and 100 years later, in the 1960s the South outlook on slavery had not changed much. Blacks were still forced to use separate bathrooms, water fountains and eat in separate restaurants. They were still not viewed as people. The South had not "evolved" very much

Again, Mike, Lincoln is not Saddam because Saddam had other options and didn't free millions of slaves. Lincolns options were:

• a) Ban slavery in the United States - Would cause the border states to secede and make an inevitable war last longer and kill more people, all while not actually freeing any slaves
• b) Wait longer to join the war - Pointless because nothing new would happen besides the South maybe being more prepared.
• c) Go to war sooner rather than later - Had some casualties but freeing millions of slaves when he did was pretty great.

Option a and b would not help a thing and will potentially kill more people.

Yeah, Mike's a clown.

And a confederate apologist.

One of Lincoln's great feats was keeping the border states in the Union, and winning the war when he did.

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Mike, you are the one who said that the south would have changed their outlook on slavery in less than 4 years, and then talked about how it took 20+ years to change your outlook on gay people.

Sigh....my outlook on gay people, according to the timeline, didn't take 20+ years. Unless you think SSM has been an issue for 20+ years. I went from "WTF is wrong with them?" to "So what?" practically overnight when I actually became an adult.. I went from "Why in the hell do they insist on marriage?" to "Who cares? Let them and the RR fight it out" in less than a year after SSM passed. So, truthfully, in my adult life, it might have been a few months.

Would slavery have ended in a few months? Unlikely. A few years? Maybe. Viewpoints change. Once the US law declassified slaves as property, they would have been viewed as people. Maybe lesser people like the Native Americans, and deserving of death, but still people.

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:55:00 PM (view original):
One of Lincoln's great feats was keeping the border states in the Union, and winning the war when he did.

Offset by killing 600,000 Americans BEFORE he even abolished slavery. You keep saying "If he had abolished slavery before starting the Civil War, the South would have been more determined." Personally, I think that's borderline stupid but let's say you're right. But why did it take 4 years AFTER he started the CW to abolish slavery?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

Andrew Jackson = Stalin

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.

But yes, continue to blame Lincoln for the Civil War, not the idiots in the South that were willing to die in order to maintain their right to own people.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Mike, you are the one who said that the south would have changed their outlook on slavery in less than 4 years, and then talked about how it took 20+ years to change your outlook on gay people.

Sigh....my outlook on gay people, according to the timeline, didn't take 20+ years. Unless you think SSM has been an issue for 20+ years. I went from "WTF is wrong with them?" to "So what?" practically overnight when I actually became an adult.. I went from "Why in the hell do they insist on marriage?" to "Who cares? Let them and the RR fight it out" in less than a year after SSM passed. So, truthfully, in my adult life, it might have been a few months.

Would slavery have ended in a few months? Unlikely. A few years? Maybe. Viewpoints change. Once the US law declassified slaves as property, they would have been viewed as people. Maybe lesser people like the Native Americans, and deserving of death, but still people.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED IN A FEW YEARS! WOMEN COULDN'T EVEN VOTE UNTIL 1920! BLACK PEOPLE HAD BARELY ANY RIGHTS UNTIL THE 60'S THEIR VIEWPOINTS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CHANGE, RESEARCH ON RECONSTRUCTION

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:55:00 PM (view original):
One of Lincoln's great feats was keeping the border states in the Union, and winning the war when he did.

Offset by killing 600,000 Americans BEFORE he even abolished slavery. You keep saying "If he had abolished slavery before starting the Civil War, the South would have been more determined." Personally, I think that's borderline stupid but let's say you're right. But why did it take 4 years AFTER he started the CW to abolish slavery?

No, I never said that. AGAIN, LINCOLN ABOLISHED SLAVERY WHEN HE DID FOR A REASON!!!! I have told you this at least 5 times during this thread, if Lincoln had abolished slavery earlier to things would have happened.

• Border States secede
• No slaves actually get freed

I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU STOP AVOIDING MY STATEMENT AND COME OUT OF YOUR DREAM WORLD