Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Correct. It the United States of America didn't classify them as property.

Did the United States classify them as property? Or was it the CSA that did that? Again, how many slaves were owned in the North? Lincoln didn't straight up free every slave for a reason, it's called the Border States. Lincoln keeping the border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia) in the Union was one of his greatest accomplishments. Sometimes life isn't as simple as you want it to be.

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

I think Mike's argument is that Lincoln could have ended slavery using legislation instead of weapons, not whether slavery was right or wrong. You can't call someone 'racist' because of what Mike is saying.

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

You dumb SOB. I've said, many times in this thread, that perhaps war was inevitable. But Lincoln could have negotiated first. 4+ months after secession, he started a war. So he obviously planned it before then. It was not necessary in April of 1861. Thousands of American lives could have been saved if Lincoln wasn't so quick to act.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

You dumb SOB. I've said, many times in this thread, that perhaps war was inevitable. But Lincoln could have negotiated first. 4+ months after secession, he started a war. So he obviously planned it before then. It was not necessary in April of 1861. Thousands of American lives could have been saved if Lincoln wasn't so quick to act.

It was inevitable if Lincoln wanted to end slavery in his presidency. How would less lives have been lost by waiting?

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Correct. It the United States of America didn't classify them as property.

Did the United States classify them as property? Or was it the CSA that did that? Again, how many slaves were owned in the North? Lincoln didn't straight up free every slave for a reason, it's called the Border States. Lincoln keeping the border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia) in the Union was one of his greatest accomplishments. Sometimes life isn't as simple as you want it to be.

Yes. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States in 1865. Prior to the mid-1800s, slavery was not frowned upon by many in the US and was obviously a way to legally acquire labor.

The treatment of Native Americans to expand the US is another prime example that our government was not above the mistreatment of people to grow it's borders and/or economy.

We were not civilized, kind or human rights activists in the 1800s.

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

You dumb SOB. I've said, many times in this thread, that perhaps war was inevitable. But Lincoln could have negotiated first. 4+ months after secession, he started a war. So he obviously planned it before then. It was not necessary in April of 1861. Thousands of American lives could have been saved if Lincoln wasn't so quick to act.

It was inevitable if Lincoln wanted to end slavery in his presidency. How would less lives have been lost by waiting?

We evolved as people. Less resistance.

Again, today the owning of slaves seems barbaric and we try to place our morals on people from 260 years ago. It doesn't work that way.

Women have not had the right to vote for a full 100 years. How crazy does that seem?

he said property is property...that shows me that he is arguing because he is a racist.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

You dumb SOB. I've said, many times in this thread, that perhaps war was inevitable. But Lincoln could have negotiated first. 4+ months after secession, he started a war. So he obviously planned it before then. It was not necessary in April of 1861. Thousands of American lives could have been saved if Lincoln wasn't so quick to act.

It was inevitable if Lincoln wanted to end slavery in his presidency. How would less lives have been lost by waiting?

We evolved as people. Less resistance.

Yeah, we evolved a lot as people in those four years (Facepalm). The south wasn't just going to let the USA come in and retake their country.... they believed that the North was economically a different nation than them, read up on why they seceded.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Correct. It the United States of America didn't classify them as property.

If the US classified them as property, why did the South secede?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Correct. It the United States of America didn't classify them as property.

Did the United States classify them as property? Or was it the CSA that did that? Again, how many slaves were owned in the North? Lincoln didn't straight up free every slave for a reason, it's called the Border States. Lincoln keeping the border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia) in the Union was one of his greatest accomplishments. Sometimes life isn't as simple as you want it to be.

Yes. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States in 1865. Prior to the mid-1800s, slavery was not frowned upon by many in the US and was obviously a way to legally acquire labor.

The treatment of Native Americans to expand the US is another prime example that our government was not above the mistreatment of people to grow it's borders and/or economy.

We were not civilized, kind or human rights activists in the 1800s.

Again, how many slaves were owned by Northerners in 1861? And we are talking about 1861, AND LINCOLN. this is about LINCOLN. LINCOLN did not classify them as property, you can see that in the numerous Lincoln-Douglas debates. People voted for LINCOLN. Again, what would YOU have wanted Lincoln to do? Also, waiting longer would just establish Southern pride more

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:56:00 PM (view original):
he said property is property...that shows me that he is arguing because he is a racist.

He is saying that most people in 1861 thought that slaves were property, including Lincoln, which is obviously false. He is not saying that we or he thinks that today

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 8/9/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
it is beneath most of us to be debating whether there should have been a war to end slavery.

You dumb SOB. I've said, many times in this thread, that perhaps war was inevitable. But Lincoln could have negotiated first. 4+ months after secession, he started a war. So he obviously planned it before then. It was not necessary in April of 1861. Thousands of American lives could have been saved if Lincoln wasn't so quick to act.

It was inevitable if Lincoln wanted to end slavery in his presidency. How would less lives have been lost by waiting?

We evolved as people. Less resistance.

Yeah, we evolved a lot as people in those four years (Facepalm). The south wasn't just going to let the USA come in and retake their country.... they believed that the North was economically a different nation than them, read up on why they seceded.

No need. I'm sure I know more about the CW than you ever will.

Do you not think we've evolved as people? Women can vote, blacks can eat at the same deli, interracial marriages are not illegal, you can't shoot people in the street even if they challenge you to a duel, etc, etc. All sorts of things have changed well AFTER the CW.

this sounds like germans in the 1950s arguing about whether hitler was good for the german economy.....i can understand arguing about what was the primary reason for the south breaking the union......states rights or slavery...but your discussion is sick.