Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Lincoln was a POS
Comments
-
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
-
Technology was ending it rapidly. Are you suggesting that without Lincoln slavery Wouk seems still exist ? England ended it 3 decades sooner. It was on its last legs.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
The emancipation proclamation had no authority in the south. -
What are you talking about relating to technology? Cotton was still picked by hand for like 100 years after the civil war. The southern sharecropping system in much of the 20th century didn’t look much different from slavery in terms of how the crop was planted and harvested.MikeDamone said:
Technology was ending it rapidly. Are you suggesting that without Lincoln slavery Wouk seems still exist ? England ended it 3 decades sooner. It was on its last legs.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
The emancipation proclamation had no authority in the south.
Additionally, you yourself in another thread implied to immense cost involved to the British treasury in emancipating just a few Caribbean slaves. And that this might have been unworkable on the scale needed in the US.
I’m not saying slavery would have lasted to well into the 20th century so don’t fucking twist. But it wasn’t anywhere close to being dead in 1860. Shit in Brazil it lasted till 1888. -
England was circling for a rematch of 1776 and was already supportive of the CSA. The limey textile mills needed the South’s cotton and their own de facto slaves.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
Honest Abe checkmated the moral high ground by bringing the Union wholly against slavery and in line with British public sentiment had they been forced to choose sides. It effectively took the Brits out of the picture for the remainder of the war.
-
It was on it’s way out. Not just cotton picking machines. The industrial revolution was starting. The distaste for slavery was growing rapidly. You probably think child labor laws ended child labor....YellowSnow said:
What are you talking about relating to technology? Cotton was still picked by hand for like 100 years after the civil war. The southern sharecropping system in much of the 20th century didn’t look much different from slavery in terms of how the crop was planted and harvested.MikeDamone said:
Technology was ending it rapidly. Are you suggesting that without Lincoln slavery Wouk seems still exist ? England ended it 3 decades sooner. It was on its last legs.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
The emancipation proclamation had no authority in the south.
Additionally, you yourself in another thread implied to immense cost involved to the British treasury in emancipating just a few Caribbean slaves. And that this might have been unworkable on the scale needed in the US.
I’m not saying slavery would have lasted to well into the 20th century so don’t fucking twist. But it wasn’t anywhere close to being dead in 1860. Shit in Brazil it lasted till 1888.
Wouldn’t the cost to the treasury been preferable to a brutal war. The most costly and deadly in our history? -
Of course the cost to the treasury would have far more preferable than the war but that’s with the benefit of hindsight. Distaste for slavey was growing but not that much. Shit a hell of a lot of northern congress members voted against the 13th Ammendment even in 1865.MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out. Not just cotton picking machines. The industrial revolution was starting. The distaste for slavery was growing rapidly. You probably think child labor laws ended child labor....YellowSnow said:
What are you talking about relating to technology? Cotton was still picked by hand for like 100 years after the civil war. The southern sharecropping system in much of the 20th century didn’t look much different from slavery in terms of how the crop was planted and harvested.MikeDamone said:
Technology was ending it rapidly. Are you suggesting that without Lincoln slavery Wouk seems still exist ? England ended it 3 decades sooner. It was on its last legs.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
The emancipation proclamation had no authority in the south.
Additionally, you yourself in another thread implied to immense cost involved to the British treasury in emancipating just a few Caribbean slaves. And that this might have been unworkable on the scale needed in the US.
I’m not saying slavery would have lasted to well into the 20th century so don’t fucking twist. But it wasn’t anywhere close to being dead in 1860. Shit in Brazil it lasted till 1888.
Wouldn’t the cost to the treasury been preferable to a brutal war. The most costly and deadly in our history? -
Sounds like the Democrats and HondoBros voting against the civil rights act of 1964.YellowSnow said:
Of course the cost to the treasury would have far more preferable than the war but that’s with the benefit of hindsight. Distaste for slavey was growing but not that much. Shit a hell of a lot of northern congress members voted against the 13th Ammendment even in 1865.MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out. Not just cotton picking machines. The industrial revolution was starting. The distaste for slavery was growing rapidly. You probably think child labor laws ended child labor....YellowSnow said:
What are you talking about relating to technology? Cotton was still picked by hand for like 100 years after the civil war. The southern sharecropping system in much of the 20th century didn’t look much different from slavery in terms of how the crop was planted and harvested.MikeDamone said:
Technology was ending it rapidly. Are you suggesting that without Lincoln slavery Wouk seems still exist ? England ended it 3 decades sooner. It was on its last legs.YellowSnow said:
Huh? Lincoln and the Republican Party only wanted to stop spread of slavery and had no plans to eliminate where it already existed. He even said he would have kept slavery to preserve the Union. And they still seceded in spite of this and then proceeded to start the war by firing on federal property. So what makes you think it was on the way out in 1860?MikeDamone said:
It was on it’s way out, Lincoln or no Lincoln.PurpleJ said:Sounds like Damone supports slavery.
England needed it 37 years earlier with no war.
The emancipation proclamation had no authority in the south.
Additionally, you yourself in another thread implied to immense cost involved to the British treasury in emancipating just a few Caribbean slaves. And that this might have been unworkable on the scale needed in the US.
I’m not saying slavery would have lasted to well into the 20th century so don’t fucking twist. But it wasn’t anywhere close to being dead in 1860. Shit in Brazil it lasted till 1888.
Wouldn’t the cost to the treasury been preferable to a brutal war. The most costly and deadly in our history?
Violating a person’s natural rights is never ok. Ever. Under any circumstances -
So how about this emergency plunger gasket thingy they have in Korea? I can think of a few times this would have come in handy?
-
The South never gave Lincoln a chance even though he made a point of not interfering in slavery status quo. Damone s argument is defective. For one thing, slavery was not being eclipsed at all ...the South wanted to keep it going west!
-
Wanted to. Wouldn’t have.ApostleofGrief said:The South never gave Lincoln a chance even though he made a point of not interfering in slavery status quo. Damone s argument is defective. For one thing, slavery was not being eclipsed at all ...the South wanted to keep it going west!
