Your speculation ignores the fact that 60% voted against Lincoln. Why don't you show us that if Lincoln ran against one, he'd have gotten more of the vote?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
Your speculation ignores the fact that 60% voted against Lincoln. Why don't you show us that if Lincoln ran against one, he'd have gotten more of the vote?
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.
I wouldn't disagree...However, you seem to believe that if the vote had not been split, Lincoln would have won. The fact is that the Republican Party was new and wildly popular. The Democratic Party was established and much more popular. Only the fact that the Party splintered and so many people split the larger popular allowed Lincoln to win.
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.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
- Moderator
- #444
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.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
Last edited:
- Mar 11, 2015
- 82,421
- 48,179
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #445
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.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
- Moderator
- #446
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.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
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.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
What is often overlooked about black slave owners is that many bought their own family members in order to emancipate them.
I've answered what was needed to be answered.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
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.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
I would expect it was a small number. The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
I've answered what was needed to be answered.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.I've answered what was needed to be answered.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
What is often overlooked about black slave owners is that many bought their own family members in order to emancipate them.
If you read back, you'll find that's already been acknowledged.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding. Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area. Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding. Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area. Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.
I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.
Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.
But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.
Well within their lifetimes.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 82,421
- 48,179
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #452
I've answered what was needed to be answered.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
I would expect it was a small number. The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
We know that, but those like Correll will not mention this and make claims of blacks owning slaves like blacks were the primary slave owners
- Mar 11, 2015
- 82,421
- 48,179
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #453
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding. Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area. Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.
I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.
Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.
But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.
Well within their lifetimes.
No, you are talking about YOUR political perceptions of that time. Not the actual political perceptions.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 82,421
- 48,179
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #454
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
- Moderator
- #455
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
- Moderator
- #456
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
Absolutely.
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.
I'm not saying you should not say they existed, but maybe it should be pointed out that a very small number of blacks owned slaves due to the fact that such information is used in a disingenuous manner by so many white people.
I would expect it was a small number. The number of freedmen was small, the number of them who were wealthy enough to purchase slaves was small, so the number who achieved the multiple slave holder status was small as well.
We know that, but those like Correll will not mention this and make claims of blacks owning slaves like blacks were the primary slave owners
Err, no I didn't. I don't care about black slave owners. They are not relevant in any fashion to me.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
I believe the death knell of slavery was already sounding. Cotton had reached its natural limit at the Brazos Valley in Texas, as the climate and land was not favorable to raising cotton west of that area. Also, within 10 years of the end of the war, machinery was introduced to replace human power in agriculture.
Well, we are talking about political perceptions at that time.
I've never seen any indication that the South had accepted that their slavery system could not spread further west.
Also, they had no way of knowing about the machinery to be introduced ten years in the future.
But, they certainly knew that the North was already outpacing them as it was, and that any change to further that trend would lead to the End of the World, as they knew it.
Well within their lifetimes.
No, you are talking about YOUR political perceptions of that time. Not the actual political perceptions.
Your post has nothing to do with anything you hit the reply button to.
Would you like to try again?
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
Nothing is more insulting to us as blacks than to be told to be grateful to whitey because he fought and died for our freedom in the civil war. So shut the fuck .up about you being insulted.
Actually, by expecting you to be able to show appropriate gratitude and respect to those who earned it, we are treating you with the expectation that you are mature adults, thus COMPLIMENTING you.
Ask me how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who freed US from Imperial Oppression.
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.
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.
Your positions and behavior reveals you to be a fairly standard lefty.
Lincoln ran on and won on a strongly anti-slavery platform, keeping in character with his long history of being strongly anti-slavery.
Some diplomatic attempts at walking that back, leading up to and during the bloody Civil War does not out weight that.
Further more, he freed the slaves of the Confederacy and made it stick.
Your dismissal of his actions, shows that you do NOT give him, nor his supporters, credit for what they did.
And no matter how many times you lie about that, it is still obviously true.
I do find your insults unpleasant. And I will continue to point out that you are an unpleasant person, depending on how vulgar you have been in the post I am replying to and to call you on your behavior.
THis time around, I think it is appropriate to call you a liar and an ass.
Your actions and reasoning are that of an alt right wacko who is off of the rails, and trying to create imaginary history to suit your idealistic view of what Lincoln was and what he set out to accomplish.
You are dishonest as well as being oblivious to truthful history.
Every documented account of Lincoln's platform was pro Union, and in order to accomplish the Union being kept whole, slavery could not expand to northern territories. You can try to romanticize his platform as humanitarian if you insist on being wrong and don't care about looking ill informed , but his own words cannot be dismissed by anything except a lack of comprehension of factual information on your part.
If you believe that the truth is a bitter and unpleasant pill, and you are willing to look like you have no grasp of history and facts that is not my problem... it's yours.
1. Your pretense that I find your disagreement to be insulting is dismissed as dishonesty idiocy. It is your uncalled for insults that I find insulting, and you are an ass.
2. Lincoln's 1860 platform plank on stopping the expansion of slavery into new states was not about new northern states but about ALL new territories including southern ones. THis was a violation of the previous compromise and, if enacted a death knell to slavery.
And thus directly led to the danger to the Union.
There is no "pretense" going on here at all with you. I dont regard your lies as being worthy of anything but disdain and ridicule. So if your feelings are hurt by my brutal frankness, tough shit.
Your intentional distortions of historical facts, and your insistence that black people today owe some sort of debt of gratitude to Lincoln are ridiculous to the extreme.
You can misquote, misrepresent and deny history to your hearts content, but the truth will continue to invalidate your misinformed ignorance.
1. Your continued pretense that I find your disagreement insulting, and not your uncalled for insults is noted and dismissed again. Why do you insist on being a dishonest asshole?
2. YOu are the one who can't bring yourself to show respect or gratitude to Lincoln for his pivotal role in ending slavery in thie nation. THat is on you. Your position is absurd.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 384
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 311
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 455
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 289
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8396
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-