For instance, General Custer fought in the Civil War for Lincoln. Then proceeded to kill Native Americans. Women, children. I guess they were not considered worthy of life or freedom.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):
For instance, General Custer fought in the Civil War for Lincoln. Then proceeded to kill Native Americans. Women, children. I guess they were not considered worthy of life or freedom.

Yeah, Custer was a ********.

So was the South for going to war in order to preserve slavery.

Sep 1 vote over

recruit your friendangos

Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.

Custer didn't kill indians for Lincoln.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Let's not pretend Custer was rogue. He was working on behalf of the US Government.

The same government that killed 600,000+ Americans but didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865.

We weren't a very civilized country back in the 1800s. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 1920s.

I don't know how any of that changes the fact that the south was willing to go to war to protect its ownership of people.

Custer did what Custer did for one simple reason. Custer. He was always all about Custer. He was vainglorious. Overly concerned with image.
Egotistical beyond the norm. Undisciplined and arrogant. Remind you of anyone in our current history??

Of course the lesson we should have learned from the Custer episode was not learned by the many who STILL see Custer as some sort of hero.
So, there you go............

One view is historically based and at least attempted to be informed by the actual event(s).
The other view is all about Patriotism, and belief in some myth of glory and exceptionalism. Why that latter, I can't fathom myself.

The divide seems sewn inherently within our core....... years and years of partisan football rather than allegiance to the Country as a whole by our elected (so-called) leaders within Government.

Currently, HALF the country won't even believe in our Scientists.
It's crazy IMO.

You misspelled "property". See: didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865 for further clarification.

FWIW, the CW is why guns will never be abolished. They are purchased property and trying to seize them will be a nightmare the government will not risk. No cop would want to be responsible for going house to house to search for guns. So Lincoln, err the POTUS, would have to use the military to remove legal property from it's citizens. Turning the US into combat zone again would be a disaster. Fortunately, I don't think any POTUS is as dumb as Lincoln.

I'm not confidant at all about your statement when it comes to the current clown. Even dead, I think Lincoln is probably less "dumb" then chump!
We're talking about the HEAD Dunce of history IMO. Custer didn't finish dead last in his West Point class (damn close though!), but can you even imagine Donald J. Trump making it thru West Point??? The concept is mind baffling. The inter-personal relations and other direct lessons in character building are EXACTLY the character traits chump doesn't possess. DJT in West Point wouldn't have produced the Trump of age 6?. He'd be different, or long gone from anyone's consciousness. A nobody like most of us.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):
You misspelled "property". See: didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865 for further clarification.

FWIW, the CW is why guns will never be abolished. They are purchased property and trying to seize them will be a nightmare the government will not risk. No cop would want to be responsible for going house to house to search for guns. So Lincoln, err the POTUS, would have to use the military to remove legal property from it's citizens. Turning the US into combat zone again would be a disaster. Fortunately, I don't think any POTUS is as dumb as Lincoln.

The "property" in this case was people, right?

The United States of America viewed slaves as property until 1865. What part do you not understand? The part where Lincoln killed 600,000+ Americans over property?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The United States of America viewed slaves as property until 1865. What part do you not understand? The part where Lincoln killed 600,000+ Americans over property?

But they were people classified as property, right? And the South went to war to protect that classification, right?

Seems like Lincoln could have changed the Constitution, or amended it, before killing 600,000+ Americans over property.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Seems like Lincoln could have changed the Constitution, or amended it, before killing 600,000+ Americans over property.

Seems like the South could have just not gone to war over its right to own people.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):
You misspelled "property". See: didn't see fit to abolish slavery until 1865 for further clarification.

FWIW, the CW is why guns will never be abolished. They are purchased property and trying to seize them will be a nightmare the government will not risk. No cop would want to be responsible for going house to house to search for guns. So Lincoln, err the POTUS, would have to use the military to remove legal property from it's citizens. Turning the US into combat zone again would be a disaster. Fortunately, I don't think any POTUS is as dumb as Lincoln.

This. You misspelled "property" again.