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

[Yarddog]

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

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

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

There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.

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

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

Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles.

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

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

 

[Divine Wind]

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

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

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

There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[boedicca]

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

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

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

There's also the aspect that Parenting Matters.

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

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

Whites did not accumulate wealth by adhering to those principles.

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

Clearly it must be all of that oppressing poor people.

 

[Correll]

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

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

 

[MizMolly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MizMolly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MizMolly]

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

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

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

You should have said "America."

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

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

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

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

 

[MizMolly]

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

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

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

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

So stop using Africa to excuse what whites have done.

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

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

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

This is snot about teaching you to hate yourself

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hunarcy]

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

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

You should have said "America."

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hunarcy]

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

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

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

You should have said "America."

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

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

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

Slavery ended by default in order to preserve the union.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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

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

 

[theHawk]

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

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

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

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

For the rest of the speech:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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

For the rest of the speech:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm

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

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your denial is strong.

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

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

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

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

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

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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


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


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your denial is strong.

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

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

Too funny.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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