Is Racism Over Yet?

[katsteve2012]

Judge as you wish. I have stated re
Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

 

[Asclepias]

Lincoln was not rabidly :anti slavery"
You know that. Try to produce a link that says otherwise.

My not being "grateful" for white people fighting a war to force white people to ejote the to remain a part

You CAN'T tell me how to behave nor do I give a fuck what you think.

It sounds like you actually believe that my so called "behavior" is for you to judge.

As I often some of the other assholes here, if you don't like what I have to say, use your ignore button, because what you think is insignificant to me.

That's why you get your ass handed to you so often and get your feelings hurt, because you present yourself as some kind of moral authority on what is right or wrong.

This country at that time was a hostile and hateful land that black people ended up in because of an oppresive institution that never should have existed.

No one fought to FREE the blsck population and you know it.

The war wsd fought to preserve a union created for white people, by white people.

Blacks were the equivalent of farm animals by law.

No debt of gratitude is owed nor will any be acknowledged as even sensible.

You have no point that is even .worth discussing.

And Lincoln was in no way a "A rabid anti slaver"

If you can produce even one shred of evidence that validates that he was, then I will acknowledge that you are correct.

Get to work.

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Judge as you wish. I have stated re

Lincoln was not rabidly :anti slavery"
You know that. Try to produce a link that says otherwise.

My not being "grateful" for white people fighting a war to force white people to ejote the to remain a part

You CAN'T tell me how to behave nor do I give a fuck what you think.

It sounds like you actually believe that my so called "behavior" is for you to judge.

As I often some of the other assholes here, if you don't like what I have to say, use your ignore button, because what you think is insignificant to me.

That's why you get your ass handed to you so often and get your feelings hurt, because you present yourself as some kind of moral authority on what is right or wrong.

This country at that time was a hostile and hateful land that black people ended up in because of an oppresive institution that never should have existed.

No one fought to FREE the blsck population and you know it.

The war wsd fought to preserve a union created for white people, by white people.

Blacks were the equivalent of farm animals by law.

No debt of gratitude is owed nor will any be acknowledged as even sensible.

You have no point that is even .worth discussing.

And Lincoln was in no way a "A rabid anti slaver"

If you can produce even one shred of evidence that validates that he was, then I will acknowledge that you are correct.

Get to work.

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

 

[Correll]

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

 

[Correll]

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Judge as you wish. I have stated re

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

 

[katsteve2012]

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

 

[Asclepias]

Judge as you wish. I have stated re
Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?

 

[katsteve2012]

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?

EXACTLY!

 

[Correll]

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.



Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.



The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.


Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.




The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

 

[Correll]

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

 

[Asclepias]

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart.

 

[katsteve2012]

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

 

[the Beast]

Native americans today are both nigga and whites therefore in sex nigga have bigger strenght between nigga and old fashion whites today America also today America ...

 

[Asclepias]

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

We can easily put your bullshit to bed by answering a simple question. When Lincoln first freed the enslaved why did he not free the enslaved in states that were still with the Union?

 

[the Beast]

katsteve2012 Current fit America is more as Russia with toughless criminal and many are hockey traditions from both whites and nigga and also as south EU and UK Christians with thems to trust with soccer are the best game for those Catholic americans ...

 

[Correll]

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

 

[Asclepias]

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

 

[Correll]

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.


Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.




True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.



Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.


The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

There was nothing inherent in the act of preserving the Union that required the Freeing of the slaves.


You've done nothing to support that assertion.


That Lincoln does not meet your 21st century pc standards is notable only to how it reveals how close minded you are, to judge people centuries dead by modern standards.

 

[Asclepias]

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

There was nothing inherent in the act of preserving the Union that required the Freeing of the slaves.


You've done nothing to support that assertion.


That Lincoln does not meet your 21st century pc standards is notable only to how it reveals how close minded you are, to judge people centuries dead by modern standards.

Acutally freeing the slaves is what made the North win you idiot. Using the slave topic as one of moral authority both kept european powers from supporting the south and supplied the north with soldiers eager to kill their white oppressors.

 

[Correll]

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.


Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.




True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.



Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.


The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

We can easily put your bullshit to bed by answering a simple question. When Lincoln first freed the enslaved why did he not free the enslaved in states that were still with the Union?

I haven't read any of Lincoln's words or writings on that subject.


I would think the most likely reasons would be A. he did not have the legal power to revoke property rights of American citizens who were not in rebellion and B. a desire to not drive his allies away.



Do you have information to the contrary? How does any of that negate his actions in ending slavery?

 

[Asclepias]

Your one sided interpretation of truth and facts is your need to glorify a politician whose legacy has been enhanced by fictional accounts of his humanitarianism as well as compassion for the freedom of people who were enslaved against their will.

Maybe what you are so myopic that you do not understand is that as history is repeatedly researched, new facts concerning what actually transpired will surface over time.

My 21st century view of history is nothing but a reflection of consistent learning of new facts.

You on the other hand recite like a 4th grader reading a book report on an outdated book.

That just tells me that you have not learned anything about U.S.history since you attended elementary school. That's a genuiune flaw that clearly illustrates the type of individual that you are and much of what you are not.

You are welcomed to continue to be deeply disturbed by my refusal to feel any gratitude for a war that was fought to supposedly
"free" people from something that shoukd have never happened.........something that happened long before I was here.

Just as you should feel no guilt for what YOU say caused the war in the first place.

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

We can easily put your bullshit to bed by answering a simple question. When Lincoln first freed the enslaved why did he not free the enslaved in states that were still with the Union?

I haven't read any of Lincoln's words or writings on that subject.


I would think the most likely reasons would be A. he did not have the legal power to revoke property rights of American citizens who were not in rebellion and B. a desire to not drive his allies away.



Do you have information to the contrary? How does any of that negate his actions in ending slavery?

Thats why I keep saying youre a fucking idiot. You dont read shit by your own admission but you offer up opinions like they actually mean something.