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

[IM2]

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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

 

[Correll]

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

What this shows was a racist law that denied blacks our constitutional right to vote. If blacks were boters there probably woud bt no slavery to support.

That also.

But, as I said,

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


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

 

[IM2]

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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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


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


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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

I am not one of the those who believe that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.

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

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

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

And what did they all have in common?

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

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.

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

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

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

And what did they all have in common?

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

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

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

Now, there were 200000 Black union soldiers as well.

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

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

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

And what did they all have in common?

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

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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

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



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


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


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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


You fail.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

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


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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

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



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

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

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

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



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

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

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

Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.

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


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


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


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

 

[AKIP]

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

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

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



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

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

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

Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[IM2]

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

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

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.

Yes they were mustreated

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

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

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men who died did so to preserve America.

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

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

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



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

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

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

Lincoln won that election with a huge margin of victory.

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


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


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


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

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