Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
But it serves your purpose to.
I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
You may find this link to be interesting. I read this some years ago and shared it on a different board that is now closed. First hand accounts of how Blacks
felt over Lincolns inaugural address in 1861 refusing to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, as well as his sentiment regarding saving the Union even if it meant "not freeing a single slave".
"In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
Source:
The Civil War
Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
But it serves your purpose to.
I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Funny how the Southern states didn't buy his attempts to walk back his earlier anti-slavery statements.
But it serves your purpose to.
I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I dont have a "purpose" here. You are bent out of shape because I am not aligned with your romanticized bullshit.
The southern states were understandably apprehensive. Lincoln, was a threat to their labor force because he wanted to preserve and industrialize the Union.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
1. Your purpose here is obvious. You want to deconstruct American Nationalism and bolster Black Ethno-nationalism.
2. Lincoln was a threat to their labor force because he was strongly anti-slavery, on moral grounds. And as that person he won the Republican Primary and then the general election, in a franchise limited to white men. A proud day for America.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
A fact is not a claim.
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
IE, he did end slavery.
Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
Only a lunatic asks a person to show evidence supporting a true statement.
It is completely reasonable in a debate on a debating forum to ask someone to support a claim.
ONly a liar would claim that it is insane.
A fact is not a claim.
A claim is nothing but an opinion until it is supported.
I asked for that support and katsteve could not support it.
THat makes it nothing but unsupported opinion at this time.
YOu are welcome to stop filling these pages with meaningless shit, and back up his claim if you agree with it.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
IE, he did end slavery.
Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
Your assessment is simply incorrect.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
IE, he did end slavery.
Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
Your assessment is simply incorrect.
In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
You two being black is irrelevant .
"A franchise limited to white men"? "A proud day for America"? Slavery ended and Jin Crow started, you nutcase.
And in many ways Jim Crow and Black Codes were just as restrictive and oppressive as slavery.
.....
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
IE, he did end slavery.
Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
Your assessment is simply incorrect.
In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
You two being black is irrelevant .
What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
1. Yep. Despite the lack of representation for blacks, America choose antislavery.
2. Jim Crow was as bad as slavery? you want to support that odd claim?
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?
What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.
There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.
Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.
The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.
The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.
As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.
Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.
You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"
I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .
It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.
As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.
Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.
Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.
Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.
Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.
Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.
You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.
And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?
What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.
That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.
So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.
That is an indefensible position.
That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.
KatSteve has offered loads of supporting evidence. You are the one who hasn't. We all know that the vote for Lincoln was not a vote to end slavery in any of these elections. Now that's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but your opposition to the facts do not change the facts. It is neither kasteves fault or my own that whites id what they did. Just because you don't like whites being portrayed in that manner is your problem that you need to get psychologically resolved. We were the ones enslaved in that situation and we do not need to try making whitey look like he was some great savior when he was a punk ass racist piece of slave owning garbage to us. Whites should not have done what they did and history would not have portrayed whites in the manner in which they have.
You want to credit white America for some fake shit. We don't recognize that and we will not give credit to what for what they did not do.. Because while you don't like whites being depicted as the way they really were, we refuse to allow punk ass bitches like you to depict us as hopeless people who would never have been freed from slavery if not for whitey, which we were not.
I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.
Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.
I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.
Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.
IE, he did end slavery.
Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.
You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.
Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.
Your assessment is simply incorrect.
In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.
You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.
You two being black is irrelevant .
What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.
Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.
