California, the land of insanity and intolerance for diversity

First topic message reminder :

California has somehow become even more radical in its "soft on crime" approach. The state has now lessened the punishment for knowingly exposing someone else to HIV.

Now, if you knowingly expose a partner to HIV in California, the crime is a mere misdemeanor rather than a felony. Per The Los Angeles Times:

   Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.

Moreover, the measure is expanded to knowingly giving HIV-positive blood to a blood bank.

The extreme move is, of course, being made under the guise of tolerance.

"Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals," said Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener. "HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does."

Although people still die from AIDS, exposing people to HIV without their knowledge or consent was justified because "modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission," per Weiner and Democratic Assemblyman Todd Gloria.

This destructive, immoral move is apparently not isolated to the loons in California. Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion mill and one of the most powerful unofficial arms of the Democratic Party, claimed not disclosing HIV to partners was a "right."

The Daily Wire reported in December of 2016:

   Kimberly Ells of The Federalist exposed the tax-dollar funded corporation for their despicable view, which they advocate via literature like the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s booklet, directed toward the HIV-positive youth in America, called “Healthy, Happy and Hot”:

   It says, “Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status.” It continues: “Sharing your HIV status is called disclosure. Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22060/california-no-longer-felony-knowingly-expose-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Frankly, I don't think it will ever come to that.  It's tough to kill folks who really don't want to fight.  See, in the 1860's the south had a venom, and the north had right on it's side.  

But this time nobody gives a shit.  Fighting to promote a swastika flag???  It no longer rises to that level.  They'll be surfing together in a week.  Y'all might lose a few Nebraskans.

I can assure you, that the federal government gives a shit. And it's not about a flag either.

What is it they care about?  Share it with us.  Congress can't legislate, and Trump can only toss paper towels to Puerto Ricans.

Maddog wrote:As for the South, Lincoln used force for one reason. To keep the union together. He didn't fight the south to free the slaves but to preserve the union.  

You can't believe that the South would have escaped with slavery intact, do you?  The EP was an expedient, but ending slavery was the whole ball game.  

The fact is Lincoln had superior generals.  If Lee had been replaced by Longstreet, the South might have won the Civil War.  But then we'd have another banana republican down there.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Someone's been taking lessons from didge on how to "win" a debate.

Anyway this isn't a debate, there isn't anything to debate, it's a thread about how shit California is

Sometimes it has to end.  It's like wrestling...when I've got you pinned, and there's nothing but spitting and swearing, that's the time to end it.  

oh right

im pinned am i??

thanks for letting me know, i would have missed it otherwise

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sometimes it has to end.  It's like wrestling...when I've got you pinned, and there's nothing but spitting and swearing, that's the time to end it.  

oh right

im pinned am i??

thanks for letting me know, i would have missed it otherwise

You're welcome.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I can assure you, that the federal government gives a shit. And it's not about a flag either.

What is it they care about?  Share it with us.  Congress can't legislate, and Trump can only toss paper towels to Puerto Ricans.

Maddog wrote:As for the South, Lincoln used force for one reason. To keep the union together. He didn't fight the south to free the slaves but to preserve the union.  

You can't believe that the South would have escaped with slavery intact, do you?  The EP was an expedient, but ending slavery was the whole ball game.  

The fact is Lincoln had superior generals.  If Lee had been replaced by Longstreet, the South might have won the Civil War.  But then we'd have another banana republican down there.

Slavery would have outlasted Lincoln. It no doubt would have ended, but Lincoln would never have started war to end it. He knew it's days were limited. The only reason Lincoln used force was to preserve the union.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Abe Lincoln.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is it they care about?  Share it with us.  Congress can't legislate, and Trump can only toss paper towels to Puerto Ricans.



You can't believe that the South would have escaped with slavery intact, do you?  The EP was an expedient, but ending slavery was the whole ball game.  

The fact is Lincoln had superior generals.  If Lee had been replaced by Longstreet, the South might have won the Civil War.  But then we'd have another banana republican down there.

Slavery would have outlasted Lincoln. It no doubt would have ended, but Lincoln would never have started  war to end it. He knew it's days were limited. The only reason Lincoln used force was to preserve the union.

Well, Lincoln was assassinated.

What I'm saying is the Civil War would not have ended without the end of slavery.

Preserving the Union was all around the Gettysburg Address, but the war was about slavery. The south seceded because it was that or give up slavery. So Lincoln made continued union the higher issue, but it was really secondary to the reason why secession started in the first place. See, Goodwin, DK, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005).

When Lincoln took office events were already too far down the road to avoid the Civil War..  The EP was an economic expedient.  But, it was going to happen, anyway.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is it they care about?  Share it with us.  Congress can't legislate, and Trump can only toss paper towels to Puerto Ricans.



You can't believe that the South would have escaped with slavery intact, do you?  The EP was an expedient, but ending slavery was the whole ball game.  

The fact is Lincoln had superior generals.  If Lee had been replaced by Longstreet, the South might have won the Civil War.  But then we'd have another banana republican down there.

Slavery would have outlasted Lincoln. It no doubt would have ended, but Lincoln would never have started  war to end it. He knew it's days were limited. The only reason Lincoln used force was to preserve the union.

That is a very poor limited way to look at the origins of Civil war.

It was very much to do with a culmination of factors of which slavery was the biggest catalyst for the Civil war. Though the disunion was the the main factor that started the war.

So for starters. The 1860 election win by Lincoln sparked declarations of secession by 7 US slave states.
Now what people forget is that before Lincoln actually took office is that Nationalists in the North and Unionists in the South refused to recognise the secession by the 7 Slave states.

It was the Confederacy that fired the first shots in anger. 

So Lincoln never started the war, the Confederacy did.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Slavery would have outlasted Lincoln. It no doubt would have ended, but Lincoln would never have started  war to end it. He knew it's days were limited. The only reason Lincoln used force was to preserve the union.

That is a very poor limited way to look at the origins of Civil war.

It was very much to do with a culmination of factors of which slavery was the biggest catalyst for the Civil war. Though the disunion was the the main factor that started the war.

So for starters. The 1860 election win by Lincoln sparked declarations of secession by 7 US slave states.
Now what people forget is that before Lincoln actually took office is that Nationalists in the North and Unionists in the South refused to recognise the secession by the 7 Slave states.

It was the Confederacy that fired the first shots in anger. 

So Lincoln never started the war, the Confederacy did.

Your missing the point. Lincoln was not waging war to get rid of slavery, but to save the union. The reason the South seceded was because they were worried about losing slavery at some point.

But even Sam Houston told the Texans that leaving was stupid because no one was coming after slaves in Texas. It's just that slavery was not going to be expanded into new territories.

In a nutshell, Lincoln could have left the South go there own way. He chose to wage war to save the Union, not to free slaves.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is a very poor limited way to look at the origins of Civil war.

It was very much to do with a culmination of factors of which slavery was the biggest catalyst for the Civil war. Though the disunion was the the main factor that started the war.

So for starters. The 1860 election win by Lincoln sparked declarations of secession by 7 US slave states.
Now what people forget is that before Lincoln actually took office is that Nationalists in the North and Unionists in the South refused to recognise the secession by the 7 Slave states.

It was the Confederacy that fired the first shots in anger. 

So Lincoln never started the war, the Confederacy did.

Your missing the point. Lincoln was not waging war to get rid of slavery, but to save the union. The reason the South seceded was because they were worried about losing slavery at some point.

But even Sam Houston told the Texans that leaving was stupid because no one was coming after slaves in Texas. It's just that slavery was not going to be expanded into new territories.

In a nutshell, Lincoln could have left the South go there own way. He chose to wage war to save the Union, not to free slaves.    

Not missing any point. I have read and studied many aspects of history and you were very much in error on the cause and who started this conflict.

As throughout the war, Lincoln campanigned many times to end slavery.

The South were worried about their economies, but that is no excuse for what they did. It was a poor fear factor driving this when many people in the South had also given up on Slavery. So the economies were based in the South on slavery. So you are ignoring that major factor here.

The biggest factor in the war was slavery itself. It became what the core value of that war was

You are making a hypoethesis which is east to say in hindsight, never taking into account how people viewed this at the time.

Speaking on one state like Texas and one leader, is thus not speaking on all states that left the Union

Lincoln never choose to wage war, as war was started on the Union.
So I have no idea what you are talking about, as do you expect people to be attacked and not defend against aggression?

Anyway, I have to go

Have a good evening

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your missing the point. Lincoln was not waging war to get rid of slavery, but to save the union. The reason the South seceded was because they were worried about losing slavery at some point.

But even Sam Houston told the Texans that leaving was stupid because no one was coming after slaves in Texas. It's just that slavery was not going to be expanded into new territories.

In a nutshell, Lincoln could have left the South go there own way. He chose to wage war to save the Union, not to free slaves.    

Not missing any point. I have read and studied many aspects of history and you were very much in error on the cause and who started this conflict.

As throughout the war, Lincoln campanigned many times to end slavery.

The South were worried about their economies, but that is no excuse for what they did. It was a poor fear factor driving this when many people in the South had also given up on Slavery. So the economies were based in the South on slavery. So you are ignoring that major factor here.

The biggest factor in the war was slavery itself. It became what the core value of that war was

You are making a hypoethesis which is east to say in hindsight, never taking into account how people viewed this at the time.

Speaking on one state like Texas and one leader, is thus not speaking on all states that left the Union

Lincoln never choose to wage war, as war was started on the Union.
So I have no idea what you are talking about, as do you expect people to be attacked and not defend against aggression?

Anyway, I have to go

Have a good evening

The war was fought almost entirely in the South. My point was that he didn't have to go to war (in the south) but chose to for one reason, and one reason only. To reunite the Union.

Yes, the South seceded, and fired the first shots, as there were Union soldiers on their newly defined territory.

Even during the war, there were many on the North, that didn't see the point in sending young Northern men to die. Their thought was to just let the South do what they want, and wait them out instead of sending men into that meat grinder.

So yes, the south fired the first shots, and it was about slavery, but Lincoln could have pulled all Union troops out of the South and let them be, but chose not to because he felt that the Union must be preserved, at whatever cost, regardless of slavery.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not missing any point. I have read and studied many aspects of history and you were very much in error on the cause and who started this conflict.

As throughout the war, Lincoln campanigned many times to end slavery.

The South were worried about their economies, but that is no excuse for what they did. It was a poor fear factor driving this when many people in the South had also given up on Slavery. So the economies were based in the South on slavery. So you are ignoring that major factor here.

The biggest factor in the war was slavery itself. It became what the core value of that war was

You are making a hypoethesis which is east to say in hindsight, never taking into account how people viewed this at the time.

Speaking on one state like Texas and one leader, is thus not speaking on all states that left the Union

Lincoln never choose to wage war, as war was started on the Union.
So I have no idea what you are talking about, as do you expect people to be attacked and not defend against aggression?

Anyway, I have to go

Have a good evening

The war was fought almost entirely in the South. My point was that he didn't have to go to war (in the south) but chose to for one reason, and one reason only. To reunite the Union.

Yes, the South seceded, and fired the first shots, as there were Union soldiers on their newly defined territory.  

Even during the war, there were many on the North, that didn't see the point in sending young Northern men to die. Their thought was to just let the South do what they want, and wait them out instead of sending men into that meat grinder.

So yes, the south fired the first shots, and it was about slavery, but Lincoln could have pulled all Union troops out of the South and let them be, but chose not to because he felt that the Union must be preserved, at whatever cost, regardless of slavery.  

1) Incorrect agin, the battle was fought all over many states, with major battles happening in the beggining with the success of general Lee. Sorry but what on earth history are you reading on the civil war?

It seems to be entirely made up and does not at all fit any of the known history on the Civil war

2) What on earth are you talking about he did not have to go to war?
War was declared on the Union, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter

All Lincoln did was rightly refuse to negotiate with Rebel states.

How many times does this have to be stated.

The war and aggression was started by the Confederacy

3) What? Union Soldiers on their territory? Who recognised the Confederacy as a state? That would be like Hitler claiming he was attacking Poland, as it was formely part of Germany, ignoring the the Fact Poland was now a country. Are you seriously suggesting the Polish people should have vacated Poland?

That has to be the worst excuse and poorest I have heard as an apologist argument for the Confederacy. Which is what I am seeing this argument is from you clearly

4) So what, what has that got to do with the price of bread?  So some did not agree with the war, but it was a war brought about by the Confederate states

5) But it was not their territory to make any such demand. There was no referendum you know

Holy crap on a cracker

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The war was fought almost entirely in the South. My point was that he didn't have to go to war (in the south) but chose to for one reason, and one reason only. To reunite the Union.

Yes, the South seceded, and fired the first shots, as there were Union soldiers on their newly defined territory.  

Even during the war, there were many on the North, that didn't see the point in sending young Northern men to die. Their thought was to just let the South do what they want, and wait them out instead of sending men into that meat grinder.

So yes, the south fired the first shots, and it was about slavery, but Lincoln could have pulled all Union troops out of the South and let them be, but chose not to because he felt that the Union must be preserved, at whatever cost, regardless of slavery.  

1) Incorrect agin, the battle was fought all over many states, with major battles happening in the beggining with the success of general Lee. Sorry but what on earth history are you reading on the civil war?

It seems to be entirely made up and does not at all fit any of the known history on the Civil war

2) What on earth are you talking about he did not have to go to war?
War was declared on the Union, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter

All Lincoln did was rightly refuse to negotiate with Rebel states.

How many times does this have to be stated.

The war and aggression was started by the Confederacy

3) What? Union Soldiers on their territory? Who recognised the Confederacy as a state? That would be like Hitler claiming he was attacking Poland, as it was formely part of Germany, ignoring the the Fact Poland was now a country. Are you seriously suggesting the Polish people should have vacated Poland?

That has to be the worst excuse and poorest I have heard as an apologist argument for the Confederacy. Which is what I am seeing this argument is from you clearly

4) So what, what has that got to do with the price of bread?  So some did not agree with the war, but it was a war brought about by the Confederate states

5) But it was not their territory to make any such demand. There was no referendum you know

Holy crap on a cracker

The only battle on Union territory was Gettysburg.

I never claimed that the Union recognized the South. In fact that has been my claim from the beginning. The South broke away, Lincoln wasn't having any of it, and sent Union troops into the South to defeat them.

There was a referendum. The South voted to leave the Union. Lincoln did not recognize that referendum, which is why troops were sent into the South.

Once again, in Lincolns own words.


As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Incorrect agin, the battle was fought all over many states, with major battles happening in the beggining with the success of general Lee. Sorry but what on earth history are you reading on the civil war?

It seems to be entirely made up and does not at all fit any of the known history on the Civil war

2) What on earth are you talking about he did not have to go to war?
War was declared on the Union, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter

All Lincoln did was rightly refuse to negotiate with Rebel states.

How many times does this have to be stated.

The war and aggression was started by the Confederacy

3) What? Union Soldiers on their territory? Who recognised the Confederacy as a state? That would be like Hitler claiming he was attacking Poland, as it was formely part of Germany, ignoring the the Fact Poland was now a country. Are you seriously suggesting the Polish people should have vacated Poland?

That has to be the worst excuse and poorest I have heard as an apologist argument for the Confederacy. Which is what I am seeing this argument is from you clearly

4) So what, what has that got to do with the price of bread?  So some did not agree with the war, but it was a war brought about by the Confederate states

5) But it was not their territory to make any such demand. There was no referendum you know

Holy crap on a cracker

The only battle on Union territory was Gettysburg.

I never claimed that the Union recognized the South. In fact that has been my claim from the beginning. The South broke away, Lincoln wasn't having any of it, and sent Union troops into the South to defeat them.

There was a referendum. The South voted to leave the Union. Lincoln did not recognize that referendum, which is why troops were sent into the South.

Once again, in Lincolns own words.


As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

1) Wrong again. You are clearly counting Kentucky Missouri which never declared secession or were controlled by Confederate troops

So yet more revisionist history

2) Wrong again. Shall I invoke his inaugural address.

Where he had no intent to invade the South and that he argued that the secession was "legally void".

3) So what you are saying is that he should have and the rest of the Union states have accepted the naked aggression of the rebel states. Which again was brought about by the leaders of these states.

Not a vote by its people, so it was not a referendum and to claim as such is sheer nonsense.

4) And now i will expose how even more disingenious you are being.

You post a letter during the heart of the Civil War

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

So the war was in full swing and thus matters had changed

Please do not try to pull the wool over the eyes of someone who has studied history

You will  always come unstuck

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The only battle on Union territory was Gettysburg.

I never claimed that the Union recognized the South. In fact that has been my claim from the beginning. The South broke away, Lincoln wasn't having any of it, and sent Union troops into the South to defeat them.

There was a referendum. The South voted to leave the Union. Lincoln did not recognize that referendum, which is why troops were sent into the South.

Once again, in Lincolns own words.


As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

1) Wrong again. You are clearly counting Kentucky Missouri which never declared secession or were controlled by Confederate troops

So yet more revisionist history

2) Wrong again. Shall I invoke his inaugural address.

Where he had no intent to invade the South and that he argued that the secession was "legally void".

3) So what you are saying is that he should have and the rest of the Union states have accepted the naked aggression of the rebel states. Which again was brought about by the leaders of these states.

Not a vote by its people, so it was not a referendum and to claim as such is sheer nonsense.

4) And now i will expose how even more disingenious you are being.

You post a letter during the heart of the Civil War

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

So the war was in full swing and thus matters had changed

Please do not try to pull the wool over the eyes of someone who has studied history

You will  always come unstuck

When did I say he intended to invade the South at his inauguration? My claim was just the opposite. That Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery in the South by force. He would use force to save the Union.

I never said he should let the South secede. It was an option, but not one he had to entertain, and it was definitely not one he was going to entertain.

And yes, I considered Missouri and Kentucky defacto southern states.

Let's refresh.

Secession is illegal
The South seceded because it was worried that future governments would take away slavery.
Lincoln didn't care one iota why they were seceding, but he wasn't going to allow it.
He sent troops into the South to quell the rebellion.
Lincoln abhorred slavery and once victory became fairly evident, he used that position to advance the banning of slavery.

And lastly, which started us on this whole discussion was that Lincoln would never have sent troops into the South to free the slaves. It required the South's secession to give him justification to wage war.

Is Quill going to pick up a rifle and fight when cali goes its own way??

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Wrong again. You are clearly counting Kentucky Missouri which never declared secession or were controlled by Confederate troops

So yet more revisionist history

2) Wrong again. Shall I invoke his inaugural address.

Where he had no intent to invade the South and that he argued that the secession was "legally void".

3) So what you are saying is that he should have and the rest of the Union states have accepted the naked aggression of the rebel states. Which again was brought about by the leaders of these states.

Not a vote by its people, so it was not a referendum and to claim as such is sheer nonsense.

4) And now i will expose how even more disingenious you are being.

You post a letter during the heart of the Civil War

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

So the war was in full swing and thus matters had changed

Please do not try to pull the wool over the eyes of someone who has studied history

You will  always come unstuck

When did I say he intended to invade the South at his inauguration?  My claim was just the opposite. That Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery in the South by force. He would use force to save the Union.

I never said he should let the South secede. It was an option, but not one he had to entertain, and it was definitely not one he was going to entertain.

And yes, I considered Missouri and Kentucky defacto southern states.

Let's refresh.

Secession is illegal
The South seceded because it was worried that future governments would take away slavery.
Lincoln didn't care one iota why they were seceding, but he wasn't going to allow it.
He sent troops into the South to quell the rebellion.
Lincoln abhorred slavery and once victory became fairly evident, he used that position to advance the banning of slavery.

And lastly, which started us on this whole discussion was that Lincoln would never have sent troops into the South to free the slaves. It required the South's secession to give him justification to wage war.    
     

1) He did not use force to save the Union either, as the war came to the Union by the Confederacy starting this. What was worse by you posting that letter is the parts you left out.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

That is why I know i am dealing with someone who is a revisionist and an apologist for the Confederacy

2) He did not have an option, as the Confederacy started a war with the Union

3) So they were Confederacy from the start?

Er, no, hence you are talking again nonsense.

4) Yes lets refresh

Some US states, afraid of their slavery economy being hindered decided to leave the US senate, even though no vote had passed to end slavery

Do you not think that is about the worst thing to do?

Based on at the time there was no majority vote to end slavery.

5) And the last dumb point you make. He had no choice but to mobilize for war, because war had come to the Union started by the South

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

When did I say he intended to invade the South at his inauguration?  My claim was just the opposite. That Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery in the South by force. He would use force to save the Union.

I never said he should let the South secede. It was an option, but not one he had to entertain, and it was definitely not one he was going to entertain.

And yes, I considered Missouri and Kentucky defacto southern states.

Let's refresh.

Secession is illegal
The South seceded because it was worried that future governments would take away slavery.
Lincoln didn't care one iota why they were seceding, but he wasn't going to allow it.
He sent troops into the South to quell the rebellion.
Lincoln abhorred slavery and once victory became fairly evident, he used that position to advance the banning of slavery.

And lastly, which started us on this whole discussion was that Lincoln would never have sent troops into the South to free the slaves. It required the South's secession to give him justification to wage war.    
     

1) He did not use force to save the Union either, as the war came to the Union by the Confederacy starting this. What was worse by you posting that letter is the parts you left out.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

That is why I know i am dealing with someone who is a revisionist and an apologist for the Confederacy

2) He did not have an option, as the Confederacy started a war with the Union

3) So they were Confederacy from the start?

Er, no, hence you are talking again nonsense.

4) Yes lets refresh

Some US states, afraid of their slavery economy being hindered decided to leave the US senate, even though no vote had passed to end slavery

Do you not think that is about the worst thing to do?

Based on at the time there was no majority vote to end slavery.

5) And the last dumb point you make. He had no choice but to mobolise for war, because war had come to the Union started by the South

I'm hardly an apologist for the confederacy.

What I am saying is that Lincolns reason to wage war was to save the Union, not to end slavery.

And of course he had an option. The law really didn't address secession at the time. Makes no matter at this point, he felt it was illegal, and it definitly is now.

The civil war was brought up because Quill mentioned that California could secede peacefully.

I stated that is not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in 1861.

Maddog wrote:The civil war was brought up because Quill mentioned that California could secede peacefully.

I stated that is not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in 1861.

Actually you brought up the Civil War.  But it's of no matter.

We don't know if it's going to happen that California will secede.  What I'm saying is there's a first time for everything, and we seem to be having a lot of first times these days.

All I'm saying is, with the atmosphere being created by Trump the probabilities of California (and other states) seceding are enhanced a hundred-fold.  Think about it mechanically: you loosen the door hinges, the probability increases the door will fall off.  Trump has been loosening up lots of things recently.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) He did not use force to save the Union either, as the war came to the Union by the Confederacy starting this. What was worse by you posting that letter is the parts you left out.




That is why I know i am dealing with someone who is a revisionist and an apologist for the Confederacy

2) He did not have an option, as the Confederacy started a war with the Union

3) So they were Confederacy from the start?

Er, no, hence you are talking again nonsense.

4) Yes lets refresh

Some US states, afraid of their slavery economy being hindered decided to leave the US senate, even though no vote had passed to end slavery

Do you not think that is about the worst thing to do?

Based on at the time there was no majority vote to end slavery.

5) And the last dumb point you make. He had no choice but to mobolise for war, because war had come to the Union started by the South

I'm hardly an apologist for the confederacy.

What I am saying is that Lincolns reason to wage war was to save the Union, not to end slavery.

And of course he had an option. The law really didn't address secession at the time. Makes no matter at this point, he felt it was illegal, and it definitly is now.    

The civil war was brought up because Quill mentioned that California could secede peacefully.

I stated that is not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in 1861.

1) You are whether conciously or unconciously with the views you are making

2) As seen and by what I have stated, that is incorrect. His official position was, but his personal view was always the ending of slavery. You do understand the difference and this was only after the Union had been attacked.

As even if we take your view on the Confederate states, they would have no right to any of those Forts.

I mean what do you think would happen if Cuba attacked Guantanamo Bay?

3) Again he never had an option, as the Confederacy started a war. The point you keep utterly ignoring

4) I understand what Quill brought up and I believe in self determination of a people. That never happened with the Confederacy and neither were they ethnically different. As no vote was made by the people. So it is something miles apart, but Callexit could also be like we are now seeing in Spain.

That would be the telling point here on whether a modern nation would deny self determination of a people who have voted for Independence with Catalonia

So they are very much different situations. I agree in that I do not see it happenning.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm hardly an apologist for the confederacy.

What I am saying is that Lincolns reason to wage war was to save the Union, not to end slavery.

And of course he had an option. The law really didn't address secession at the time. Makes no matter at this point, he felt it was illegal, and it definitly is now.    

The civil war was brought up because Quill mentioned that California could secede peacefully.

I stated that is not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in 1861.

1) You are whether conciously or unconciously with the views you are making

2) As seen and by what I have stated, that is incorrect. His official position was, but his personal view was always the ending of slavery. You do understand the difference and this was only after the Union had been attacked.

As even if we take your view on the Confederate states, they would have no right to any of those Forts.

I mean what do you think would happen if Cuba attacked Guantanamo Bay?

3) Again he never had an option, as the Confederacy started a war. The point you keep utterly ignoring

4) I understand what Quill brought up and I believe in self determination. That never happened with the Confederacy, as no vote was made by the people. So it is something miles apart, but Callexit could also be like we are now seeing in Spain.

That would be the telling point here on whether a modern nation would deny self determination of a people who have voted for Independence with Catalonia

So they are very much different situations. I agree in that I do not see it happenning.

Let me ask you a question.

Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

Oh, and the method used by much of the South to secede was basically the same one that was used by the US to dissolve it's ties to England. Representatives of the people debated the issue and decided for the people (Conventions). Yes, I realize it was not a direct democratic vote by the people, so technically it wasn't referendum but vote held by the representatives of the people.

Texas, on the other hand had a direct vote after it was decided to have a vote and 76% of voters chose to leave.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) You are whether conciously or unconciously with the views you are making

2) As seen and by what I have stated, that is incorrect. His official position was, but his personal view was always the ending of slavery. You do understand the difference and this was only after the Union had been attacked.

As even if we take your view on the Confederate states, they would have no right to any of those Forts.

I mean what do you think would happen if Cuba attacked Guantanamo Bay?

3) Again he never had an option, as the Confederacy started a war. The point you keep utterly ignoring

4) I understand what Quill brought up and I believe in self determination. That never happened with the Confederacy, as no vote was made by the people. So it is something miles apart, but Callexit could also be like we are now seeing in Spain.

That would be the telling point here on whether a modern nation would deny self determination of a people who have voted for Independence with Catalonia

So they are very much different situations. I agree in that I do not see it happenning.

Let me ask you a question.

Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

Oh, and the method used by much of the South to secede was basically the same one that was used by the US to dissolve it's ties to England. Representatives of the people debated the issue and decided for the people (Conventions). Yes, I realize it was not a direct democratic vote by the people, so technically it wasn't referendum but vote held by the representatives of the people.

Texas, on the other hand had a direct vote after it was decided to have a vote and 76% of voters chose to leave.    

Why would he have need to troops to free slaves, if the South had remained?

You are not explaining why this would need to even happen

I mean the Uk certainly voted to end slavery and troops were never used within the UK on this vote, as compensation was provided. So you are placing no real reason why troops would need to have been used.

Like i said the Confederacy shot themselves in the foot by leaving when there was no majority to abolish slavery at the time

So how many of those voters were women in Texas?

To go off just men voting is not a true vote on self determination is it? Nor the fact which men could vote.

Again with the War of Independence had to do with representation this is correct, but you are under the assumption for them to have declared Independence. When again many people were against such an idea at the time. Again that representative was not the full backing of the people.

Anyway, am tired, Night

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Let me ask you a question.

Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

Oh, and the method used by much of the South to secede was basically the same one that was used by the US to dissolve it's ties to England. Representatives of the people debated the issue and decided for the people (Conventions). Yes, I realize it was not a direct democratic vote by the people, so technically it wasn't referendum but vote held by the representatives of the people.

Texas, on the other hand had a direct vote after it was decided to have a vote and 76% of voters chose to leave.    

Why would he have need to troops to free slaves, if the South had remained?

You are not explaining why this would need to even happen

I mean the Uk certainly voted to end slavery and troops were never used within the UK on this vote, as compensation was provided. So you are placing no real reason why troops would need to have been used.

Like i said the Confederacy shot themselves in the foot by leaving when there was no majority to abolish slavery at the time

So how many of those voters were women in Texas?

To go off just men voting is not a true vote on self determination is it? Nor the fact which men could vote.

Again with the War of Independence had to do with representation this is correct, but you are under the assumption for them to have declared Independence. When again many people were against such an idea at the time. Again that representative was not the full backing of the people.

Anyway, am tired, Night

It's not my point that he would have used troops to free the slaves. The North freed slaves without any bloodshed too. That is why I have been so adamant that the war was not about freeing slaves, but saving the Union.

And you are right about the South shooting itself in the foot. That's what Houston was saying right up to the point they basically ran him out of town. Texas (and the South) had really nothing to gain by secession and everything to lose. Lincoln was not going to mess with slavery in any of the states where it already existed.

The vote was a legal as any other vote at the time. No doubt women and minorities were not allowed to vote, but that was the case in the election that chose Lincoln. It's how elections were done at that time. The "legal" voters got to vote.

And Night.

Maddog wrote:Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

We can ask these questions, ad infinitum. Would Christ have ended slavery if he had been elected president. See how silly unreal hypotheticals are?

The fact is that long before Lincoln was elected, slavery was doomed. It was the sentiment of the nation, and only the southern states disagreed. They weren't strong enough to outvote, and they weren't strong enough on the battlefield.

Events were a foregone conclusion before Lincoln was elected.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

We can ask these questions, ad infinitum.  Would Christ have ended slavery if he had been elected president.  See how silly unreal hypotheticals are?

The fact is that long before Lincoln was elected, slavery was doomed.  It was the sentiment of the nation, and only the southern states disagreed.  They weren't strong enough to outvote, and they weren't strong enough on the battlefield.

Events were a foregone conclusion before Lincoln was elected.

also, every other western nation had ended it.
it was simply the US playing catch up on human rights to preserve it's legitimacy.

Even back in those days,  those unelected Tobacco industry Lobbyist swill carried a lot of clout,  way out of proportion with their actual importance...

The American tobacco and cotton industries were built on slave labour..

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Would Lincoln have used troops against southerners to free slaves, if the south had not seceded?

We can ask these questions, ad infinitum.  Would Christ have ended slavery if he had been elected president.  See how silly unreal hypotheticals are?

The fact is that long before Lincoln was elected, slavery was doomed.  It was the sentiment of the nation, and only the southern states disagreed.  They weren't strong enough to outvote, and they weren't strong enough on the battlefield.

Events were a foregone conclusion before Lincoln was elected.

Slavery was doomed, which is why Lincoln would never have sent hundreds of thousands of young men to their death to end it. All that needed to be done was to wait 10, 20 or 30 years. But he would to save the Union.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We can ask these questions, ad infinitum.  Would Christ have ended slavery if he had been elected president.  See how silly unreal hypotheticals are?

The fact is that long before Lincoln was elected, slavery was doomed.  It was the sentiment of the nation, and only the southern states disagreed.  They weren't strong enough to outvote, and they weren't strong enough on the battlefield.

Events were a foregone conclusion before Lincoln was elected.

Slavery was doomed, which is why Lincoln would never have sent hundreds of thousands of young men to their death to end it. All that needed to be done was to wait 10, 20 or 30 years.  But he would to save the Union.  

The start of it all was antipathy to slavery.  In sequence, the Confederate response was disunion.  So union became the issue.  But to separate the two is like trying to distinguish the pork from the Barbeque sauce.  It just doesn't work.

Nor would it have worked to wait 20 - 30 years.  The Civil War was the breaking point, and as you see, they didn't wait.  You can't just say, if we didn't have the explosion, everything would have cooled down. The explosion happened, when it happened, because that's what you get with that chemical formula, when you add heat.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why would he have need to troops to free slaves, if the South had remained?

You are not explaining why this would need to even happen

I mean the Uk certainly voted to end slavery and troops were never used within the UK on this vote, as compensation was provided. So you are placing no real reason why troops would need to have been used.

Like i said the Confederacy shot themselves in the foot by leaving when there was no majority to abolish slavery at the time

So how many of those voters were women in Texas?

To go off just men voting is not a true vote on self determination is it? Nor the fact which men could vote.

Again with the War of Independence had to do with representation this is correct, but you are under the assumption for them to have declared Independence. When again many people were against such an idea at the time. Again that representative was not the full backing of the people.

Anyway, am tired, Night

It's not my point that he would have used troops to free the slaves. The North freed slaves without any bloodshed too. That is why I have been so adamant that the war was not about freeing slaves, but saving the Union.

And you are right about the South shooting itself in the foot. That's what Houston was saying right up to the point they basically ran him out of town. Texas (and the South) had really nothing to gain by secession and everything to lose. Lincoln was not going to mess with slavery in any of the states where it already existed.

The vote was a legal as any other vote at the time. No doubt women and minorities were not allowed to vote, but that was the case in the election that chose Lincoln. It's how elections were done at that time. The "legal" voters got to vote.  

But you are ignoring the fact that the south brought on and started the war themselves.

So again you keep going off this poor and incorrect view and placing this all on Lincoln, when this all happened due to the fears of the South.

That is the most telling part of your view, its as if you are excusing the South any responsibility here.

When all responsibility stems from them in how the war started.

They feared losing the right to enslave people. Which means they clearly wanted to go against a vote they did not agree with. Which could have been anything but in this case it was slavery. The reality is you have no substance as seen throughout to pin this on Lincoln

Also women getting the vote happened within two generations

Self determination means all people, not a select amount of people.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not my point that he would have used troops to free the slaves. The North freed slaves without any bloodshed too. That is why I have been so adamant that the war was not about freeing slaves, but saving the Union.

And you are right about the South shooting itself in the foot. That's what Houston was saying right up to the point they basically ran him out of town. Texas (and the South) had really nothing to gain by secession and everything to lose. Lincoln was not going to mess with slavery in any of the states where it already existed.

The vote was a legal as any other vote at the time. No doubt women and minorities were not allowed to vote, but that was the case in the election that chose Lincoln. It's how elections were done at that time. The "legal" voters got to vote.  

But you are ignoring the fact that the south brought on and started the war themselves.

So again you keep going off this poor and incorrect view and placing this all on Lincoln, when this all happened due to the fears of the South.

That is the most telling part of your view, its as if you are excusing the South any responsibility here.

When all responsibility stems from them in how the war started.

They feared losing the right to enslave people. Which means they clearly wanted to go against a vote they did not agree with. Which could have been anything but in this case it was slavery. The reality is you have no substance as seen throughout to pin this on Lincoln

Also women getting the vote happened within two generations

Self determination means all people, not a select amount of people.

I'm saying the South did something that Lincoln would not tolerate. They seceded. It was stupid. I'm not excusing the South.

We have a saying. "It takes two to Tango". Both sides didn't have to Tango.

We have another saying "Bye Felicia ". Another leader may have said that to the South.

And for about the 17th time, the whole reason i brought up the civil war is because it was fought to preserve the Union. It would not have been fought had the south not seceded.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

But you are ignoring the fact that the south brought on and started the war themselves.

So again you keep going off this poor and incorrect view and placing this all on Lincoln, when this all happened due to the fears of the South.

That is the most telling part of your view, its as if you are excusing the South any responsibility here.

When all responsibility stems from them in how the war started.

They feared losing the right to enslave people. Which means they clearly wanted to go against a vote they did not agree with. Which could have been anything but in this case it was slavery. The reality is you have no substance as seen throughout to pin this on Lincoln

Also women getting the vote happened within two generations

Self determination means all people, not a select amount of people.

I'm saying the South did something that Lincoln would not tolerate. They seceded. It was stupid. I'm not excusing the South.

We have a saying. "It takes two to Tango". Both sides didn't have to Tango.

We have another saying "Bye Felicia ". Another leader may have said that to the South.

And for about the 17th time, the whole reason i brought up the civil war is because it was fought to preserve the Union. It would not have been fought had the south not seceded.  

1) Well who tolerates being attacked?

Seriously

Which means by your reasoning that again the South is at fault for starting a war.

2) It does take two sides to engage in a war and one to start it. Which in this case was the South. All of which you keep ignoring.

3) Are you expecting people to appease rebels when they attack you?

Maybe you think we should negotiate with ISIS or recognize their state, where they capture territory through force.

4) Again as seen you are in error to say it was fought to just preserve the Union, it was fought because the South, threw their dummies out of the pram, as they presumed they might not get their way and then started a fight

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm saying the South did something that Lincoln would not tolerate. They seceded. It was stupid. I'm not excusing the South.

We have a saying. "It takes two to Tango". Both sides didn't have to Tango.

We have another saying "Bye Felicia ". Another leader may have said that to the South.

And for about the 17th time, the whole reason i brought up the civil war is because it was fought to preserve the Union. It would not have been fought had the south not seceded.  

1) Well who tolerates being attacked?

Seriously

Which means by your reasoning that again the South is at fault for starting a war.

2) It does take two sides to engage in a war and one to start it. Which in this case was the South. All of which you keep ignoring.

3) Are you expecting people to appease rebels when they attack you?

Maybe you think we should negotiate with ISIS or recognize their state, where they capture territory through force.

4) Again as seen you are in error to say it was fought to just preserve the Union, it was fought because the South, threw their dummies out of the pram, as they presumed they might not get their way and then started a fight

The South seceding is what started the war. I have said that numerous times, yet you say I'm not saying that. Is there a way I could say it different that you would understand?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Well who tolerates being attacked?

Seriously

Which means by your reasoning that again the South is at fault for starting a war.

2) It does take two sides to engage in a war and one to start it. Which in this case was the South. All of which you keep ignoring.

3) Are you expecting people to appease rebels when they attack you?

Maybe you think we should negotiate with ISIS or recognize their state, where they capture territory through force.

4) Again as seen you are in error to say it was fought to just preserve the Union, it was fought because the South, threw their dummies out of the pram, as they presumed they might not get their way and then started a fight

The South seceding is what started the war. I have said that numerous times, yet you say I'm not saying that. Is there a way I could say it different that you would understand?

Circular argument.

You just are repeating the same thing.

I have shown that the Confederacy went against democracy by seceding. As they feared a future vote on slavery. I mean you keep saying slavery would have ended 20 to 30 years later. So by your reasoning, what was the point of the states leaving the Union? In the end by your view, slavery would have ended.

At the end of the day, it took two months after they left, before they then attacked the Union.
Anyway, this is going nowhere fast.