Quote Originally Posted by mdrobster View Post "Pres Eisenhower was the first to send troops to Vietnam." Yes. I believe it was 500 troops to train. He did not permit them to engage the enemy. It was President Kennedy who changed the rules of engagement and it was President Johnson who made it America's War. Then the leftists made it Nixon's War.
It's obvious you have a difficult time understanding the monetary and property aspect. Do you really believe that people had slaves just to be "mean" to blacks because they were "racists"? or can you understand the economic value? you do realize there were plenty of white slaves and no one would even care what race the slave was? What would you do if someone just took the majority of your assets? Yeah well slaves were financial assets.. The social aspects are irrelevant - none of that changes the fact Lincoln basically took 500 bucks (a slaves value at the time) and burned it..
The overwhelming majority of people in the South never owned slaves. Lincoln and the North were just as racist as those in the South. Not really. The South was outnumbered 2 to 1 on the battlefield and had less resources. The North lost far more soldiers than the South. Not really a "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapping", at all. Liberals know about as much as Lincoln as school children do. They know of Lincoln the folk hero, not the real man. Lincoln said he would have not freed a single slave if it could have kept the US together, so the false narrative about him going to war to free the slaves is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). He actually wanted to send every slave back to Africa after the war, which was something conveniently left out of Spielberg's "Lincoln". I wonder why? Progressives admire Lincoln because he made the Federal Government bigger and more powerful.
Some ay that it was because he was screwing a Russian spy, a mob boss's girlfriend, Castro's daughter, etc. I think it was LBJ's Texas oilman supporter who had it done for LBJ. That guy owned a lot of Dallas cops, some CIA, FBI and mob killers too. As for honoring Booth? Booth was an actor so he was liberal dem that hated having a Republican in office. I'm surprised that dem's aren't in with honoring a Republican killer..
We had advisers in since 1950 under Truman and Eisenhower, the war escalated by sending troops to fight under JFK, Johnson, and Nixon and Nixon ended it.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa you spent tooooo much time in the public schools obviously. Still time for you to study up >>>>>>just for you>>>>https://www.google.com/url? sa=t&...=u8uM_ps5-S_j6lNbVYwzog&bvm=bv.87269000,d.cWc or if the forces of political correctness have deleted that...try this one>>>>>>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Il6DWlIX2xaIgUThoJBzjQ&bvm=bv.87269000,d.cWc or>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Nz8HcOq9jJbunVPL5R4_cw&bvm=bv.87269000,d.cWc
Although they can do the event and associate with like minded people, it just shows you haw many nuts there are here in the United States though.
A claim that presumably rolls effortlessly off the tounges of constitutional illiterates. So the Declarations of Secession were published in hopes of getting northern racists to vote Republican?
Of course the Purchase was unconstitutional; it just happened to have beena good deal so few complained about it at the time. They were a response to northern radical propaganda. Your sentence makes no sense, as is usual with trolls who don't know what they're talking about and just want to make noises anyway. Lincoln was an entirely regional candidate; his party was only interested in financing northern interests at the expense of southerners; that's the whole program of the Republicans, not 'ending slavery'.
Then I cordially invite you to cite the provision(s) it ran afoul of...if you dare. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate as to what sort of propaganda would be reasonably addressed by professions of undying love for the institution of slavery. Actually I'm confident that it makes perfect sense to anyone who has and read and understood your assertion, my response and the Declarations. None of this has any bearing on anything I said, so thanks for nothing.
He was not a real progressive, just like Obama is not a real liberal. He can only be considered a progressive insofar as "progressive" has become synonymous with "large and powerful central government".
There was progress being made in the south as well. For example, Thomas Jefferson signed a law banning the transatlantic slave trade in the early 1800's. And if the federal government's true aim was to preserve the union and liberate slaves, then they should have just did what almost every other western nation on earth did and pursued a policy of compensated manumission, which, for the cost of the US government's war with the southern states, could have been achieved for every slave in America. In other words, instead of spending the modern day equivalent of $60 billion in taxes to invade and subjugate the south, Lincoln could have just used his tyrannical powers to pursue a policy of compensated manumission, which some prominent abolitionists thought eminently feasible.
Uh...unlikely they would have accepted. Slaves composed the most valuable single asset class in the USA in 1860 and the value was increasing.. Slavery had been a dying institution in 1800, yes, but by 1860 it had been reinvented. The "Peculiar Institution" was very profitable and getting more so You might find this interesting http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/
The first time I heard this sentiment - like you - I was aghast. But, I was raised in the North where even small communities have at least one Lincoln school and street named after the man. During a trip with college buddies to the Deep South, I heard this same sentiment spoken and I had to find out why. The people expressing it were not racists - not by a long shot. But, they'd lost their ancestral home (well over a century before) and they lost many of their ancestral family members in the Civil War. None of their ancestors owned or advocated owning slaves, but their families were torn asunder anyway. Their homes burned, their women raped. The stories of the war which were recorded and handed down through the generations were heartbreaking and they blamed Lincoln. Keep in mind that no more than 5% owned slaves. Most did not and would not. I needed to hear that counterpoint. It was new to me. While I'm happier to celebrate Lincoln's life - I can understand that they come from a much different perspective.
I agree totally but for a different reason. The South had reinvented slavery in about the harshest form that it has taken in history, exceeded only by the Nazis and maybe not even there. If the South had won, the remnants of the USA would led the world in a nightmare, probably reviving the Slave Trade and maybe bringing on a World War with the British over it. I think they would have made S.M. Stirling's fictional Draka look nice if they won that, let alone the Nazis.
What? The south were basically gentiles if you look at slaves in a historical overview.. 90% of slaves were basically "servants" and they had liberty... The real tyrants were the farmers that used slaves just to work their farms.. In a lot of cases - actually most - "slaves" had no reason to leave their jobs because they were treated fair They got paid a wage...
Southern Slavery was the most humane form of slavery in history......now the liberals might be more right about how slavery was in South America....where the great majority of slaves that were shipped across the atlantic wound up. Most people have very little knowledge of the truth about Slavery in America....very few even know that there were White Slaves up North before the Africans were brought over. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=44940 and...........how many slaves were there in America? >>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...oss/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/
Just stating the truth.....if you call that a defense so be it. Obviously the biggest mistake this nation ever made was to bring the African Slaves to America. The second biggest mistake was not to send them back after they were freed...which is what Abe Lincoln wanted to do.
Oh...the South has arisen ....that is why so many Yankees come down here....the North has become increasingly intolerable for working class folk....we get a lot of New Yorkers down here....they tell me that NYC now is only tolerable for the very poor and the rich....definitely no place for working class whites.
Too many think just cuz some schmuck is president that makes him some kind of god.....completely ridiculous....we have a long, long history of poor leadership and especially of jerks getting into that high office that have no qualifications for the job ....they are usually just someone that the powers that be select because they know they can control them and mould their image into something the masses being asses will vote for. No one and I mean no one is irreplaceable....but also we should recognize that obama has the best assasination proof insurance in the world....joe biden as vice-president...who....and i literally mean who would want that buffoon as president....like obama is bad enough...do we really want a bigger clown than obama in there....of course not....so get over your nightmare of obama being assassinated...it will not happen. Abe despite his fan club and cult status Abe was really a waycist p.o.s. .....just read some of his speeches....though I really wish he had not been killed...he might have been able to do what he really wanted to in regards to the negroes....send them all back to friggin afreeka. Did you not know dat? heheheh https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=eu-tOUlZK4lgo1A91EVY6A&bvm=bv.87269000,d.aWw
