Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
OK, reading your last post I think I have been mistaken. You truly don’t get it. So no insults, no rants, I will take one attempt to see if I can get the message across:
You say, relative to slavery:
However y also say (essentially) that relative to Nazis:
21st century values and beliefs have everything thing to do with the way people of previous eras viewed their world, if it was only 75 years ago
Just to be clear, I completely agree with you about the Nazis. I too had my father and uncles serve in WW-II, though mostly in the Pacific. 70 years is not enough for me to absolve the Nazis from what they did. They were wrong. I do not believe those basic morals change in 75 years.
I apply the same logic when I say 150 years is not enough for me to absolve the slave owners from what they did. They were wrong. I do not believe those basic morals change in 150 years.
No, you're the one who doesn't get it. What the Nazis did in the Holocaust was morally wrong by contemporary, 20th century European (Western) standards. It was never acceptable.
Conversely, what the South was doing in 1860 was still accepted as the moral norm by both Southerners and many if not most Yankees. Mr. Lincoln was a minority president, almost no one in the South voted for him. While he disliked slavery, he wasn't an radical abolitionist when he took office. Furthermore, Mr. Lincoln was a racist by today's PC standards.
Contemporary, Britain and France didn't end slavery in their respective empires until about the 1840s and 1850s, and slave owners were, for the most part, somewhat compensated for the economic costs of emancipation.
Despite this mid-century shift in Western morality, pseudo-slave conditions in the Belgian Congo up through the beginning of the 20th century were notoriously atrocious. Plus, the ivory trade in East Africa, which was subsidized by some New England businesses, helped perpetuate the slave trade and misery in East Africa into the late 19th century.
Hindsight now shows that slavery as a socially accepted institution was on its way out in Western society by 1860. Nevertheless, at that particular time, it was still widely tolerated and practiced around the world, and contemporary 19th century men and women knew that.
Slavery preexisted the Confederate States of America by thousands of years, and 150 years after the end of the American Civil War and ratification of the 13th Amendment in the USA, slavery continues to exists. It is still widely practiced in Africa and other regions despite being totally abhorred by the rest of the civilized world.
Trying to catch up since the last time I looked in.
Buchanan was a bad president not because he prevented the succession of the southern states but because he took no action at all. Like Bill Clinton in 2000, Buchanan just dumped the whole thing into Lincoln's lap.
Was Lincoln a racist? No, more than the average man of the time.
Was Lincoln a minority president? Yes, he won out of five candidates but he did win.
Why didn't Lincoln prevent sucession? It had already happened before he took office.
Did he have anymore ways to prevent the war? This is the sticking point. Lincoln could have agreed to sign an amendment guaranteeing the legality of slavery forever but he didn't believe in slavery. He did say that if he could have preserved the union at the cost of keeping slavery, he would have done it. The south knew it's power was dwindling with each year. Like the Missouri Compromise, Washington would have found a way to mess with their peculiar institution by taxing it out of existence.
No, I don't think the south would have been satisfied with either a promise or constitutional amendment. So where does that leave Lincoln? A defacto split of the country? Leave it alone and hope that things work out? Lincoln decided to go after the leader, South Carolina.
Slavery, as an institution, was on it's way out. Pressure from Britian alone, as a trading partner, would have forced the South to end the practice eventually. It may have taken 10, 20, or 30 years but it would have ended. What would happen then? That's anyone's guess.
By the way, I don't think the way to say it is "it is morally good". If something is moral, then it is moral right or wrong. The southerns thought slavery was moral because it was the norm not because it was good. (that is the big version of the word good).
Trying to catch up since the last time I looked in.
Buchanan was a bad president not because he prevented the succession of the southern states but because he took no action at all. Like Bill Clinton in 2000, Buchanan just dumped the whole thing into Lincoln's lap.
Was Lincoln a racist? No, more than the average man of the time. ... and no less than the average man of the time.
Was Lincoln a minority president? Yes, he won out of five candidates but he did win. The point being that he was elected by a shrill, vocal minority of the voting population and that most voters voted for other candidates who professed different values and concerns than those held by Mr. Lincoln.
Why didn't Lincoln prevent sucession? It had already happened before he took office. Four states seceded after Mr. Lincoln made his call to arms, and he held two states, Maryland and Missouri, in the Union with overwhelming and, in Maryland, extra-legal use of force.
Did he have anymore ways to prevent the war? This is the sticking point. Lincoln could have agreed to sign an amendment guaranteeing the legality of slavery forever but he didn't believe in slavery. Mr. Lincoln tacitly approved the Corwin Amendment, because he believed it was redundant in regards to the text already in the Constitution:
Quote:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." A. Lincoln
Mr. Lincoln, and other Republicans, did object to the concept of allowing slavery to expand into territories not yet acquired by the U.S.
He did say that if he could have preserved the union at the cost of keeping slavery, he would have done it. The south knew it's power was dwindling with each year. Like the Missouri Compromise, Washington would have found a way to mess with their peculiar institution by taxing it out of existence.
No, I don't think the south would have been satisfied with either a promise or constitutional amendment. So where does that leave Lincoln? A defacto split of the country? Leave it alone and hope that things work out? Lincoln decided to go after the leader, South Carolina.
Slavery, as an institution, was on it's way out. Pressure from Britian alone, as a trading partner, would have forced the South to end the practice eventually. It may have taken 10, 20, or 30 years but it would have ended. What would happen then? That's anyone's guess. Britain and France ended slavery without Civil War. It's disingenuous to state that that couldn't have happened in the U.S.
By the way, I don't think the way to say it is "it is morally good". If something is moral, then it is moral right or wrong. The southerns thought slavery was moral because it was the norm not because it was good. (that is the big version of the word good).
It's obvious you couldn't find a post to factually back-up your previous jackass accusation, A.Reader.
BTW, have you been "lurking" for two years, A.Reader? How else could you as someone who subscribed to this forum only in 2014 remember something that went on in another forum in 2012, A.Reader? You are obviously and dishonestly one of Old-Twerp's coached dupes, A.Reader.
You're a bigger piece of shit than I imagined you sick A-hole. Too bad you've replaced some of your brains with your purified fecal matter.
Why don't you try asking the question civilly before jumping to conclusions about things you blow hard.
I had an account, then when I had a S.O. for a year I closed that account. Now that we've split up I signed up with a new one. Does that meet with your approval, jackass? Was I supposed to ask your permission before I came back? Sorry, your permission ain't worth shit. I don't post much but I read. Thus the handle in case you are too think to figure it out. I read plenty enough to know that you're a loud mouth ass who'd get your ass handed to you if you talk that way to me to my face.
I've known T since Nam and I bet you aren't a tenth the man he is. He keeps telling me what a sick psycho you are and damn if he isn't right on target. I don't post much because most what I read on here isn't worth the effort to respond. But when you step on your dick with both feet and attack me without even knowing me, well I guess I can take a moment to write you a friendly post back.
Your are nothing but a coward who throws shit at anyone who disagrees with you and likes to hide behind yo mamma's skirt and the anonymity of a stupid handle. You wouldn't last 20 min on the streets of a real city acting like the POS Cracker you portray yourself to be, you first class pussy.
You start posting like you DESERVE to be respected and I'll respond to you with respect. You keep tossing insults while your jerking off with your other hand and I'll keep treating you with the contempt you earn, A-hole.
You're a bigger piece of shit than I imagined you sick A-hole. Too bad you've replaced some of your brains with your purified fecal matter.
Why don't you try asking the question civilly before jumping to conclusions about things you blow hard.
I had an account, then when I had a S.O. for a year I closed that account. Now that we've split up I signed up with a new one. Does that meet with your approval, jackass? Was I supposed to ask your permission before I came back? Sorry, your permission ain't worth shit. I don't post much but I read. Thus the handle in case you are too think to figure it out. I read plenty enough to know that you're a loud mouth ass who'd get your ass handed to you if you talk that way to me to my face.
I've known T since Nam and I bet you aren't a tenth the man he is. He keeps telling me what a sick psycho you are and damn if he isn't right on target. I don't post much because most what I read on here isn't worth the effort to respond. But when you step on your dick with both feet and attack me without even knowing me, well I guess I can take a moment to write you a friendly post back.
Your are nothing but a coward who throws shit at anyone who disagrees with you and likes to hide behind yo mamma's skirt and the anonymity of a stupid handle. You wouldn't last 20 min on the streets of a real city acting like the POS Cracker you portray yourself to be, you first class pussy.
You start posting like you DESERVE to be respected and I'll respond to you with respect. You keep tossing insults while your jerking off with your other hand and I'll keep treating you with the contempt you earn, A-hole.
Look, IBHankering's lap dog bitch is yelping. Is he too chicken shit that he's now sending you out to fight his fights for him? Or is this your idea? I did notice you've been busy on here tonight. Spreading like a virus you are.
Look, IBHankering's lap dog bitch is yelping. Is he too chicken shit that he's now sending you out to fight his fights for him? Or is this your idea? I did notice you've been busy on here tonight. Spreading like a virus you are.
Some Old-Tounge will sooth your sore A.Rearender...again
If I had to choose between Hanoi COG's personal ATF, "Sweet Ass" IIFFY, IBIdiot, JDIdiot, JLIdiot and of course their Patriarch, LLIdiot regarding who is the stupidest poster, I would choose......
You're a bigger piece of shit than I imagined you sick A-hole. Too bad you've replaced some of your brains with your purified fecal matter.
Why don't you try asking the question civilly before jumping to conclusions about things you blow hard.
I had an account, then when I had a S.O. for a year I closed that account. Now that we've split up I signed up with a new one. Does that meet with your approval, jackass? Was I supposed to ask your permission before I came back? Sorry, your permission ain't worth shit. I don't post much but I read. Thus the handle in case you are too think to figure it out. I read plenty enough to know that you're a loud mouth ass who'd get your ass handed to you if you talk that way to me to my face.
I've known T since Nam and I bet you aren't a tenth the man he is. He keeps telling me what a sick psycho you are and damn if he isn't right on target. I don't post much because most what I read on here isn't worth the effort to respond. But when you step on your dick with both feet and attack me without even knowing me, well I guess I can take a moment to write you a friendly post back.
Your are nothing but a coward who throws shit at anyone who disagrees with you and likes to hide behind yo mamma's skirt and the anonymity of a stupid handle. You wouldn't last 20 min on the streets of a real city acting like the POS Cracker you portray yourself to be, you first class pussy.
You start posting like you DESERVE to be respected and I'll respond to you with respect. You keep tossing insults while your jerking off with your other hand and I'll keep treating you with the contempt you earn, A-hole.
Consider this, A-Hole, here you are with your raving, hypocritical vituperations while your lame-ass has yet to produce one bit of factual evidence to back up your earlier jackass accusation, A-Hole.
And for your future reference, A-Hole, none of your raving makes you one iota less of a dupe for Old-Twerp.
And here's another FYI for you, A-Hole, Old-Twerp has more than demonstrated that he is pretty damn fast and loose with the insults, you hypocritical jackass.
In conclusion, let's reiterate: since you have so impotently failed to back up your earlier lame-ass accusation with substantive proof, all that you've demonstrated, A-Hole, is that you are a stupid and pathetic little dupe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Reader
Look, IBHankering's lap dog bitch is yelping. Is he too chicken shit that he's now sending you out to fight his fights for him? Or is this your idea? I did notice you've been busy on here tonight. Spreading like a virus you are.
Look, Old-Twerp's lap dog bitch is yelping. Gaping wide open like the ass-hole you are, A-Hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
If I had to choose between Hanoi COG's personal ATF, "Sweet Ass" IIFFY, IBIdiot, JDIdiot, JLIdiot and of course their Patriarch, LLIdiot regarding who is the stupidest poster, I would choose......
......All of the above!
But everybody knows that when it comes to you making "choices", BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, you always miss the real objective and end up all wet.
