It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:21 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 pm
Posts: 4333
Location: Lake Wynonah, PA
pizza_Place: Il-Forno in Deerfield
...this has been the most interesting thread this week. I'm thinking of showing it to my office neighbor, a US history scholar, and ask him his opinion in a judge Judy-esqe decision.

_________________
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82995
He will recognize that many of Lincoln's public statements were made for political expedience and may not accurately reflect his personal opinions. We have not really delved into that aspect as we perform this postdated exploration of his heart.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Despite all the incorrect things that have been said about Lincoln in this thread, does his mindset really matter? Looking back on presidents, I think we should really look at the results. The question isn't whether Abe Lincoln was pure in his heart.

Looking forward, I think it makes sense to look at a president's character and beliefs. Looking backward, it's pretty much irrelevant. Just judge the results.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
leashyourkids wrote:
Despite all the incorrect things that have been said about Lincoln in this thread, does his mindset really matter? Looking back on presidents, I think we should really look at the results. The question isn't whether Abe Lincoln was pure in his heart.

Looking forward, I think it makes sense to look at a president's character and beliefs. Looking backward, it's pretty much irrelevant. Just judge the results.



I have and it is difficult for me to give him all the credit for a war he didn't start and an issue that he didn't care much about. The outcome obviously was an end to slavery but Lincoln played a minor role in it

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You haven't provided many and you are comfortable ascribing motives but you think it OK for me to do so. As far as Lincoln''s racism that plays a role but it isn't the defining thing for me.

When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.


I have provided all the facts. You choose to speculate on what Lincoln's "real motivation" was. There were quotes in this thread that showed his distaste for slavery, and his understanding that the nation could not go on as half slave and half free. Do you think he went to war to keep slavery intact? It was going away as soon as his election triggered Southern rebellion.

Blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow is the definition of fake facts.



You cherry picked quotes to fit your narrative. I can also pick quotes that show how he thought blacks were inferior. I can also pick quotes stating that blacks should go back to Africa. I also can cherry pick quotes which stated that he wasn't willing to go to war over slavery. Mt argument isn't whether Lincoln believed in slavery or not. My argument pertains to the fallacious argument regarding ending slavery. That speaks to intent and no point in his career fid he every intend to end slavery. That is my point. He was at best indifferent on the issue.


When presented with quotes earlier you said you did not care about what he said, just what he did. Now you want to get into a contest to cherry pick quotes? If he was such a slavery supporter why did the South go to war over his election?



Do you even read what people write? I addressed each of those issues earlier. I never said that he was a supporter or slavery or slave owners. You are falsely attempting to claim that he was some sort of anti slave craving abolitionist. THat is not the case. He predicted an end to slavery. He had little interest in bringing about its demise however. The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system. He fought the war in an effort to prevent expansion. He didn't fight it as a means of ending slavery.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Despite all the incorrect things that have been said about Lincoln in this thread, does his mindset really matter? Looking back on presidents, I think we should really look at the results. The question isn't whether Abe Lincoln was pure in his heart.

Looking forward, I think it makes sense to look at a president's character and beliefs. Looking backward, it's pretty much irrelevant. Just judge the results.


These things would be a lot easier to discuss if you and others were willing to have an honest discussion. Instead you all have decided lying or not actually reading posts is best.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.


Stop saying this, it isn't true. Georgia didn't fight a war because Wisconsin was free. In fact, Dred Scott was decided in 1857, which ruled that outlawing slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional, it was a huge win for Southern constitutionalists, who didn't actually care about slavery in the expansion territories, but cared about the representation and preservation of their slavery.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 24704
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Lincoln's a point to scoreboard and spike the football top President. Well if nobody killed him, he could have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32164
pizza_Place: Milano's
don't forget he was a vampire hunter too


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.


Stop saying this, it isn't true. Georgia didn't fight a war because Wisconsin was free. In fact, Dred Scott was decided in 1857, which ruled that outlawing slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional, it was a huge win for Southern constitutionalists, who didn't actually care about slavery in the expansion territories, but cared about the representation and preservation of their slavery.


I know there is a tendency to disagree regardless of subject matter but the issue of slavery expansion was the dominant issue during the 1850's. It wasn't about existing states either. It was about Western territories so I don't know why you mention Wisconsin. It is a non sequitor. Kansas- Nebraska act directly related to this particular issue and issues related to the Missouri Compromise also began to creep up again.

The feeling regarding the need to expand was so prevalent that Southern Plantation owners strongly considered adding Cuba as a slave state. They squashed it once they realized the logistical problems that it would create.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.


Stop saying this, it isn't true. Georgia didn't fight a war because Wisconsin was free. In fact, Dred Scott was decided in 1857, which ruled that outlawing slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional, it was a huge win for Southern constitutionalists, who didn't actually care about slavery in the expansion territories, but cared about the representation and preservation of their slavery.


I know there is a tendency to disagree regardless of subject matter but the issue of slavery expansion was the dominant issue during the 1850's. It wasn't about existing states either. It was about Western territories so I don't know why you mention Wisconsin. It is a non sequitor.


Because it wasn't a state until 1848, and the issue of slavery expansion--which, again, the would-be Confederate states didn't care about slavery existing in those territories per se, they cared about laws passed banning slavery in those territories being turned on them--had to do with the Ordnance of 1787 and the Northwestern Territories, of which what would become "Wisconsin" was a part, until 1848.

Quote:
Kansas- Nebraska act directly related to this particular issue and issues related to the Missouri Compromise also began to creep up again.


Right, because SCOTUS declared the Missouri Compromise--specifically the outlawing of slavery in federal territories--as outside the scope of authority of Congress.

None of this means that Southern states gave a shit about slavery becoming the norm in the expanding territories. They wanted to prevent laws outlawing slavery in those territories from being turned on them. You have yet to answer why Mississippi would give a shit about slavery in land acquired via the Louisiana Purchase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93627
Location: To the left of my post
Personally I thinking ending slavery was pretty cool.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.


Stop saying this, it isn't true. Georgia didn't fight a war because Wisconsin was free. In fact, Dred Scott was decided in 1857, which ruled that outlawing slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional, it was a huge win for Southern constitutionalists, who didn't actually care about slavery in the expansion territories, but cared about the representation and preservation of their slavery.


I know there is a tendency to disagree regardless of subject matter but the issue of slavery expansion was the dominant issue during the 1850's. It wasn't about existing states either. It was about Western territories so I don't know why you mention Wisconsin. It is a non sequitor.


Because it wasn't a state until 1848, and the issue of slavery expansion--which, again, the would-be Confederate states didn't care about slavery existing in those territories per se, they cared about laws passed banning slavery in those territories being turned on them--had to do with the Ordnance of 1787 and the Northwestern Territories, of which what would become "Wisconsin" was a part, until 1848.

Quote:
Kansas- Nebraska act directly related to this particular issue and issues related to the Missouri Compromise also began to creep up again.


Right, because SCOTUS declared the Missouri Compromise--specifically the outlawing of slavery in federal territories--as outside the scope of authority of Congress.

None of this means that Southern states gave a shit about slavery becoming the norm in the expanding territories. They wanted to prevent laws outlawing slavery in those territories from being turned on them. You have yet to answer why Mississippi would give a shit about slavery in land acquired via the Louisiana Purchase.



Very little here makes sense. This is pretty much common knowledge

A Nation Divided: The Political Climate of 1850s America · The Benjamin Hedrick Ordeal: A Portait of Antebellum Politics and Debates Over Slavery · Civil War Era NC
http://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/exhibi ... calclimate

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 pm
Posts: 4333
Location: Lake Wynonah, PA
pizza_Place: Il-Forno in Deerfield
My history professor friend:
history professor wrote:
If only looking at the presidency, Lincoln wins hands down because he had to deal with so much more with the war and a master politician (hence why no one knows really what he felt/believed). When you factor in their whole lives, Washington was practically a goddamn superhero.

_________________
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Congrats on being better than me, Psycory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Psycory wrote:
My history professor friend:
history professor wrote:
If only looking at the presidency, Lincoln wins hands down because he had to deal with so much more with the war and a master politician (hence why no one knows really what he felt/believed). When you factor in their whole lives, Washington was practically a goddamn superhero.


Yeah, but despite Lincoln ending slavery and saying a whole bunch of things about how awful slavery is, can your friend show us exactly how little Lincoln actually cared about ending the practice? Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 11:18 am
Posts: 39
pizza_Place: Rubirosa
Some of you may not be aware that I was once a high school history teacher. I could settle this argument rather easily. But... I also wrote the best selling book, Killing Lincoln. If you want to know the real truth, you'll just have to read the book.

_________________
Yeah, I'm obnoxious, yeah, I cut people off, yeah, I'm rude. You know why? Because you're busy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Psycory wrote:
My history professor friend:
history professor wrote:
If only looking at the presidency, Lincoln wins hands down because he had to deal with so much more with the war and a master politician (hence why no one knows really what he felt/believed). When you factor in their whole lives, Washington was practically a goddamn superhero.


Yeah, but despite Lincoln ending slavery and saying a whole bunch of things about how awful slavery is, can your friend show us exactly how little Lincoln actually cared about ending the practice? Thanks.


But did you really read the posts of the Lincoln haters?
:roll:

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Psycory wrote:
My history professor friend:
history professor wrote:
If only looking at the presidency, Lincoln wins hands down because he had to deal with so much more with the war and a master politician (hence why no one knows really what he felt/believed). When you factor in their whole lives, Washington was practically a goddamn superhero.


Yeah, but despite Lincoln ending slavery and saying a whole bunch of things about how awful slavery is, can your friend show us exactly how little Lincoln actually cared about ending the practice? Thanks.


But did you really read the posts of the Lincoln haters?
:roll:


Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82995
I think it would be pretty enjoyable to have a show Drunk History Deconstruction

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.


You pass yourself off as this great historian, but you regularly get your facts wrong. In this thread you project that Lincoln did not care about slavery despite: it being the dominate issue of his era, the fact that he literally said "A house divided cannot stand" and his election being enough for the South to rebel before he even took any actions. You then started that you did not care about his thoughts, just his actions, which were to end slavery.

Your problems with facts did not start in this thread either, you stated that Hitler won a majority democratic victory in Germany in a previous thread.

Rather than call others ignorant why not just stick to what occurred in history, and the best we know is that Lincoln did not approve of slavery and he won a war to end it. Speculation as to what he would have done had the South not rebelled is just that. And claims to know his true feelings and motivations based on his political speeches is sloppy history at best.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.


You pass yourself off as this great historian, but you regularly get your facts wrong. In this thread you project that Lincoln did not care about slavery despite: it being the dominate issue of his era, the fact that he literally said "A house divided cannot stand" and his election being enough for the South to rebel before he even took any actions. You then started that you did not care about his thoughts, just his actions, which were to end slavery.

Your problems with facts did not start in this thread either, you stated that Hitler won a majority democratic victory in Germany in a previous thread.

Rather than call others ignorant why not just stick to what occurred in history, and the best we know is that Lincoln did not approve of slavery and he won a war to end it. Speculation as to what he would have done had the South not rebelled is just that. And claims to know his true feelings and motivations based on his political speeches is sloppy history at best.



Facts that were established which were ignored:

1. Emancipation came 2 years after the war began and excluded slave states not fighting alongside of the confederacy.

2. The Civil War was based on the South's desire to place slavery in Western Territories


3. Lincoln and Union initially ignored slavery for fear that it would alienate Northerners opposed to fighting for blacks.


4. Lincoln and the quotes that you cited merely state some opposition to slavery. It doesn't mean that he sought to end it. He never did contrary to all of the pontificating existing right now. I never stated that he was for slavery. He never felt strongly enough to seek and end to it. Nas cited a quote which perfectly illustrates how he felt about the issue and you completely ignored it. You have ignored just about everything else relative to the subject yet you claim that I have my facts wrong.





5. I also cited the movement to make Cuba a slave state.


6. Preventing slavery from expanding not ending it was the dominant issue of the 1850's


Which facts do I have wrong?


Its funny how you conveniently slant everything to fit some narrative that you have. If you can I would like for you to tell which one of these "facts" am I wrong about?

As far as me trying to present myself as some sort of "historian" as you suggest I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable with what I know and I'm comfortable in what i don't know.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
LTG is dominating this thread and a lot of people that I like are mostly wrong.

Facts:
No one has said they hate or dislike Lincoln.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that Lincoln wasn't against slavery in the south.
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery
No one has said that Lincoln was an awful president.
No one has said Lincoln wasn't a good president
Thieving Bernie is a charlatan

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Nas wrote:
LTG is dominating this thread and a lot of people that I like are mostly wrong.

Facts:
No one has said they hate or dislike Lincoln.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that Lincoln wasn't against slavery in the south.
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery
No one has said that Lincoln was an awful president.
No one has said Lincoln wasn't a good president
Thieving Bernie is a charlatan



I left out the part where "historians" and people living in the period considered the EP to be an empty and meaningless declaration.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
LTG is dominating this thread and a lot of people that I like are mostly wrong.

Facts:
No one has said they hate or dislike Lincoln.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that Lincoln wasn't against slavery in the south.
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery
No one has said that Lincoln was an awful president.
No one has said Lincoln wasn't a good president
Thieving Bernie is a charlatan



I left out the part where "historians" and people living in the period considered the EP to be an empty and meaningless declaration.


They were right.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.


You pass yourself off as this great historian, but you regularly get your facts wrong. In this thread you project that Lincoln did not care about slavery despite: it being the dominate issue of his era, the fact that he literally said "A house divided cannot stand" and his election being enough for the South to rebel before he even took any actions. You then started that you did not care about his thoughts, just his actions, which were to end slavery.

Your problems with facts did not start in this thread either, you stated that Hitler won a majority democratic victory in Germany in a previous thread.

Rather than call others ignorant why not just stick to what occurred in history, and the best we know is that Lincoln did not approve of slavery and he won a war to end it. Speculation as to what he would have done had the South not rebelled is just that. And claims to know his true feelings and motivations based on his political speeches is sloppy history at best.



Facts that were established which were ignored:

1. Emancipation came 2 years after the war began and excluded slave states not fighting alongside of the confederacy.
Lincoln waited until the North appeared to be winning the war. It would have zero impact if the North did not win the war, thus he had to wait until a victory to announce it.

2. The Civil War was based on the South's desire to place slavery in Western Territories

It was a direct response to the election of Lincoln. Declarations to leave the Union do not mention the territories. They complain that the North is against their right to hold slaves: http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... oogle.com/.

3. Lincoln and Union initially ignored slavery for fear that it would alienate Northerners opposed to fighting for blacks.

Lincoln said he could not win the war without Kentucky. He also thought it would be politically advantageous to get the North united behind the cause of union first. That seemed to work out.

4. Lincoln and the quotes that you cited merely state some opposition to slavery. It doesn't mean that he sought to end it. He never did contrary to all of the pontificating existing right now. I never stated that he was for slavery. He never felt strongly enough to seek and end to it. Nas cited a quote which perfectly illustrates how he felt about the issue and you completely ignored it. You have ignored just about everything else relative to the subject yet you claim that I have my facts wrong.

He literally did end it. Thus at some point as President he sought to end it. You have a political speech because he was afraid of war. Any reasonable man would at least dread the prospect of war.




5. I also cited the movement to make Cuba a slave state.

Has nothing to do with this debate. Of course planters desires to expand their power.

6. Preventing slavery from expanding not ending it was the dominant issue of the 1850's

This is false. The Fugitive Slave Act and the North's failure to enforce it was as least as big of an issue. Slavery was the topic. Expansion was a subset of the larger issue.
Which facts do I have wrong?

2 is not a fact. 5 has nothing to do with this. 6 is wrong.
Its funny how you conveniently slant everything to fit some narrative that you have. If you can I would like for you to tell which one of these "facts" am I wrong about?

As far as me trying to present myself as some sort of "historian" as you suggest I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable with what I know and I'm comfortable in what i don't know.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Apparently he didn't or much of anything else related to the period. Neither have you for that matter.


You pass yourself off as this great historian, but you regularly get your facts wrong. In this thread you project that Lincoln did not care about slavery despite: it being the dominate issue of his era, the fact that he literally said "A house divided cannot stand" and his election being enough for the South to rebel before he even took any actions. You then started that you did not care about his thoughts, just his actions, which were to end slavery.

Your problems with facts did not start in this thread either, you stated that Hitler won a majority democratic victory in Germany in a previous thread.

Rather than call others ignorant why not just stick to what occurred in history, and the best we know is that Lincoln did not approve of slavery and he won a war to end it. Speculation as to what he would have done had the South not rebelled is just that. And claims to know his true feelings and motivations based on his political speeches is sloppy history at best.



Facts that were established which were ignored:

1. Emancipation came 2 years after the war began and excluded slave states not fighting alongside of the confederacy.
Lincoln waited until the North appeared to be winning the war. It would have zero impact if the North did not win the war, thus he had to wait until a victory to announce it.

2. The Civil War was based on the South's desire to place slavery in Western Territories

It was a direct response to the election of Lincoln. Declarations to leave the Union do not mention the territories. They complain that the North is against their right to hold slaves: http://www.civilwar.org/education/histo ... oogle.com/.

3. Lincoln and Union initially ignored slavery for fear that it would alienate Northerners opposed to fighting for blacks.

Lincoln said he could not win the war without Kentucky. He also thought it would be politically advantageous to get the North united behind the cause of union first. That seemed to work out.

4. Lincoln and the quotes that you cited merely state some opposition to slavery. It doesn't mean that he sought to end it. He never did contrary to all of the pontificating existing right now. I never stated that he was for slavery. He never felt strongly enough to seek and end to it. Nas cited a quote which perfectly illustrates how he felt about the issue and you completely ignored it. You have ignored just about everything else relative to the subject yet you claim that I have my facts wrong.

He literally did end it. Thus at some point as President he sought to end it. You have a political speech because he was afraid of war. Any reasonable man would at least dread the prospect of war.




5. I also cited the movement to make Cuba a slave state.

Has nothing to do with this debate. Of course planters desires to expand their power.

6. Preventing slavery from expanding not ending it was the dominant issue of the 1850's

This is false. The Fugitive Slave Act and the North's failure to enforce it was as least as big of an issue. Slavery was the topic. Expansion was a subset of the larger issue.
Which facts do I have wrong?

2 is not a fact. 5 has nothing to do with this. 6 is wrong.
Its funny how you conveniently slant everything to fit some narrative that you have. If you can I would like for you to tell which one of these "facts" am I wrong about?

As far as me trying to present myself as some sort of "historian" as you suggest I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable with what I know and I'm comfortable in what i don't know.



More information to be ignored.

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war


Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetective ... civil-war/

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
LTG is dominating this thread and a lot of people that I like are mostly wrong.

Facts:
No one has said they hate or dislike Lincoln.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that Lincoln wasn't against slavery in the south.
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery
No one has said that Lincoln was an awful president.
No one has said Lincoln wasn't a good president
Thieving Bernie is a charlatan


You have said he was not as good a president as. Teddy Roosevelt (what were his great accomplishments) and George Washington, who left the slave question for Lincoln to solve. And LTG blames Lincoln for Jim Crow.

Almost all historians disagree.

And by your logic on Bernie, everyone working for the government is a thief.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
LTG is dominating this thread and a lot of people that I like are mostly wrong.

Facts:
No one has said they hate or dislike Lincoln.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that Lincoln wasn't against slavery in the south.
Lincoln didn't start a war to end slavery
No one has said that Lincoln was an awful president.
No one has said Lincoln wasn't a good president
Thieving Bernie is a charlatan


You have said he was not as good a president as. Teddy Roosevelt (what were his great accomplishments) and George Washington, who left the slave question for Lincoln to solve. And LTG blames Lincoln for Jim Crow.

Almost all historians disagree.

And by your logic on Bernie, everyone working for the government is a thief.



The fallout from the Civil War an the intransigence on the part of politicians (like Luncoln) on the issue of race directly led to Jim Crow policies being enacted. Lincoln was dead yes but the issue that he was afraid to touch still resonated.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group