Don't Feed the Trolls

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Abraham Lincoln (among his other great attributes) I would argue is our most eloquent President, rivaling all other Presidents including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

And here we have another.

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

most of us know the civilwar wasn't sbout slavery but all abou the rights of states stop trying to live in the past and move aheadlincoln is dead and the civil war is over withgo find another forum to trollwith you racist nonsense

Its sad that you're so stuck on trying to troll me, coupled with some ignorance and a touch of stupidity, that you can't see that I'm talking about today and the issues of today. I never once said anything about racism or the validity of slavery, YOU DID. It's shame you don't realize just how ignorant you really are. Stay in step with the rest of the sheep.

 

[Eastexasrick]

"Absolutely right, Lincoln freed the slaves. REAL history, not the concocted revised crap we have now, tells us that. But apparently you have fallen into the same trap as so many others have. You know how I found out about what Lincoln wrote about in trying to solve the issue of slaves in America? There is a museum under the memorial that very few people even know about. It's all laid out in his (Lincoln's) own words, by is own hand.

The simple fact of the matter is this, outside of any and all bigotry and racism, the Civil War was not INITIALLY fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights and representation in Congress (as the new states were being admitted to the union ). Slavery become the central focus with the Emancipation Proclamation due to war wariness in the north (in other words the north didn't give 2 shits about the south leaving the union and Lincoln moved the "cause" from "union" to "slavery").

But, you chose to take the simple route and throw out the KKK response when confronted with something you obviously know nothing about. From the way I see it, you've got some time on your hands, try to undo some if the modern brainwashing you're under and do I little research (all on your own, you're a big boy now). You can also research the foundings of the KKK (that'll probably take even more work to undo what you think you know).

To paraphrase (and butcher, horribly) "those that forget history, are doomed to repeat it"

Your revisionist view leaves out the numerous " States Rights" issues that immediately proceeded the war, This allows you to ignore what is a major contributing factor.
1850 California was admitted without a corresponding Slave State so they agreed to send one Pro and one Oppose slavery senators. 1852 Free Staters and Free Soilers in Kansas openly fought each other and Missouri ruffians over the issue of slavery.
1854 The Kansas Nebraska Act superseded a long-standing agreement to keep the balance of Slave States, resulting in open rioting, see Bleeding Kansas.
1856 the Walker Affair, an attempt to annex Nicaragua as a Slave State.
The last 3 States admitted before the war were nonslave 1858 Minnesota, 1859 Oregon, 1861 Kansas. The North prevented Kansas Territory from becoming a Slave State, and when Southern members of Congress departed en masse in early 1861, Kansas was immediately admitted to the Union as a free state. Immediately subsequent to this a war started that had nothing to do with this, right?
You chose to take the popular revisionist route.

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

Your revisionist view leaves out the numerous " States Rights" issues that immediately proceeded the war, This allows you to ignore what is a major contributing factor.
1850 California was admitted without a corresponding Slave State so they agreed to send one Pro and one Oppose slavery senators. 1852 Free Staters and Free Soilers in Kansas openly fought each other and Missouri ruffians over the issue of slavery.
1854 The Kansas Nebraska Act superseded a long-standing agreement to keep the balance of Slave States, resulting in open rioting, see Bleeding Kansas.
1856 the Walker Affair, an attempt to annex Nicaragua as a Slave State.
The last 3 States admitted before the war were nonslave 1858 Minnesota, 1859 Oregon, 1861 Kansas. The North prevented Kansas Territory from becoming a Slave State, and when Southern members of Congress departed en masse in early 1861, Kansas was immediately admitted to the Union as a free state. Immediately subsequent to this a war started that had nothing to do with this, right?
You chose to take the popular revisionist route.

My "revisionist view"? Are you serious, or did I not see the sarcasm font? I, honestly, commend you for either your recall ability or you took some time to do some research.

Thank you for helping me make my point. There was some serious "stuff" happening before 1860, which "preceded" the war, not "proceeded" it. The issue that ultimately caused the South to secede from the Union was states rights (in general) and representation in Congress (specifically), of which, slavery was a part of. Every example you quote substantiates this.

To fully understand the turmoil the country was involved in and the potential solutions being considered, PRECEDING the outbreak of hostilities, you have to review the available correspondence. Lincoln's letters on display at the Lincoln Memorial helps with this. He (Lincoln) was willing to do just about ANYTHING to maintain the Union, including maintaining slavery (doesn't sound like like the "Great Emancipator" to me).

Fast forward to 1862/63, and Lee, Longstreet, Jackson running circles around the Union army, and northern mothers and fathers getting tired of burying their dead, Lincoln was becoming unpopular (and therefore the war) and was out of options to rally the citizenry into supporting the war, issued the Emancipation Proclamation (turning the war from "preserving the Union" into "freeing the slaves").

Again, great job on helping to make my point (saves me time typing). As far as "revisionist history" I WISH what I'm trying to explain here was popular. But, you also are demonstrating the devastating effects of revisionist history. This is why the Civil War is a very good example of this. Unfortunately most sheeple just keep repeating the narrative they've had shoved down their throats their entire lives (whether it be from Hollywood, MSM, or the brainwashing detention centers er...I mean public schools). I shudder to think what this world is going to look like in another 50 years after revisionist history has had an affect on homosexualality, transsexualism, and race based criminal justice. All you have to do is look at its effect on history we already know about.

 

[leVieux]

Are you for real? The word smithing seems….different. Nobody I know of talks or writes in that manner. Just seems really odd.

Maybe he is the second coming of “MallCop” ?

 

[leVieux]

My "revisionist view"? Are you serious, or did I not see the sarcasm font? I, honestly, commend you for either your recall ability or you took some time to do some research.

Thank you for helping me make my point. There was some serious "stuff" happening before 1860, which "preceded" the war, not "proceeded" it. The issue that ultimately caused the South to secede from the Union was states rights (in general) and representation in Congress (specifically), of which, slavery was a part of. Every example you quote substantiates this.

To fully understand the turmoil the country was involved in and the potential solutions being considered, PRECEDING the outbreak of hostilities, you have to review the available correspondence. Lincoln's letters on display at the Lincoln Memorial helps with this. He (Lincoln) was willing to do just about ANYTHING to maintain the Union, including maintaining slavery (doesn't sound like like the "Great Emancipator" to me).

Fast forward to 1862/63, and Lee, Longstreet, Jackson running circles around the Union army, and northern mothers and fathers getting tired of burying their dead, Lincoln was becoming unpopular (and therefore the war) and was out of options to rally the citizenry into supporting the war, issued the Emancipation Proclamation (turning the war from "preserving the Union" into "freeing the slaves").

Again, great job on helping to make my point (saves me time typing). As far as "revisionist history" I WISH what I'm trying to explain here was popular. But, you also are demonstrating the devastating effects of revisionist history. This is why the Civil War is a very good example of this. Unfortunately most sheeple just keep repeating the narrative they've had shoved down their throats their entire lives (whether it be from Hollywood, MSM, or the brainwashing detention centers er...I mean public schools). I shudder to think what this world is going to look like in another 50 years after revisionist history has had an affect on homosexualality, transsexualism, and race based criminal justice. All you have to do is look at its effect on history we already know about.

>
Gentlemen,

It appears that you both have supplied evidence supporting my main, although not specifically stated, point that: The “History” we were all taught in school was very incomplete, oversimplified, and greatly falsified!

Few, if any, contemporaries thought highly of Lincoln the man, nor of his actions.

Davis was unpopular because he was a bungler. Lincoln was unpopular because he was seen as the TYRANT that he was.

The general feeling in the South was that they would be able to go on their own way. Had they realized the danger posed by Lincoln, they would have built a much stronger Navy.

All in the irrevocable PAST !

leVieux
.

 

[Axxe55]

SO CALLED DOCTOS EVEN PLAY THE TROLL ON A FORUM

 

[BigRed]

Number of slaves lincoln freed = zero

 

[Axxe55]

Number of slaves lincoln freed = zero

THEN ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHO FREED THE SLAVES

 

[BigRed]

THEN ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHO FREED THE SLAVES

The "great emancipator" was anything but. His proclamation applied to none of the slaves in the union which was the only place it had any authority.

 

[Axxe55]

The "great emancipator" was anything but. His proclamation applied to none of the slaves in the union which was the only place it had any authority.

WELL THAT JUST SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TOSPLIT HAIRS AND NOT FACTUALLY TRUE IN THE LEASTTHE UNION ACTUALLY CONSISTED OF ALL STATES iircnot just the northern states

 

[BigRed]

WELL THAT JUST SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TOSPLIT HAIRS AND NOT FACTUALLY TRUE IN THE LEASTTHE UNION ACTUALLY CONSISTED OF ALL STATES iircnot just the northern states

Seceded States were not in the union. They had left! It seemed to cause quite the stir for the centralizers! LOL

Take a read of the emancipation proclamation. It freed nobody.

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

Seceded States were not in the union. They had left! It seemed to cause quite the stir for the centralizers! LOL

Take a read of the emancipation proclamation. It freed nobody.

Glad I'm not the only one....lol!

 

[wakosama]

 

[Axxe55]

Seceded States were not in the union. They had left! It seemed to cause quite the stir for the centralizers! LOL

Take a read of the emancipation proclamation. It freed nobody.

apparently history escapes you that was pretty much the entire premise of lincoln engaging i the civil war in the first place toprevent southern states from leaving the union and tokeep all the states as part of the union

 

[BRD@66]

....."All in the irrevocable PAST !"...

^This.

 

[candcallen]

Shhhhhhh

Be berry berry quiet, we're twoll huntin

 

[leVieux]

^This.

>
Yes, “irrevocable”. . . . .

But, we, who have been LIED-to & LIED about for 150 years, deserve some TRUTH, finally !

leVieux
.

 

[BRD@66]

Shhhhhhh

Be berry berry quiet, we're troll huntin

View attachment 365032

You misspelled twoll. Heh heh heh