US going to hell in a hand basket?

[max401]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



And your point is? That I questioned the source of the quote, you provided it, I thanked you, and then questioned the motivation for Lincoln saying what he did, and offered a theory as to why he said what he did and the context of him saying it...with some supporting anecdotal evidence.

He said it in a debate, which is sufficient enough reason for me to know that he was playing to the electorate to win votes in his battle with Douglas.

Also at that time, lacking the type of media coverage and levels of scrutiny or even literacy, I have no doubt it was common for those debaters in that era to say one thing one day and completely reverse the next day.

Even so, to fully try to understand Lincoln's thinking, I would like to see the full transcript of that debate, all debates, personal writings, etc.

Then we might get some clue into his thinking at that time frame. And even if he was a racist pig, his actions speak to his mission once he got in office.

Did I dismiss your theory? No. So why do you continue to try to make a point that your theory is the correct theory?

I am not in disagreement with your theory, it is a possibility, only that it cannot be proven at this point what Lincoln's true motivation was, and that there may be other reasons for Lincoln's remarks at that particular time...i.e. the campaign process and the audience he was speaking to.

Did you major in college in one-upmanship? Or did you actually fail that class and need to try to redeem yourself on anonymous message boards.

Let it go.

Man, what a sore loser!

"I have no doubt it was common for those debaters in that era to say one thing one day and completely reverse the next day." Sure, in the days where matters of honor was occasionally settled by pistols at 20 paces.

"He said it in a debate, which is sufficient enough reason for me to know that he was playing to the electorate to win votes in his battle with Douglas."

I would like to see the full transcript of that debate, all debates, personal writings, etc." You have the major source already listed for you.

One thing is for certain, you do not know your American History.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from max401:

Man, what a sore loser!

"I have no doubt it was common for those debaters in that era to say one thing one day and completely reverse the next day." Sure, in the days where matters of honor was occasionally settled by pistols at 20 paces.

"He said it in a debate, which is sufficient enough reason for me to know that he was playing to the electorate to win votes in his battle with Douglas."

I would like to see the full transcript of that debate, all debates, personal writings, etc." You have the major source already listed for you.

One thing is for certain, you do not know your American History.

I could care less about immersing myself in ancient American history to make arguments that are lacking proof of intent.

Prove intent, prove to me what was in Lincoln's thinking at the time he said what he said.

Honor among politicians? That is indeed the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Sore loser? Who was keeping score anyway?

A life...ever heard of one? As in get one?

Like a fiddle, like a fiddle.

 

[max401]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Prove intent, prove to me what was in Lincoln's thinking at the time he said what he said.

Prove? It's common knowledge the theme in Lincoln's quote was the reality of that era. Or do you think there was an affirmative action movement afoot in the mid 1800's? BTW, ol' Abe is documented to have sold slaves.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from max401:

Prove? It's common knowledge the theme in Lincoln's quote was the reality of that era. Or do you think there was an affirmative action movement afoot in the mid 1800's? BTW, ol' Abe is documented to have sold slaves.

This doesn't seem to constitute "proof" to me about the man's thinking at the time. "Reality of that era"....what does that mean? That everyone thought the same? Like now? Max, this is not up to your standards.

BTW, where is it "documented" that Lincoln sold slaves? I have tried to find this documentation and come up dry., (And Max, take note: I do not say such documentation does not exist...I just said I can't find it, so if it does, don't jump for joy. There are no prizes here).

http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/rank.htm

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/faq.htm
(contains the following):
Q: Did Lincoln own slaves?
A: Regardless of what you have heard, there is no truth to this assertion. Lincoln is sometimes confused with other presidents who did own slaves, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


Peace,
RS

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from max401:

Prove? It's common knowledge the theme in Lincoln's quote was the reality of that era. Or do you think there was an affirmative action movement afoot in the mid 1800's? BTW, ol' Abe is documented to have sold slaves.

Affirmative action in the mid 1800's? Why would you suggest such a concept. The Emancipation Proclamation came in 1862.

Common knowledge:

Grant is buried in Grant's tomb.

The founding fathers owned slaves.

Before indoor plumbing people shit outdoors.

Lincoln freed the slaves.

What is your point again? That things change?

Brilliant.

P.S. The sky is blue and water is wet.

P.P.S. Still waiting for proof of what was in Lincoln's mind and his intentions then and going forward concerning his comments.

Common knowledge of existing mores and values of a time frame do not constitute proof of what his intention was once he was elected.

Bush's initial campaign for the presidency didn't mention terrorism.

The war with Iraq was all about the removal of WMD and upholding the UN resolutions. It then morphed into part of the war against terrorism. Then it became all about the "Liberation of the Iraqi people."

Politicians simply bend with the winds of time, and try to make it seem as if they are leading the most popular tends, if indeed those trends prove to be popular once put into action.

That you think politicians today, or in Lincoln's time, or in the time of the Romans are essentially anything other than opportunists pushing their own ego based agenda is naive to be sure.

 

[max401]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



The Emancipation Proclamation came in 1862.

Lincoln freed the slaves.

Really? Like I said, you don't know American History. Show me where Lincoln freed any slave. Go back and read the document you tout above, to wit:

"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thence forward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Did you catch that?

"all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States"

Notice that good ol' Abe didn't bother to free any of those Union slaves, nor were the slaves in the States in "rebellion" free either, they were a separate nation and it was a meaningless and purely political proclamation utilized against the enemy Confederacy.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from max401:



Did you catch that?

"all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States"

Help me out here Max. This sentence doesn't seem to specify any particular States. North or south of the Mason-Dixon Line. It just says "any State or "designated part of a State".

While I agree that in practical terms your interpretation holds true, (because history played out that way), in purely legal terms, this sentence indeed does "emancipate" all slaves.

RS

 

[max401]

Quote from Error 404:



Help me out here Max. This sentence doesn't seem to specify any particular States. North or south of the Mason-Dixon Line. It just says "any State or "designated part of a State".

While I agree that in practical terms your interpretation holds true, (because history played out that way), in purely legal terms, this sentence indeed does "emancipate" all slaves. Technically, this sentence would imply that if people were slave owners in New York, then they too would be "in rebellion" and thus not allied with the union forces (United States).

RS

Please, RSX.X, you know better. Contrary to your "opinion," New Yorkers (or any other Union state) owning slaves in 1862, were most certainly not "people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." There is no comma between "people" and "whereof shall then be."

The definition of "whereof" is "of what." The statement is obviously directing its object upon any slaves that exist in a state that possesses the following quality: "the people whereof shall then be in rebellion." The definition of "whereof" is "of what."

 

[axeman]

This THREAD has gone to hell in a hand basket

peace

axeman

 

[max401]

Quote from Error 404:



BTW, where is it "documented" that Lincoln sold slaves? I have tried to find this documentation and come up dry.,

Can't find a link to this fact I allege so I will retract it. However, what I remember is that Abe sold his wife's slaves rather than freeing them. She came from a Southern slave owning family in Lexington, Kentucky and three of her half-brothers died fighting for the Confederacy.