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

[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.

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.

I am dismissing your crap based upon correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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 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.

Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.

 

[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.

Amen my brother. I had 4 uncles in WW2.and my father

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

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 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.

It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca

Yes they were mustreated
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".

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.

Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.

Please share your thoughts as to why.
I have never stated that he was bad,

I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.

But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......

As we have seen in this thread.

 

[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 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

Yes they were mustreated
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".

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.

It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca

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 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.

Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.

Please share your thoughts as to why.
I have never stated that he was bad,

I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.

But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......

As we have seen in this thread.

He went way outside the powers of the president. Jailed the opposition press in the North (against 1st amendment). Took over residences (also against the Constitution). I'm not in the mode for all instances, ok?

Sorry. Yet no one president has been as dictatorial as Lincoln.

He would have died within 3 weeks anyway if he hadn't been shot.

How sane was his brain as riddled with syphilis as it was?

 

[IM2]

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.

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

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 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.

It is his belief that if not for "great sacrifices" by white males such as casting a vote for a presidential candidate back in 1860 who he ca

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 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.

Lincoln was the most dictatorial president to this date, to the point he did harm to the country.

Please share your thoughts as to why.
I have never stated that he was bad,

I just believe that his place in history as "The Great Emancipator" is nothing but romanticized history, considering the quantity of evidence that exists which suggests otherwise.

But of course, there are always fools out there who will believe the fables......

As we have seen in this thread.

He went way outside the powers of the president. Jailed the opposition press in the North (against 1st amendment). Took over residences (also against the Constitution). I'm not in the mode for all instances, ok?

Sorry. Yet no one president has been as dictatorial as Lincoln.

He would have died within 3 weeks anyway if he hadn't been shot.

How sane was his brain as riddled with syphilis as it was?

Do you live in the north or the south?

 

[Mudda]

I dunno. IM2 how DO you feel on July 4th?

 

[Correll]

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

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 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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

 

[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.

I am dismissing your crap based upon correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.

 

[IM2]

A

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.

I am dismissing your crap based upon correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.

And your point is?

 

[Correll]

A

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.

I am dismissing your crap based upon correct documented historical fact. I don't fail in his regard. But you do so miserably.

And your point is?

Beyond your reach, apparently.

 

[IM2]

Yes they were mustreated
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".

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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

 

[Correll]

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 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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

 

[IM2]

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 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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were. Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states. Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

 

[Correll]

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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.

No, America did not originate slavery, however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.

Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?

That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.

As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.

The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.

That was NOT Lincolns belief system.

"
In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"

 

[IM2]

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.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check. I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.

So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.

 

[Correll]

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

This post exceeds all boundaries of sincere ignorance and concientous stupudity.

Blah, blah, blah.

No, America did not originate slavery,

Thank you for admitting that. I hope you will be more careful with your language. There are a lot of emotionally invested people on this issue, and that breeds stupidity. Don't encourage it.

however, America HAS acted as the worlds police and has been a self appointed example of what "Democracy" is supposed to look like since it's "ideals" were signed into effect by the so called "Founding Fathers"...some of whom were slave owners themselves.

Couldn't really call the US the world's police man till after World War Two. Prior to that we were pretty isolationists and prior to THAT, Great Britain was more the world's powerhouse.

An example of Freedom and Democracy? Yes, certainly.

Why should any Black citizen living today "give any credit" to anyone for an institution being abolished that should have never even existed in a country that was founded on the principles that it was?

Same reasons ANYONE should respect someone else who is prepared to make such hard choices at such high cost.

That this is hard for you to understand, says a lot about your character and/or upbringing.

That is not racism, and it is FOOLISH to make such a statement.

Denial is proof. Isn't that the rule you lefties use?

As far as this obsession of yours to attempt to reinvent Lincoln as an abolitionist, you should do some reading on the ideology of those who truly were.

The authentic abolitionist of that era not only believed in the moral wrong of slavery, they also believed in those who were slaves having equal rights of citizenship.

That was NOT Lincolns belief system.

"
In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858"

I'm sure if you traveled in time to 1870 and told a recently freed black man that Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist, because he did not support the black man's right to marry a white woman,

he would have responded something like this.

Also,

 

[Correll]

Elections are the nation making a choice. A limited franchise does not change that.

I'm not giving them credit for what they didn't do.

I'm giving them credit for what they did do.


THey choose the strongest anti-slavery guy on the ticket, even though it led to a bloody war.

THey reaffirmed that choice when they re-elected him, in the middle of the bloodiest war in American History.

That's was their choice. To fight and to keep fighting.

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check. I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.

So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.

 

[IM2]

Yes you're trying to give credit where It's not deserved.

You need to understand one simple reality correll. Whites made slavery legal. That was a mistake, they fucked up, it was stupid, dumb, a flawed decision. So for you to act like it was some fucking great noble deed for whites to correct their own fuck up is just as stupid. Nobody owes any debt of gratitude to white people for deciding to do what os right. Why should we be grateful? What the fuck s going through your mid? That we backs should be happy because we could still be saves or something? Because that's all you're trying to say here.

The truth s that Lincoln was not elected either time because of his claimed anti slavery stance. The war was fought to preserve the union. The only reason Lincoln was elected a second time was that the north pulled out a couple of victories in the war because the North wanted tp stop fighting. Now you can lie to yourself all you want. You can post extra large pictures all you want, but I know that Lincoln did not fight t end slavery, that he saw blacks as inferior and he was a racist.

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check. I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.

So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.

What's next, a full page ad?

The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

1. "Whites" made slavery legal? Someone tell that to the Ottomans. For ONE example.

2. If any voters in 1860 thought there was a bigger issue than slavery, they were fools.

So many times you chumps tell me how you were not around at certain times and since you were not around then, you don't know what the real issues were.

Wow. A supposed academic arguing AGAINST the possibility of understanding something though study....

Incredible.

Anyway, it is absurd to think that slavery was not the primary issue of the elections in 1860 or 1865.

Secondly we are talking about America not the Ottoman empire . So you can stop playing that dumb ass game you white people play when you are presented with the fact that your white asses made slavery legal in these united states.

I was responding to what you said. It is fairly common of you lefties to act as though white people invented slavery or it only happened here.

Just giving you a reality check.

Slavery was not invented here. It was pretty much global and normal when white people first started coming to these shores. It was not some new idea that white people came up with here in the Americas.

Whites made slavery legal and for whites to have corrected your fuck up is nothing to be happy about nor is it something that should be cherished or bragged about. Whites fucked up and after some 200 years whites finally decided to do something about their fuck up.

Now for you to try bragging about how a war was fought over slavery shows just how stupid whites were in this regard. They fucked up, knew they fucked up from the beginning, but yet refused to fix the fuck up until half a million of you died.

You talk of those that instituted slavery in the hemisphere, and those that fought to end it in this hemisphere as though they were the same people.


Which has to be dishonest of you, as no one can be that stupid.


Right?


Lincoln, and those that followed him, so often to their deaths, deserve credit for their fight against slavery.

That you can't give it to them, because they are white, is your racism speaking.

Your post is a bunch of gibberish son. You can't give me a reality check. I said whites made slavery legal. And since Lincoln was not president of the ottoman empire your reference to that shows that you are a dumb ass trying to divert from the subject being discussed.

So like I said, lie to yourself, you have that right.

What's next, a full page ad?

The fact here is that after 200 years whites decided to correct their fuck up and you act like that's something great and should be held in high esteem.

What about the Blacks who sold their fellow Blacks into Slavery in the first place?