Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[Lakhota]

This immoral law-breaking skank will obviously be praised by false-Christian NaziCons. She's looking to cash in.

Dan Savage: Thrice-Divorced Kim Davis Is A 'Hypocrite'

 

[Mac1958]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Because they kicked the can down the road on slavery because of political expedience, the fledgling nation they created almost ripped itself apart and killed hundreds of thousands. A document that didn't extend freedom to all people is deeply flawed.

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

Looking through the prism of history, it's not easy to see that slavery had yet to become an entrenched part of the economy for all states in the 18th century. Yes it would have been difficult, but much less so before it grew into an issue that would lead inevitably to secession. My point is, they didn't even try. And let's face it, it's because they didn't want to.

My angle is a little different here. The 13% black population in this country today and all the problems we're dealing with today because of it is because slavery became an industry with demand from southern states being accommodated by northern states bringing in hordes of them by ship. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

There's only 12% blacks in America now because cops are killing them by the Bezillions.

 

[jillian]

I can certainly respect that sentiment. Resignation would be reasonable. Perhaps taking her name off of the certificates and allowing someone else in her office to issue them

But I've heard her rants. There's an awful lot of politics in her position as well. I suspect that a portion of this is grandstanding for attention.

A portion?!? She's being egged on by the liberty council.

yup.

and then they'll raise a ton of money for the witch. and she'll live off of this for the rest of her life because rightwngnut wackos will support her.

I find it amusing that someone married 4 times is whining about the santity of marriage.

jesus would hate her.

I don't agree with her. I don't see the harm in giving them the right to marry. But I support her religious convictions.

Go somewhere else. It's just a piece of paper.

Besides, the witch is doing them a favor by saving them from a nasty divorce.

Saying "go somewhere else" is fine when it's a private business, not a public official.

Well, if you love causing even more hatred then drive on. I'd rather everyone get along. But you get a church lady asshole bumping heads with a bunch of gay activists, shit happens. I think both should chill the fuck out.

people do not "cause hatred" by standing up for their rights.

I would say the bigot is deserving of hate. but really, she's deserving of pity for her ignorance. and most certainly deserving of larges fines and jail time for violating the order of the supreme court and deserving of losing her job.... which I figure is imminent -- hopefully.

 

[jillian]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

she is the county clerk. I think she sets the rules for her county. I could be wrong since i'm not sure how they work things in Kentucky.

 

[Mac1958]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

she is the county clerk. I think she sets the rules for her county. I could be wrong since i'm not sure how they work things in Kentucky.

If that's the case, done deal.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

That may be true in San Francisco, but this is friggen Kentucky by God. That state is run by God fearing Democrats.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

sorry, they don't have the *right* to be married by Christians. Fuck the fags.

Sorta like how government clerks don't have the right to deny them a marriage license?

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

 

[jillian]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

That may be true in San Francisco, but this is friggen Kentucky by God. That state is run by God fearing Democrats.

the supreme court issued an Order. No one cares about how they do things in Kentucky any more than they cared about how things worked in Mississippi or Georgia when black kids were marched into white schools... again pissing off bigots.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A portion?!? She's being egged on by the liberty council.

yup.

and then they'll raise a ton of money for the witch. and she'll live off of this for the rest of her life because rightwngnut wackos will support her.

I find it amusing that someone married 4 times is whining about the santity of marriage.

jesus would hate her.

I don't agree with her. I don't see the harm in giving them the right to marry. But I support her religious convictions.

Go somewhere else. It's just a piece of paper.

Besides, the witch is doing them a favor by saving them from a nasty divorce.

Saying "go somewhere else" is fine when it's a private business, not a public official.

Well, if you love causing even more hatred then drive on. I'd rather everyone get along. But you get a church lady asshole bumping heads with a bunch of gay activists, shit happens. I think both should chill the fuck out.

people do not "cause hatred" by standing up for their rights.

I would say the bigot is deserving of hate. but really, she's deserving of pity for her ignorance. and most certainly deserving of larges fines and jail time for violating the order of the supreme court and deserving of losing her job.... which I figure is imminent -- hopefully.

You bigots want to make sure that everyone submits to your demonic agenda and if anyone DARES to dissent, it sends you into fits of demonic fury. That much is clear.

 

[jillian]

Sorta like how government clerks don't have the right to deny them a marriage license?

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

If one day you had to choose, and you chose to be straight, then I have some bad news for ya...

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Homosexuality is. The impulse is irrelevant.
You are logic challenged.

Religion is a choice. Owning a gun is a choice. Speaking your mind is a choice.

Those actions still manage to be recognized as rights. Why place an odd requirement on homosexuality that you don't place on any other rights?

None of those other rights involve others' acquiescence.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

That may be true in San Francisco, but this is friggen Kentucky by God. That state is run by God fearing Democrats.

the supreme court issued an Order. No one cares about how they do things in Kentucky any more than they cared about how things worked in Mississippi or Georgia when black kids were marched into white schools... again pissing off bigots.

Well, good luck with that......

 

[Skylar]

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Because they kicked the can down the road on slavery because of political expedience, the fledgling nation they created almost ripped itself apart and killed hundreds of thousands. A document that didn't extend freedom to all people is deeply flawed.

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

Looking through the prism of history, it's not easy to see that slavery had yet to become an entrenched part of the economy for all states in the 18th century. Yes it would have been difficult, but much less so before it grew into an issue that would lead inevitably to secession. My point is, they didn't even try. And let's face it, it's because they didn't want to.

The issue was property. Regardless of how vital slaves were to the economy of a given state, they were a considerable property investment by individuals who owned them. The abolishment of slavery would nullify that investment and cause massive turmoil within each state in which it occurred. Abolishment would have caused damage to the individual states that had significant slave populations.

'Looking through the lens of history', the 'United States' was barely more than a notional concept in the 1780s. These representatives were for their state first. And for a nation only if it benefitted their states. Abolition would have caused significant damage to most of the southern states.

Even without abolition, the constitution barely passed. There is virtually no chance of ratification of the constitution with such a provision in it. While a significant danger to the States collectively and individually if they didn't unify more tightly.

The issues that motivated the constitutional convention and the writing of the Constitution were issues of practicality, functionality and security. Slavery was not the motivation. The issues that motivated the writing of the cosntitjution dominated. The issues that didn't motivate its writing were largely subordinate.

My angle is a little different here. The 13% black population in this country today and all the problems we're dealing with today because of it is because slavery became an industry with demand from southern states being accommodated by northern states bringing in hordes of them by ship. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Lincoln's plan was indeed to create a nation of freed black slaves. A nation that was in fact created. Lincoln, being a product of his age and experience, didn't think that the black and white man could live together in harmony. He stated, rather bluntly, that the whites would take advantage of the blacks and dominate them as the blacks lacked the capacities that whites possessed.

Lincoln's views changed over time, specifically after he was exposed to black men like Fredrick Douglas. Douglas was extremely well educated, articulate, thoughtful, and insightful. His many conversations with Lincoln convinced the President that his views of the black man may not be universal. Shortly before his murder, he advocated making citizens out of 'exceptional' blacks and any former slave that fought in the civil war.

For one who didn't think any black should ever be a citizen, this was a huge change in position. One of the things I liked about Lincoln....is that his positions could change based on the evidence.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

Th court allowed Jim Crow and The Dred Scott decision, too. Bad law is bad law and can and should be changed.

 

[jillian]

yup.

and then they'll raise a ton of money for the witch. and she'll live off of this for the rest of her life because rightwngnut wackos will support her.

I find it amusing that someone married 4 times is whining about the santity of marriage.

jesus would hate her.

I don't agree with her. I don't see the harm in giving them the right to marry. But I support her religious convictions.

Go somewhere else. It's just a piece of paper.

Besides, the witch is doing them a favor by saving them from a nasty divorce.

Saying "go somewhere else" is fine when it's a private business, not a public official.

Well, if you love causing even more hatred then drive on. I'd rather everyone get along. But you get a church lady asshole bumping heads with a bunch of gay activists, shit happens. I think both should chill the fuck out.

people do not "cause hatred" by standing up for their rights.

I would say the bigot is deserving of hate. but really, she's deserving of pity for her ignorance. and most certainly deserving of larges fines and jail time for violating the order of the supreme court and deserving of losing her job.... which I figure is imminent -- hopefully.

You bigots want to make sure that everyone submits to your demonic agenda and if anyone DARES to dissent, it sends you into fits of demonic fury. That much is clear.

go wipe the spittle off of your face. the bigot is you.

but you're really funny when you go all insane like that.

 

[EriktheRed]

Or just being sick of nice white cops with families being given the all too dangerous task of controlling America's chimp population and dying in the line of duty. I feel the same way about sending Americans overseas to die in some camel shit country for sand nggrs who will alway hate us. It seems like a giant waste. People who want to live like animals should be segregated from those who don't and then have at each other. Good people shouldn't be dying for chimps wherever they are.

You're a piece of crap.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They should be ashamed of themselves. Because they kicked the can down the road on slavery because of political expedience, the fledgling nation they created almost ripped itself apart and killed hundreds of thousands. A document that didn't extend freedom to all people is deeply flawed.

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

Looking through the prism of history, it's not easy to see that slavery had yet to become an entrenched part of the economy for all states in the 18th century. Yes it would have been difficult, but much less so before it grew into an issue that would lead inevitably to secession. My point is, they didn't even try. And let's face it, it's because they didn't want to.

The issue was property. Regardless of how vital slaves were to the economy of a given state, they were a considerable property investment by individuals who owned them. The abolishment of slavery would nullify that investment and cause massive turmoil within each state in which it occurred. Abolishment would have caused damage to the individual states that had significant slave populations.

'Looking through the lens of history', the 'United States' was barely more than a notional concept in the 1780s. These representatives were for their state first. And for a nation only if it benefitted their states. Abolition would have caused significant damage to most of the southern states.

Even without abolition, the constitution barely passed. There is virtually no chance of ratification of the constitution with such a provision in it. While a significant danger to the States collectively and individually if they didn't unify more tightly.

The issues that motivated the constitutional convention and the writing of the Constitution were issues of practicality, functionality and security. Slavery was not the motivation. The issues that motivated the writing of the cosntitjution dominated. The issues that didn't motivate its writing were largely subordinate.

My angle is a little different here. The 13% black population in this country today and all the problems we're dealing with today because of it is because slavery became an industry with demand from southern states being accommodated by northern states bringing in hordes of them by ship. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Lincoln's plan was indeed to create a nation of freed black slaves. A nation that was in fact created. Lincoln, being a product of his age and experience, didn't think that the black and white man could live together in harmony. He stated, rather bluntly, that the whites would take advantage of the blacks and dominate them as the blacks lacked the capacities that whites possessed.

Lincoln's views changed over time, specifically after he was exposed to black men like Fredrick Douglas. Douglas was extremely well educated, articulate, thoughtful, and insightful. His many conversations with Lincoln convinced the President that his views of the black man may not be universal. Shortly before his murder, he advocated making citizens out of 'exceptional' blacks and any former slave that fought in the civil war.

For one who didn't think any black should ever be a citizen, this was a huge change in position. One of the things I liked about Lincoln....is that his positions could change based on the evidence.

So Lincoln never advocated that all blacks remain in the country. And he was right that blacks and whites could not coexist and we see the evidence of that daily.

You may not like it, but most blacks still cling to their primitive, violent nature even when they have the opportunity not to. Areas where blacks are thick on the ground are like 3rd world enclaves. And they've run out of excuses to behave that way.

So when I say that Lincoln was right to want to ship them all back, it isn't out of hate or racism, it's an observation of what should be obvious to everyone, that when you bring Africans to the American continent, it becomes more like Africa, even several generations later.

Odd for me to realize that America would have been better off if Lincoln were not assassinated. BTW, we're WAY off topic!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Or just being sick of nice white cops with families being given the all too dangerous task of controlling America's chimp population and dying in the line of duty. I feel the same way about sending Americans overseas to die in some camel shit country for sand nggrs who will alway hate us. It seems like a giant waste. People who want to live like animals should be segregated from those who don't and then have at each other. Good people shouldn't be dying for chimps wherever they are.

You're a piece of crap.

You done hurt my feelings. I'm seeking refuge in my happy song now....

"Oh, oh, oh ice cold milk and an oreo cookie...."

 

[Skylar]

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

Looking through the prism of history, it's not easy to see that slavery had yet to become an entrenched part of the economy for all states in the 18th century. Yes it would have been difficult, but much less so before it grew into an issue that would lead inevitably to secession. My point is, they didn't even try. And let's face it, it's because they didn't want to.

The issue was property. Regardless of how vital slaves were to the economy of a given state, they were a considerable property investment by individuals who owned them. The abolishment of slavery would nullify that investment and cause massive turmoil within each state in which it occurred. Abolishment would have caused damage to the individual states that had significant slave populations.

'Looking through the lens of history', the 'United States' was barely more than a notional concept in the 1780s. These representatives were for their state first. And for a nation only if it benefitted their states. Abolition would have caused significant damage to most of the southern states.

Even without abolition, the constitution barely passed. There is virtually no chance of ratification of the constitution with such a provision in it. While a significant danger to the States collectively and individually if they didn't unify more tightly.

The issues that motivated the constitutional convention and the writing of the Constitution were issues of practicality, functionality and security. Slavery was not the motivation. The issues that motivated the writing of the cosntitjution dominated. The issues that didn't motivate its writing were largely subordinate.

My angle is a little different here. The 13% black population in this country today and all the problems we're dealing with today because of it is because slavery became an industry with demand from southern states being accommodated by northern states bringing in hordes of them by ship. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Lincoln's plan was indeed to create a nation of freed black slaves. A nation that was in fact created. Lincoln, being a product of his age and experience, didn't think that the black and white man could live together in harmony. He stated, rather bluntly, that the whites would take advantage of the blacks and dominate them as the blacks lacked the capacities that whites possessed.

Lincoln's views changed over time, specifically after he was exposed to black men like Fredrick Douglas. Douglas was extremely well educated, articulate, thoughtful, and insightful. His many conversations with Lincoln convinced the President that his views of the black man may not be universal. Shortly before his murder, he advocated making citizens out of 'exceptional' blacks and any former slave that fought in the civil war.

For one who didn't think any black should ever be a citizen, this was a huge change in position. One of the things I liked about Lincoln....is that his positions could change based on the evidence.

So Lincoln never advocated that all blacks remain in the country.

He never got the chance to. He was assassinated long before he ever might have. But he'd already moved from all blacks being shipped overseas.....to 'exceptional' blacks and veterans being US citizens. His position on the matter was clearly not immutable.

Odd for me to realize that America would have been better off if Lincoln were not assassinated. BTW, we're WAY off topic!

The south would have been way better off if Lincoln were not assassinated. Lincoln reigned in the most radical republicans in his party that wanted to punish the south for their insurrection. Lincoln proposed a more 'prodigal son' approach, welcoming the states back as lost brothers with help from the government to help rebuild their infrastructure.

With Lincoln's assassination the more radical elements within his party were more influential in forming post war policy and the terms of the South's return to full statehood. Those terms were much, much harsher than what Lincoln had advocated.