rsmalls

It ain't him oldroy,ain't you figured that out by now! I'd rather you be honest,just say you don't like the black guy being in charge! Or as it appears to be!

rsmalls

It ain't him oldroy,ain't you figured that out by now! I'd rather you be honest,just say you don't like the black guy being in charge! Or as it appears to be!

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I is been called a r****t because I don't like the policies of Obama. Please don't believe you are the first one to do it since that crud has been there for 5 years.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I think you got him, Roy: RAAACIIIIST is usually the first and last argument of the poorly educated and worse informed.

rsmalls

You are who you are ,getting you to admit it ,and be honest with yourself is what it's all about. Respectfully ,that's okay if you are. You are quacking like a duck,walking like a duck, and youre crapping like a duck,,,,then you're ....! Come on out the closet!!! Let me guess,you got a best friend whose Black huh? Here's the bottom line , no President is gonna do for ALL the people ,or be what ALL the people want. Look at ALL the white guys before him ,especially Bush. How come you guys didnt/don't complain about all the crap he did? Was it ok? Why are you so opinionated now? Here's why,because it's a black guy in charge! You never gave a crap until now, that's why it appears that your quacking like a duck!

rsmalls

And where did you and banjo jack go to school??

jay-are

My only point was that Dick Morris is a secular progressive source. You seem to agree that a secular progressive source is a bad source for the t***h. That is my point.

If you know the t***h, just tell us the t***h. Why do you use Dick Morris? Is that supposed to make the info more credible? Well, I am just saying that it backfired on you. Using Dick Morris makes the info less credible.

If the info is true, fine, but I would trust you more than I trust anything from Dick Morris. He has already proven himself to be a t*****r and untrustworthy.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I didn't realize that you had been following my opinions for so long. What's that? You haven't? You just decided to lump me in with ALL the people you have ALL the issues with. You know nothing about me, peckerhead. Keep your fabricated notions to yourself.

jay-are

I admit that I don't know a lot about that period of history. I am commenting, not on historical facts, but on what you said. You said Lincoln was not opposed to s***ery. Based on that I said he had no core principles, or core principles that I disagree with.

Secondly, you said Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union. Based on that I say that that sounds like favoring a big and all powerful Federal Government. My statement is based on what you said, not on what I know of history.

I favor the nation as it was founded, a union of states, loosely managed by a minimal central authority.

If Lincoln didn't agree with that, I would have v**ed against him.

rumitoid

One fact I didn't know about pre-Civil War times was the tremendous impact of Uncle Tom's Cabin: it helped bring some of the reality of s***ery to the masses, who apparently were quite under-informed and undecided. S***ery, more than the question of state rights, became the important issue for the North. Or at least that is what this one documentary I saw put forth. Is that correct?

Loki Loc: Georgia

S***ery was not that big of an issue with many people. If it was, why were there laws forbidding b****s to settle in Illinois? Also Oregon Territory, and I believe Indiana. Even the great People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Taxachusetts had, until the 1850s, I believe it was, laws forbidding b****s to remain in Boston for more than 2 months unless they could prove they were born there, punishable by a public whipping if they couldn't. What does this mean? The North wanted the b****s free, but not free in their neck of the woods? Robert E Lee freed his s***es before the Emancipation Proclamation. Several of his generals opposed s***ery. They also realized what would happen if several million s***es with no job sk**ls other than picking cotton were turned loose to fend for themselves. By contrast, the wife of Ulysess S. Grant owned s***es, which was legal in W VA even after the Emancipation Proclamation, right up until 1865, when Federal Law forced her to free them. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an act of War, not Morality. Much of the Economic chaos in the South during reconstruction was due to the very thing that many anti-s***e Southerners feared, a glut of unsk**led, unemployed b****s on the market, the the abuses this situation caused which probably damaged the former Confederate States more than the war itself. S***ery would probably have been ended peaceably within 10 or 20 years anyway. Only something like 3% of the Southerners who actually fought in the war actually owned s***es.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Go ahead and mistrust Dick Morris. I know that what he said in this one is so full of t***h than only certain people could fail to know it. I have studied the period for years, except for the past 20 or so when progressives began rewriting and even leaving out. This time your attack on Morris is nothing but Alinsky like in that you attacked the messenger, Morris, without mentioning the message, which was so right on that I couldn't keep the story from people like you.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I will say that your last sentence was dependent on the fact that most of the soldiers were poor white, mostly farmers, who considered themselves above s***es.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Why Lincoln even said upon meeting "the little lady that caused the war" that she had aroused many people. I don't think that most people today know anything about "Uncle Tom's Cabin" at least from reading it, but it certainly did arouse many people in the North. Did you know that Harriet Beecher Stowe was the sister of Henry Ward Beecher, the Ohio minister who was responsible for importing rifles into the Kansas Territory in boxes labeled, Bibles. I guess they were playing a family game about s***ery.

rumitoid

Thank you for that little tour through history; most enlightening. And it shows how complex these processes are that usually get an expedient reductionist view that favors wh**ever political ends.

I know that the issue of states rights sort of faded into the background with many "history" texts found in our school system. That you mention that s***ery might have ended peacefully within 10 or 20 years might be a salient reminder for us today not to over-react to our present problems. Yet on another note telling these people in oppressive and often brutal bondage to shuck and jive we'll get around to this great injustice in time seems wrong: but was it worth 620,000 lives, the tremendous destruction, and the animosity embedded but the Civil War? The there was the injustice of segregation that lasted another 100 years says what to that tragic conflict?