White devils no longer in charge of museum tours, Chicago crime rate expected to drop

3,477 Views | 109 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Rawhide
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-museum-fires-apos-mostly-150838189.html
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bad idea
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?



EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Firing 100 trained volunteers at a non-profit because too many have money....
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do they even have 100 people already trained and waiting to take over? Or does this mean that starting today there are no people to give tours and it will take them months (if ever) to find enough unpaid volunteers that fit their critieria?
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Do they even have 100 people already trained and waiting to take over? Or does this mean that starting today there are no people to give tours and it will take them months (if ever) to find enough unpaid volunteers that fit their critieria?
They're not finding more volunteers. They're going to pay POC to do the jobs of the unpaid volunteers.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

cowboycwr said:

Do they even have 100 people already trained and waiting to take over? Or does this mean that starting today there are no people to give tours and it will take them months (if ever) to find enough unpaid volunteers that fit their critieria?
They're not finding more volunteers. They're going to pay POC to do the jobs of the unpaid volunteers.
... with no training or resources.

I think we can all see how this story's next chapter will read.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So they no longer be allowed to work for free.

That's really a bold move.

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the froums my buddy.
Dilly Dilly!


(in honor of the BYU game results and a certain 2-way player)
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
True but even if banned they just make up another name and come back. Some infections are difficult to get rid of.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
True but even if banned they just make up another name and come back. Some infections are difficult to get rid of.
Troll variants. Need a new vaccine.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.
There is not a single poster on this board who is unaware of the incessant discrimination currently being employed against white people.

100% flagrant bigotry .

Yet no one....least of all....those who in the past have always pontificated equality....say a word.

NeuroticBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

cowboycwr said:

Do they even have 100 people already trained and waiting to take over? Or does this mean that starting today there are no people to give tours and it will take them months (if ever) to find enough unpaid volunteers that fit their critieria?
They're not finding more volunteers. They're going to pay POC to do the jobs of the unpaid volunteers.
Most don't have the budget, so they'll likely need one of Soros' orgs to foot the bill…and rewrite history at the same time.

A win-win for the Marxists.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
True but even if banned they just make up another name and come back. Some infections are difficult to get rid of.
Don't you need a phone number to verify registration now so you can't just make up another name and log in?
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .



cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.
After years of reading his comments........totally amusing .
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.







cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.
After years of reading his comments........totally amusing .


Sad that you think pointing out the truth is amusing.

Please tell me how the majority of professional historians are wrong?

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881

Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


I am confusing nothing. I am pointing out the truth and am backed by the majority of historians. You and the others that want to defend the southern slave owners are the ones confused.

The war was about slavery. The majority of historians agree on that.

Saying otherwise is defending slavery.

Saying otherwise shows the hard headedness of the Republican party and why it is dying. They want to ardently defend the losers who have statues built to them in clear defiance of the freed slaves and their descendants. And then wonder why they can't get those people to vote for them. Or why the young generation won't support them.

Because they are defending the actions of the racist slave owners that fought war to keep their slaves and ignore what the majority of historians now agree on.

So prove the majority of historians wrong. Don't post more quotes. Prove them wrong.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.
drahthaar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

So they no longer be allowed to work for free.

That's really a bold move.


Nope, They'll no longer be allowed to work at all.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." -Simon Cameron: Union Sec. of War 1861-1862

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.