Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
To each his own. FWIW, I've obviously had this argument before. It always comes down to "If you don't love Lincoln, you must want to own people." Pretty similar to not worshipping at the Altar of Obama meant you were "RACIST!!!"

It's never that cut and dry. Maybe you learned something over the last few days. Most likely, not because you were busy putting me in a box that fit your narrative but there was information that you obviously did not know. You'll be better prepared for this sort of debate next time.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
To each his own. FWIW, I've obviously had this argument before. It always comes down to "If you don't love Lincoln, you must want to own people." Pretty similar to not worshipping at the Altar of Obama meant you were "RACIST!!!"

It's never that cut and dry. Maybe you learned something over the last few days. Most likely, not because you were busy putting me in a box that fit your narrative but there was information that you obviously did not know. You'll be better prepared for this sort of debate next time.

Jesus, you think highly of yourself.

I never said you wanted to own people. My complaint with you is that you're a confederate apologist. The South is to blame for the civil war. The South was willing to kill 600,000 people so that they could continue to own blacks.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Does any of that contradict what I wrote?

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Does any of that contradict what I wrote?

Yeah, it does.

You're arguing that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. He didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to try to end the war. Had it done what Lincoln had hoped it would do when it was issued, it wouldn't have freed a single slave. And slavery in the US was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, not by Lincoln. Presidents don't make amendments to the constitution; Congress and states do.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
To each his own. FWIW, I've obviously had this argument before. It always comes down to "If you don't love Lincoln, you must want to own people." Pretty similar to not worshipping at the Altar of Obama meant you were "RACIST!!!"

It's never that cut and dry. Maybe you learned something over the last few days. Most likely, not because you were busy putting me in a box that fit your narrative but there was information that you obviously did not know. You'll be better prepared for this sort of debate next time.

Jesus, you think highly of yourself.

I never said you wanted to own people. My complaint with you is that you're a confederate apologist. The South is to blame for the civil war. The South was willing to kill 600,000 people so that they could continue to own blacks.

The south fought the war because they wanted to be a separate country and govern themselves.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
To each his own. FWIW, I've obviously had this argument before. It always comes down to "If you don't love Lincoln, you must want to own people." Pretty similar to not worshipping at the Altar of Obama meant you were "RACIST!!!"

It's never that cut and dry. Maybe you learned something over the last few days. Most likely, not because you were busy putting me in a box that fit your narrative but there was information that you obviously did not know. You'll be better prepared for this sort of debate next time.

Jesus, you think highly of yourself.

I never said you wanted to own people. My complaint with you is that you're a confederate apologist. The South is to blame for the civil war. The South was willing to kill 600,000 people so that they could continue to own blacks.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Does any of that contradict what I wrote?

Yeah, it does.

You're arguing that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. He didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to try to end the war. Had it done what Lincoln had hoped it would do when it was issued, it wouldn't have freed a single slave. And slavery in the US was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, not by Lincoln. Presidents don't make amendments to the constitution; Congress and states do.

I'm not arguing that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. I'm stating that he did free the slaves.

Obviously, not single handily, but in the sense that we give Presidents credit for the big things that happen while they're in office.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
To each his own. FWIW, I've obviously had this argument before. It always comes down to "If you don't love Lincoln, you must want to own people." Pretty similar to not worshipping at the Altar of Obama meant you were "RACIST!!!"

It's never that cut and dry. Maybe you learned something over the last few days. Most likely, not because you were busy putting me in a box that fit your narrative but there was information that you obviously did not know. You'll be better prepared for this sort of debate next time.

Jesus, you think highly of yourself.

I never said you wanted to own people. My complaint with you is that you're a confederate apologist. The South is to blame for the civil war. The South was willing to kill 600,000 people so that they could continue to own blacks.

It's not so much what I think of myself. It's more about how little regard I have for the "lincoln good..free slaves" faction who knows little, if nothing, about the history of the events leading up to, or the actual, Civil War. The South was concerned that their LEGAL right to make money was being threatened(because it was) and rebelled against those threatening them. It was about their economic well-being at the time and in the future.

And Lincoln started a war with his constituents after 1 month in office. ONE month. And I'm sure you know it wasn't just 600,000+ slave owners who died.

Perhaps you recall another war from that time period. Seems a group of citizens wanted to break away from a distant government. So they did.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Does any of that contradict what I wrote?

Yeah, it does.

You're arguing that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. He didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to try to end the war. Had it done what Lincoln had hoped it would do when it was issued, it wouldn't have freed a single slave. And slavery in the US was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, not by Lincoln. Presidents don't make amendments to the constitution; Congress and states do.

I'm not arguing that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. I'm stating that he did free the slaves.

Obviously, not single handily, but in the sense that we give Presidents credit for the big things that happen while they're in office.

Lincoln was not in office when the 13th Amendment passed into law. He'd been dead for around 8 months.

So by your logic, I guess Andrew Johnson freed the slaves.

Thanks for clarifying history for the rest of us.