HIs historical policies include declaring all the slaves in the Confederacy free.

HIs historical policies include fighting the bloodiest war in US history to conquer those rebellious territories and enforce that emancipation.

YOu have NOTHING even close to that to contradict those examples of his policies.


Nothing beyond the empty words of a politician with every reason to lie.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
Click to expand...


I've answered what was needed to be answered.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
Click to expand...


I've answered what was needed to be answered.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
Click to expand...



I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult. 

YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)


YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point only stands with you. You've lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
Click to expand...


I've answered what was needed to be answered.


hunarcy said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
Click to expand...


Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.


----------



## Correll

hunarcy said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
Click to expand...




The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
Click to expand...



So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me, 

you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.


And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.


How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
Click to expand...


He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?

Loon.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
Click to expand...


No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
Click to expand...



I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points. 

WHich is what kat did.

Which is what you just did, shit head. 

(that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.

You lost the argument and that's just how it is.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
Click to expand...




I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
Click to expand...


This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.
> 
> You lost the argument and that's just how it is.
Click to expand...



ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.


Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that? 

DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?

YOU noticed. 


You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.


That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.


Because you know that you are in the wrong.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
Click to expand...


I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.
> 
> You lost the argument and that's just how it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?
> 
> DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?
> 
> YOU noticed.
> 
> 
> You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.
> 
> 
> That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.
> 
> 
> Because you know that you are in the wrong.
Click to expand...


You can keep trying this but you got the answer you are going to get.

I know I am right.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
Click to expand...




Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.


If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.


The Race Card is the most common attack.


Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
Click to expand...



So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?

Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject. 

You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".


And you were pretty quick on your reply...

I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.


Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.


How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.
> 
> 
> If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.
> 
> 
> The Race Card is the most common attack.
> 
> 
> Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.
Click to expand...


And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.
> 
> 
> If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.
> 
> 
> The Race Card is the most common attack.
> 
> 
> Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.
Click to expand...



i'm not demanding you answer it. 

You said you already answered it.


I asked for you to show me where you did that.


And you have been playing games since then.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?
> 
> Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.
> 
> You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".
> 
> 
> And you were pretty quick on your reply...
> 
> I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.
> 
> 
> Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.
> 
> 
> How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?
Click to expand...


I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He spoke the truth to you and you can't take it. You're sitting behind a computer telling a black man how he should be grateful to whites for his freedom, telling him how whites fought against racial discrimination when they were practicing it, and then making a claim of a entire nation being anti slavery along with a president that you claim ran only on an anti slavery platform when he did not and you expected that black man to say thank you?
> 
> Loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.
> 
> 
> If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.
> 
> 
> The Race Card is the most common attack.
> 
> 
> Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not demanding you answer it.
> 
> You said you already answered it.
> 
> 
> I asked for you to show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And you have been playing games since then.
Click to expand...


No you are the one playing games. I answered your question and am under no obligation t go back and show you where I answered it because you claim something.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?
> 
> Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.
> 
> You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".
> 
> 
> And you were pretty quick on your reply...
> 
> I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.
> 
> 
> Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.
> 
> 
> How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.
Click to expand...



That was not the claim the other poster made. 

He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.


He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.


But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?
> 
> Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.
> 
> You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".
> 
> 
> And you were pretty quick on your reply...
> 
> I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.
> 
> 
> Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.
> 
> 
> How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the claim the other poster made.
> 
> He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.
> 
> 
> He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.
> 
> 
> But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.
Click to expand...


The US wasn't anti slavery at that time. And the poster did state that Lincoln won because the north won a key battle.


----------



## Moonglow

Lincoln was running against a general he discharged named McClellon..He got 21 EC votes..He thought he was gonna show that Abe what a real man could do..


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.
> 
> "Mr. Anti White Discrimination"
> 
> LMAO at your idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
Click to expand...



You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.

If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?

So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.

If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.
> 
> You lost the argument and that's just how it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?
> 
> DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?
> 
> YOU noticed.
> 
> 
> You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.
> 
> 
> That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.
> 
> 
> Because you know that you are in the wrong.
Click to expand...


Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?
> 
> 
> Only in your own little mind, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.
> 
> 
> How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
Click to expand...


You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
Click to expand...

.

Northern Democrats nominated Steven Douglas.  Southern Democrats nominated John Breckenridge.  The Constitution Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.  Between them and Sam Houston of Texas, 60% of the vote was against Lincoln.  You might want to reassess your post.


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
Click to expand...


The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?
> 
> Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.
> 
> You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".
> 
> 
> And you were pretty quick on your reply...
> 
> I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.
> 
> 
> Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.
> 
> 
> How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the claim the other poster made.
> 
> He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.
> 
> 
> He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.
> 
> 
> But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.
Click to expand...


As this is a message board and not a real time conversation,  I left a message and then went on about my day.  When I logged on again, I saw your post and showed you that Lincoln won only 40% of the popular voted, meaning that 60% preferred someone else.  That would indicate that someone else would have gotten the majority of the popular vote, that candidate would have won.  But, with the Democratic Party fractured, it gave Lincoln the opportunity to win.  You might read this article as well:

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]


----------



## IM2

hunarcy said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.
> 
> You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question  challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
Click to expand...


I have read that article before.

*So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
*
0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.

*


*


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.
> 
> WHich is what kat did.
> 
> Which is what you just did, shit head.
> 
> (that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.
> 
> 
> If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.
> 
> 
> The Race Card is the most common attack.
> 
> 
> Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not demanding you answer it.
> 
> You said you already answered it.
> 
> 
> I asked for you to show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And you have been playing games since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are the one playing games. I answered your question and am under no obligation t go back and show you where I answered it because you claim something.
Click to expand...




You did not answer either the point nor the question.


You liberals just play propaganda games instead of engaging in serious or honest debate.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?
> 
> Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.
> 
> You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".
> 
> 
> And you were pretty quick on your reply...
> 
> I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.
> 
> 
> Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.
> 
> 
> How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the claim the other poster made.
> 
> He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.
> 
> 
> He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.
> 
> 
> But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US wasn't anti slavery at that time. And the poster did state that Lincoln won because the north won a key battle.
Click to expand...



THe US elected the anti-slavery president running on an anti-slavery campaign, and you don't consider that proof of the nation being anti-slavery?

LOL!!! Of course you don't. Cause that might undermine your constant attempts to deconstruct America.


The battle does not matter at all to the 1860 election, and does not negate the message of the 1865 election EITHER.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Mm, I will also  call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
Click to expand...




1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.

2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.


3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".


4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.

That is you being absurd. 

And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.
> 
> You lost the argument and that's just how it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?
> 
> DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?
> 
> YOU noticed.
> 
> 
> You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.
> 
> 
> That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.
> 
> 
> Because you know that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.
Click to expand...



I agree that pointing out that someone is a lefty is not a counter point.


*However pointing out that someone has been unable to show where they did something in this thread, that they repeatedly claim they did, IS!
*
But, by pretending to be confused about that obvious fact, you got to attack me and contribute to the attempt of your comrade to distract from the fact that he did not answer my point nor my question.


You lefties do like to play stupid.

FYI, the point in this thread is in the BOLDED portion. Please don't pretend to not understand that.

YOu are not fooling me.


----------



## Correll

hunarcy said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Northern Democrats nominated Steven Douglas.  Southern Democrats nominated John Breckenridge.  The Constitution Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.  Between them and Sam Houston of Texas, 60% of the vote was against Lincoln.  You might want to reassess your post.
Click to expand...



In my post, I pointed out that the other poster did not support their assumption that all opposing votes would have remained against Lincoln if there was only two candidates.


Would you like to take a swing at that?


----------



## Correll

hunarcy said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
Click to expand...



The Southern Dems split with the Northern dems because the northerns wanted to let new states vote on whether to allow slavery or not?


Sounds like they assumed that most new states would choose to be Free, and thus fairly quickly lead to political marginalization for them.


NOte that they did NOT see that as a path to INCREASING the number of slave states, RELATIVE to the number of Free States.


Their actions indicate that they felt they were living in a nation that was anti-slavery and becoming more so.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional  horseshit.
> 
> If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
Click to expand...


You are devoid of any sense or reason.
You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.

I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.

YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not. 

And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.

If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.
> 
> 
> If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.
> 
> 
> The Race Card is the most common attack.
> 
> 
> Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not demanding you answer it.
> 
> You said you already answered it.
> 
> 
> I asked for you to show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And you have been playing games since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are the one playing games. I answered your question and am under no obligation t go back and show you where I answered it because you claim something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not answer either the point nor the question.
> 
> 
> You liberals just play propaganda games instead of engaging in serious or honest debate.
Click to expand...


Yet you have failed in every attempt to engage in an honest debate, all that you have done has been to repeat the same noise without a supporting fact or thought. .
In order to debate, two things are needed. 

Knowledge of the subject and the ability to present the knowledge that you have.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,
> 
> you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.
> 
> 
> And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.
> 
> 
> How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.
> 
> You lost the argument and that's just how it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?
> 
> DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?
> 
> YOU noticed.
> 
> 
> You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.
> 
> 
> That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.
> 
> 
> Because you know that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that pointing out that someone is a lefty is not a counter point.
> 
> 
> *However pointing out that someone has been unable to show where they did something in this thread, that they repeatedly claim they did, IS!
> *
> But, by pretending to be confused about that obvious fact, you got to attack me and contribute to the attempt of your comrade to distract from the fact that he did not answer my point nor my question.
> 
> 
> You lefties do like to play stupid.
> 
> FYI, the point in this thread is in the BOLDED portion. Please don't pretend to not understand that.
> 
> YOu are not fooling me.
Click to expand...


Lol. Get over yourself. Why would I invest any of my time in trying to fool someone who is already ignorant and misinformed?


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.
> 
> 
> YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,
> 
> but you never answer my point, nor my question.
> 
> I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.
> 
> The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
Click to expand...



And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about Lincolns election results was that only white males could vote.
> 
> Blacks had been slaves in the north before the civil war just like in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Northern Democrats nominated Steven Douglas.  Southern Democrats nominated John Breckenridge.  The Constitution Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.  Between them and Sam Houston of Texas, 60% of the vote was against Lincoln.  You might want to reassess your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my post, I pointed out that the other poster did not support their assumption that all opposing votes would have remained against Lincoln if there was only two candidates.
> 
> 
> Would you like to take a swing at that?
Click to expand...


Your speculation ignores the fact that 60% voted against Lincoln.  Why don't you show us that if Lincoln ran against one, he'd have gotten more of the vote?


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.
> 
> Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.
> 
> 
> That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.
> 
> 
> That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Dems split with the Northern dems because the northerns wanted to let new states vote on whether to allow slavery or not?
> 
> 
> Sounds like they assumed that most new states would choose to be Free, and thus fairly quickly lead to political marginalization for them.
> 
> 
> NOte that they did NOT see that as a path to INCREASING the number of slave states, RELATIVE to the number of Free States.
> 
> 
> Their actions indicate that they felt they were living in a nation that was anti-slavery and becoming more so.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't disagree...However, you seem to believe that if the vote had not been split, Lincoln would have won.  The fact is that the Republican Party was new and wildly popular.  The Democratic Party was established and much more popular.  Only the fact that the Party splintered and so many people split the larger popular allowed Lincoln to win.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?
> 
> Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
Click to expand...




Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty. 

Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.

Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.

Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.

Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.


And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.



I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.

THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Click to expand...


 Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.

You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.

Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.

If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.


----------



## IM2

hunarcy said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which increases the impact of the fact that he won, so bigly. TWICE.
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing that blacks, if they could have voted would have been slavery supporters?
> 
> 
> MMMM?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
Click to expand...


What is often overlooked about black slave owners is that many bought their own family members in order to emancipate them.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.
> 
> YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
Click to expand...



1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.


2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.

And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.


----------



## hunarcy

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.
> 
> 
> This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.
> 
> 
> YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.
> 
> (hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860.  If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly".  In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion.  But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.
> 
> I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery.  However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
Click to expand...


I would expect it was a small number.  The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.


----------



## hunarcy

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is often overlooked about black slave owners is that many bought their own family members in order to emancipate them.
Click to expand...


If you read back, you'll find that's already been acknowledged.


----------



## hunarcy

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Click to expand...


I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding.  Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area.  Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.


----------



## Correll

hunarcy said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding.  Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area.  Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
Click to expand...



Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.

I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.


Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.



But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.

Well within their lifetimes.


----------



## IM2

hunarcy said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered what was needed to be answered.
> Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like  a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would expect it was a small number.  The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
Click to expand...


We know that, but those like Correll will not mention this and make claims of blacks owning slaves like blacks were the primary slave owners


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding.  Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area.  Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.
> 
> I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.
> 
> 
> Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.
> 
> Well within their lifetimes.
Click to expand...


No, you are talking about YOUR political perceptions of that time. Not the actual political perceptions.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Click to expand...


Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.
> 
> If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?
> 
> So yes. I am brutally  honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.
> 
> If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments  and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Click to expand...


There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.

 Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme. 

You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might read this article.  I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would expect it was a small number.  The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that, but those like Correll will not mention this and make claims of blacks owning slaves like blacks were the primary slave owners
Click to expand...



Err, no I didn't. I don't care about black slave owners. They are not relevant in any fashion to me.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding.  Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area.  Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.
> 
> I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.
> 
> 
> Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.
> 
> Well within their lifetimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are talking about YOUR political perceptions of that time. Not the actual political perceptions.
Click to expand...




Your post has nothing to do with anything you hit the reply button to.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
Click to expand...


Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.


Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.
> 
> 2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".
> 
> 
> 4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.
> 
> That is you being absurd.
> 
> And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
Click to expand...




1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?


2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.


Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.


----------



## IM2

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that article before.
> 
> *So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
> *
> 0.0064244518410009  percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is that they existed.  The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery.  I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would expect it was a small number.  The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that, but those like Correll will not mention this and make claims of blacks owning slaves like blacks were the primary slave owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, no I didn't. I don't care about black slave owners. They are not relevant in any fashion to me.
Click to expand...


Facts aren't relevant to you. Any white person who has gone to the lengths you have to create a 100 percent anti slavery white America  the 1800's will lie about anything.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
Click to expand...


I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.


----------



## Mudda

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.
Click to expand...

No gratitude for all the whites who died for your freedom?


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
Click to expand...


He is right.  You have never been a slave.  Have you?  

The facts are, that in the olden days if you were POOR, you were probably going to end up being someone's slave or an indentured servant.  That was how the world was back then.  You should be thankful that you live here in America today.  While your relatives may or may not have been sold into slavery (not ALL black Americans are descendants of slaves), YOU are very lucky to be living here America today.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are devoid of any sense or reason.
> You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting  and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.
> 
> I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.
> 
> YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.
> 
> And the fact that I will  not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.
> 
> If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
Click to expand...


You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.

You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".

You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.

Fuck you.


----------



## katsteve2012

Mudda said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No gratitude for all the whites who died for your freedom?
Click to expand...


Modern day whites who participated in the civil rights movement.

During the civil war era it was a matter of slave labor becoming obsolete and protecting a white northern labor force.

Slaves were not really freed. Jim Crow took effect immediately after the war ended.

Some you wingnuts here have this strange belief that as soon as slaves were "free" they immediately became equal citizens by law.

You are the same ones who believe that  the minute Affirmative Action was signed into effect that millions of white people were displaced by blacks

SMGDH.


----------



## ChrisL

You may not even be an ancestor of any slaves.  Just because you are black doesn't automatically mean you have slavery in your background.


----------



## ChrisL

For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
> 
> Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
> 
> Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
> 
> Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
> 
> Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
> 
> 
> And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
> 
> THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...



1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be. 

2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.

3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.

4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.


----------



## ChrisL

African Kings sold their poor people or actually traded them for goods and such things.  That is a sad fact.  Like I said, back in the old days, if you didn't have a lot of money or standing in society, then you were like garbage, no matter the color of your skin.  The rich and kings and monarchies took advantage of and used their poor people to get something for themselves.  Asian people, black people, white people, all people took part in slavery at one point or another throughout history.


----------



## Mudda

katsteve2012 said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No gratitude for all the whites who died for your freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern day whites who participated in the civil rights movement.
> 
> During the civil war era it was a matter of slave labor becoming obsolete and protecting a white northern labor force.
> 
> Slaves were not really freed. Jim Crow took effect immediately after the war ended.
> 
> Some you wingnuts here have this strange belief that as soon as slaves were "free" they immediately became equal citizens by law.
> 
> You are the same ones who believe that  the minute Affirmative Action was signed into effect that millions of white people were displaced by blacks
> 
> SMGDH.
Click to expand...

Tons of whites died in the Civil War giving you freedom and all you can do is bitch and moan. Typical reaction from the gorilla gallery.


----------



## katsteve2012

Mudda said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No gratitude for all the whites who died for your freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern day whites who participated in the civil rights movement.
> 
> During the civil war era it was a matter of slave labor becoming obsolete and protecting a white northern labor force.
> 
> Slaves were not really freed. Jim Crow took effect immediately after the war ended.
> 
> Some you wingnuts here have this strange belief that as soon as slaves were "free" they immediately became equal citizens by law.
> 
> You are the same ones who believe that  the minute Affirmative Action was signed into effect that millions of white people were displaced by blacks
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tons of whites died in the Civil War giving you freedom and all you can do is bitch and moan. Typical reaction from the gorilla gallery.
Click to expand...


No one is bitching and moaning, you inbred cave chimp. 

"Tons of whites" died to preserve a country that was at the time "For White People by White People". 

Learn some correct history.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING  you.
> 
> 
> Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provide appropriate gratitude to the blacks who died  in slavery, running away  from slavery, those like Nat Turner and those who fought in the civil war  for they are the ones who died fighting for my freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No gratitude for all the whites who died for your freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern day whites who participated in the civil rights movement.
> 
> During the civil war era it was a matter of slave labor becoming obsolete and protecting a white northern labor force.
> 
> Slaves were not really freed. Jim Crow took effect immediately after the war ended.
> 
> Some you wingnuts here have this strange belief that as soon as slaves were "free" they immediately became equal citizens by law.
> 
> You are the same ones who believe that  the minute Affirmative Action was signed into effect that millions of white people were displaced by blacks
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tons of whites died in the Civil War giving you freedom and all you can do is bitch and moan. Typical reaction from the gorilla gallery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is bitching and moaning, you inbred cave chimp.
> 
> "Tons of whites" died to preserve a country that was at the time "For White People by White People".
> 
> Learn some correct history.
Click to expand...


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.



Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
> 
> You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
> 
> Every  documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
> 
> If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
Click to expand...


Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.

Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
Click to expand...

How many hundreds of years old are you? 

No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?


----------



## katsteve2012

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
Click to expand...


Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.

Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking


----------



## bgrouse

katsteve2012 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.
> 
> Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking
Click to expand...

What "parts of Europe?" "Developed economies" is listed as having the smallest number per capita. I also see Europe and "Commonwealth of Independent States," whatever that means.


----------



## katsteve2012

bgrouse said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.
> 
> Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "parts of Europe?" "Developed economies" is listed as having the smallest number per capita. I also see Europe and "Commonwealth of Independent States," whatever that means.
Click to expand...


European Union Report Details Growth Of Human Trafficking


----------



## bgrouse

katsteve2012 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody fought for "your" freedom since you were never a slave in the US to begin with. Though there are plenty of African shitholes that still have lots of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.
> 
> Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "parts of Europe?" "Developed economies" is listed as having the smallest number per capita. I also see Europe and "Commonwealth of Independent States," whatever that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European Union Report Details Growth Of Human Trafficking
Click to expand...

So can you quote the part that says slavery is more common in Europe than in Africa?


----------



## katsteve2012

bgrouse said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up. That line doesn't work here. We were slaves and that is that.
> 
> 
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.
> 
> Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "parts of Europe?" "Developed economies" is listed as having the smallest number per capita. I also see Europe and "Commonwealth of Independent States," whatever that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European Union Report Details Growth Of Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can you quote the part that says slavery is more common in Europe than in Africa?
Click to expand...


Why do I need to quote anything? The stats were on the map of an earlier post. Its there for you to access and read

It is you who claimed that "it is blacks who are enslaving people". All that I did was to post information that Europeans do as well.

No one group of people are soley guilty.


----------



## bgrouse

katsteve2012 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many hundreds of years old are you?
> 
> No, you couldn't have been a slave, except maybe if you lived a part of your life in an African shithole. Then it's certainly possible. It's the blacks that are doing the slave trading and slave owning these days. Why don't you want to discuss current events instead of dwelling on nonexistent problems that haven't even been experienced by anyone who hasn't died of old age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery and today it is present at the highest rate in parts of Europe.
> 
> Infographic: A Global Look at Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "parts of Europe?" "Developed economies" is listed as having the smallest number per capita. I also see Europe and "Commonwealth of Independent States," whatever that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European Union Report Details Growth Of Human Trafficking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can you quote the part that says slavery is more common in Europe than in Africa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to quote anything? The stats were on the map of an earlier post. Its there for you to access and read
Click to expand...

The map didn't show that slavery is more common in Europe than in Africa.





> It is you who claimed that "it is blacks who are enslaving people". All that I did was to post information that Europeans do as well.
> 
> No one group of people are soley guilty.


I was making a statement regarding statistics. Is it theoretically possible he was a slave in the USA? Yeah maybe, like those girls who were kidnapped and raped by Castro for a few years, but I was trying to be reasonable and I was under the impression that the discussion dealt with pre-civil war era style slavery.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


When people bring up not knowing any actual American slaves, it's generally an argument against someone implying they deserve reparations, are not responsible for their actions, or are justified in blaming someone for actions that took place well over 100 years ago. When do the people who celebrate the fourth of July do that? Do they ask for reparations from Britain? Do they blame Britain for their individual, current actions? How often does that happen?


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> If we were not there so we can't be held responsible or blame those in the past for things is what you believe relative to certain issues then it applies to all issues. If you cannot hold people responsible for the wrongs you cannot credit them for the right.


You can hold 100+year old dead slave owners responsible all you want. I just wasn't aware any white Americans held modern white Brits to be personally responsible for 200-300 year old events.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
> 
> And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
Click to expand...



I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved. 


You are lying.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
Click to expand...


Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
> 
> Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
> 
> You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
Click to expand...


Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
> 
> 
> 2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
Click to expand...



THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.


reposted here.


I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being a pompous asshole and trying to dictate to me who I should feel gratitude towards is noted and dismissed.
> 
> You are a  complete stranger. You do not have a say so in what I feel gratitude for. You troll these boards as if you are some kind of authority and judge as well as jury. Labeling people that you dont even know as "lefty", telling everyone who disagrees with you "my point stands".
> 
> You are a smug jerk and I treat ypu sccordingly.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
Click to expand...


No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the people who have searched their ancestry and know that they were descended from slaves, it would be interesting to hear some of the stories of the trials and tribulations that you're ancestors faced.  You should think about doing a thread about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did I try to dictate to you how to feel? I thought I was attacking your justifications for you position, not trying to tell you what your feelings should be.
> 
> 2. I have a policy of treating people with as much civility as they show me. My default is civility and respect. You have earned "pompous asshole" with your uncalled for insults. Fuck you.
> 
> 3.All people judge those around them. This is a discussion forum. I am here to discuss politics with other people. If this is not what you are here for, you might be confused.
> 
> 4. If your response to a point of mine is stupid and weak and/or dishonest, I will not let you create the illusion of making a point by repetition, (a standard dishonest lefty tactic) and I will point out that my point still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
Click to expand...



I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs. 


NOne of that is my personal opinion.

My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.


ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
Click to expand...


No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
Click to expand...



You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.
Click to expand...


No we aren't cherry picking shit. We aren't ignoring shit either. But you are making shit up.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a load of bullshit Correll.  It's just that simple. The nation didn't choose shit. At best half the nations white men voted and white men did not constitute the entire nation. And don't give those white men credit for what they did not do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
Click to expand...



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

He wanted to end the war.

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


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


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
Click to expand...


Correct. Any credible historian knows that Lincoln's priority was to save the Union. 

There is no historical information anywhere  that validates him placing ending slavery on "moral grounds" above saving the Union. 

That's some made up B.S. that Correll pulled out of his anal cavity.

Lincoln, the Presidency, and Prudence: Restoring the Union and Ending Slavery


----------



## bgrouse

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.
Click to expand...

Lincoln let some states keep their slaves in exchange for joining the union.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been there done that. In this forum that would be a waste of time...fodder for wingnuts who would
> Your "points" are usually not founded on amything but speculation....as far as the rest of your drivel....word vomit.
> 
> Sure your "points" stand. For absolutely nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
Click to expand...


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

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

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we aren't cherry picking shit. We aren't ignoring shit either. But you are making shit up.
Click to expand...



Yes, you are. You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.
> 
> I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.
> 
> I'm giving them credit for what they did do.
> 
> 
> THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.
> 
> THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.
> 
> That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
Click to expand...




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


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


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


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


----------



## Correll

bgrouse said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln let some states keep their slaves in exchange for joining the union.
Click to expand...


And how long did that last?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
Click to expand...



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

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


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Right.

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


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


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


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


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
Click to expand...


No it really doesn't. Because there was this 100 year period after slavery and that ended with MLK and others getting us the right to vote completely with no obstacles, the end of school segregation and unequal facilities based on race, the civil rights act which allowed us equal protection under the law, fair housing instead of racist housing policies, the EEOC which makes certain we get a true change at equal opportunity, just to name a few. Therefore your false narrative of America pertaining to whites fighting for the rights of blacks for geneations is what's undermined here.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
Click to expand...


Blah, Blah, Blah. You are incorrect. This was shown to you. You lost.


----------



## bgrouse

Correll said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not a credible argument it is a laughable one at best. Lincolns stated words was that his goal was to save the union. That's was it. You can't put other words in his mouth just because you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are cherry picking his qoutes, ignoring context AND ignoring his actual actions and results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln let some states keep their slaves in exchange for joining the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how long did that last?
Click to expand...

Long enough for him to consolidate his power.
I never said he wasn't a ****** lover. He was just torn between that love and his love of murdering whites.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lincoln fucked whores and would have been dead from syphillis within 2 weeks if he hadn't have been shot.

It's kind of like McCain, you have to wonder how much in the right mind they are.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.
> 
> You need to  understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.
> 
> The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are not capable of distinguishing the difference between "your opinion" and a "documented fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah. You are incorrect. This was shown to you. You lost.
Click to expand...


Indeed it was. Over and over. But ibtellectuslly dishonest individuals will normally deny and deflect facts, but  will also defend their own abject stupidity.


----------



## Marion Morrison

I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.

He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.

Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.

However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.

There's always going to be some sick people.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
Click to expand...



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


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

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


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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
Click to expand...




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

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


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.



Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery. 

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


And that it the standards he should be judged by.


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


----------



## MaryL

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
Click to expand...


I finally realize that this is not an act on your part. You are a nutcase living in an alternate reality where real facts have no merit.

You really are not even capable of reading and understanding elementary level history, are you?

 It is absolutely astonishing that someone could be as misinformed and as willfully ignorant as you are in an age of easily accessible  information.

That in itself is far more digusting than anyones refusal to give Lincoln accolades just to appease the likes of you.

Now. On the subject of experiencing REAL oppression, are you actually stupid enough to believe that just casting a vote Lincoln was heroic?


----------



## katsteve2012

MaryL said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
Click to expand...


In his own words........."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of Blacks into society as equals to whites"


----------



## Correll

MaryL said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
Click to expand...



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


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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


Your lunacy knows no boundaries.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it really doesn't. Because there was this 100 year period after slavery and that ended with MLK and others getting us the right to vote completely with no obstacles, the end of school segregation and unequal facilities based on race, the civil rights act which allowed us equal protection under the law, fair housing instead of racist housing policies, the EEOC which makes certain we get a true change at equal opportunity, just to name a few. Therefore your false narrative of America pertaining to whites fighting for the rights of blacks for geneations is what's undermined here.
Click to expand...




And what you just did there was post a narrative of America as being Evul and Racist.


Which is what you NEED, so as to justify your hatred and bigotry and your blaming of all bad on whites and your expectation of continued discrimination in favor of blacks.


You just validated my post with your attack on it.


But you are too dim and/or dishonest to admit it.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah. You are incorrect. This was shown to you. You lost.
Click to expand...



Blah, blah, blah, you saying over and over stupid shit is not showing me anything.


YOu are the one ignoring not only his earlier words, but his campaign platform and his actions.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.
> 
> 2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
Click to expand...



And once again you cite his words, spoken at a time when he would be under tremendous pressure to be diplomatic with the South and/or his northern critics who might not have wanted to fight a blood war over slavery, 

and ignore his words when he was not under such pressure, his campaign platform, and of course is ACTIONS AND RESULTS.



You have words to support your view. 


 I have words,  *AND* formal campaign platform, *AND* historical policies,  *AND* actions *AND  *results.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is not only not true, but does not challenge or even address my point in the post your were supposedly responding to.
> 
> 
> reposted here.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly backed up my points with documented historical quotes and ACTIONS by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
Click to expand...





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

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lunacy knows no boundaries.
Click to expand...



That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. 


Your post is invalid and dishonest. 

My point(s) stand, completely unchallenged by your bullshit.


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


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

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


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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
Click to expand...


Says a man who is completely convinced of his position. 

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


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


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


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


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not. You have only  posted your opinion, and that does not qualify as a credible argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you cite his words, spoken at a time when he would be under tremendous pressure to be diplomatic with the South and/or his northern critics who might not have wanted to fight a blood war over slavery,
> 
> and ignore his words when he was not under such pressure, his campaign platform, and of course is ACTIONS AND RESULTS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have words to support your view.
> 
> 
> I have words,  *AND* formal campaign platform, *AND* historical policies,  *AND* actions *AND  *results.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing  to be happy about nor is it something  that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.
> 
> Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you cite his words, spoken at a time when he would be under tremendous pressure to be diplomatic with the South and/or his northern critics who might not have wanted to fight a blood war over slavery,
> 
> and ignore his words when he was not under such pressure, his campaign platform, and of course is ACTIONS AND RESULTS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have words to support your view.
> 
> 
> I have words,  *AND* formal campaign platform, *AND* historical policies,  *AND* actions *AND  *results.
Click to expand...


Quite the opposite. Words that I have posted have been copied directly from historical facts and numerous sites that I have posted and you have ignored.

*Here is the Republican platform of 1860.  See if you can find anything that speaks to "moral opposition" to slavery. You won't because it is not there.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620

*Historical policy? Blacks were HISTORICALLY equivalent to farm animals at that time so WTF are you saying?

*Actions? He kept the union whole, and that was his intent from the outset.

*Results? Slaves were freed by default and then promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws which in many ways were equally as oppresive as slavery.


Now what?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
Click to expand...


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

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

So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.


----------



## katsteve2012

Marion Morrison said:


> I don't perceive katsteve as being racist like im2 is. I perceive him as being intelligent and proud of his heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> He's right about Lincoln's motivations during the Civil War.
> 
> Lincoln was just as racist as any of them. Believe me when I tell ya, the majority of southern plantation owners cared more for the black people around them than Lincoln.
> 
> However when that crap was legal, there were some nasty people, slave collars and all that.
> 
> There's always going to be some sick people.



Thanks MM. Corrells problem is that he believes that any accomplishment by Black Americans has come at the expense  of white people.

He believes that black  people collectively should revere and worship Lincoln for "waging a war to free the slaves" and also worship the "great white men" who sacrificed themselves by voting him into office.....even though no one except white men were allowed  to vote at the time. (SMGDH)

Correll is a frustrated white dude with a god complex, and has no subservient blacks at his disposal to humor him and his psychosis. 

He really should have been  born in a bygone era when he could have been guaranteed by law that he was better than the most accomplished black man. 

But unfortunately for him, that is not his reality.

Poor Correll.

That aside, I dont think that IM2 is a racist, as I have never seen him post anything that indicates that he views himself as superior to anyone with race being the determinant of that sentiment.


----------



## IM2

Liberal has nothing to do with this. I'm a liberal and I agree with Katsteve who is not. Conservatives like you ant to revise history to take out anything unflattering to whites. This is why they are working real hard in every state to get textbooks changed. That's all you are trying to do here. But you have been rejected. Not only by Katsteve and I but your fellow conservative whites.


----------



## IM2

I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..


----------



## Marion Morrison

IM2 said:


> I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..



Oh, idk, maybe it's the reparations thing.


----------



## IM2

Marion Morrison said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, idk, maybe it's the reparations thing.
Click to expand...


So in your mind I am not proud of my heritage for saying that we deserve reparations for at least 241 years of continuing white racism we have faced. Especially when all others who got done badly have gotten and still get reparations.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, idk, maybe it's the reparations thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your mind I am not proud of my heritage for saying that we deserve reparations for at least 241 years of continuing white racism we have faced. Especially when all others who got done badly have gotten and still get reparations.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you deserve reparations for the fact that some other people are racist? If someone calls me a mean, racist name while I'm walking outside, do I deserve reparations for it?


----------



## IM2

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, idk, maybe it's the reparations thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your mind I am not proud of my heritage for saying that we deserve reparations for at least 241 years of continuing white racism we have faced. Especially when all others who got done badly have gotten and still get reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think you deserve reparations for the fact that some other people are racist? If someone calls me a mean, racist name while I'm walking outside, do I deserve reparations for it?
Click to expand...


You are a dumb ass.. I mean straight out ignorant. I am talking about us getting reparations due to things that occurred because of institutional policy and government laws at every level that denied blacks and still do. Someone calling me a racist name while I'm walking outside does not deny me a job.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what makes Morrison, a white man, think he can determine that I am not proud of my heritage because I point out white racism and how whites like him continue to benefit from it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, idk, maybe it's the reparations thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your mind I am not proud of my heritage for saying that we deserve reparations for at least 241 years of continuing white racism we have faced. Especially when all others who got done badly have gotten and still get reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think you deserve reparations for the fact that some other people are racist? If someone calls me a mean, racist name while I'm walking outside, do I deserve reparations for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dumb ass.. I mean straight out ignorant. I am talking about us getting reparations due to things that occurred because of institutional policy and government laws at every level that denied blacks and still do. Someone calling me a racist name while I'm walking outside does not deny me a job.
Click to expand...

Can you quote one of these current or recent policies and laws denying blacks jobs? Or are we talking ancient history here?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lunacy knows no boundaries. I don't need to "minimize"  anything, especially over old history that I know and you are obviously oblivious to.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've cited the Republican Party Platform of 1860, I've cited Lincoln's stated personal beliefs. I cited his actual historical ACTIONS and policies that fully demonstrate his stated personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> NOne of that is my personal opinion.
> 
> My personal opinion is based on that, and thus supported by it, and THAT is a very credible argument.
> 
> 
> ie That Lincoln was anti-slavery on moral grounds and fought the war to end slavery AND save the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was fought to save the union, and the only thing being "deconstructed" here is your made up nonsense which is based on what you have "assumed" Lincolns intent was through your own warped interpretation of events that have been historically recorded in a completely different context than what you have the apptitude to even comprehend.
> 
> The root cause of your ignorance is that to your unethical, disingenuous  core you believe that black citizens of today owe a debt of gratitude for a war that was fought to preserve a union that they remained 2nd class citizens in for 100 years after the war ended....and thats some stupid bullshit. You also think that ANY gains, no matter what they are that have been recognized by black citizens since then, have been at the expense of white people. Lincoln WAS NOT "radically anti slavery" in fact he was viewed by many as neutral on the subject.
> 
> If you find that statement to be offensive, too fucking bad. Thats truth, and you cannot change it.
Click to expand...


The war was fought over slavery. 

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

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

This guy was viewed as "neutral" on slavery?

LOL!!!




























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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you cite his words, spoken at a time when he would be under tremendous pressure to be diplomatic with the South and/or his northern critics who might not have wanted to fight a blood war over slavery,
> 
> and ignore his words when he was not under such pressure, his campaign platform, and of course is ACTIONS AND RESULTS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have words to support your view.
> 
> 
> I have words,  *AND* formal campaign platform, *AND* historical policies,  *AND* actions *AND  *results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.
> 
> I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.
> 
> Just giving you a reality check.
> 
> Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.
> 
> 
> Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.
> 
> That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you cite his words, spoken at a time when he would be under tremendous pressure to be diplomatic with the South and/or his northern critics who might not have wanted to fight a blood war over slavery,
> 
> and ignore his words when he was not under such pressure, his campaign platform, and of course is ACTIONS AND RESULTS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have words to support your view.
> 
> 
> I have words,  *AND* formal campaign platform, *AND* historical policies,  *AND* actions *AND  *results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite. Words that I have posted have been copied directly from historical facts and numerous sites that I have posted and you have ignored.
> 
> *Here is the Republican platform of 1860.  See if you can find anything that speaks to "moral opposition" to slavery. You won't because it is not there.
> http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620
> 
> *Historical policy? Blacks were HISTORICALLY equivalent to farm animals at that time so WTF are you saying?
> 
> *Actions? He kept the union whole, and that was his intent from the outset.
> 
> *Results? Slaves were freed by default and then promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws which in many ways were equally as oppresive as slavery.
> 
> 
> Now what?
Click to expand...




HIs policy of having all new states enter the Union as Free States, was a direct and existential threat to slavery.

THe Slave states knew that, and that was one of the reasons they rose up in rebellion.

No. It was NOT an overt declaration of "moral opposition" to slavery. (it was far more than that)

That you asked for that was a dishonest dodge on your part.

The slavers saw it for what it was. The End of Their World.



His actions I was referring to was that he ended slavery in America. Funny that you failed to mention that. 


REeeeeaaaalll funny....


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
> 
> He might not have pass muster by 21st century standards, but for his time, he was a radical.
> 
> 
> And that it the standards he should be judged by.
> 
> 
> It is disgusting to see people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
Click to expand...




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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lunacy knows no boundaries. I don't need to "minimize"  anything, especially over old history that I know and you are obviously oblivious to.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was fought to save the union, and the only thing being "deconstructed" here is your made up nonsense which is based on what you have "assumed" Lincolns intent was through your own warped interpretation of events that have been historically recorded in a completely different context than what you have the apptitude to even comprehend.
> 
> The root cause of your ignorance is that to your unethical, disingenuous  core you believe that black citizens of today owe a debt of gratitude for a war that was fought to preserve a union that they remained 2nd class citizens in for 100 years after the war ended....and thats some stupid bullshit. You also think that ANY gains, no matter what they are that have been recognized by black citizens since then, have been at the expense of white people. Lincoln WAS NOT "radically anti slavery" in fact he was viewed by many as neutral on the subject.
> 
> If you find that statement to be offensive, too fucking bad. Thats truth, and you cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was fought over slavery.
> 
> Your inability to show gratitude to those who fought and died for your ancestors is a lack of character on your part.
> 
> That blacks did not go from slavery to equality as defined by a 21st century lefty is no excuse for your behavior.
> 
> This guy was viewed as "neutral" on slavery?
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those who consider or considered him "neutral" on the subject are fools.*
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lunacy knows no boundaries. I don't need to "minimize"  anything, especially over old history that I know and you are obviously oblivious to.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party platform of 1860 never touched on slavery as a moral issue. The hometead act and preventing expansion of slavery into new territories for the purpose of PRESERVING THE EXISTING LABOR FORCE were their reasons.
> 
> Slavery as a moral issue? No. Thats your alternative, made up history at work. You need to attend an 8th grade remedial history class.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Evul,(lol)  Racist" narrative that you are attempting to assign to me, is YOU, projecting your butthurt, bitch tantrum over me not buying your bullshit, revisionist, dumbass "theory".
> 
> You cannot produce a single post of mine where I have expressed any such sentiment.
> 
> My position through all of your disjointed diatribes has been consistent: There is nothing anywhere thst supports your delusion that "Lincoln fought the wat to free slaves".
> 
> That is an incredibly stupid and misinformed statement on your part, and you should be embarrassed for continuing to repeat the same nonsense
> 
> 
> Lincoln's prinary goal fron the outset was to preserve the union. First and foremost. History validates that fact, and YOU cannot change that fact.
> 
> So put away the "race card". You're  wrong, misinformed and are looking foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted plenty of quotes from Lincoln, from when he was not under pressure to be diplomatic with the South, expressing his deep moral opposition to slavery.
> 
> You ignore them, because Lincoln getting elected, and fighting and winning a war to free the slaves, undermines your narrative of America always being Evul and Racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong. The only reason Lincoln wanted to free slaves was in the hopes that they'd rise up against their masters in the South.
> 
> He wanted to end the war.
> 
> He ended up sending Sherman down south, now I've talked to a couple of old people 'round GA and they hate Sherman.
> 
> 
> I have to side with IM2 and katsteve on that one, because they're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe war wouldn't have even happened if his campaign platform was not radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> Or if he was not known to be radically anti-slavery.
> 
> 
> SUre, in the context of the moment, I'm sure he hoped that freeing the slaves might cause unrest in the South.
> 
> 
> But ending slavery was always a long term goal of Lincoln's,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His immediate goal was to save the union at any cost.  And in his own words if he could have accomplished that goal without freeing a single slave, he would have done so.
> 
> Just because you choose to repeatedly recite revised history does not make it truth.
> 
> "
> With a single mission in mind, Abraham Lincoln fought, during his entire presidency, not just against the South, but also against his critics—a cross-section of Americans that included everyone from journalists to generals. For Lincoln, the task was always to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
> 
> By the time Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth president on March 4, 1861, seven states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—had seceded from the Union. Also by the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, this new confederacy of former states had already elected its own president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the former United States senator from Mississippi and secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Well in advance of his first day in office, Lincoln knew he would preside over a fractious form of the once-united land. He committed himself to the preservation of the Union, but his first task was to bring it back together by whatever means necessary"
> .
> Source:
> Abraham Lincoln Elected President, Part III: Overcoming Adversaries and Preserving the Union | National Portrait Gallery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you focus on his words, at the point in time when he was under tremendous pressure to walk back his threat to slavery.
> 
> 
> And again you ignore his words, when he was NOT under such pressure, and thus far more likely to be honest,
> 
> AND you again ignore his actions, which was to end slavery.
> 
> 
> You are engaged in an attempt to deconstruct America, and thus need to minimize Lincoln's bravery and the bravery and sacrifice of the American white citizens of the time, who fought and died to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was fought to save the union, and the only thing being "deconstructed" here is your made up nonsense which is based on what you have "assumed" Lincolns intent was through your own warped interpretation of events that have been historically recorded in a completely different context than what you have the apptitude to even comprehend.
> 
> The root cause of your ignorance is that to your unethical, disingenuous  core you believe that black citizens of today owe a debt of gratitude for a war that was fought to preserve a union that they remained 2nd class citizens in for 100 years after the war ended....and thats some stupid bullshit. You also think that ANY gains, no matter what they are that have been recognized by black citizens since then, have been at the expense of white people. Lincoln WAS NOT "radically anti slavery" in fact he was viewed by many as neutral on the subject.
> 
> If you find that statement to be offensive, too fucking bad. Thats truth, and you cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was fought over slavery.
> 
> Your inability to show gratitude to those who fought and died for your ancestors is a lack of character on your part.
> 
> That blacks did not go from slavery to equality as defined by a 21st century lefty is no excuse for your behavior.
> 
> This guy was viewed as "neutral" on slavery?
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those who consider or considered him "neutral" on the subject are fools.*
Click to expand...





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


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

No matter how hard you try to.

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

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

I and ONLY  I determine where my gratitude is placed.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was a man of his time and thought blacks were inferior. He was conflicted and thought slavery was evil, though. My take away was that Lincoln thought that at the end of the war, all freed slaves would be repatriated  "back"  to Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My take away is that that he considered repatriation because he didn't think that blacks and their former masters could live in peace.
> 
> 
> But my point about being disgusted by people who have never had to stand up against real oppression against people who were willing to fight back, to downplay and dismiss the heroism of Lincoln and those who fought and died at his command, AND those who voted for him, stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
Click to expand...



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

I responded to that, and you ignored my response. 

THus, no response to my post.

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

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

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

YOU ARE PATHETIC.



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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure your point stands. Most delusional people believe what they imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

LMAO


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says a man who is completely convinced of his position.
> 
> So, if delusional people believe what they imagine, how do you know you aren't delusional?
> 
> 
> You posted words to support your position. I posted words, and actions and results to support my position.
> 
> 
> Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
Click to expand...




Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not a liberal, you fool. And I have posted link after link that illustrate what Lincolns intent was during his campaign AND during his time in office.
> 
> It is not my problem that you have chosen to remain ignorantly misinformed. His words, actions and results all were consistent with realigning the union. Moral opposition was NOT a factor in the campaign of 1860 and was not ANYWHERE in the Republican platform as you imagined.
> 
> So yes. Delusional fits you perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Mudda

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing in your post addressed the point of my post.
> 
> 2. THe vast majority of "liberals" today are actually regressive leftist. That is the usage of the word, I was using, and you certainly fit.  Do you prefer Marxist, or Stalinist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
Click to expand...





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


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


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

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




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


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


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


----------



## Conservative65

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



No one alive today was a slave or owned slaves.


----------



## Conservative65

IM2 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find  soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..
Click to expand...


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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I have said has adressed the topic, as as the fact that you do not dictate to me what I have gratitude for. And, this is not a liberal or conservative issue as you are trying to make it, so I am not having that discussion.  It is about your made up history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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




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

Source:
The Party of Lincoln ...


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You went off topic with a personal comment about me being delusional.
> 
> I responded to that, and you ignored my response.
> 
> THus, no response to my post.
> 
> If you didn't want to discuss "delusional" then you should not have brought it up.
> 
> AND not discussing it mean that you responded to my post without addressing it.
> 
> AND you can't even be honest about that pathetically little point.
> 
> YOU ARE PATHETIC.
> 
> 
> 
> And your blatant anti-Americanism is a part of modern liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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






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




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

Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.




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




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

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


----------



## IM2

Conservative65 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find  soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find a slave and ask him what he thinks about the speech.    How long are those that never were slaves going to blame those of us that never owned slaves for their faults?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Papageorgio

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


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He believed blacks were inferior. And that's just the way it is
Click to expand...


Yep, that's the way it is.


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


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



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

And that's the way it is.


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit. I didn't read any post but the first and last posts, so I made my comments on those two and nothing else.
Click to expand...


Not a problem.


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
Click to expand...


What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?


----------



## IM2

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
Click to expand...


It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?

Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?

So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



You were never a slave...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
Click to expand...


You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
Click to expand...


No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were never a slave...
Click to expand...


That play is old. It doesn't work.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to celebrate the 4th of July, don't. Most of the world doesn't celebrate it either. Not a real big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were never a slave...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That play is old. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  But I am not the one here crying because no one wants to accept my tale of how whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> And that's the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were never a slave...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That play is old. It doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were a slave owned by the southern white society?
> 
> Also what are you doing to stop modern day slavery from sex trafficking to force labor?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you hope to get out of life by perpetually living in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

IM2 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were never a slave...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That play is old. It doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were a slave owned by the southern white society?
> 
> Also what are you doing to stop modern day slavery from sex trafficking to force labor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said that is old, it won't work, and it only displays your childishness..
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## jillian

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you will get rude back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't see any correlation between rude discourse and the declining fortunes of the left?
Click to expand...


says the person who responded to the post by saying "find a slave and ask him"?

it's so cute how you think that isn't rude.

like rightwingnuts are polite?


----------



## jillian

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to live in the past. So what do you get out of life by perpetually asking dumb ass questions that ignore that the very beliefs held by those in the past are held by whites today?
> 
> Racism sill exists so who is talking about the mother fucking past?
> 
> So you go ask Correll why he keeps arguing about how Lincoln freed the saves and his whole candidacy was about freeing the slaves and how white America fought to free the salves and stop asking me that stupid ass fucked up white boy question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past not use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your show even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
Click to expand...


You celebrate July 4th 1776 every year. That's the past and your white ass did not fight in the revolutionary war. That was the point of the OP.

Deal with it.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

jillian said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used a speech from the 1800's in your op, so you are living in the past...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
Click to expand...


So I am having hysteria?

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


----------



## jillian

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
Click to expand...


you seem overwrought on the subject.

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


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> freeing the slaves


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm living right now 8-8-2017. You whites bring up the past all the time so maybe it's best you shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
Click to expand...


You were never a slave.

Deal with it.

Native Americans were genocide and had their land stolen.

Deal with it.

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

Just your stupid logic...

Also I am Canadian...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

jillian said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
Click to expand...


Sure.

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

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


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight  to win your freedom from Britain either.
> 
> So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
> FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852
> 
> Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
> *
> For the rest of the speech:
> *
> http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were never a slave...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That play is old. It doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were a slave owned by the southern white society?
> 
> Also what are you doing to stop modern day slavery from sex trafficking to force labor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said that is old, it won't work, and it only displays your childishness..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it shows that you use the past to justify your bigoted hatred. You never lived a life of a slave nor lived under Jim Crow laws or told your place was at the back of the bus.
> 
> If you are mistreated it is because you are a race baiting bigot.
> 
> The only people I feel sorrow for are Native Americans but for you and everyone else that are not Native American can crawl on your cross and die as false martyrs ..
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your own op you used a speech from the 1800's, so it is you living in the past.
> 
> In fact it was you using the past for your op, and not whites.
> 
> So stop using the past to justify your hatred for those you have no clue about.
> 
> Also you have no power to stop me from posting and if you dislike what I am writing the put me on ignore seeing facts bother you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were never a slave.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Native Americans were genocide and had their land stolen.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Oh, I hope you do not celebrate Christmas because of you do, well you were not Christ...
> 
> Just your stupid logic...
> 
> Also I am Canadian...
Click to expand...


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

Deal with it.


----------



## IM2

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I cited a speech on the 3rd of July 2017.
> 
> Like I said you whites use the past all the time so your bullshit ain't going to work. Therefore you really need to shut up.
> 
> So if you don't like seeing the truth or being told to shut up don't come to me with this stupid childish bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
Click to expand...


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

So yes, shut up.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't write childish nonsense using a speech from the 1800's and then claiming you do not live in the past nor use it to argue whites suck.
> 
> You have political leaders of today use but instead you went in the past because the reality is you live there and believe your life is like it was for slaves of that day.
> 
> Now it is your turn little Nikita to bang your shoe even harder...
> 
> At least I did not reach to the 1800's for my reference...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.
> 
> So yes, shut up.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## IM2

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand why you're so testy about what he posted. what it should be is food for thought... not hysteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.
> 
> So yes, shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.
> 
> It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am having hysteria?
> 
> Next you will proclaim I am racist because I am not black...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.
> 
> So yes, shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.
> 
> It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Likkmee

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read and answered your repetitive illogical rants over and over. And you are right on one account. Your "points" are in fact pathetic and small minded, indeed.
> 
> But  I will humor you just for entertainment value one last time.
> 
> I don't agree with your Lincoln=Hero B.S. so that is Anti American? (Not that I really give a shit what you think), but you're a funny little character.
> 
> LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
Click to expand...


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

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


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


Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He believed blacks were inferior. And that's just the way it is
Click to expand...



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



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

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.
> 
> "Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.
> 
> 
> Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "_n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]_
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia
Click to expand...




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

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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.
> 
> "Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.
> 
> 
> Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "_n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]_
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about this do you think supports your view in what way?
> 
> Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,
> 
> the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?

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

*He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:
_
"Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"

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

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

_


----------



## IM2

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you seem overwrought on the subject.
> 
> I simply asked why it would offend you so. an intelligent and aware person would use it as something to think about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.
> 
> So yes, shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.
> 
> It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when are you going to post the law that excludes blacks?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Slash

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.
> 
> "Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.
> 
> 
> Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "_n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]_
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about this do you think supports your view in what way?
> 
> Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,
> 
> the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> *Clearly states that Lincoln was not viewed as an abolitionist.
> 
> *He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:
> _
> "Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"
> 
> This is not what you have insisted. The above does not support a "radical anti slavery posture" as you have insisted he subscribed to.
> 
> *Lastly, I have stated from the outset that he was against slavery expanding because he saw it as necessary to protect the existing  labor force. You have claimed over and over that he was focused on the moral aspect first and foremost. I never denied that he expressed moral opposition to slavery....but it is a HISTORICAL FACT that moral opposition was not the party platform.
> _
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The OP'er is the one telling posters to shut up but I am wrought over the subject.
> 
> It seem you are confused again or is it you just want to silence all those you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are from Canada. You did not fight the evolutionary war and won freedom only for American whites on July 4th, 1776, nor was slavery legal in Canada.
> 
> So yes, shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if negroes honor July 4th. I don't much care about it personally. Just another day off from work. What is funny is how they keep bringing up slavery.
> 
> It's long gone. You were never a slave. Your actions are your responsibility, not those of whitey, either the ones that have been dead for over 100 years or otherwise. I don't blame some people in England if I get into a fight with cops over speeding/drugs. Negroes need to take responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh shut up. Whites are where they are today because the government excluded others. And that incudes your white ass. Whites still practice the same racism they always have. So take responsibility and end that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when are you going to post the law that excludes blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post volumes of pure unadulterated racist bullshit and then your punk ass has the unmitigated gall to ask me to show you a mother fucking law that excludes blacks.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Slash said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falsehoods galore. Your overall "perspective" is not shared in any historical source out there.
> 
> "Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency.
> 
> 
> Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "_n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil Waritself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2]In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]_
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about this do you think supports your view in what way?
> 
> Cause it pretty much says what I've been saying, that his campaign plank to bar new slave states was an obvious plan to end slavery,
> 
> the slave states saw that, the voters saw it, and the voters elected him and the SOuth rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> *Clearly states that Lincoln was not viewed as an abolitionist.
> 
> *He sought a "peaceful enduring" end to slavery. As it states:
> _
> "Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners"
> 
> This is not what you have insisted. The above does not support a "radical anti slavery posture" as you have insisted he subscribed to.
> 
> *Lastly, I have stated from the outset that he was against slavery expanding because he saw it as necessary to protect the existing  labor force. You have claimed over and over that he was focused on the moral aspect first and foremost. I never denied that he expressed moral opposition to slavery....but it is a HISTORICAL FACT that moral opposition was not the party platform.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that the Republican party was a new liberal party that were off-shoots of the Whigs who wanted slavery to be stopped.  Literally anti-slavery was the Republican party's platform.  "Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men" was their motto even.  They wanted Free Men, working on Free land, able to labor what they wanted.   It wasn't "slavery here but not there".  The Republican party couldn't even get on the ballot in the deep south.
> 
> You realize one of his first orders as president was freeing the slaves in DC (the only place the president had power to free the slaves"  You realize that every state that seceded said that him being an abolitionist was a reason why.
> 
> It's funny how people love to remove context.  Like when Lincoln was on the campaign trail in slave states.  Those speeches are where all the "hey I'm not a full on abolitionist" talks come from that people pull out today.  Him trying to get votes in states where slavery was the top issue.   It's like Hillary saying that she supports the 2nd amendment when talking to the midwest, or Trump saying in more liberal area's that he's not against transgender.  It was a campaign speech.  Do you really believe those are the end all?
> 
> He was a moderate abolitionist sure.  Didn't want to kill millions to end slavery (just like Trump saying he want's to negotiate rather than fight N. Korea doesn't mean he supports them).  He hated the term, as it was politically toxic.   But the South knew he was.  His actions showed he was.
Click to expand...


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

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

You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.


----------



## Slash

katsteve2012 said:


> I understand the history of how the Republican party came into existence.
> 
> The fact remains that newly freed black slaves were not part of the plan of "free land and free men".
> 
> You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.




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

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

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

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


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


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


----------



## katsteve2012

Slash said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the history of how the Republican party came into existence.
> 
> The fact remains that newly freed black slaves were not part of the plan of "free land and free men".
> 
> You left out the part about repatriation after slavery ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were part of the free land and free men.  They were the entire point of it.
> 
> And yes.  Early on, Lincoln did throw around the idea of IF black former slaves WANTED to return home, that might be an option.  When you read some of the emancipation letters from the south you can see why.  I think it was the Governor of Alabama that basically said in a letter, that he'd be all for freeing the slaves.  But most likely they'd begin to feel that they were actual people.  And of course whites couldn't put up with that so they'd have to end up killing them all off, and that'd be tough for the whites to live with.  It's a pretty brutal letter that basically explained the thought at the time that there was NO WAY blacks and whites could live together as free men in the south.
> 
> Granted the emancipation proclamation made that entire thought a moot point and that ended the idea of doing something similar to Liberia at the time.   When Lincoln accepted freedmen as soldiers on Jan. 1, 1863, he guaranteed a biracial future for the country, because no president could ask a man to fight for his country and then tell him it was no longer his country.
> 
> So while he THOUGHT about that as a voluntary idea if they would want to as a potential option, him putting blacks to work for wages and putting them in the military is the path he chose to ACT on.  You do realize some of the dirtiest politics in White House history was Lincoln fighting to get the 13th amendment passed.  That his signature on that amendment is the ONLY presidential signature to ever be on an amendment.  If you thought Obama thought strongly about Obamacare, that was nothing compared to how Lincoln fought to get a USA with blacks and whites both able to work together as free men.
> 
> 
> Granted revisionists of history would like to say that he tried to forcibly return all slaves rather than just explore the option of a voluntary return, because that suits the story they wish that we had for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> Put it this way.  Every president since the end of WWII has had an option to use nuclear weapons.  Probably talked about it, had a plan to use them.   They all aren't mass murderers hell bent on nuclear annihilation.  Every president has chosen not to use them since WWII.   I'll go with what people actually stand up and do.
Click to expand...


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

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

He even considered repatriation to Central America.


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


----------



## ChrisL

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


----------



## Slash

katsteve2012 said:


> From what source did you obtain the thought that "free men and free land included former slaves? And that Lincolns idea of repatriation would be on a "voluntary basis"?
> 
> You do realize that he thought blacks to be inferior to whites.
> 
> He even considered repatriation to Central America.
> 
> 
> Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?




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


----------



## katsteve2012

Slash said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what source did you obtain the thought that "free men and free land included former slaves? And that Lincolns idea of repatriation would be on a "voluntary basis"?
> 
> You do realize that he thought blacks to be inferior to whites.
> 
> He even considered repatriation to Central America.
> 
> 
> Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just posted a website that says "The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead"
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Slash

katsteve2012 said:


> I realize what the website says. It was one of a very few I could find that state what you insist. That was my point since you did not post any links that support what you state.
> 
> I still cannot find anything out there that validates "free land" for former slaves



It was the entire reason the Republicans formed.   Not to give them free land, but to let them as free people be able to freely work the land.   Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men is a great book on it if you'd like to educate yourself on the topic.   You want to see where he said it?  How about where he DID it.  Where he freed the slaves to work the land freely in the USA?   

But I do find it interesting that so many revisionists like to change these things up and put in their own words on it.  Somehow out of nowhere we get this forced migration revisionist BS even though not one word of that was ever spoken.   Not even possible with free men anyways.

Somehow this revisionist crap goes so far that it's not "look at what I did" as in free the slaves in the US, but it's "look at what I thought about".  

Even the book about it.  "Colonization after Emancipation" says "Lincoln’s plans for voluntary emigration lacked the callous deportation to which more serious racial separatists subscribed”


----------



## Taz

The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.



Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
SMGDH


----------



## Slash

Taz said:


> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH



I never got the "it's so much better here so it's not really that bad" thought.  

Norway ALWAYS ranks well above the USA in happiness.   I don't think that if I steal your daughter, tell you that she's going to be my slave.  Her children (or even our children if I choose) will be my property, but it's all good.  We are going to Norway and it's a much better place...


----------



## katsteve2012

Slash said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize what the website says. It was one of a very few I could find that state what you insist. That was my point since you did not post any links that support what you state.
> 
> I still cannot find anything out there that validates "free land" for former slaves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the entire reason the Republicans formed.   Not to give them free land, but to let them as free people be able to freely work the land.   Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men is a great book on it if you'd like to educate yourself on the topic.   You want to see where he said it?  How about where he DID it.  Where he freed the slaves to work the land freely in the USA?
> 
> But I do find it interesting that so many revisionists like to change these things up and put in their own words on it.  Somehow out of nowhere we get this forced migration revisionist BS even though not one word of that was ever spoken.   Not even possible with free men anyways.
> 
> Somehow this revisionist crap goes so far that it's not "look at what I did" as in free the slaves in the US, but it's "look at what I thought about".
> 
> Even the book about it.  "Colonization after Emancipation" says "Lincoln’s plans for voluntary emigration lacked the callous deportation to which more serious racial separatists subscribed”
Click to expand...


 There are obviously different takes on history, and the only people that know the unvarnished truth are those who lived it and were effected by it. Much of what I have learned about this ugly part of this country's history have been through history as well as accounts from family elders as told to them by their own elders, who in some cases were slaves who became free or died in captivity.

Therefore, what is considered revisionist is a matter of history interpreted by the individual. And this topic has been debatable for a century and a half.

I will read some reviews on the book that you suggest. 

One certainty is that the introduction of Black Codes and Jim Crow after slavery did not equate to a happy ending for former slaves.


----------



## Slash

katsteve2012 said:


> There are obviously different takes on history, and the only people that know the unvarnished truth are those who lived it.
> 
> Therefore, what is considered revisionist is a matter of history interpreted by the individual. And this topic has been debatable for a century and a half.
> 
> I will read some reviews on book that you suggest.



There are different takes, I agree.  But I've always judged men by what they do, not what they thought of.   I mean there wouldn't be hardly anyone married if we judged all men on their thoughts. lol

And Lincoln acted as an abolitionist.   Some use those speeches in his debates when he was trying to seem moderate as proof he wasn't.  

Some say "he waited for the emancipation proclamation".   Yeah,  He lived inbetween two slave states.  If he made it about slavery on day 1, the next day he would have woken up in the heart of the confederacy that now owned Washington DC.   Once Lee was pushed back and the lines were truly drawn, he made his proclamation (arguably the greatest misuse of executive power in the history of the US).  

He free'd the slaves everywhere he had power.  First in DC (only place a president had power to), then with the emancipation proclamation (by saying that states in revolt weren't allotted constitutional protection).  Then finally with the 13th amendment (presidents have no legal power in amendments, but he made that his life's goal, not to move the slaves, but to free them IN America).


----------



## Conservative65

IM2 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find  soldier who fought in the revolutionary war and shut up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find a slave and ask him what he thinks about the speech.    How long are those that never were slaves going to blame those of us that never owned slaves for their faults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as people like you believe the same things those who owned slaves believed.
Click to expand...


If you're black and a Democrat, apparently you don't mind being a slave.


----------



## Conservative65

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to be honest about anything is increasingly pathetic.
> 
> Your unamericanism is supported by far more than your absurd position on Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you confuse refusal to believe in romanticized fables instead of actual historical events with being "Unamerican", thats not my problem.
> 
> Even some of your far right counterparts here have commented on your being wrong about Lincoln. You've shown an overall lack of understanding of the events of that era as well as a preference for being ignorantly misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that my quotes are from a time when Lincoln was not under pressure to be "diplomatic" or "Political", while you have ignored such context for you own quotes or mine.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out that Lincoln's policies he ran on were radically opposed to slavery, and rightfully seen by the South as a deadly threat.
> 
> 
> I've pointed out how Lincoln's actions and results support my choice of which of his quotes were the real him.
> 
> You've done nothing of the sort with your quotes nor addressed the synergy of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the President that ended slavery. Any reasonable human being would see him as an American Hero.
> 
> 
> THat you feel the need to deny his that, not to mention that you can't admit that American White Males elected the anti-slavery President,
> 
> 
> shows that you are unreasonable, or dishonest and yes, you are anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your choice"? ROFLMAO.
> And YOU know which quotes were the "real him"? You can see into the past?
> 
> Common sense dictates that what a person does when there is something at stake is a fairly dependable barometer of who they really are. And EVERY historical document that traces Lincolns campaign reveals that he was NOT radically opposed to slavery and preferred to stop its expansion and let it slowly become obsolete as opposed to taking a hard line against its very existence from the "moral position" that you dreamed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when something is at stake is when people have motive to lie or be "diplomatic" or political.
> 
> It is when there is no cost to something that people are comfortable saying what they really mean.
> 
> Your quotes are all from when Lincoln was staring at a possible war, or during the war,when he was trying to keep support for it.
> 
> His more radical comments were made when he was NOT facing terrible consequences for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not viewed as the abolitionist that  you are attempting to make him.
> Period.
> 
> "American white males" elected Lincoln were the ONLY people allowed to vote at the time. And they voted to industrialize THEIR country, prevent expansion of slavery to new territories to protect the white labor force and preserve.........THEIR UNION. They were not "heroic" as you insist they were. It was business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No reason that an Industrial North could not keep industrializing and adding new Free States with protected white labor forces, while the South remained slave and agricultural and adding new Slave states.
> 
> Unless the northern voters had a moral problem with slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the slaves that he freed would have been very disappointed to hear that Lincoln did not consider them his complete equal.
> 
> And it was not a "hope" that slavery would die out, it was an obvious plan to kill it, which is why the South rose up in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He believed blacks were inferior. And that's just the way it is
Click to expand...


Yet ax most blacks that attend(ed) public school and they'll tell you Lincoln freed the slaves.


----------



## bgrouse

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
Click to expand...

Farm animals? I think you're thinking of Africa, where they were originally slaves. What do you think happens to surplus slaves in a time of famine? I bet they'd fire up that fireplace really quick!


----------



## ChrisL

I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!


----------



## IM2

ChrisL said:


> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!



I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.

Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
Click to expand...


We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!


----------



## ChrisL

Keep your cranky old man attitude to yourself please.  We want to have fun and relax and celebrate our holidays.


----------



## IM2

ChrisL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
Click to expand...


Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.

There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
Click to expand...


Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!


----------



## ChrisL

You want our money, you want us to give up our holidays?  What ELSE do you want, and what are YOU going to do for me?


----------



## IM2

ChrisL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!
Click to expand...


No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

You are really stupid. I haven't said anything about you ending your holidays.  I have said I don't celebrate the fourth of July. And we are owed. Whites shouldn't have done what they did and should have stopped instead of continuing it and always trying to make excuses for it like you do.


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
> 
> You are really stupid. I haven't said anything about you ending your holidays.  I have said I don't celebrate the fourth of July. And we are owed. Whites shouldn't have done what they did and should have stopped instead of continuing it and always trying to make excuses for it like you do.
Click to expand...


BS, nobody OWES you anything.  Most of the "whites" you refer to immigrated here long after slavery ended in the US.  Get real.


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
> 
> You are really stupid. I haven't said anything about you ending your holidays.  I have said I don't celebrate the fourth of July. And we are owed. Whites shouldn't have done what they did and should have stopped instead of continuing it and always trying to make excuses for it like you do.
Click to expand...


You are the "stupid" one here.  You act as if every white person owned a "slave."  What a crock.  Poor white people weren't doing much better and in fact sometimes even worse because they had nobody else to feed them and put a roof over their heads.  They were left to just die in the streets of starvation or turn to criminal activity or prostitution, so spare me your "woe is me" BS.  Life isn't easy and you can't depend on other people to take care of you.  Take care of your darn self!


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.



That sounds a lot like cranky ol' man speech to me.






With some misogyny thrown in for good measure.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
Click to expand...

A key difference between the two is that while slavery is over in America, American independence is NOT. I suppose some folks celebrate independence day because they still have that independence. What are blacks who recall slavery whining about? Slavery that's long gone?


----------



## ChrisL

I really do believe some people just enjoy being miserable and want to make other people miserable too.


----------



## IM2

ChrisL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
> 
> You are really stupid. I haven't said anything about you ending your holidays.  I have said I don't celebrate the fourth of July. And we are owed. Whites shouldn't have done what they did and should have stopped instead of continuing it and always trying to make excuses for it like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, nobody OWES you anything.  Most of the "whites" you refer to immigrated here long after slavery ended in the US.  Get real.
Click to expand...


Yep whites owe us. The fact whites got to immigrate here shows just how much whites were given.. The demand for reparations goes far past slavery. We are talking about continuing human rights violations. You do know what continuing means don't ya? It means things didn't stop after slavery. You are misinformed, you really need to stop trying to argue with  me because I know far more than you do bout these matters and only have so much patience with excuse making lying white racists before I decide to make an example out of you.

You keep telling me what we blacks aren't owed, but you seem unable to explain why all  others wronged by this government have gotten and still get, reparations. Why do they have the right to reparations but we don't? Explain that.


----------



## IM2

bgrouse said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A key difference between the two is that while slavery is over in America, American independence is NOT. I suppose some folks celebrate independence day because they still have that independence. What are blacks who recall slavery whining about? Slavery that's long gone?
Click to expand...


The revolutionary war is over.


----------



## IM2

ChrisL said:


> I really do believe some people just enjoy being miserable and want to make other people miserable too.



I really do believe that we have some certified idiots out there who are white.


----------



## bgrouse

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A key difference between the two is that while slavery is over in America, American independence is NOT. I suppose some folks celebrate independence day because they still have that independence. What are blacks who recall slavery whining about? Slavery that's long gone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The revolutionary war is over.
Click to expand...

But the independence is not. It's called *Independence* Day, get it?


----------



## Muhammed

fncceo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a slave and we'll ask him.
Click to expand...

All slaveholders should be executed.

*Mod Edit --- Excessive flame. Doesn't advance the discussion.. FCT*


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> Yep whites owe us.



You got a receipt?


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
Click to expand...

Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.


----------



## ChrisL

IM2 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A key difference between the two is that while slavery is over in America, American independence is NOT. I suppose some folks celebrate independence day because they still have that independence. What are blacks who recall slavery whining about? Slavery that's long gone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The revolutionary war is over.
Click to expand...


SO is slavery, douchebag!


----------



## ChrisL

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
Click to expand...


Well, he keeps saying white people owe him something, so let's all pitch in and get him a plane ticket to the Africa.  Good riddance to bad garbage.


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
Click to expand...


What would causes
 you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"? 

You didn't become this ignorant accidently.


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
Click to expand...


Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
Click to expand...


Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.

Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.

Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.
> 
> Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.
> 
> Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.
Click to expand...


Who says they were NOT human beings?  Nobody has said anything like that.  Of course the people who were sold by their tribe leaders were poor and considered the lowest rungs of their society.  I'm sure their living conditions were difficult to say the least!


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.
> 
> Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.
> 
> Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.
Click to expand...


No kidding, such as black people demanding that white people who had nothing to do with slavery to "pay them" reparations?  Lol.  Good grief.


----------



## ChrisL

Multiple forms of slavery and servitude have existed throughout Africa during history and were shaped by indigenous practices of slavery as well as the Roman institution of slavery[_citation needed_] (and the later Christian views on slavery), the Islamic institutions of slavery via the Arab slave trade, and eventually the Atlantic slave trade.[1] Slavery was a part of the economic structure of African societies for many centuries, although the extent varied.[1] Ibn Battuta, who visited the ancient kingdom of Mali in the mid-14th century, recounts that the local inhabitants vied with each other in the number of slaves and servants they had, and was himself given a slave boy as a "hospitality gift."[3] In sub-Saharan Africa, the slave relationships were often complex, with rights and freedoms given to individuals held in slavery and restrictions on sale and treatment by their masters.[4] Many communities had hierarchies between different types of slaves: for example, differentiating between those who had been born into slavery and those who had been captured through war.[5]

"The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. ... But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners."
_Travels in the Interior of Africa_, Mungo Park, _Travels in the Interior of Africa_ v. II, Chapter XXII – War and Slavery.

The forms of slavery in Africa were closely related to kinship structures. In many African communities, where land could not be owned, enslavement of individuals was used as a means to increase the influence a person had and expand connections.[6] This made slaves a permanent part of a master's lineage and the children of slaves could become closely connected with the larger family ties.[1] Children of slaves born into families could be integrated into the master's kinship group and rise to prominent positions within society, even to the level of chief in some instances.[5]However, stigma often remained attached and there could be strict separations between slave members of a kinship group and those related to the master.[6]

*Chattel slavery[edit]*
Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[7] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders.[7]


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.
> 
> Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.
> 
> Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says they were NOT human beings?  Nobody has said anything like that.  Of course the people who were sold by their tribe leaders were poor and considered the lowest rungs of their society.  I'm sure their living conditions were difficult to say the least!
Click to expand...


You think? Or you know for a fact? Its likely way above your head, but there are many first hand stories of former slsves in existence that are accesible out there that prove otherwise.


----------



## ChrisL

These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.
> 
> Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.
> 
> Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says they were NOT human beings?  Nobody has said anything like that.  Of course the people who were sold by their tribe leaders were poor and considered the lowest rungs of their society.  I'm sure their living conditions were difficult to say the least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? Or you know for a fact? Its likely way above your head, but there are many first hand stories of former slsves in existence that are accesible out there that prove otherwise.
Click to expand...


Post them up then.  Why wouldn't you post these along with your post?


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.



Is that what I said I assume?


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I said I assume?
Click to expand...


Was I addressing you?  It was just a general informative post.


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Thats an amazingly stupid question. Of course they did not. But in spite of your abject misinformed ignorance, these WERE human beings with families.
> 
> Its these type of comments that are always a great reminder of how backward some are who post here.
> 
> Its a relief that this forum is not an accurate barometer of the overall intelligence of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says they were NOT human beings?  Nobody has said anything like that.  Of course the people who were sold by their tribe leaders were poor and considered the lowest rungs of their society.  I'm sure their living conditions were difficult to say the least!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure? Or you know for a fact? Its likely way above your head, but there are many first hand stories of former slsves in existence that are accesible out there that prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post them up then.  Why wouldn't you post these along with your post?
Click to expand...


I saw some ignorant comments by some ignorant people and frankly believe it would be a waste of time.


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I said I assume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was I addressing you?  It was just a general informative post.
Click to expand...


Your "informative post" followed my statement. Disregard.


----------



## ChrisL

katsteve2012 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I said I assume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was I addressing you?  It was just a general informative post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted what I stated when you made your "informative post".
Click to expand...


No I did not.  Check again.  I didn't quote anyone because I was not addressing anyone in particular.


----------



## ChrisL

Now, don't you dare treat me as if I "owe" you something.  I owe you NOTHING.  Understand that?  Just because some white guy owned some slaves 200 years ago doesn't mean every white person owes you something.


----------



## katsteve2012

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These black people who were sold as slaves were probably ALREADY slaves to begin with.  Does that make it any better?  Of course not, but it is a fact to keep in mind, as a lot of people seem to assume that slave traders just went and kidnapped people out of their houses to be sold as slaves.  Most of the people who were sold to slave traders were already slaves and were traded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I said I assume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was I addressing you?  It was just a general informative post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted what I stated when you made your "informative post".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I did not.  Check again.  I didn't quote anyone because I was not addressing anyone in particular.
Click to expand...



Fair enough. I corrected my response.


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
Click to expand...


----------



## Taz

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
Click to expand...

In a deluxe apartment in the sky!


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.


----------



## Conservative65

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel like if you are "offended" by the 4th of July or don't like or don't want to celebrate, then that is fine, but why be an ass to everyone else about it?  We don't and will never all think the SAME way.  Get that through your heads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the OP as a refection for whites who always want to talk abut how we should not blame those in the past for things and how we should not ascribe todays standards on those in the past. For those who consistently clamored that slavery was over, a thing of the past and as such we should just move on. The fact is July 4th, 1776 is the past. It was 241 years ago, but we still celebrate that day. We still talk about the beliefs of long dead men who are white until it's time to mention they owned slaves or were racists, then that's the past and we should forget it. The entire reason for t his thread was not to talk about slavery, but t  point out the hypocrisy of white conservatives specifically and republicans relative to their ability to use the past only when it makes them look good.
> 
> Just as much as I was not a slave none of you whites here fought in the revolutionary war. The double standards need to end, the excuses you whites make need to go too. That's why this thread was made.
Click to expand...


That you think acknowledging that day is to make whites feel good, you absolutely have no clue as to what it represents and why a war was fought to defend the action that was taken.  So sad that the money wasted on you trying to educate you was spent.  I guess if blacks don't want to acknowledge it, they can live with the understanding that had it not occurred they could have been slaves of the British.


----------



## Yarddog

ChrisL said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
Click to expand...



Well actually there were probably some pretty elaborate cities by the standards of the pre- colonial era. I think a lot of the slaves were taken by rivals or because of war and in that case your enemy wouldnt really care what your social status was.


Story of cities #5: Benin City, the mighty medieval capital now lost without trace

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-great-lost-cities-of-africa-1507656099

Of course the Benin Empire was pretty guilty of capturing and selling slaves though.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We celebrate it because it's FUN.  You know what FUN is?  It sure doesn't seem like you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the fact is that none of you were there on July 4th, 1776. I have fun every day. I don't need to designate a day to have fun.
> 
> There is no old man attitude. There is the truth and then there is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.  You seem like a cranky old man!  Let people alone and let them have their holidays!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cranky old man attitude here. But what I see from you is the young dumb and fill of c-m stupidity of a person who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
> 
> You are really stupid. I haven't said anything about you ending your holidays.  I have said I don't celebrate the fourth of July. And we are owed. Whites shouldn't have done what they did and should have stopped instead of continuing it and always trying to make excuses for it like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, nobody OWES you anything.  Most of the "whites" you refer to immigrated here long after slavery ended in the US.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep whites owe us. The fact whites got to immigrate here shows just how much whites were given.. The demand for reparations goes far past slavery. We are talking about continuing human rights violations. You do know what continuing means don't ya? It means things didn't stop after slavery. You are misinformed, you really need to stop trying to argue with  me because I know far more than you do bout these matters and only have so much patience with excuse making lying white racists before I decide to make an example out of you.
> 
> You keep telling me what we blacks aren't owed, but you seem unable to explain why all  others wronged by this government have gotten and still get, reparations. Why do they have the right to reparations but we don't? Explain that.
Click to expand...



Quote:
"You are misinformed, you really need to stop trying to argue with me because I know far more than you do bout these matters and only have so much patience with excuse making lying white racists before I decide to make an example out of you."

Insulting people and talking about how great you are is not the best way to carry on a dialogue though. Chris has every right to post here just as much as you do. Nothing makes you any more special.

The concept of reparations is an interesting subject, and there is always some argument to be made.  Surely there are cases like this below that should be looked at.  But wanting to blame all white people because of the color of their skin is where you are going to completely lose me every time. Just like Im not going to blame you for everything other black people do.

Tulsa race riot - Wikipedia

One of the differences though between reparations for American Indians and African Americans would be that the Confederacy that enslaved Africans no longer exists. The Federal government who broke treaty after treaty with native Americans on the other hand actually still does exist and also Indian nations still have autonomy and land here and In many cases they have some real grievances in getting some of that land back.
Unfortunatly for African Americans,  they just have to settle for being Americans unless they want to start their own country somewhere.


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
Click to expand...

It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?


----------



## ChrisL

Yarddog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves playing the music at their master's 4th of July celebration had it pretty good. probably wouldn't have gone back to Africa if you offered it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of misinformed ignorance causes you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they were living in mansions by the waterfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually there were probably some pretty elaborate cities by the standards of the pre- colonial era. I think a lot of the slaves were taken by rivals or because of war and in that case your enemy wouldnt really care what your social status was.
> 
> 
> Story of cities #5: Benin City, the mighty medieval capital now lost without trace
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-great-lost-cities-of-africa-1507656099
> 
> Of course the Benin Empire was pretty guilty of capturing and selling slaves though.
Click to expand...


Sure, people who were captured in wars were slaves a lot of times throughout history.  The world has always been a pretty brutal place.  Human beings can be pretty cruel towards one another.


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. They would have happily stayed captive in an existence equivalent to that of farm animals.
> SMGDH
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
Click to expand...


So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
Click to expand...

No, but going through slavery like your ancestors did made life better for their descendants (like you).


----------



## bgrouse

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than living off flies in a mud hut in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
Click to expand...

Isn't that a false dilemma? They were enslaved by blacks, then BOUGHT by whites. So whether Americans did what they did or not, it seems as though those blacks would either be slaves in Africa or dead.


----------



## Slash

bgrouse said:


> Isn't that a false dilemma? They were enslaved by blacks, then BOUGHT by whites. So whether Americans did what they did or not, it seems as though those blacks would either be slaves in Africa or dead.




Yes but the US had a different method of getting slaves.   The overwhelming majority (90+%) of slaves in the US were bred here.  So the overwhelming majority were not enslaved by blacks but by whites.  

As for it making their life better, possibly.  But I don't call that good in any way.  Sure by about every metric, people in Norway are happier than in the US.   That doesn't make me an agent of good if I grab your daughter, steal her off to Norway, and rape a family out of her then let her great great grandkids free.


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would causes
> you to believe that every captive slave lived in a "mudhut off of flies"?
> 
> You didn't become this ignorant accidently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but going through slavery like your ancestors did made life better for their descendants (like you).
Click to expand...


And how would you know anything about my life or that of my immediate ancestors?


----------



## bgrouse

Slash said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that a false dilemma? They were enslaved by blacks, then BOUGHT by whites. So whether Americans did what they did or not, it seems as though those blacks would either be slaves in Africa or dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the US had a different method of getting slaves.   The overwhelming majority (90+%) of slaves in the US were bred here.  So the overwhelming majority were not enslaved by blacks but by whites.
> 
> As for it making their life better, possibly.  But I don't call that good in any way.  Sure by about every metric, people in Norway are happier than in the US.   That doesn't make me an agent of good if I grab your daughter, steal her off to Norway, and rape a family out of her then let her great great grandkids free.
Click to expand...

But very few people are going to buy slaves to then let their kids be free. It's a bad investment. So the real choice is between what happened and not buying them at all and letting them starve/be cannibalized in Africa. Frankly, I don't agree with slavery in America either. They should have left the blacks in Africa. Then we wouldn't have so many problems in the USA today.


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but going through slavery like your ancestors did made life better for their descendants (like you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know anything about my life or that of my immediate ancestors?
Click to expand...

If you're a black man born in the US without an African accent then your family got you here by way of slavery. Are you saying that you were born in Africa?


----------



## katsteve2012

Taz said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? So command of the written word is obviously not your strength, but I didnt realize that color photos were around during the slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but going through slavery like your ancestors did made life better for their descendants (like you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know anything about my life or that of my immediate ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're a black man born in the US without an African accent then your family got you here by way of slavery. Are you saying that you were born in Africa?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that you are ignorant enough to believe that every single black citizen that resides in America "arrived here" because of slavery?


----------



## ChrisL

Look, if you don't want to celebrate holidays and would instead rather bitch, then be my guest.  Just don't expect to guilt anyone else.  K?


----------



## Taz

katsteve2012 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's to show that they still live like that today. They look really happy, don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your ASSumption is that they would be happier being enslaved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but going through slavery like your ancestors did made life better for their descendants (like you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know anything about my life or that of my immediate ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're a black man born in the US without an African accent then your family got you here by way of slavery. Are you saying that you were born in Africa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are ignorant enough to believe that every single black citizen that resides in America "arrived here" because of slavery?
Click to expand...

Ok, I hear what your saying and ok, that's true only maybe 98% of the time, but c'mon, admit it, your ancestors were slaves.

Mine were serfs (pretty much the same thing) back in the old country.


----------

