Abraham Lincoln on trial

[paperview]

Lincoln was not (1) an abolitionist and (2) would never have permitted slavery in the territories.

Corwin is unimportant other than a device for Lincoln to gain time to manipulate public opinion to his side.

It was never passed, but it was a real concession for abolitionist Lincoln since it would have protected slavery in the existing southern states, in the constitution. The south said it was boxing them in.

This could have been an episode on the old tv series "Sliders".

Maybe it was.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.

Which is what I said in my first post here on the subject.

Question to ask on something that bugs me a little.

Why do people place their posts above the ones they are responding to?

It makes it troublesome to follow the progression of debate in multiple quote replies.

Not that I'm asking you to do anything about it, I guess, just I know I'm not the only one who dislikes this posting style.

Sorry. /end nit pic.

I do value your posts here, so please don't take this the wrong way.

 

[jwoodie]

Lincoln was not (1) an abolitionist and (2) would never have permitted slavery in the territories.

Corwin is unimportant other than a device for Lincoln to gain time to manipulate public opinion to his side.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded.

Which is what I said in my first post here on the subject.

Question to ask on something that bugs me a little.

Why do people place their posts above the ones they are responding to?

It makes it troublesome to follow the progression of debate in multiple quote replies.

Not that I'm asking you to do anything about it, I guess, just I know I'm not the only one who dislikes this posting style.

Sorry. /end nit pic.

I do value your posts here, so please don't take this the wrong way.

Ditto.

 

[konradv]

Lincoln was not (1) an abolitionist and (2) would never have permitted slavery in the territories.

Corwin is unimportant other than a device for Lincoln to gain time to manipulate public opinion to his side.

Which is what I said in my first post here on the subject.

Question to ask on something that bugs me a little.

Why do people place their posts above the ones they are responding to?

It makes it troublesome to follow the progression of debate in multiple quote replies.

Not that I'm asking you to do anything about it, I guess, just I know I'm not the only one who dislikes this posting style.

Sorry. /end nit pic.

I do value your posts here, so please don't take this the wrong way.

Ditto.

I agree, also. Most of us are bottom posters, but we do have a few top posters that can make things confusing. Most people read top to bottom, so going the other way is counter-intuitive and switching back and forth gets really crazy. Can't force anyone to do anything, but it would clear up some continuity issues, if we all did it the same way.

 

[paperview]

Agreed.

The thing is, Jake used to post on the bottom. I don't know why he changed.

 

[konradv]

Agreed.

The thing is, Jake used to post on the bottom. I don't know why he changed.

He's been responding to GoneBezerk a lot, who also does it. I could just be to keep their interactions straight, but it confuses me when I want to put in my 2 cents.

 

[Toro]

Side note:

All the former Slave States implemented post War Black Codes. Them rebellious Southerners still were not ready to see the Black man vote, or carry weapons, or be on juries, or have free speech, and they had to sign contracts to work on the plantation, or be jailed and hired out to highest bidder. They could even have their children hired out without the consent of the parents. Slavery light.

Black Codes

So? Black codes existed in the Union states before the war.

Before the war Southerners owned folks too.

The Black Codes were generally a Southern thing, another attempt to implement slavery light on Black folk.

After the War, The Civil Rights Act took effect, but them Southerners pissed all over them in their attempts to subjugate and enslave.

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

 

[paperview]

So? Black codes existed in the Union states before the war.

Before the war Southerners owned folks too.

The Black Codes were generally a Southern thing, another attempt to implement slavery light on Black folk.

After the War, The Civil Rights Act took effect, but them Southerners pissed all over them in their attempts to subjugate and enslave.

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

Damn shame those rebels used as part of their inspiration to secede the Declaration of Independence, which proudly declares All Men Are Created Equal

to specifically declare All Men Are NOT Created Equal.

 

[Contumacious]

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery



how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans..."

.

 

[Toro]

Before the war Southerners owned folks too.

The Black Codes were generally a Southern thing, another attempt to implement slavery light on Black folk.

After the War, The Civil Rights Act took effect, but them Southerners pissed all over them in their attempts to subjugate and enslave.

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

Damn shame those rebels used as part of their inspiration to secede the Declaration of Independence, which proudly declares All Men Are Created Equal

to specifically declare All Men Are NOT Created Equal.

They could fairly use the argument that wasn't the case in 1783 either. However, given that segregation was in force for 100 years after the Civil War, it is not unreasonable to assume that slavery in the South may still have been around in our lifetimes. Perhaps the Confederate States of America would have wound up a pariah state like South Africa, shunned and avoided everywhere.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So? Black codes existed in the Union states before the war.

Before the war Southerners owned folks too.

The Black Codes were generally a Southern thing, another attempt to implement slavery light on Black folk.

After the War, The Civil Rights Act took effect, but them Southerners pissed all over them in their attempts to subjugate and enslave.

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

Well before that, by the 1890s at least, given the advent of new economic models and technical developments related to industrialization. By that time the ‘slave’ would be obsolete and not economically feasible.

 

[paperview]

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery
how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans..."

Hey Comatose, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

And do you think making the font bigger somehow makes your inane quote festival more salient?

Pointing to what other countries did is meaningless. It didn't happen here.

The reasons being the economic advantages of slavery were far to high for Southerners to consider relinquishing, and the confederates were in no way inclined to lessen their control over African Americans.

In addition, paying compensation for billions of dollars worth of property would have been completely unworkable.

 

[Votto]

Which is what I said in my first post here on the subject.

Question to ask on something that bugs me a little.

Why do people place their posts above the ones they are responding to?

It makes it troublesome to follow the progression of debate in multiple quote replies.

Not that I'm asking you to do anything about it, I guess, just I know I'm not the only one who dislikes this posting style.

Sorry. /end nit pic.

I do value your posts here, so please don't take this the wrong way.

Ditto.

I agree, also. Most of us are bottom posters, but we do have a few top posters that can make things confusing. Most people read top to bottom, so going the other way is counter-intuitive and switching back and forth gets really crazy. Can't force anyone to do anything, but it would clear up some continuity issues, if we all did it the same way.

I think the government should regulate this kind of posting.

Just say'in.

 

[paperview]

Before the war Southerners owned folks too.

The Black Codes were generally a Southern thing, another attempt to implement slavery light on Black folk.

After the War, The Civil Rights Act took effect, but them Southerners pissed all over them in their attempts to subjugate and enslave.

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

Well before that, by the 1890s at least, given the advent of new economic models and technical developments related to industrialization. By that time the ‘slave’ would be obsolete and not economically feasible.

I disagree. Purchasable property as labor can always be utilized.

 

[Votto]

The reasons being the economic advantages of slavery were far to high for Southerners to consider relinquishing, and the confederates were in no way inclined to lessen their control over African Americans.

In addition, paying compensation for billions of dollars worth of property would have been completely unworkable.

What of the North? The North was more than willing to make slavery Constitutional, even though the arugment for some here seems to be that Licoln was trying to deceive them into thinking this but then pull the rug out from under them later on.

The North was interested in the wealth and power of the South as well, that is why they were willing to allow slavery. It really showed that to be the case after Lincoln plundered the wealth of the South after the war.

Anyone with any brains knows is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[JakeStarkey]

Um, Lincoln was dead after the war.

 

[Contumacious]

Another reason why the stupid notion that slavery would have died of it's accord anyway is just a huge pile ofcrap.

Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery
how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans..."

Hey Comatose, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

And do you think making the font bigger somehow makes your inane quote festival more salient?

Pointing to what other countries did is meaningless. It didn't happen here.

The reasons being the economic advantages of slavery were far to high for Southerners to consider relinquishing, and the confederates were in no way inclined to lessen their control over African Americans.

In addition, paying compensation for billions of dollars worth of property would have been completely unworkable.

Yo fucktard, so wiping out over 600,000 AMERICANS was better?

Are you by any chance in Obama's hellcare death panels

.

 

[paperview]

What of the North? The North was more than willing to make slavery Constitutional, even though the arugment for some here seems to be that Licoln was trying to deceive them into thinking this but then pull the rug out from under them later on.

The North was interested in the wealth and power of the South as well, that is why they were willing to allow slavery. It really showed that to be the case after Lincoln plundered the wealth of the South after the war.

Anyone with any brains knows is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How did a dead man "plunder the South" after the war.

 

[paperview]

Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery
how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans..."

Hey Comatose, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

And do you think making the font bigger somehow makes your inane quote festival more salient?

Pointing to what other countries did is meaningless. It didn't happen here.

The reasons being the economic advantages of slavery were far to high for Southerners to consider relinquishing, and the confederates were in no way inclined to lessen their control over African Americans.

In addition, paying compensation for billions of dollars worth of property would have been completely unworkable.

Yo fucktard, so wiping out over 600,000 AMERICANS was better?

Are you by any chance in Obama's hellcare death panels

.

Yep. The rebs were pretty stupid to start a war that resulted in such bloodshed.

 

[Votto]

What of the North? The North was more than willing to make slavery Constitutional, even though the arugment for some here seems to be that Licoln was trying to deceive them into thinking this but then pull the rug out from under them later on.

The North was interested in the wealth and power of the South as well, that is why they were willing to allow slavery. It really showed that to be the case after Lincoln plundered the wealth of the South after the war.

Anyone with any brains knows is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How did a dead man "plunder the South" after the war.

My bad.

Actually before Lincoln died and the war ended supreme court chief justice Taney made the allegation that Lincoln confiscated millions of dollars of civilian property, expecially cotton, without any legal proceedings. However, Lincoln is merely an empty chair of sorts. The Notth was not willing to let go of the South's wealth, resources, and man power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Southern states started the War, Contumacious, no one else.

If anyone started a "war" on my property, I would resist also.

The South bears moral failure for the war alone.