The Lincoln Myth

XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
BTW irregardless is not grammatically correct. You simply need to say regardless. Yes, its usage has become common, but it denotes a poor usage of the english language given its redundancy.
Click to expand...

Ironic but yes I am actually thanking you for this part of your post. Not being Shakespeare is fine but purposely slanging the place is unacceptable.

Furthermore I agree with the vast majority of your posts and am remiss in not noting earlier that you are more moderate than you initially appeared, therefore I apologise for my previous remarks to you. I am sure we still have differences but I don't count you among the extremists.
 
Celticguy said:
Ok tangent ti morals then...
So in the moral environment of the day it was in flux. Enough for the rest of the world to find an easy way to accomplish ending it WITHOUT war. There was no need for war to end slavery so that DEJUSTIFIES it unless morals are insignificant.
Oh... and war ended nothing. A constitutional amendment years later did. Shoot even the Emancipation Proclamation freed zero slaves as it excluded the Union.
Click to expand...

:palm: You are so full of shit. Even the Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass yet and you think slavery was just going to end? How do you live with yourself retard?
 
Last edited:
Celticguy said:
Ok tangent ti morals then...
So in the moral environment of the day it was in flux. Enough for the rest of the world to find an easy way to accomplish ending it WITHOUT war. There was no need for war to end slavery so that DEJUSTIFIES it unless morals are insignificant.
Oh... and war ended nothing. A constitutional amendment years later did. Shoot even the Emancipation Proclamation freed zero slaves as it excluded the Union.
Click to expand...

I did not ask about a "moral flux in the day". I asked you if it was moral to own another human being. Would it be moral to own you, and your family, as my personal property? To have sex with your family members as I might be pleased to do? To kill you and not be charged with a crime? To whip you if you discussed issues like this? To not allow you to own a gun, vote, send your children to school?

The war most certainly did end slavery. The 13th amendment formalized what the war accomplished.

The justification of a war to abolish slavery and give the slave, the same liberty his white contemporaries took for granted, is sacrosanct to our Constitution and Declaration


You have no proof it would not have taken a war to end slavery. A mans liberty is certainly a justifiable reason to fight one!
 
It became law via amendment but was anything but sacrosanct. Over time public mores changed as they do and so in 2014 its inconsuevable that it was ever otherwise. But it was otherwise and denying it is silly. Killing on the ither hand has always been viewed as a last resort. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this which is perfectly understandable but denying history is pointless.

XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
I did not ask about a "moral flux in the day". I asked you if it was moral to own another human being. Would it be moral to own you, and your family, as my personal property? To have sex with your family members as I might be pleased to do? To kill you and not be charged with a crime? To whip you if you discussed issues like this? To not allow you to own a gun, vote, send your children to school?

The war most certainly did end slavery. The 13th amendment formalized what the war accomplished.

The justification of a war to abolish slavery and give the slave, the same liberty his white contemporaries took for granted, is sacrosanct to our Constitution and Declaration


You have no proof it would not have taken a war to end slavery. A mans liberty is certainly a justifiable reason to fight one!
Click to expand...
 
Celticguy said:
It became law via amendment but was anything but sacrosanct. Over time public mores changed as they do and so in 2014 its inconsuevable that it was ever otherwise. But it was otherwise and denying it is silly. Killing on the ither hand has always been viewed as a last resort. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this which is perfectly understandable but denying history is pointless.
Click to expand...

Who is denying history? I note you did not answer my question.

It hardly matters that owning a man was acceptable at that time. What matters is that it was always morally and ethically wrong to deny a man his basic rights!

Certainly you are familiar with slogan espoused about our military "freedom isn't free"? That's right we have spilled blood in order to preserve freedom, how can you suggest the slave's freedom was not worth the fight? You claim it would have eventually died out, and yet then try to say the war didn't end slavery (it did). All you need is to read about Reconstruction in the post war years to prove the war gave slavery its death blow. How much longer would slavery have lasted had there been no war? You cant know that. But what we can know is that the Revolitionary war was waged over much less than that of a mans freedom at stake. How is it you fail to see the justice in fighting to free a man from bondage to another?
 
Last edited:
SmilinJack said:
Mr. Lincoln could have prevented that war as has been shown....Slavery would have died a natural death very shortly and the Negroes would have been spared the trauma of the negligent manner in which Mr. Lincoln ended it for no other reason than his own political benefit.

Tragically the way Mr. Lincoln terminated Slavery set the Negroes up for hundreds of years of mal-admustment, no family structure and a transformtion into a socio-pathic parasitical community dependent on others for their very survival.


In a nutshell....beware of do gooders>>>>>http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2011/12/12/beware-the-do-gooder-his-government/
Click to expand...
No it has not been shown. The only thing that has been shown is that you are ignorant of the facts and that you are a racist. It was the Southern States that started the war. Lincoln did everything within his power to prevent the Civil war. It was the South that resorted to violence and started the war.

You seem to have the problem that many southern conservatives have. That if you repeat some inane stupidity often enough that it somehow makes it a fact. It doesn't, the only thing it makes is you stupid.
 
Joseph Plunkett said:
Mr Lincoln was dealing with mouth-breathing morons of the lowest order: moral degenerates and warmongers. How exactly could he have prevented war, short of ignoring attacks on US forces and installations?
Click to expand...
Did you notice that he ignored my comments which completely savaged his silly posts and that he didn't address any of the facts I pointed out? LOL
 
Patrick Pearse said:
Because southerners are not only poor in pocket but poor in martial spirit as well.
Click to expand...

There has never been a more greater group of patriotic Americans who were always willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country than the southerners.
You on the other hand are a college fag boy who's mommy kept telling over and over how special your are when you were growing up then your Marxist professors when you were at college picked up her narcissistic torch for you and carried it onward.
 
Jarod said:
ITs called federalism, and yes, once a State joins the Union they cant get out or be kicked out, unless both the Fed and the State agree.

I love my nation, and I love the principal of Federalism that its based on. You should look the word up sometime.
Click to expand...

It's called nullification and it's lone sole purpose is to trump the famous communist / socialist doctrine of the constitutional rule of law by giving the people in the different states the power to reject any federal law that imposes on their liberties such as by way of federal tyranny of seizure as example. Nullification insures private property ownership by not allowing federal intervention onto one's property rights.

And federalism is your sworn enemy because federalism clearly assigns the power to the people in the states who in turn assign limited power to the fed which is under control by the states.
 
It became morally/ethically wrong, it was not always so. Why didnt Lincoln just get the amendment passed during the war ? A law, anything ? Reconstruction was nothing but punative spite. And how can you ignore the fact that slavery started being ended as early as the 1830s ? The model was well established.




XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
Who is denying history? I note you did not answer my question.

It hardly matters that owning a man was acceptable at that time. What matters is that it was always morally and ethically wrong to deny a man his basic rights!

Certainly you are familiar with slogan espoused about our military "freedom isn't free"? That's right we have spilled blood in order to preserve freedom, how can you suggest the slave's freedom was not worth the fight? You claim it would have eventually died out, and yet then try to say the war didn't end slavery (it did). All you need is to read about Reconstruction in the post war years to prove the war gave slavery its death blow. How much longer would slavery have lasted had there been no war? You cant know that. But what we can know is that the Revolitionary war was waged over much less than that of a mans freedom at stake. How is it you fail to see the justice in fighting to free a man from bondage to another?
Click to expand...
 
Celticguy said:
It became morally/ethically wrong, it was not always so. Why didnt Lincoln just get the amendment passed during the war ? A law, anything ? Reconstruction was nothing but punative spite. And how can you ignore the fact that slavery started being ended as early as the 1830s ? The model was well established.
Click to expand...

There was no well established model to end slavery in Southern States. Indeed the South was the aggressor because Northern states wished to merely contain slavery as the Union moved westward.

Lincoln could not just pass a law and voila slavery ended. The South Seceded, not the North!

The evil of slavery had a right to that war. Had the system never been allowed, the need of the fight would never have existed.
 
Celticguy said:
It became morally/ethically wrong, it was not always so. Why didnt Lincoln just get the amendment passed during the war ? A law, anything ? Reconstruction was nothing but punative spite. And how can you ignore the fact that slavery started being ended as early as the 1830s ? The model was well established.
Click to expand...
That's a false assumption on your part. Slavery was well on it's way to ending in the rest of the nation in the 1830's. It was not in the south. You also ignore the primary cause of the Civil War in that the Northern States refused to permit the expansion of slavery into the Western territories. Lincoln was well on record that he had no problem permitting slavery to exist in the Southern States where it already existed ( cite his famous letter to Horace Greely) where as the issue of the expansion of slavery into the Western territories was an issue wholy outside Lincolns powers as that prohibition had been mandated by Congress and Lincoln, as President, was Constitutionally require to enforce the laws Congress passed. So please try to make this a factual discussion instead of pulling make believe fantasies out of your ass.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
There was no well established model to end slavery in Southern States. Indeed the South was the aggressor because Northern states wished to merely contain slavery as the Union moved westward.

Lincoln could not just pass a law and voila slavery ended. The South Seceded, not the North!

The evil of slavery had a right to that war. Had the system never been allowed, the need of the fight would never have existed.
Click to expand...


You mean they wanted to contain blacks and keep them out of the western territories so whites would populate there.

You mean they wanted to keep slavery out so whites could compete for higher wages minus slavery after whites relocated there.
 
Celticguy said:
It became morally/ethically wrong, it was not always so. Why didnt Lincoln just get the amendment passed during the war ? A law, anything ? Reconstruction was nothing but punative spite. And how can you ignore the fact that slavery started being ended as early as the 1830s ? The model was well established.
Click to expand...

Because it would have also abolished slavery in the areas where the Yankees were still making money off it.

Because Lincoln's war to free the slaves would have become his war to preserve the union again.
 
philly rabbit said:
You mean they wanted to contain blacks and keep them out of the western territories so whites would populate there.

You mean they wanted to keep slavery out so whites could compete for higher wages minus slavery after whites relocated there.
Click to expand...

More along the lines of Abe receiving 0 electoral votes from southern states and fearing circumstances could be where his Whig party would find itself out of power. The union required the south and its taxes. The south had far less need of the north and was working to expand that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a false assumption on your part. Slavery was well on it's way to ending in the rest of the nation in the 1830's. It was not in the south. You also ignore the primary cause of the Civil War in that the Northern States refused to permit the expansion of slavery into the Western territories. Lincoln was well on record that he had no problem permitting slavery to exist in the Southern States where it already existed ( cite his famous letter to Horace Greely) where as the issue of the expansion of slavery into the Western territories was an issue wholy outside Lincolns powers as that prohibition had been mandated by Congress and Lincoln, as President, was Constitutionally require to enforce the laws Congress passed. So please try to make this a factual discussion instead of pulling make believe fantasies out of your ass.
Click to expand...

Address his point cultural bigot liberal. There were no southern democrats in congress. Why was the second 13th amendment proposal which would have included vocational training for the freed slaves thrown out?

It was thrown out because Lincoln wanted to turn his failing war to preserve the union into a righteous crusade to free the slaves.
 
philly rabbit said:
You mean they wanted to contain blacks and keep them out of the western territories so whites would populate there.

You mean they wanted to keep slavery out so whites could compete for higher wages minus slavery after whites relocated there.
Click to expand...

The reasons, be they high minded or self serving, matter not one wit. The only thing that matters, is that slavery was evil and it needed to be stopped

I made this statement BTW without agreeing with the claims made in your post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top