Mike's arguments are so irrelevant and ignorant in my mind. There are situations where there are no good answers. If Lincoln had waited longer, in all likelihood the war would have lasted LONGER, and the tons of slaves would have continued to be enslaved for a longer amount of time, not to mention a longer divided USA. What, you want the CSA to actually industrialize so they have a chance? Lincoln had to weigh these options in his mind, and IMO he made the right choice.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 5:01:00 PM (view original):

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

Again, no one gives a **** what ONE individual thought. The laws of the United States allowed the owning of slaves up until 1865.

Do you understand what I am saying? Slavery was legal until 1865.

I'm certain neither of us know enough about Southern pride in 1861 and whether it would have been stronger in 1862. Or 1865.

We are talking about Lincoln. Lincoln was president. People voted for him. Lincoln was in charge. Again, THERE IS A REASON IT WAS LEGAL UNTIL 1865! here is what happens if Lincoln abolishes slavery in 1861: Slaves in the south are still enslaved, and the border states secede. Wow. He did it. Your argument is wrong, because there are no perfect answers, and BECAUSE NO ONE OWNED SLAVES IN THE NORTH. This is like saying that if there were actually a Purge, EVERYONE would go and murder people. Just because you TECHNICALLY CAN do something, does not mean that everyone did it, as you are suggesting

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

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.

When did I say that we haven't ever evolved as people. Yes, EVENTUALLY the CSA would outlaw slavery. Let's say, 1900. Guess what? You've got 2 more generations of MILLIONS of people in slavery, as well as the USA being divided for that long. Your argument was literally that by waiting for 4 more years or so people would have evolved more so that the south would have less fight. RIDICULOUS

suckers.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/9/2017 5:01:00 PM (view original):

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

Again, no one gives a **** what ONE individual thought. The laws of the United States allowed the owning of slaves up until 1865.

Do you understand what I am saying? Slavery was legal until 1865.

I'm certain neither of us know enough about Southern pride in 1861 and whether it would have been stronger in 1862. Or 1865.

We are talking about Lincoln. Lincoln was president. People voted for him. Lincoln was in charge. Again, THERE IS A REASON IT WAS LEGAL UNTIL 1865! here is what happens if Lincoln abolishes slavery in 1861: Slaves in the south are still enslaved, and the border states secede. Wow. He did it. Your argument is wrong, because there are no perfect answers, and BECAUSE NO ONE OWNED SLAVES IN THE NORTH. This is like saying that if there were actually a Purge, EVERYONE would go and murder people. Just because you TECHNICALLY CAN do something, does not mean that everyone did it, as you are suggesting

Yes, Lincoln was in charge of killing 600,000+ Americans over something his Administration classified as property. US law not Lincoln law.

Saddam in a stovepipe hat.

And now you have gotten to the point of avoiding every point I make and repeating the same flawed statement over and over again even though we have repeatedly proved you wrong. You can admit you are wrong now. Again, I am not saying that killing 600,000 americans was the PERFECT decision.I am saying it was the BEST one he had at the time. In WW2, the allies aren't going to say, "Well, Hitler is killing tons of Jews, but if we fight him then we will lose lots of soldiers so I guess it isn't worth it". (Yes, I know that statement was flawed, but you get the point)

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 4:58:00 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.

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

Do you know when slavery was abolished? I'll give you a hint. Not 1861.

You didn't answer the question.

Why did the south secede?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/9/2017 4:58:00 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.

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

Do you know when slavery was abolished? I'll give you a hint. Not 1861.

You didn't answer the question.

Why did the south secede?

Mike has gotten to Kellyanne Conway levels of ignoring questions :)

Way back on page 2, I said I wasn't giving a history lesson. You, tangplay, have agreed that slavery wasn't the only issue for secession. BL can look it up. He has access to the internet.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
War/violence is what you resort to when all other avenues have been exhausted. Not one of you have said "Lincoln exhausted all avenues and war was his last resort." You know why? Because he didn't. He started the war 4+ months after secession. He obviously planned it before then. He wanted it. War would further his agenda faster. American lives were not his concern.

And that's why he not the "Greatest POTUS" despite what many claim.

I'm glad you agree with Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran and North Korea.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
War/violence is what you resort to when all other avenues have been exhausted. Not one of you have said "Lincoln exhausted all avenues and war was his last resort." You know why? Because he didn't. He started the war 4+ months after secession. He obviously planned it before then. He wanted it. War would further his agenda faster. American lives were not his concern.

And that's why he not the "Greatest POTUS" despite what many claim.

I am not claiming that Lincoln was they Greatest POTUS. Lincoln was more educated than you and knew the effects of waiting to fight the CSA, and banning slavery. I have already pointed out the effects of 'exhausting all avenues'. War was imminent. Lincoln 'exhausting all avenues' would lead to a more bloody war, and the delaying of the inevitable. Again, we don't live in a perfect world. it was war, or wait 50+ years to free the slaves.