Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Weasel Zippers)   "This building is dedicated to public service in memory of Abraham Lincoln, Democrat"   (weaselzippers.us ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2013 at 10:15 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-04 10:55:47 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Mrfusticle: This guy from the comments:

Let the libs have him. Lincoln jump started the decline in constitutional adherence. He destroyed states' rights. After all it was the states that created the fed not vice versa. Slavery should have been abolished within the framework of the constitution.

This guy has studied it out so hard he's seen the farking matrix.

THIS. GUY.!.

/this guy

No he is right. Abraham Lincoln, William Tecumseh Sherman, Ulyss. S Grant founded the third United States. They are the founding fathers we should be looking too, not Jefferson, Washington, and Adams. They were for a strong federal government, weak states, and the rule of equality. Those are my founding fathers and they should be yours too.


1. My country's founders were a bunch of hairy druids.. and they'd still be yours if the French hadn't helped you kick us out.

2. Up to thirty years ago you seem to have done alright despite the whole "decline in constitutional adherence"..
I'd be happy with Lincoln's contribution if I were you.
 
2013-11-04 10:55:53 AM  
democrat:
a :  an adherent of democracy
b:  one who practices social equality
 
2013-11-04 10:58:15 AM  

wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.


Ahem.
 
2013-11-04 11:00:44 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

What popular will? Weren't Southerners (not counting their "3/5th property" vote) only around 1/5 of the US population at the time of the Civil War?

They had a solid voting majority in favor of succession within their proposed territory.

Certainly there were plenty of slaves within same who were non voters, but Lincoln is repeatedly on record as having been willing to keep slavery around and deeply opposed to equality so it doesn't seem relevant.

Yeah, but they were voting on an issue that would have direct effects beyond their own borders and onto other states as well. Not an issue that only a majority within their own proposed territory should have a say in.


That's totally wrong.

But your wrongness is besides the point. Its still an anti democratic sentiment even if you are correct. Self governance is like priority 2 of the idea.
 
2013-11-04 11:01:06 AM  
define: democrat


democrat
[dem-uh-krat]
noun
1.an advocate of democracy.
2.a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.

3.(initial capital letter) Politics.
a.a member of the Democratic party.
b.a member of the Democratic-Republican party.
4.Also called democrat wagon. a high, lightweight, horse-drawn wagon, usually having two seats.


Quick, men, to the S.S. Butthurt! We sail to indignation under the flag of outrage!
 
2013-11-04 11:04:50 AM  
No, no, no.  You're only supposed to call a Republican a democrat if they've done something illegal.
 
2013-11-04 11:07:13 AM  

Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...


What other kind is there?

/the democrat party must always be uncapitalized
 
2013-11-04 11:14:35 AM  

Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.


Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.
 
2013-11-04 11:18:28 AM  

Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.


Why?
 
2013-11-04 11:19:14 AM  

Arkanaut: Ned Stark: Arkanaut: Small-"d" democrat, maybe...

Why even put a party identification on there in the first place?

He started a war to override popular will so I don't think he can claim that one either.

Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.


If I had a fiver in my pocket id go buy a coffee.
 
2013-11-04 11:29:11 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?


Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)
 
2013-11-04 11:32:22 AM  

sprawl15: DarwiOdrade: No, no, sillies, the word "Democrat" is in the vocative case - the plaque is addressed to any Democrat that happens to read it.

third person plural, present indicative


www.thelin.net
 
2013-11-04 11:34:36 AM  

Snarfangel: funk_soul_bubby: houginator: I was talking to a guy in my office the other day who said he didn't know Lincoln was a Republican until he watched the recent "Lincoln" movie directed by Steven Spielberg.  Kind of blew my mind.

On a past segment from 60 Minutes David McCullough told about a grad student who came up to him after a lecture and told him until his lecture she never realized there were thirteen original colonies.

Twelve, actually. I've always found South Carolina fairly derivative.


I recounted the story incorrectly anyway.
 
2013-11-04 11:35:24 AM  
Southern Conservatives in Lincoln's day were Democrats. The Republicans were the liberals.
 
2013-11-04 11:39:11 AM  

Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)



It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?
 
2013-11-04 11:47:05 AM  
you libs are so desperate if Lincoln were alive today he'd still be a Real American Patriot and a card carrying member of the Republican party, and he'd be waving the confederate flag with all the rest of us
 
2013-11-04 11:47:14 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: No, no, no.  You're only supposed to call a Republican a democrat if they've done something illegal.


Isn't that what makes them a Democrat?
 
2013-11-04 11:50:00 AM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?


Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.
 
2013-11-04 12:01:32 PM  

Arkanaut: Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.


That would be an odd assertion outside of the United States. Somehow Canada (whose S. Ct. ruled Quebec secession legal) and the UK (which is holding a secession referendum in Scotland next year) don't seem to think secessionism is inherently undemocratic.
 
2013-11-04 12:05:22 PM  

lohphat: wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.

Ahem.


Did you bother to even look at your own link?  It's not a declaration of war, and it happened during the Johnson Administration.  So...good job?
 
2013-11-04 12:06:40 PM  

Ned Stark: Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It depends. If Alabama had its' way, they'd still have "whites only" bathrooms. Sometimes, we, as a Union, have to step in and slap stupid people down.
 
2013-11-04 12:07:11 PM  
coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.
 
2013-11-04 12:11:04 PM  
Zeb Hesselgresser: coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.


I'm upset how much Republicans actually suck

1/3 of the words. You're welcome
 
2013-11-04 12:18:37 PM  

ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.


As did FDR on a grand scale. So what should we conclude from this, that sometimes leaders behave in a tyrannical manner? Not exactly a revelation. Or maybe by focusing on two Republicans instead of the broad field, you mean to imply something else?
 
2013-11-04 12:22:44 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: Secessionism is contrary to the very idea of "popular will".  If political entities wanted to split up every time there's a serious disagreement what you end up with is more like anarchy than democracy.

That would be an odd assertion outside of the United States. Somehow Canada (whose S. Ct. ruled Quebec secession legal) and the UK (which is holding a secession referendum in Scotland next year) don't seem to think secessionism is inherently undemocratic.


Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.

1 are those courts popularly elected?
2 which wasn't what the Confederacy did, by the way
 
2013-11-04 12:26:46 PM  

CPennypacker: Zeb Hesselgresser: coeyagi:   While the stupidity must be strong with the individual who let this one fly, equally stupid will be the denizons of Mongoloid-Americans who will come in here and take copious sh*ts on this thread defending Lincoln as a stalwart of their party when he couldn't be farther from the derpitudes of insanity that currently infect the GOP.

Regardless, I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to tell you for the 1,464,527th time that I think today's Republicans suck.

1/3 of the words.  Your welcome.

I'm upset how much Republicans actually suck

1/3 of the words. You're welcome


Well, you're not wrong about that, thanks.
 
2013-11-04 12:27:08 PM  

themadtupper: lohphat: wildcardjack: lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.

No there wasn't. Wiki.

Ahem.

Did you bother to even look at your own link?  It's not a declaration of war, and it happened during the Johnson Administration.  So...good job?


The point as they had the balks to at some point declare and acknowledge they were in the middle of a war.
 
2013-11-04 12:29:50 PM  

Arkanaut: Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.


To hold the Scottish vote was a political decision, enacted by agreement between the Scottish and British governments, both of which are elected. The Quebec case came about only as a result of the political movement for secession pushing to hold a vote, again with the support and on the initiative of the elected Quebec government, which they then lost only narrowly in 1995.

If you want successful secessions, you need look no further than the creation of Kosovo and South Sudan, or go back slightly further to the break-up of the Soviet Union, where you saw in secession the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism. Secession is not inherently anti-democratic- there are plenty of examples to disprove that. I won't argue that the secessions of 1860-61 were in fact anti-democratic both in manner and effect, but that doesn't disprove the idea that democratically legitimate secession can occur.
 
2013-11-04 12:35:14 PM  
What font is that plaque?
 
2013-11-04 12:36:10 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-04 12:37:16 PM  

StubhyGraham: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x674]


"Hey, turn off the damn halo, jackass, I'm trying to watch a play"
 
2013-11-04 12:37:31 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: Perhaps their legal institutions1 don't think so, but when they put it to a popular vote2, those votes don't seem to pass.  Either way I believe it's a bad precedent to set.

To hold the Scottish vote was a political decision, enacted by agreement between the Scottish and British governments, both of which are elected. The Quebec case came about only as a result of the political movement for secession pushing to hold a vote, again with the support and on the initiative of the elected Quebec government, which they then lost only narrowly in 1995.

If you want successful secessions, you need look no further than the creation of Kosovo and South Sudan, or go back slightly further to the break-up of the Soviet Union, where you saw in secession the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism. Secession is not inherently anti-democratic- there are plenty of examples to disprove that. I won't argue that the secessions of 1860-61 were in fact anti-democratic both in manner and effect, but that doesn't disprove the idea that democratically legitimate secession can occur.


Yugoslavia, Sudan, and the USSR weren't really democratic states though, and can't really claim to represent the "popular will" (although I'm sure they would say they do anyway).  I suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

It would be interesting to see if Scotland would leave the UK... that could be a bit of a mess.
 
2013-11-04 12:41:09 PM  

Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.


Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.
 
2013-11-04 12:46:47 PM  

Fart_Machine:I thought Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a war of aggression against the South who were only defending their right to property and state sovereignty?

I think you're mixing up the GOP with southern secessionists.  There's some overlap, but they're not actually the same group, even in the south.

lohphat: ikanreed: Lincoln threw people in jail without trial, or even evidence.(during the war)  I can't say I approve of that then anymore than I did when Bush did it.

The difference is there was a declared war during Lincoln's presidency.


How is that a 'difference'?  Congress declared war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, assuming you're talking about Bush II.  Actually, Desert storm, too, so applies to Bush I as well.

H.R.J. Res. 77, S.J. Res. 23, and H.J. Res. 114, in order of date declared.

//Yes, formal declarations haven't been called "declarations of war" in the west for most of a century, but if you read them and can still call them anything other than that with a straight face you're so dense that you qualify as a neutron star.
 
2013-11-04 12:57:57 PM  

Kittypie070: [i.imgur.com image 442x679]

sense, this thread makes none, therefore pic not related


I haven't even really read the thread, but this pic is so full of awesome that it wins the thread.
 
2013-11-04 12:58:26 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.


No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?
 
2013-11-04 01:01:08 PM  

Churchill2004: Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.


But they still didn't grant a large percentage of their population a voice in their legislature.

//also, really? Not the Netherlands, or San Marino or something?
 
2013-11-04 01:08:33 PM  

JolobinSmokin: Weren't they called the democrat-republicans back in the day?


No, the Democrat-Republicans dissolved in 1825.
 
2013-11-04 01:26:57 PM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?


Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.
 
2013-11-04 01:37:12 PM  
dem·o·crat

ˈdeməˌkrat/

noun

1.  an advocate or supporter of democracy.
2.  a member of the Democratic Party.

I'm thinking they meant definition #1.
 
2013-11-04 01:46:42 PM  

Arkanaut: Churchill2004: Arkanaut: suppose you could say that seceding from a dictatorship or antidemocratic state is better than the alternative.

Britain was by far the most liberal and democratic state on the planet in 1775.

But they still didn't grant a large percentage of their population a voice in their legislature.

//also, really? Not the Netherlands, or San Marino or something?


Fair enough, let me go back to you original point, though. The way I see it, we have a range of options:

1) Secession is inherently illegitimate
2) Secession without the consent of the seceding population is illegitimate
3) Secession without the consent of both the seceding population and the established national government is illegitimate.
4) Secession without the consent of the entire population, both within and without the seceding territory, via referendum, is illegitimate. 

Most democratic nations have settled on either 2 or 3- indeed #3 is a fair summary of the current American law under Texas v. White. I'm just saying that your argument tends to support those positions more than it supports 1, which seems to be how you were defining the result of your argument.
 
2013-11-04 01:53:23 PM  
Since the modern Republicans favor secession and claim that African Americans were better off as slaves, Lincoln must have been a Democrat.
 
2013-11-04 02:01:51 PM  
If Fark headlines are to be believed, this means Democrats are full of shiat.
 
2013-11-04 02:24:46 PM  
"We don't do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina. It's nothing personal, but it takes a while to get over things."  --Lindsey Graham, R-SC
 
2013-11-04 02:31:16 PM  

Historical Significance of Frank Lloyd Wright Building at Northeastern Illinois University

The Carruthers Center for Inner City Studies at Northeastern Illinois University is housed in a building that bears historical significance. From time to time, the integrity of a plaque honoring the memory of Abraham Lincoln is questioned. Installed in the building for its opening in 1905, the plaque includes an inscription of the word "democrat" following Abraham Lincoln's name. According to building archives, the word democrat was used because Lincoln was an advocate for democracy-the political or social equality of all people. The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.


http://www.neiu.edu/About%20NEIU/NEIU%20Newsroom/News/FY2013/ccics-p la que-statement.html
 
2013-11-04 02:47:53 PM  

Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?

Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.


Yes and your answer was: "It does not seem relevant " I am asking you to explain why you think that black slaves were not part of "the people" of Georgia and were irrelevant to the question of freedom and how their government was organized. Not why Lincoln or slavery supporting Georgians thought that, but you. You are the defender of freedom and rights. Step up. Declare why during the question of  secession the opinion of 44% of the populace didn't matter because they were black.

Enlighten me. I dare you.
 
2013-11-04 03:02:03 PM  

Zasteva: dem·o·crat

ˈdeməˌkrat/

noun

1.  an advocate or supporter of democracy.
2.  a member of the Democratic Party.

I'm thinking they meant definition #1.


That would explain why Republicans hate them so much.
 
2013-11-04 03:05:48 PM  

Zasteva: The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.


I really doubt it. References to "democracy" and "republicanism" abound in American politics, but it's almost unheard of to describe someone as a "democrat" or "republican" and mean it in the generic ideological sense. The dual definitions gives them just enough plausible deniability to get away with it, but the tail-twisting intent of the wording is still plain. It'd be like having a plaque honoring "Woodrow Wilson  Republican" on the grounds that Wilson wasn't a monarchist.
 
2013-11-04 03:06:04 PM  

culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: culculhen: Ned Stark: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Ned Stark: That's totally wrong.

Why?

Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's, even if a NW border makes selling corn there slightly harder.(they grow corn in Iowa, right?)


It's fun that for people arguing this point of state rights and declaring themselves principled and stalwart defenders of freedom always skip over the large class of people in those states who didn't get to choose how Georgia organized itself. And that the whole reason of claiming that freedom of secession was only to deny others all freedom.

I wonder why?

Because we are talking about theories of government not who should have won?

Some of us can acknowledge that our heros can be wrong about things without having an aneurysm over the "contradiction". Because we aren't 12.

No we're not talking about "theories of government", you are arguing that Lincoln was being undemocratic when he disallow Georgia to secede during the civil war. That the people of Georgia had the inherent right to do so, even though they were subjugating a whole race of people. Never allowing them the question of how they are organized.

So tell me, had a part of the people the Georgia the right to "reorganize" while holding the very Georgia people who would be against such an act in chattel slavery?

You know, even then "the people"of Georgia had more then one color. So why is only the opinion of people of a certain color of skin important to your argument, and not the others?

Except for the part where we covered exactly this point ~30 posts ago, yeah totally ignored.

Yes and your answer was: "It does not seem relevant " I am asking you to explain why you think that black slaves were not part of "the people" of Georgia and were irrelevant to the question of freedom and how their government was organized. Not why Lincoln or slavery supporting Georgians thought that, but you. You are the defender of freedom and rights. Step up. Declare why during the question of  secession the opinion of 44% of the populace didn't matter because they were black.

Enlighten me. I dare you.


Not relevant to the question of whether or not Lincoln was little d democrat. of course its relegated to what side you ought to take should it become relevant somehow.(watch out for those time portals bro first steps a doozy).

You seem to be reframing the discussion with every post.
 
2013-11-04 03:28:39 PM  
Nope, just holding you to your words. Lincoln was wrong and no "little d democrat" according to you for not adhering to the will of "the people" of the confederate south.

"He started a war to override popular will "
"Because people do, in fact, have a right to govern themselves. How the people of Georgia choose to organize themselves is no business of Iowa's"


Yes, the will of "the people" of the confederate south.  Except of course when they are black and slaves right? then they're not relevant. Not part of the populace, not part of "the people" You've declared, their popular will, their right to govern themselves is irrelevant to you. Why?

Why do you discount 44% of the population and only give agency and opinions to the white slavery supporters? Why are only they "the people" of Georgia? Why are only they the will of the populace?
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report