- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/6/26 at 7:31 am to dalefla
Slaves came to the new world for two centuries before Virginia.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 7:36 am to bluedragon
quote:
Moron.
Lincoln secured 600,000 dollars from Congress, to violate the laws of the country. To ships slaves to Latin America or back to Africa.
When his plans were revealed to Douglas and other so-called black leaders, a near riot broke out in the White House. It wasn’t until months later that Emancipation Act was created, freeing only the slaves in the south.
You liberal pinheads prove your stupidity every day.
Your post is rife with insults and errors but short on anything that contradicts my post
Lincoln has a huge repository of writings, speeches and actions. All of that heavily supports the fact that Lincoln believed slavery to be morally wrong. He worked to end it. He had to do so in politics, which involves pragmatic deal making, but he always worked toward ending it - ALWAYS.
It’s easy to find racists irredentists, like you, who will argue otherwise, but you will find no serious historians who believe that.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 7:40 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
lincoln gave zero fricks about slaves. he only really cared about preserving the union and his power.
Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 7:42 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
ordered the rape of women and children
quote:
Since you tacitly defended it via deflection, it seems that you probably would have liked that part.
No defending nor deflecting, I am against abuse and forcing humans to do something against their will, aren't you?
Posted on 7/6/26 at 7:52 am to BuckI
quote:
No defending nor deflecting
Yes you did.
quote:
I am against abuse and forcing humans to do something against their will, aren't you?
Like forcing them to have sex with you?
Children dude.
You deflected from child rape.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 8:13 am to leeman101
quote:
Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley.
This shows very clearly that Lincoln valued the Union above all else. What Lincoln did not say in that letter was what he would do about slavery if preservation of the union was not at stake. But his life leaves us in little doubt; he would have freed the slaves.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 8:56 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
No defending nor deflecting
quote:How did I do either?
Yes you did.
quote:
I am against abuse and forcing humans to do something against their will, aren't you?
quote:Child abusers should be shot. So should rapist. So should anyone who buys, sells, or trades humans.
Like forcing them to have sex with you?
Children dude.
You deflected from child rape.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 9:31 am to BuckI
quote:
How did I do either?
I quoted the parts that show you doing so. Based on the following comment, it must have been inadvertent.
quote:
Child abusers should be shot. So should rapist. So should anyone who buys, sells, or trades humans.
I agree.
But that line of thinking isn’t going to go over well with your leftist friends.
Despite you disagreeing with them, you will still be expected to vote blue no matter who.
If you do, then you still support it,
as MAPs (Minor Attracted Persons) are under the”big tent” of the Dems.
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 9:34 am
Posted on 7/6/26 at 9:40 am to shinerfan
quote:Can't really play this card while saying Lincoln isn't a Republican.
That guy's a Democrat?
Posted on 7/6/26 at 10:03 am to Stexas
Lincoln was a lot of things, but he was ultimately a pragmatist with excellent vision. Much of the nation could only view their current situation through the lens of the Revolution. Lincoln was looking forward to the demands of the 20th Century.
There is a lot of criticism of the French in WW2 for preparing to fight another WW1 rather than preparing for how technology would rapidly render their tactics obsolete. They were looking backwards and fighting the new war with the ideas of the previous war. This led to their rapid defeat.
Lincoln understood how technology was rapidly changing how countries would wage war and function going forward. He understood logistics in waging war. The South was full of idealists and utopians trying to follow their Jeffersonian vision of an Agrarian paradise with themselves as the new royalty. Lincoln saw that the future would need an industrial empire capable of competing on the world stage to survive. The South’s backwards facing idealism would be crushed under the weight of Lincoln’s forward thinking pragmatism. Logistics and industry would win the war, not chivalry. Lee lost Gettysburg in a Napoleonic Charge while Grant won Vicksburg with WW1 siegecraft.
You can hate Lincoln for his methods, but there was no way for America to rise to the status of the World Power it would become in the early 20th century without Lincoln paving the way. Lincoln’s visionary approach to logistics (particularly railroads), early dabbling with aspects of command economy, forging of a singular American identity, total war mindset, and centralization of power created the modern imperial presidency. It cost 600k lives to remake America in his image, and our nation continues on, in many ways, as the ultimate embodiment of Lincoln’s vision.
There is a lot of criticism of the French in WW2 for preparing to fight another WW1 rather than preparing for how technology would rapidly render their tactics obsolete. They were looking backwards and fighting the new war with the ideas of the previous war. This led to their rapid defeat.
Lincoln understood how technology was rapidly changing how countries would wage war and function going forward. He understood logistics in waging war. The South was full of idealists and utopians trying to follow their Jeffersonian vision of an Agrarian paradise with themselves as the new royalty. Lincoln saw that the future would need an industrial empire capable of competing on the world stage to survive. The South’s backwards facing idealism would be crushed under the weight of Lincoln’s forward thinking pragmatism. Logistics and industry would win the war, not chivalry. Lee lost Gettysburg in a Napoleonic Charge while Grant won Vicksburg with WW1 siegecraft.
You can hate Lincoln for his methods, but there was no way for America to rise to the status of the World Power it would become in the early 20th century without Lincoln paving the way. Lincoln’s visionary approach to logistics (particularly railroads), early dabbling with aspects of command economy, forging of a singular American identity, total war mindset, and centralization of power created the modern imperial presidency. It cost 600k lives to remake America in his image, and our nation continues on, in many ways, as the ultimate embodiment of Lincoln’s vision.
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 10:04 am
Posted on 7/6/26 at 10:12 am to Boss13
quote:
He won in 1864 by creating a new state (Kansas) and splitting up Virginia
I'm pretty sure Kansas became a state in 1861 and West Virginia was an act of congress due to the western part of the state refusing to suceed. I dont know where you people learned history but maybe do a little research on your conspiracy theories
What you posted pretty much supports the claim you responded to. Lincoln was 1st elected in 1860, so a new sympathetic state in 1861 would have helped him with reelection in 1864. Same with splitting off W Va. What exactly is the conspiracy theory?
Posted on 7/6/26 at 10:16 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Lincoln wasn't the anti slavery
poster-child many attempt to portray.....
That's because, as always, history is written and recorded by the victors.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 10:48 am to Penrod
Try again. While he was against slavery….he wished to honor that law. Until he choose to toss the Constitution in the can.
Your mistake? The Emancipation Proclamation only freed southern slaves. No Northern slaves. He was full of contradiction, as are your meager claims.
Your mistake? The Emancipation Proclamation only freed southern slaves. No Northern slaves. He was full of contradiction, as are your meager claims.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 10:57 am to Boss13
quote:
West Virginia was an act of congress due to the western part of the state refusing to suceed. I dont know where you people learned history but maybe do a little research on your conspiracy theories.
The Constitution specifically prohibits breaking up any of state without both states agreeing. I’m pretty sure Virginia did not agree to making West Virginia. So the act of Congress was illegal and unconstitutional.
Under Article IV, Section III of the United States Constitution, “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Do you know your history?
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:10 am to Drizzt
quote:
Under Article IV, Section III of the United States Constitution, “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Do you know your history?
Virginia suceeded. To leave and demand protection under the constitution is laughable. The people of West Virginia suceeded from Virginia and stayed with United States.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:10 am to RollTide95
quote:
He was the original election fraudster as well
Truth
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:20 pm to Boss13
quote:
To leave and demand protection under the constitution is laughable.
To allow secession of a part of a State that is clearly unconstitutional, while not acknowledging secession is not defined in the Constitution and therefore is a legal retained right is even more laughable.
Also, wasn't there slaves in W Virginia at the time of creation? The North helped create another slave State.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:27 pm to bluedragon
quote:
Your mistake? The Emancipation Proclamation only freed southern slaves. No Northern slaves. He was full of contradiction, as are your meager claims.
He wasn’t a philosopher posting on the rant; he was a politician having to muster majorities. His entire lifetime body of work was anti-slavery.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 1:02 pm to Boss13
quote:
Virginia suceeded. To leave and demand protection under the constitution is laughable. The people of West Virginia suceeded from Virginia and stayed with United States
To sarcastically ask if someone knows history while posting this multiple times is brutal.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News