Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; civilwar; dontstartnothin; greatestpresident; northernaggression; savannah; sherman; skinheadsonfr; southernterrorists; thenexttroll; throughaglassdarkly; wtsherman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,641-1,655 next last
To: HandyDandy

Darnit. Please change South America to Central America.


741 posted on 01/15/2020 9:52:48 PM PST by HandyDandy (All right then I will go to hell. Huckleberry Finn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: HandyDandy; OIFVeteran; DoodleDawg; jeffersondem; Who is John Galt?; DiogenesLamp; central_va

>>HandyDandy wrote: “[E]arlier you had stated that President Lincoln held onto his “colonization” idea till “his dying days” (your words). That is totally incorrect. Please learn more about that before you open your mouth about it again. By the time of “his dying days” (your words), Abe had given up on the idea.”
>>Kalamata wrote: “No, I am correct; and since have opened your mouth, put your money where your mouth is.”
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Well, for starters, Lincoln didn’t reach a point in his life that an ordinary person would refer to as “his dying days”. His life was cut short by an assassins bullet. For example, Jefferson Davis did get to live until his “dying days”. In fact, he was able to live long enough to have been able to say the following in a speech at a Lost Cause Ceremony, “United you are now, and if the Union is ever to be broken, let the other side break it.”

I am not sure what your point is.

*****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Furthermore, Lincoln had two colonization attempts to coal mines in South America. Neither got off the ground. There was a real attempt to colonize 500(?) blacks to Haiti. Another dismal disaster. Some immediately took off for parts unknown. The rest returned to America and Lincoln made them paid and uniformed soldiers in the Union. That was the end of Lincoln’s pursuing colonization.”

Do you have a source?

*****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Of course you know, that earlier, Abe met with the leading Blacks of the day (including Fredrick Douglass) and put the idea of colonization directly on the table. He botched it and they were rightfully offended. There really isn’t much more to be said about Lincoln and Colonization although your ilk love to milk it.”

You have not demonstrated that Lincoln gave up on his decades-long quest for colonization, before his death.

*****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “You also mentioned that Abe was “executed”. Please correct that.”
>>Kalamata wrote: “You are asking me to lie. No thanks. There were executioners lined up from Washington D.C. to Texas “dying” to rid the world of that terrorist.
>>HandyDandy wrote: “That is an interesting comment. See above. Abe was struck in the back of his head by the bullet of a crazed assassin.”

From what I have read, he was sane. However, there is no doubt the person he executed was a blood-thirsty psychopath, who burned, raped and pillaged his way to “victory,” violating every standard of warfare and common decency, while destroying the lives of perhaps a million people, or more.

*****************
>>HandyDandy wrote: “99% of real Americans would tell you the President was “assassinated”. You are the first I’ve heard use the term, “executed”.”

You and several others on this board tend to play fast-and-loose with the term “real Americans.” You should keep in mind that consensus is not necessarily history; and in matters like this, what appears to be consensus is more likely to be groupthink.

***************** c
>>HandyDandy wrote: “In addition, getting back to Lincoln and Taney, are you familiar with who authored the following passage? . . . Moving along, do you know who authored this?:
>>HandyDandy wrote: “ I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

Yeah, I know. He also name-dropped parts of the Declaration (out of context,) when it was to his political advantage.

A good rule of thumb on how to tell the patriot from a conniving rat, using this scenario, is, the patriot will use the Constitutional Convention construction to stop a usurpation of power, while the conniving rat will use it to usurp power.

Mr. Kalamata


742 posted on 01/15/2020 9:54:41 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata

As you are.


743 posted on 01/16/2020 2:31:43 AM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
You are a liar. Prove you are not a liar. Betcha can’t!

Being called a liar by you is like being called ugly by Hillary Clinton.

Lincoln spoke out against slavery almost all his career, and his actions in support of the amendment ending slavery are well documented by historians. Including David Herbert Donald, who you seem to be so fond of quoting.

744 posted on 01/16/2020 3:29:42 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; jeffersondem; DiogenesLamp; Who is John Galt?
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Being called a liar by you is like being called ugly by Hillary Clinton."

Quit lying, and I won't bring it up.

*****************

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Lincoln spoke out against slavery almost all his career"

Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and the few times he did it was politically-timed to promote Whig economic agenda. The amoral Whig party was split over slavery, but strictly for political reasons:

"Along with the other Young Indians, Lincoln hoped not just to elect a presidential candidate but to formulate a new set of beliefs for the Whig party in place of old doctrines that no longer aroused public interest. Without some vital, controlling principles, there was a danger that Whigs might follow local, sectional interests. In the South some Whigs were tempted to make a defense of slavery their central issue, so that they could demonstrate that they, rather than the Democrats, more truly represented their region's interests. In the Northeast many Whigs, troubled by the huge influx of immigrants, who tended to vote Democratic, flirted with the Native American party. Other party leaders thought that a strong antislavery platform could win back the Conscience Whigs, mostly in New England, who were so opposed to any extension of slavery that they were ready to join antislavery Democrats in nominating ex-President Martin Van Buren on the new Free- Soil ticket. All these approaches were tempting—and all would disastrously split the parry. Even if Taylor was elected, he would find that he could not govern.

"To avoid these dangers, Lincoln urged Taylor to put himself above all local and regional issues. The proper Whig policy ought to be one of "making Presidential elections, and the legislation of the country, distinct matters; so that the people can elect whom they please, and afterwards, legislate just as they please, without any hindrance [from the Chief Executive], save only so much as may guard against infractions of the constitution, undue haste, and want of consideration." He wanted Taylor to announce: "Were I president, I should desire the legislation of the country to rest with Congress, uninfluenced by the executive in it's origin or progress, and undisturbed by the veto unless in very special and clear cases." When Taylor made this pledge, Lincoln was jubilant, and he took the floor of the House of Representatives to explain what it meant: "In substance, it is this: The people say to Gen: Taylor 'If you are elected, shall we have a national bank?' He answers Your will, gentlemen, not mine.' 'What about the Tariff?' 'Say yourselves.' 'Shall our rivers and harbours be improved?' 'Just as you please.'

"Even on the most divisive issues relating to slavery, Lincoln believed Taylor's position should be the same. Though Taylor was a Southerner and the owner of more than two hundred slaves, he should declare that if Congress passed the Wilmot Proviso prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories acquired from Mexico, he would not veto it. (Lincoln did not explain that this contingency was highly unlikely, since no version of the Wilmot Proviso could pass the Senate, which was dominated by Southerners.) This position, Lincoln maintained, was 'the best sort of principle' for a party, 'the principle of allowing the people to do as they please with their own business.'"

[David Herbert Donald, "Lincoln." Touchstone, 1996, p.127]

Slavery was just another political tool for Lincoln and the Whigs.

*****************

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "and his actions in support of the amendment ending slavery are well documented by historians. Including David Herbert Donald, who you seem to be so fond of quoting."

Are you intentionally avoiding the pesky Corwin Amendment? David Donald was a Lincolnite, who tended to put Lincoln in a favorable light, whenever possible; but he was also a historian who couldn't completely avoid mentioning the proposed amendment:

"In Washington government officials could not agree on how to deal with the increasingly serious crisis. The President, along with many other conservatives, favored calling a national convention to amend the Constitution so as to redress Southern grievances. The House of Representatives created the Committee of Thirty-three, with one congressman from each state, to deal with the crisis. After much debate the committee proposed admission of New Mexico as a state, more stringent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, repeal of the personal liberty laws enacted by Northern states to prevent the reclamation of fugitives, and adoption of a constitutional amendment prohibiting future interference with slavery."

[Ibid. p.268]

Other, less ideologically-driven historians provide more details:

"I first came across the Corwin Amendment in my own studies a decade ago while writing an undergraduate senior thesis on the secession crisis, and little new has been written about it since then. Aside from the aforementioned proliferation of passing references, most of which treat it as a quaint side story to the secession crisis, the only truly thorough analysis of this subject was written half a century ago by R. Alton Lee for the Ohio Historical Society."

"So why have historians generally dodged this subject, or at least neglected it by relegation to a curiosity? First and foremost, the amendment's status as a 'path not taken' (and fortunately so from a modern constitutional perspective) has caused it to be overshadowed by other events in its vicinity. Second, there is a very strong level of discomfort created by the realization that slavery very nearly became a permanent and explicit fixture of the Constitution, as recently noted by Daniel W. Crofts: the Corwin 'amendment tells modern Americans something about our national history that we do not want to know.' Third, it tells us something about a pragmatist side to Abraham Lincoln's racial views and in doing so casts the 'Great Emancipator' in all too human terms (a subject I've addressed at length in other areas of his presidency)…"

"For his own part, Lincoln made no public statement about the amendment until after its adoption (he described it and stated in his first inaugural address on March 4th that he had 'no objection to its being made express and irrevocable'). Yet as Lee thoroughly documents, Lincoln actively lobbied behind the scenes to drum up support for the amendment after he arrived in Washington in late February. A young Henry Adams, who was clerking for his congressman father and Corwin Amendment co-sponsor Charles Francis Adams, affirms this as well, noting that the amendment's adoption by the narrowest of two-thirds majorities came only because of 'some careful manipulation, as well as the direct influence of the new President.'"

[Phillip W. Magness, "Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment." Philip W. Magness]

And then there is the alternate plan of colonization:

"Did He Ever Lose Faith In A Borrowed Plan To Solve The Slavery Question?

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion.... Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation....

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free.... We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just—a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN December 1, 1862

"Although Abraham Lincoln was a master of words, few of his passages are more powerful than these lines from his annual message to Congress in the second year of the war. Made public precisely one month before the promised final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation was due, they seem almost to have come from a life-long ardent abolitionist.

"Not so.

"This passage is the president's final argument to Congress, urging the adoption of three proposed amendments to the Constitution. Collectively, the amendments incorporate basic features of his borrowed plan for solution of the slavery problem: abolition by individual states, with compensation to owners, and colonization of black "Americans" with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States." "Had lawmakers been sufficiently inspired by Abraham Lincoln's winged words to act promptly upon his recommendations, the Emancipation Proclamation would not have been issued. Speedy adoption of his proposed amendments would have made the document obsolete before it could take effect."

[Webb Garrison, "The Lincoln No One Knows: the mysterious man who ran the Civil War." Rutledge Hill Press, 1993, pp.185-186]

If that is not enough to question Lincoln's motives, then consider the documents that imply his motive for keeping slavery out of the new territories was NOT based on his rejection of slavery, but rather to ensure the territories were lily-white.

It is time to stamp out revisionist history with the truth:

"The conversion of the Lincoln Memorial into an icon of antiracism by Marian Anderson and Martin Luther King, Jr., then, is misleading. Most of the white American opponents of slavery in his time, like Lincoln, had no intention of creating a color-blind, multiracial society in the United States. Among Lincoln's contemporaries, only a minority of white abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner, together with black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, could envision an America in which citizens of all races formed a single community. They—not Abraham Lincoln—are the genuine patron saints of post-racist America, and it is an injustice to their memory to give credit for antiracist reforms to Lincoln rather than to them and their successors in movements for racial and sexual equality."

[Lind, Michael, "What Lincoln Believed." Doubleday, 2005, p.19]

To put it mildly.

Mr. Kalamata

745 posted on 01/16/2020 6:32:49 AM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: HandyDandy; OIFVeteran; DoodleDawg; jeffersondem; Who is John Galt?; DiogenesLamp; central_va
The last part of #742 should read:

"A good rule of thumb on how to tell the patriot from a conniving rat, using this scenario, is, the patriot will use the Constitutional Convention construction to stop a usurpation of power, while the conniving rat will AVOID it to usurp power."

Mr. Kalamata

746 posted on 01/16/2020 6:38:03 AM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Quit lying, and I won't bring it up.

LOL! I'm not sure you can tell the difference between fact and fiction, so fact can seem like a lie to you from time to time.

Are you intentionally avoiding the pesky Corwin Amendment?

You mean the pesky Corwin amendment that was passed out of Congress before Lincoln became president and died when it wasn't ratified by the state? No. I'm talking about the current 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which ended slavery. The ratification of which Lincoln had added to the 1864 Republican platform and the passage of which through the House of Representatives Lincoln worked hard for.

And then there is the alternate plan of colonization:

I admit that I haven't plowed through all that endless conglomeration of crap that make up your posts so maybe I missed your explanation, but what exactly is your beef with the voluntary emigration plans for freed blacks that existed in the U.S. for decades prior to the rebellion?

747 posted on 01/16/2020 7:13:27 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Being called a liar by you is like being called ugly by Hillary Clinton.

LOL, or being called a fat drunken slob by Michael Moore...

748 posted on 01/16/2020 8:01:09 AM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata; BroJoeK; DoodleDawg; Bull Snipe

You do understand there’s a difference in being racist and believing in slavery, right? If you read what was written at the time their were three primary views on racism(or equality between the races) and slavery. Let me list them from least moral or bad to most moral or good. (I mean if you think slavery is wrong that is)

1) Racist(against equality between the races) and pro-slavery (Jefferson Davis, leaders of the confederacy)

2) Racist and anti-slavery.(Lincoln and most republicans)

3) anti-racist(believed in total equality) and anti-slavery. (radical abolitionist and the smallest of the groups, which is sad because it was the most correct moral position)


749 posted on 01/16/2020 9:50:41 AM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "You mean the pesky Corwin amendment that was passed out of Congress before Lincoln became president and died when it wasn't ratified by the state?"

I am referring to the one that Lincoln promoted -- the one that even Lincoln cult historians are obliged to mention – the one that causes you to cover your eyes to keep from reading it.

********************

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "I admit that I haven't plowed through all that endless conglomeration of crap that make up your posts so maybe I missed your explanation, but what exactly is your beef with the voluntary emigration plans for freed blacks that existed in the U.S. for decades prior to the rebellion?"

Spoken like a true Lincoln cultist. However, your white-separatist cult leader, the gangster named Lincoln, would have worded it this way:

"I am going to make you offer you can't refuse."

Mr. Kalamata

750 posted on 01/16/2020 5:20:35 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "You do understand there’s a difference in being racist and believing in slavery, right?"

Yes.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "If you read what was written at the time their were three primary views on racism(or equality between the races) and slavery. Let me list them from least moral or bad to most moral or good. (I mean if you think slavery is wrong that is):

Yes, I think slavery is wrong. Jesus teaches the opposite:

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." -- Mat 23:10-12 KJV

Now, on to the list.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran playing moral-equivalency:

1) Racist(against equality between the races) and pro-slavery (Jefferson Davis, leaders of the confederacy)

2) Racist and anti-slavery.(Lincoln and most republicans)

3) anti-racist(believed in total equality) and anti-slavery. (radical abolitionist and the smallest of the groups, which is sad because it was the most correct moral position)

My response:

1, 2, 3) I am unconvinced Lincoln was against slavery. His hero, Henry Clay, was a slaver-master; and both despised abolitionists. Both were, after all, blue-blooded, crony-capitalist politicians; and we all know how to tell when a politician is lying. Lincoln also married the daughter of a slave-holder.

I personally judge a man by his works, not his words. I also know that the Lord abhors violence, as do I, and Lincoln was one of the most violent in his heart that ever lived. Therefore, if I were to honor Lincoln, I believe I would be dishonoring God.

Mr. Kalamata

751 posted on 01/16/2020 5:53:57 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata

God abhors violence? You have made many ridiculous claims on this thread but that ones the topper. What bible are you reading?

15 and the men of Judah raised the battle cry. At the sound of their battle cry, God routed Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 The Israelites fled before Judah, and God delivered them into their hands. 17 Abijah and his troops inflicted heavy losses on them, so that there were five hundred thousand casualties among Israel’s able men. 18 The Israelites were subdued on that occasion, and the people of Judah were victorious because they relied on the Lord, the God of their ancestors.
2 Chronicles 13:15-18

29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Exodus 12:29

When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.
Deuteronomy 2:32-35

But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy[a] of them to death because they looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them.
1 Samuel 6:19

That’s just a small sampling I could go on and on. Your reading comprehension really does suck.


752 posted on 01/16/2020 7:44:32 PM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
He makes lots of rookie mistakes
753 posted on 01/16/2020 8:15:43 PM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "God abhors violence? You have made many ridiculous claims on this thread but that ones the topper. What bible are you reading?

I have many translations, plus Hebrew and Greek versions.

Have you ever read this?

"Let not an evil speaker be established in the earth: evil shall hunt the violent man to overthrow him." -- Ps 140:11 KJV

How about this?

"The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth." -- Ps 11:5 KJV

Is hate the same as abhor? If it is, then God abhors violence.

How about this?

"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." -- Gen 6:11-13 KJV

It certainly seems God was very upset about all the violence, and that was at least part of the reason he destroyed the earth with a flood.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "That’s just a small sampling I could go on and on. Your reading comprehension really does suck.

Perhaps you have confused violence with self-defense and criminal punishment.

You can drop the attitude any time.

Mr. Kalamata

754 posted on 01/16/2020 8:17:13 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; OIFVeteran

>>rockrr wrote: “He makes lots of rookie mistakes”

If I had known you were running your mouth, I would have pinged you on 754:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3802793/posts?page=754#754

Mr. Kalamata


755 posted on 01/16/2020 8:19:30 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
I am referring to the one that Lincoln promoted -- the one that even Lincoln cult historians are obliged to mention – the one that causes you to cover your eyes to keep from reading it.

Ah yes, the one you keep exaggerating about.

Spoken like a true Lincoln cultist.

Spoken like someone who can't answer the question.

756 posted on 01/17/2020 3:58:29 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Ah yes, the one you keep exaggerating about.

The only ones on this board that exaggerate are the Lincoln Hero-Worshippers, like you.

I am referring to historical fact that you keep trying to cover up, about Lincoln’s behind-the-scenes promotion of the first thirteenth Amendment that would have made slavery permanent.

Admit it. Lincoln and the “republicans” didn’t give a hoot about slaves, except as political pawns.

After the war, during the period mockingly named “Reconstruction,” the “republicans” continued where they left off, by using the former slaves as political pawns to continue the plunder of the South, in return for a pittance and a century of hatred by those against whom the slaves were used to plunder. Yes, racial hatred in the South began in the North and by the “republicans.”

The bottom line is, the 19th-century “republicans” were the Clinton Mafia of those days, and Lincoln was their Mob Boss, followed by the just as greedy and corrupt, U. S. Grant.

I suspect you already know that, and are trying to cover it up. Is that about right?

*******************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Spoken like someone who can’t answer the question.”

I can never get a straight answer out of you (nor can anyone else.) Which question are you referring to?

Mr. Kalamata


757 posted on 01/17/2020 5:36:20 AM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Which question are you referring to?

You were so busy being a smartass you missed it (but the rest of us saw it just fine).

758 posted on 01/17/2020 6:01:13 AM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata

I don’t require your pings - unlike you I can follow a discussion just fine.


759 posted on 01/17/2020 6:02:32 AM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

>>rockrr wrote: “You were so busy being a smartass you missed it (but the rest of us saw it just fine)”

I will agree that you a sanctimonious jackass.

Mr. Kalamata


760 posted on 01/17/2020 6:23:37 AM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,641-1,655 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson