Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Four million slaves were free in 1865 that were not in 1861.
Results count.
During civil wars rights will be suspended.
Wow, I thought your title was bad enough, and certainly designed to get people into a debate about how you define libertarian vs. a Republican.
Regardless, when you then go on to cavalierly say results count, as if to imply the ends justify the means. Worse you then say "rights will be suspended" during civil wars, as if that is ok. Thus you definitely show your true colors.
Lots of Republicans who despise the first Republican president, who saved a union that they wish had been destroyed, who then have the gall to claim that the Parties haven’t changed.
And the slaveholders. Had they been denying a "portion of the population their liberty and pursuit of happiness"?
Yes, but did the ends justify the means? In my opinion, no. Slavery ended elsewhere without bloodshed.
You're applying the same modern day logic that justifies the bombing of weddings, hospitals, schools etc. to root out a few "terrorists".
Regardless, Lincolns actions certainly negate any libertarian label one might want to ascribe to him.
Nothing Lincoln did in order to free 4 million Americans from chattel slavery could not have been reversed by later generations, with the exception of actions necessary to win the war. Sadly, extreme measures were needed to end that horror. The slaveholders weren't freeing their slaves in any large numbers.
Slavery was ended in several states and countries without bloodshed, your claim rings false. And the advent of the cotton gin and other efficiencies would have made it economically disadvantageous to continue slavery.
Lots of Republicans who despise the first Republican president, who saved a union that they wish had been destroyed, who then have the gall to claim that the Parties haven’t changed.
What the heck are you talking about. Most Republicans hold Lincoln in high regard, yet can still point out how he did some things that were wrong.
Unlike modern day Democrats who know their president and his administration are doing wrong, but just whistle while walking past the graveyard, Republicans can and do call out shortcomings of their own.
For example, you will find posts of mine critical of some of Bush's policies. Few if any Democrats were critical of Obama, despite having plenty of things to object to.
So if Republicans are not guilty of group think and blind loyalty/allegiance to their own political parties president, that is not a bad thing.
I can, and have been critical of Trump, but overall he is doing some good things. He may not be might cup of tea in his style or obsessive tweeting, but he is a godsend compared to the bullet we dodged in Hillary
Slavery was ended in several states and countries without bloodshed, your claim rings false. And the advent of the cotton gin and other efficiencies would have made it economically disadvantageous to continue slavery.
Was slavery ended without bloodshed in any of the states that seceded from the union?
To paraphrase Mao, all rights flow from the barrel of a gun. We are just fortunate to live during a time and in a place where the "rights" of the individual are mostly valued over the "rights' of the group. So, no, rights are not absolute.
Was slavery ended without bloodshed in any of the states that seceded from the union?
No Lincoln saw to that with his war. Oh and not all the states seceded over slavery. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas seceded in objection to Lincolns war
Slavery was ended in several states and countries without bloodshed, your claim rings false. And the advent of the cotton gin and other efficiencies would have made iteconomically disadvantageous to continue slavery.
A quick google search came up with this: "One of the major effects of the cotton gin was the increasedneed for slaves to keep up with the profitability that came with its' invention". So the cotton gin actually increased and expanded slavery making it unlikely that it would have died out naturally and peacefully.
What the heck are you talking about. Most Republicans hold Lincoln in high regard, yet can still point out how he did some things that were wrong.
Unlike modern day Democrats who know their president and his administration are doing wrong, but just whistle while walking past the graveyard, Republicans can and do call out shortcomings of their own.
For example, you will find posts of mine critical of some of Bush's policies. Few if any Democrats were critical of Obama, despite having plenty of things to object to.
So if Republicans are not guilty of group think and blind loyalty/allegiance to their own political parties president, that is not a bad thing.
I can, and have been critical of Trump, but overall he is doing some good things. He may not be might cup of tea in his style or obsessive tweeting, but he is a godsend compared to the bullet we dodged in Hillary
`
I’m talking about the modern Republicans who are really the political descendants of the old Southern Confederates, who are more white racial identity warriors than anything else, and yet try to tie Democrats to white racism because of the Democratic Party of 150 years ago.
They’re not fooling anyone.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 05-29-2018 at 02:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
