Racism is White America’s HIV

[dbphoenix]

Sure. Obama said to "step up to the plate" and pass that rotten program. Of course, he later had his own boondoggles, such as the stimulus. Anyway, you failed (again) to engage with my point.

Actually, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Which is not the same thing.

 

[dbphoenix]

Funding isn't the issue. We all know throwing money at the problem just leads to another request for a larger amount next time...

Instead, it's the value system instilled by the family and community.

Actually it's just the opposite.

 

[jsp326]

Actually, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Which is not the same thing.

Nope. You avoided my question with a red herring.

 

[fhl]

Technically it was never a war, as the U.S. had never declared war, but rather the U.S. squashed a massive rebel uprising.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it should be known that it was the southern rebel army who first attacked the United States troops at Fort Sumter.

This is well documented, even by the south.

However, your assertion that Abe Lincoln "stated categorically that starting a war with the south had absolutely nothing to do with freeing the slaves and absolutely everything with forcing the south to collect import taxes" isn't so well documented now, is it?


While there may be some truth that the war for Lincoln had to do with a lot more than the abolition of slavery, this war was still very much about the south wanting to keep their rights to slavery, as they knew they would be abolished if they gave in to the Union.

So what it really boils down to is this- the south didn't want to pay taxes to the union, they didn't want to give up their slave trade, and they didn't want to do anything but make up their own rules, so they attacked.

After their surrender, most even swore an oath apologizing for their crimes to humanity, and promising to never do such horrible things again as enslave people. (There are some fascinating and striking parallels to what the Nazis went through in their rise and defeat).

Of course, there are those who believe their grandfather's stories about how Lincoln started the war, and is to blame for the death of hundreds of thousands- when all along, it was the south who should have long ago given up such a corrupt living, without the need for all that blood shed.

Uh, sorry, but no. Lincoln did in fact say categorically that if there was to be war with the south, it would have nothing to do with slavery and everything with forcing the south to collect and pay import duties. It's right in in first inaugural address, hoofie. You might want to skim that over before you continue.

The south was goaded into the attack on Fort Sumpter. Historians acknowledge this. Why won't you.
The south just wanted to LEAVE. They didn't want a war. Why would they want a war? The side that wanted to get the other's money needed a war. That's called common sense Hoofie.

I'll leave you with a couple of quotes that you might enjoy, seeing as how you're so interested in the American Indian.

"Why did Yankees almost instantly discover gold in California, which had been trodden upon and overlooked by Indians and Mexican greasers for centuries?”---Abe Lincoln, "Lecture on Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements, Springfield, Illinois, February 22, 1860.

"Indians have nothing human except the shape ...the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape. They are wolves and beasts who deserved nothing from the whites but 'total ruin'."---George Washington, 1783.

"The idea that a handful of wild, half-naked, thieving, plundering, murdering savages should be dignified with the sovereign attributes of nations, enter into solemn treaties, and claim a country 500 miles wide by 1,000 miles long as theirs in fee simple, because they hunted buffalo or antelope over it, might do for a beautiful reading of Hiawatha, but is unsuited to the intelligence and justice of this age, or the natural rights of mankind."---New Mexico Supreme Court, United States v. Lucero, 1 NM S. Ct. 422, 1869.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Nope. You avoided my question with a red herring.

That is how he operates. He'll ignore your question, then ask you one and claim you didn't like his answer, and won't answer his question. Classic redirect.

 

[Lucrum]

Sure. And do you see us conservatives addicted to welfare, unemployed, living a criminal lifestyle because 'Lincoln oppressed us'? LOL

You're a stupid fuck.

 

[Lucrum]

Funding isn't the issue. We all know throwing money at the problem just leads to another request for a larger amount next time...

Instead, it's the value system instilled by the family and community. Even then, without personal motivation to learn, be curious, and to excel, family and community values mean nothing. Each person not only needs to be able to see what's possible, but they also need to want it and be willing to work for it.

Lincoln didnt have benefit of organized education or the funding that goes with it. But of course, he was an outlier in a much smaller sample size.... But it does demonstrate how far personal motivation will take you if one applies himself.

A must see on our ED system

 

[Lucrum]

Uh, sorry, but no. Lincoln did in fact say categorically that if there was to be war with the south, it would have nothing to do with slavery and everything with forcing the south to collect and pay import duties. It's right in in first inaugural address, hoofie. You might want to skim that over before you continue.

The south was goaded into the attack on Fort Sumpter. Historians acknowledge this. Why won't you.
The south just wanted to LEAVE. They didn't want a war. Why would they want a war? The side that wanted to get the other's money needed a war. That's called common sense Hoofie.

I'll leave you with a couple of quotes that you might enjoy, seeing as how you're so interested in the American Indian.

"Why did Yankees almost instantly discover gold in California, which had been trodden upon and overlooked by Indians and Mexican greasers for centuries?”---Abe Lincoln, "Lecture on Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements, Springfield, Illinois, February 22, 1860.

"Indians have nothing human except the shape ...the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape. They are wolves and beasts who deserved nothing from the whites but 'total ruin'."---George Washington, 1783.

"The idea that a handful of wild, half-naked, thieving, plundering, murdering savages should be dignified with the sovereign attributes of nations, enter into solemn treaties, and claim a country 500 miles wide by 1,000 miles long as theirs in fee simple, because they hunted buffalo or antelope over it, might do for a beautiful reading of Hiawatha, but is unsuited to the intelligence and justice of this age, or the natural rights of mankind."---New Mexico Supreme Court, United States v. Lucero, 1 NM S. Ct. 422, 1869.

The American Civil War had far less to do with slavery than what we're taught/led to believe.

 

[Hoofhearted]

And what's the wager?

I'll tell you what. Whoever loses just has to sit back for about 5 minutes and think about what a prick they've been.

But this is no small wager and its doubtful you could handle it.

 

[Hoofhearted]

It's right in in first inaugural address, hoofie. You might want to skim that over before you continue.

No need to, I'll just quote the part you are referring to.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read..."

The south was goaded into the attack on Fort Sumpter. Historians acknowledge this. Why won't you.

Well, if you'd given me a chance to, instead of assuming so much, you might find that I'd agree, or at the very least, I doubt I could disagree with that notion.

Did I ever once even remotely attempt to tell you the south wasn't goaded into attacking the U.S. troops at Sumter?


Also- If you re-read what Lincoln said, regarding the matter of slavery, and which I have already quoted above, ^^^;
You might see where he clearly states he CAN NOT take the right to own slaves from individuals, as he HAS NO LAWFUL RIGHT TO DO SO.

He was addressing the issue of the people wanting to HIM to act, and abolish slavery.

He is clearly saying that the issue of Slavery Abolition would not be on HIS agenda as he stated all along in his campaign, and he clearly leaves it to The People to decide whether or not slavery is to be abolished. [EVEN AT HIS WARNING AGAINST DOING SO]


Lincoln, being a competent lawyer, saw many constitutional problems with taking the rights of slavery from individual states.

As any competent U.S. President should do, Lincoln left the matter in the hands of The People, who clearly made their wishes known to the rebels in the south.


Let's not forget, the southern folk didn't just give up their slave trade- they were forced to at gun point.

This war was VERY much about the south fighting to keep that right, as well as some others.

The south just wanted to LEAVE. They didn't want a war. Why would they want a war? The side that wanted to get the other's money needed a war. That's called common sense Hoofie.

Well, Texans, or a great bunch of them any way, would probably like to leave the U.S., but after seeing what happened to those who rebelled in the south...Well, some of them may be tough, and some of them may be dumb- but most of them ain't that tough and that dumb. LOL!

I'll leave you with a couple of quotes that you might enjoy, seeing as how you're so interested in the American Indian.

Indigenous People, but Thanks