Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HandyDandy
You, sir (madam?) are an idiot. Your Lincoln hatred/bashing is really becoming something that you should address with a professional. You are going off half-cocked and pouncing on another false lead. The proposed bill in question was written to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, while staying within the bounds of the US Constitution.

So it was like impossible or something for him to just leave that part out? Would you have written something that requires local authorities to return fugitive slaves?

Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

In Nazi era Germany, the law required people to turn in Jews that were hiding. Would you promote or agree to follow such a law? Would you propose such a bill in the German legislature?

You are making excuses for Lincoln. I do not think anyone who claimed to be honestly against slavery would do anything to support or protect it.

So now you are defending laws of slavery because Lincoln offered support for it in a bill. You will seemingly justify anything Lincoln did. I think you have a bigger problem with Lincoln in your head than I do.

You are a dung beetle. Pushing around your teeny-tiny ball of shit, which constantly stares you in the face and blinds you to the real world.

Your anger at me is the consequence of me pointing out a very ugly truth about Lincoln that you can't defend. You *HATE* the fact that his actions reveal him to be what some of us have been suspecting all along. A two timing liar and manipulator of a politician who was too clever by half.

Killed 750,000 people directly, and destroyed the original compact between the Federal Government and the states. He was a dictator with no solid moral foundation.

866 posted on 05/16/2019 3:22:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no o<ither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
DL:“So it was like impossible or something for him to just leave that part out? Would you have written something that requires local authorities to return fugitive slaves?”

You seem to not understand that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 was a bone of contention for four score or so years. It was the matter at the forefront of national debate, north and south. At least the young congressman tried to lend some clarity to that Fugitive Slave Clause (which was law of the land). His stipulation of precisely who had the authority to return fugitive slaves, of course, eliminated the bounty hunters who were making a living by snatching blacks off the street and hauling them back to the closest Slave State. Even though Roger Taney had, once and for all, settled the question of Slavery and Fugitive Slaves in his Dred Scott decision, it was still a matter of discussion during Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

DL:“In Nazi era Germany, ...........”

Doesn’t that mean you lost the argument?

DL:”You are making excuses for Lincoln. I do not think anyone who claimed to be honestly against slavery would do anything to support or protect it.”

Has it dawned on you yet that the proposed bill written by the young congressman was to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia? Not to support or protect it? He wasn’t about to go all “unconstitutional” and deny the fugitive slave clause. He merely interpreted it in a kinder, gentler way. A way that would protect, not slavery, but the fugitive slave. Get it?

DL:”So now you are defending laws of slavery because Lincoln offered support for it in a bill. You will seemingly justify anything Lincoln did. I think you have a bigger problem with Lincoln in your head than I do.

C’mon man, now you talkin’ crazy.......... Lincoln “offered support for slavery”?

DL:”Your anger at me is the consequence of me pointing out a very ugly truth about Lincoln that you can't defend.

I ain’t angry, bro. I’m merely pointing out that your “very ugly truth” is actually a “very ugly lie”.

DL:You *HATE* the fact that his actions reveal him to be what some of us have been suspecting all along. A two timing liar and manipulator of a politician who was too clever by half. Killed 750,000 people directly, and destroyed the original compact between the Federal Government and the states. He was a dictator with no solid moral foundation.

Whoa, whoa there. You're gonna have a conniption, or burst a blood vessel, or sumthin’. It’s just that you’ve been pickin through Lincoln’s trash barrel again looking for evidence of “what some of us have been suspecting all along”. But again you have come up with diddley-squat. You remind me of the Russian collusion investigation. All you have is preconceived notions. But, keep digging,......... I can tell you are very close to the bottom of the barrel.

869 posted on 05/17/2019 12:27:07 AM PDT by HandyDandy (All right then I will go to hell H. Finn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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