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

[Correll]

The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.

No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.

So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?

Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.

You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".


And you were pretty quick on your reply...

I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.


Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.


How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?

I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.

That was not the claim the other poster made.

He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.


He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.


But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.

 

[IM2]

No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.

So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?

Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.

You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".


And you were pretty quick on your reply...

I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.


Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.


How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?

I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.

That was not the claim the other poster made.

He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.


He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.


But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.

The US wasn't anti slavery at that time. And the poster did state that Lincoln won because the north won a key battle.

 

[Moonglow]

Lincoln was running against a general he discharged named McClellon..He got 21 EC votes..He thought he was gonna show that Abe what a real man could do..

 

[katsteve2012]

You pull the "race card" in practically every post that you put up.

"Mr. Anti White Discrimination"

LMAO at your idiocy.

Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.


Mm, I will also call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.

Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional horseshit.

If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.

I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.

Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?

Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?

What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.

I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.

YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)


YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.

You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.

If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?

So yes. I am brutally honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.

If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.

 

[katsteve2012]

I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,

you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.


And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.


How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?

I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.

You lost the argument and that's just how it is.

ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.


Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?

DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?

YOU noticed.


You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.


That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.


Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.

 

[hunarcy]

Do you think that being confident will hide the fact that you were unable to challenge my point at all, nor answer my question?


Only in your own little mind, fool.




i'm sure the millions of slaves he freed, were really hurt by him not being a 21 st century liberal.


How many millions of slaves have you freed, Mister Judge?

I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.

You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.

Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.


YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,

but you never answer my point, nor my question.

I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.

The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.

I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.

You might read this article. I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

 

[hunarcy]

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.

.

Northern Democrats nominated Steven Douglas. Southern Democrats nominated John Breckenridge. The Constitution Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Between them and Sam Houston of Texas, 60% of the vote was against Lincoln. You might want to reassess your post.

 

[hunarcy]

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.

No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]

 

[hunarcy]

No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.

So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?

Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.

You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".


And you were pretty quick on your reply...

I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.


Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.


How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?

I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.

That was not the claim the other poster made.

He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.


He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.


But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.

As this is a message board and not a real time conversation, I left a message and then went on about my day. When I logged on again, I saw your post and showed you that Lincoln won only 40% of the popular voted, meaning that 60% preferred someone else. That would indicate that someone else would have gotten the majority of the popular vote, that candidate would have won. But, with the Democratic Party fractured, it gave Lincoln the opportunity to win. You might read this article as well:

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]

 

[IM2]

I've beat you t death over this issue fool Not only have I challenged your point but kats and I have debunked them. You've lost the argument conehead.

You see punk, you are the one unable to answer a question challenge anyone. You have yet to show us any anti white laws or policies.

Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.


YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,

but you never answer my point, nor my question.

I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.

The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.

I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.

You might read this article. I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

I have read that article before.

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

0.0064244518410009 percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.

 

[Correll]

I expect lefties of any race or color to attack me personally when they can't refute my political points.

WHich is what kat did.

Which is what you just did, shit head.

(that was me insulting you back, The difference is that my insults are true)

This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.


If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.


The Race Card is the most common attack.


Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.

And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.

i'm not demanding you answer it.

You said you already answered it.


I asked for you to show me where you did that.


And you have been playing games since then.

No you are the one playing games. I answered your question and am under no obligation t go back and show you where I answered it because you claim something.

You did not answer either the point nor the question.


You liberals just play propaganda games instead of engaging in serious or honest debate.

 

[Correll]

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

I challenge you to show me anti white laws and policies.

So, you dropping that claim that the previous posters claims were well supported?

Cause when I asked to see the supposed "support" you tried to change the subject.

You certainly did NOT show any posted "Support".


And you were pretty quick on your reply...

I'm thinking that you did not even try to find that supposed support, because you KNEW that it would not be there.


Hence, your attempt at distraction, by changing the subject.


How much does it freak you out that I won't fall for you bullshit tactics?

I'm not dropping anything. You were been shown supporting evidence long ago that Lincoln was losing until the north won a key battle in the war.

That was not the claim the other poster made.

He claimed that if the 1860 election was two Candidates, LIncoln and another, that Lincoln would have lost.


He made this claim, obviously, because I made the point that Lincoln, winning a strong plurality showed that the US was antislavery at the time.


But he didn't back up that claim, and neither did anyone else.

The US wasn't anti slavery at that time. And the poster did state that Lincoln won because the north won a key battle.

THe US elected the anti-slavery president running on an anti-slavery campaign, and you don't consider that proof of the nation being anti-slavery?

LOL!!! Of course you don't. Cause that might undermine your constant attempts to deconstruct America.


The battle does not matter at all to the 1860 election, and does not negate the message of the 1865 election EITHER.

 

[Correll]

Your pretense that you don't understand what the Race Card is, is noted and dismissed.


Mm, I will also call you an asshole for being so grossly dishonest and insulting me.

Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional horseshit.

If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.

I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.

Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?

Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?

What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.

I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.

YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)


YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.

You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.

If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?

So yes. I am brutally honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.

If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.

1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.

2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.


3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".


4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.

That is you being absurd.

And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.

 

[Correll]

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,

you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.


And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.


How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?

I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.

You lost the argument and that's just how it is.

ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.


Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?

DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?

YOU noticed.


You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.


That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.


Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.

I agree that pointing out that someone is a lefty is not a counter point.


However pointing out that someone has been unable to show where they did something in this thread, that they repeatedly claim they did, IS!

But, by pretending to be confused about that obvious fact, you got to attack me and contribute to the attempt of your comrade to distract from the fact that he did not answer my point nor my question.


You lefties do like to play stupid.

FYI, the point in this thread is in the BOLDED portion. Please don't pretend to not understand that.

YOu are not fooling me.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.

.

Northern Democrats nominated Steven Douglas. Southern Democrats nominated John Breckenridge. The Constitution Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Between them and Sam Houston of Texas, 60% of the vote was against Lincoln. You might want to reassess your post.

In my post, I pointed out that the other poster did not support their assumption that all opposing votes would have remained against Lincoln if there was only two candidates.


Would you like to take a swing at that?

 

[Correll]

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?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

The nation was split into two regions, the North and the South. Lincoln won the region that represented the majority of the nation.

Your assumption that all the votes that were split would have been anti-Lincoln votes in there was only two candidates is unsupported.


That the bloodiest war in US history was a political issue is not surprising.


That it was a SURVIVABLE political issue for Lincoln is a massive testimony to how anti-slavery the nation as a whole was.

No what that person said is supported plenty. What you claim, not so much.

I challenge you to show where it is supported that all of the votes that were split, that Lincoln did not win, were anti-lincoln votes that would have defeated him, if there were only two candidates, ie Lincoln and a pro-slavery candidate.

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]

The Southern Dems split with the Northern dems because the northerns wanted to let new states vote on whether to allow slavery or not?


Sounds like they assumed that most new states would choose to be Free, and thus fairly quickly lead to political marginalization for them.


NOte that they did NOT see that as a path to INCREASING the number of slave states, RELATIVE to the number of Free States.


Their actions indicate that they felt they were living in a nation that was anti-slavery and becoming more so.

 

[katsteve2012]

Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.


YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,

but you never answer my point, nor my question.

I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.

The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.

I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.

You might read this article. I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

I have read that article before.

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

0.0064244518410009 percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.

Excuse me for being done humoring you and your delusional horseshit.

If you're insulted by my frankness.....too fucking bad. You're not obligated to address me any further.

I was insulted by your blatant and uncalled for personal insult.

Are you really so stupid that you didn't notice that my Race Card meme was in response to a post that contained nothing but a uncalled for insult, and NOT a post that expressed disagreement on the topic?

Or are you just a dishonest lefty, playing stupid?

What I sm is direct AND honest. That's why you are complaining to me, a complete stranger that you are :"insulted" by something that I said. I have no reason to not say what I whatever I choose to say to you.

I am complaining because you insulted me with a bullshit insult.

YOu are not honest. YOu are a lying shitbag. (that was me insulting you BACK, with the difference that my insult is true)


YOur pretense that there is a cause and effect between being insulted and you being truthful is moronic.

You're an emotional and effeminate little insecure person who politicizes every statement with referring to someone as a "lefty" if they disagree with your tirades.

If what I say is too much for you to take, then maybe you should not respond to what I have to say?

So yes. I am brutally honest and you are too fragile to deal with it.

If someone as disingenuois and deflective as you have been takes offense at my perception of your half ass arguments and lack of meaningful and factual common sense, then I am fine with that reality.

1. I am not politicizing your statements by mentioning that you are a lefty. This is a political discussion forum and we are discussing politics. Your surprise that our statements are political is not credible and dismissed as bullshit.

2. It is not "too much for me to take". So, save your bullshit.


3. YOu are not "brutally honest". You are simply as asshole who starts insulting people when they call you on your bullshit. Which is another way of saying "lefty".


4. This discussion has boiled down to YOU denying Lincoln and his supporters the respect they are due for their ending of slavery, because the people that started slavery IN THE US, had the same skin color as them.

That is you being absurd.

And as I call you on it, and refuse to be impressed or cowed by your lefty tactics, you get more and more unpleasant.

You are devoid of any sense or reason.
You do not know if I am left, right or middle of the road. Your "lefty" talking point is exactly what I called it as. Its you deflecting and avoiding any type of facts, documented history, and even common sense. You have peesented no facts and nothing credible that shows you to have the basic understanding of past events.

I give Lincoln what he deserves for what he did do, which was to preserve the union as HE SAID he would do...under any circumstances. And you will not dictate to me who I will respect and for what reasons.

YOUR problem is that you are attempting to make that accomplishment into something that history validates that it is not.

And the fact that I will not participate in your bullshit delusion and misinformed glorifying has you in whiny bitch mode.

If you feel that is unpleasant, then as I told you before, you are not obligated to respond to anything that I post. Other than that, if you do choose to respond to what I post, with the same idiocy that you have shown, you may not like what I have to say.

 

[katsteve2012]

This leftie crap you speak of sows what kind of dumb ass you are. You got personally attacked because apparently katsteve got tired of your bullshit. He spent quite a long time trying to decently debate you. Now man up and stop crying.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what occurred.


If you call a lefty on his crap, and don't let him get away with bullshit to cover his inability to answer any real challenge, sooner or later, and generally sooner, his or her or it's response will be to personally attack you.


The Race Card is the most common attack.


Your lies are meant for only the willful of dupes.

And when a right wing nut gets his ass hammered they keep demanding people answer questions they have already answered claiming they never answered them and if they don't answer them make claims of how the person is a lefty who is caught in a lie.

i'm not demanding you answer it.

You said you already answered it.


I asked for you to show me where you did that.


And you have been playing games since then.

No you are the one playing games. I answered your question and am under no obligation t go back and show you where I answered it because you claim something.

You did not answer either the point nor the question.


You liberals just play propaganda games instead of engaging in serious or honest debate.

Yet you have failed in every attempt to engage in an honest debate, all that you have done has been to repeat the same noise without a supporting fact or thought. .
In order to debate, two things are needed.

Knowledge of the subject and the ability to present the knowledge that you have.

 

[katsteve2012]

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

So, you claim. Yet when challenged, instead of cutting and pasting the post where you answered my point and my question, which would have humiliated me,

you instead did exactly as I predicted, ie you did NOT show me where you did that.


And the reason is as I said. Because we both know that you did NOT.


How can you have to lie like this to pretend to make a point, and not realize that that means you are wrong?

I'm not the one lying. I answered what I needed to answer and did so in the manner I chose to answer it.

You lost the argument and that's just how it is.

ANd still no post demonstrating what you claim.


Do you really think that I wouldn't notice that?

DO you think ANYONE reading this didn't notice that?

YOU noticed.


You, other lefties, might lie and pretend that they believe your lies, but you know the truth.


That's why you didn't even bother to try to find where you supposedly answered my point and my question.


Because you know that you are in the wrong.

Just by you labeling people as "lefty" does not make for an acceptable counterpoint. You have not made any sound arguments here based on any facts. They are all based on what you want to believe. No matter how ridiculous you sound.

I agree that pointing out that someone is a lefty is not a counter point.


However pointing out that someone has been unable to show where they did something in this thread, that they repeatedly claim they did, IS!

But, by pretending to be confused about that obvious fact, you got to attack me and contribute to the attempt of your comrade to distract from the fact that he did not answer my point nor my question.


You lefties do like to play stupid.

FYI, the point in this thread is in the BOLDED portion. Please don't pretend to not understand that.

YOu are not fooling me.

Lol. Get over yourself. Why would I invest any of my time in trying to fool someone who is already ignorant and misinformed?

 

[hunarcy]

Yet you can't answer either my point, nor my question to you.


YOu talk and spout and deflect and distract,

but you never answer my point, nor my question.

I know it, you know it, Kat knows it, anyone reading knows it.

The lefties might lie, because, lefties, but they know it too.

I've answered all of what I needed to answer. You lost.

I challenge you to show where you answered the point and the question I was referring to.


This is rhetorical, because we both know that you did NOT answer them, and that you are too dishonest to admit that.


YOu can now post some bullshit to prove me right, AGAIN.

(hint: the way to prove me wrong is to post a quote of you answering my question and point)

I've answered what was needed to be answered.

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

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

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


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


MMMM?!

Lincoln was a totally regional candidate that didn't win one southern state in 1860. If there hadn't been so many candidates opposing him and splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, he wouldn't have won so "bigly". In 1864, only the northern states voted (because, of course, the south was still in rebellion. But, the election was in doubt and McClellan looked like he would win until Sherman took Atlanta, marched to the sea and turned north into South Carolina, which doomed the Confederacy and tipped the election to Lincoln.

I would hope, however, that we can all agree that most blacks would not have supported slavery. However, as some freedmen owned slaves, they MIGHT have supported slavery.

Can we talk a little more honestly about freedmen who owned slaves? Many purchased family members, spouses and children. So to simply say free blacks owned slaves too is dishonest. On top of that there were so few of these freedmen who owned slaves that it's not really an issue. Something like a thousand or less is the actual count. Other than that I cannot disagree with what you have said.

You might read this article. I would hold that the number of slave holding freedmen was a bit higher than you believe.

http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

I have read that article before.

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

0.0064244518410009 percent of all slaves were owned by black freedmen. Out of the freedman population just a bit more than 1 percent owned slaves. The number was very small. That's my point.

And my point is that they existed. The slave owners owned slaves for a variety of reasons, but some owned slaves for economic reasons and they would have supported slavery. I'm not trying to excuse slavery as it is a disgusting institution, but ignoring them is ignoring history.