Another Scare Amicus?

[Dragonlipz]

I still don't understand why people think we are the sole reason for any change at all. Or why they think we (or they) have the power to stop any change at all. Or even why change is a bad thing.

The world was changing long before we became any influence, has been changing as long as we have been a part of the cycle and will surely continue changing long after we are gone.

If you reread what you just wrote, perhaps you might want to rethink the post.....or maybe you just want to put a gun to your head: preferably prior to breeding......

 

[amicus]

Past Participle, yes, indeed, I left out a part that did not add to my presentation; izzat a crime of omission in your eyes?

Climate projection depends entirely on computer models, and the old saying, GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, applies and has been demonstrated, over and over again, to be at the root of the hoax of Global Warming, Anthropogenic climate change.

Like it or not, it is a political scam and that too has been demonstrated by those same, 'models', you so rely upon, in terms of 'bought and paid for scientists', delivering a 'politically correct' solution to a presumed problem.

Study after study will show you, should you care to look, that the activities of man, since his evolution, have been insignificant and minimal in relation to global climate change and thas a fact Jack!

Try again sometime, sweetypie...

amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Past Participle, yes, indeed, I left out a part that did not add to my presentation; izzat a crime of omission in your eyes?

Climate projection depends entirely on computer models, and the old saying, GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, applies and has been demonstrated, over and over again, to be at the root of the hoax of Global Warming, Anthropogenic climate change.

Like it or not, it is a political scam and that too has been demonstrated by those same, 'models', you so rely upon, in terms of 'bought and paid for scientists', delivering a 'politically correct' solution to a presumed problem.

Study after study will show you, should you care to look, that the activities of man, since his evolution, have been insignificant and minimal in relation to global climate change and thas a fact Jack!

Try again sometime, sweetypie...

amicus

Once again you spout nonsense without a shred of evidence besides some FIXED NEWS headline to back you up......not so sweet when you can't quote some bullshit from a long-dead russian.....

 

[past_perfect]

Past Participle, yes, indeed, I left out a part that did not add to my presentation; izzat a crime of omission in your eyes?

Climate projection depends entirely on computer models, and the old saying, GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, applies and has been demonstrated, over and over again, to be at the root of the hoax of Global Warming, Anthropogenic climate change.

Like it or not, it is a political scam and that too has been demonstrated by those same, 'models', you so rely upon, in terms of 'bought and paid for scientists', delivering a 'politically correct' solution to a presumed problem.

Study after study will show you, should you care to look, that the activities of man, since his evolution, have been insignificant and minimal in relation to global climate change and thas a fact Jack!

Try again sometime, sweetypie...

amicus

Not a crime, just intellectually dishonest. Selective perception, we talked about it.

Input= Peer reviewed data. Look it up and don't talk out of your arse.

Study after study of unreviewed data. Look it up and don't talk out of your arse. If any of that data gets included in future models (and more than you think already has been and has been dismissed) and we see that it isn't quite as dire as predicted, we can all celebrate our own incompetence, or the incompetence of 99.5 % of the scientific community.

I must have missed the studies of the beneficial effects of pollution and environmental destruction, care to link me to some?

 

[amicus]

Sighs...buy you books and buy you books and all you do is lick the covers and eat the pages...

'Nature' is never in balance. It is always changing for a variety of reasons and man is part of nature, if that never occurred to you.

If, by industrializing and propagating the species, man chokes himself with pollution, according to your postulations, that would be a bad thing?

We have learned a few things along the way, such as preventing retards such as yourself from pooping in your own drinking water; it was science that did that, by the way, not a computer model.

We have also learned such things as 'downstream' pollution of power plants causing acid rain, and aside from toilet training you, we learned not to do such things.

We will discover and utilize new methods of creating energy to meet the needs of an ever growing society and we will do it without returning to your, 'pristine past' of Dickensonian Europe, but I can see it is going to take a fight over your anti industrialist mentality and hatred of man.

To be blunt, it is both your Philosophy, or lack of it, and your Science, the Soviet kind, that has led you astray and made you appear the fool in these conversations.

Think on this, for it is truth: you would welcome a plague that killed half of mankind as it would suit your vision of the future.

Or was I too generous, a plague that killed 90% of humankind; would that satisfy you more?

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

Oh Amicus, tisk, tisk. You evade the truth so gracelessly.

I presume that you can call MIT to task? You should just bring your evidence forward and show them that they are wrong.

Boy, I bet that will make them feel so much better, to sleep nights without the nightmares of resource wars and the deaths of, what did you say>, oh, 90% of mankind.

Of course we don't have to worry, hell the air still has enough oxygen to light up a big fat stoggie, so why worry? Have a Merlot and don't think about your children.

I learned a long time ago to believe per reviewed material before I take a blowhards word.

Sincerely

Jack

 

[freshface]

I still don't understand why people think we are the sole reason for any change at all. Or why they think we (or they) have the power to stop any change at all. Or even why change is a bad thing.

The world was changing long before we became any influence, has been changing as long as we have been a part of the cycle and will surely continue changing long after we are gone.

Who said we're the sole reason for change? The problem is that all of the other reasons for change are still out there, so what we do is on top of that. It's true that at at least one point in the past, Antarctica was a tropical forest. It's also true that if it becomes that warm again, a good portion of humanity will have disappeared. I'd say it's better for humanity if we do what we can to prevent that from happening.

 

[freshface]

Like I said "We're pretty arrogant to think the wee amount of shit we put in the atmosphere would cause anything except smog." Sure as hell won't cause the planet to warm or cool.

You really think that smog is the only bad thing that happens from the stuff we put in the air? Did you miss the part about the ozone hole over the Antarctic? Think the scientists are making it up? I remember the howls of protest in the '90s about removing CFCs from products. Life as we knew it was about to end because we wouldn't have CFCs for our air conditioners and aerosol cans any more. Amazingly enough, CFCs were banned, life as we know it didn't change, and there are signs now that the ozone hole is starting to regenerate. The ozone depleting compounds will continue to be in the atmosphere for several more decades, but at least we are no longer adding to the problem.

 

[amicus]

Who said we're the sole reason for change? The problem is that all of the other reasons for change are still out there, so what we do is on top of that. It's true that at at least one point in the past, Antarctica was a tropical forest. It's also true that if it becomes that warm again, a good portion of humanity will have disappeared. I'd say it's better for humanity if we do what we can to prevent that from happening.

~~~

Hello again, freshface, I think we have agreed on nothing prior to this, so don't expect a change....

It is not, "on top of that", as we are an integral part of, 'that', as were the Dinosaurs and the Mammoths.

We are a part of nature, but unlike the aforementioned species, we determine our future by changing our environment.

Migratory animals do so to survive, those who do not or cannot migrate, survive or go extinct depending upon their ability to adapt.

Man is the most adaptable of all the species of life thus far as we inhabit all climes the earth has to offer and even beyond the earth's environment, see the International Space Station.

Little by little we learn not to foul our own nest; it is a lesson learned the hard way, as all are and must be.

But returning to a pastoral environment is not an option and that is the intent of those who insist upon imposing controls on man's ability to sustain himself.

I do not wish to return to the caves, do you?

Amicus

 

[amicus]

]You really think that smog is the only bad thing that happens from the stuff we put in the air? Did you miss the part about the ozone hole over the Antarctic? Think the scientists are making it up? I remember the howls of protest in the '90s about removing CFCs from products. Life as we knew it was about to end because we wouldn't have CFCs for our air conditioners and aerosol cans any more. Amazingly enough, CFCs were banned, life as we know it didn't change, and there are signs now that the ozone hole is starting to regenerate. The ozone depleting compounds will continue to be in the atmosphere for several more decades, but at least we are no longer adding to the problem[/I].

~~~

Your information concerning the Ozone Layer is outdated. The reason it is no longer a controversial issue is because it was learned that the Ozone layer, especially over the Polar regions, is a naturally occurring event that has nothing to do with CFS's. And yes, 'life as we know it', did change, you pay more for everything thing because of a stupid environmental activist's legislation.

Look it up....for Christ's sake don't depend on me.

Amicus...

 

[freshface]

~~~

Your information concerning the Ozone Layer is outdated. The reason it is no longer a controversial issue is because it was learned that the Ozone layer, especially over the Polar regions, is a naturally occurring event that has nothing to do with CFS's. And yes, 'life as we know it', did change, you pay more for everything thing because of a stupid environmental activist's legislation.

Look it up....for Christ's sake don't depend on me.

Amicus...

I did look it up. From the NASA website:

Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”.

The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units. The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979. Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.

The reason it's not controversial is that everyone but the Luddites recognize now that the phenomenon was both real and man made. We've taken the necessary steps to limit the damage. But don't tell me, let me guess, you don't trust NASA as a source?

 

[DeeZire]

Anyone who suggests mankind's affect on the environment is inconsequential should google "Haiti environmental degradation". Of course, anyone professing such ignorance wouldn't be interested in facts, so I doubt that they would be impressed by the fact that over 90% of Haiti's forests are now gone, thanks to the lack of environmental regulations in that country. (I'm surprised Ami hasn't moved there, since it would seem to be his idea of a utopia.)

Still unconvinced? Try this experiment: fill your bathtub with tap water. Now go outside and shut off the main water valve to your house. See how long you can live comfortably using only the water in your bathtub. Keep in mind that this will be your only source of drinking water. Also keep in mind that the only place you're allowed to shit and piss is in the bathtub.

Another experiment for the flat-earthers: Find a two-car garage. Drive your car inside and close the garage door. Buckle your seatbelt, roll down the car windows, start the motor and let it idle for a couple of hours - preferably for a whole day. Then get back to us with your findings.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

Another kewl experiment from the class of research you cite with your example, is: Immerse your head in a large bucket of water for a whole day, then write a report about the effects of oxygen deprivation. I'll wager there's 5 gallons of water vapor in the air, inside your garage. Humidity is uncomfortable, to be sure, but its not an analogy for immersing your skull in a pail of water.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

DEE ZIRE

Another kewl experiment from the class of research you cite with your example, is: Immerse your head in a large bucket of water for a whole day, then write a report about the effects of oxygen deprivation. I'll wager there's 5 gallons of water vapor in the air, inside your garage. Humidity is uncomfortable, to be sure, but its not an analogy for immersing your skull in a pail of water.

Your brains. We're stepping in it.

 

[freshface]

~~~

Hello again, freshface, I think we have agreed on nothing prior to this, so don't expect a change....

It is not, "on top of that", as we are an integral part of, 'that', as were the Dinosaurs and the Mammoths.

We are a part of nature, but unlike the aforementioned species, we determine our future by changing our environment.

Migratory animals do so to survive, those who do not or cannot migrate, survive or go extinct depending upon their ability to adapt.

Man is the most adaptable of all the species of life thus far as we inhabit all climes the earth has to offer and even beyond the earth's environment, see the International Space Station.

Little by little we learn not to foul our own nest; it is a lesson learned the hard way, as all are and must be.

But returning to a pastoral environment is not an option and that is the intent of those who insist upon imposing controls on man's ability to sustain himself.

I do not wish to return to the caves, do you?

Amicus

Of course we're an integral part of 'that'. I was responding to an argument that suggested that since there are naturally occurring causes of CO2 production, we shouldn't worry about our own contributions. It's exactly because we are so good at shaping our environment that we need to be cautious in how we do that. The mammoths and dinosaurs were not adding hundreds of tons of CO2 into the air like we are.

Little by little we learn not to foul our own nest; it is a lesson learned the hard way, as all are and must be.

But see, that's someplace where I disagree with you. You say "we learn not to foul our own nests." I say that if we know something will foul our nest, it's better to prevent the fouling than clean it up later. The problem with your capitalistic view is that, in the short term, the advantage goes to the company that causes the most damage. Gold mines use cyanide to extract the gold from finely ground rock. The cheap way to dispose of this cyanide is to release it into the streams. That tends to be hard on the fish and wildlife that rely on that stream, especially since many of the mines are in the arid western US. Sometimes it's also hard on the people who live downstream. The more expensive way is to use technology to contain the cyanide laden water and remove the cyanide from the environment. If the government mandates that a gold mine has to build retention ponds and remove the cyanide from the environment, the stream stays clean. If the government further mandates that the area of the mine has to be restored when the mine plays out, then it's possible to extract the gold without a big environmental cost. Since most of these mines are located on federally owned land, the government gets to impose requirements as a condition of the mining permit.

Yes, it costs money to manage pollution responsibly. History shows us that there are always companies that will do their best to do things the cheap way versus the responsible way. It further shows us that responsible companies don't do as well when they have to compete against irresponsible companies.

I don't recall ever suggesting that we should return to caves. I'm a big fan of controls that sustain what we have. And no, I don't expect you to either agree with me or present an honest refutation of my argument.

 

[past_perfect]

Sighs...buy you books and buy you books and all you do is lick the covers and eat the pages...

'Nature' is never in balance. It is always changing for a variety of reasons and man is part of nature, if that never occurred to you.

If, by industrializing and propagating the species, man chokes himself with pollution, according to your postulations, that would be a bad thing?

We have learned a few things along the way, such as preventing retards such as yourself from pooping in your own drinking water; it was science that did that, by the way, not a computer model.

We have also learned such things as 'downstream' pollution of power plants causing acid rain, and aside from toilet training you, we learned not to do such things.

We will discover and utilize new methods of creating energy to meet the needs of an ever growing society and we will do it without returning to your, 'pristine past' of Dickensonian Europe, but I can see it is going to take a fight over your anti industrialist mentality and hatred of man.

To be blunt, it is both your Philosophy, or lack of it, and your Science, the Soviet kind, that has led you astray and made you appear the fool in these conversations.

Think on this, for it is truth: you would welcome a plague that killed half of mankind as it would suit your vision of the future.

Or was I too generous, a plague that killed 90% of humankind; would that satisfy you more?

Amicus

Soviet science? Hm, you are aware of who is working at MIT and the IPCC for that matter? How scientists got selected and who selected them? Let me spell it out for you, in case you don't: Your government, as any other government in the world. To be precise: Your previous government. So I suspect, all science that doesn't support your quaint ideas is Soviet?

Retards such as myself...

Amicus, aside from you being an incurable right-wing nut and you talking unsubstantiated rubbish as a general rule, we managed to stay civil so far, didn't we? So all that is left in your bag now is name-calling and toilet references? Well, maybe I just expected too much in the first place.

Back on iggy you go.

 

[Austin8]

your wacko flag says all anyone needs to know about you, your philosophy, or your knowledge.......

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

Dragonlipz, your obvious misunderstanding of the Confederate cause for independence notwithstanding, yes I’ve dealt with your kind before...
There is another element with respect to Confederate flags, which lies at the base of your poor brainwashed Northern thinking. Segregation was also based on the concept of racial supremacy and various white supremacy groups, hate groups and the KKK committed terrorism and intimidation to enforce it.
These groups in their (latter-day form) have misused the flag and caused the Confederate battle flag (St. Andrew's Cross) to be indelibly linked with racism and segregation.

In the minds of some, and I assume yours as well... the symbol is forever stained by the actions of a small minority of racists. Sure, whites of good conscience should have stood up to them to prevent the staining of our symbol and, more importantly, the wrongs the racists committed. A wrong committed in retaliation for another wrong (reconstruction) is still wrong.

http://www.kevinking.com/3rdNational.gif

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm weary from explaining the facts about the Civil War, but folks can do the research themselves.

The American Civil War did not end slavery. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property, NOT citizens, and had no rights. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves could reside in States where slavery was illegal. The War didnt change anyone's status. A slave was a slave at the end, just as he was a slave at the beginning.

So the War wasnt about slavery. Lincoln freed no one, and he certainly freed no slaves in States like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, DC, and Delaware, which did not secede from the Union. And he likely had no military authority to confiscate slaves as war prizes (this was the foundation of the Emancipation Proclamation). Had Southerners wanted to, they could have petitioned SCOTUS to return their slave property after the War. The Lee Family was paid for Arlington. And its no slam dunk that secession was illegal. The Constitution doesnt address perpetual union, and the 10th Amendment openss the door for all kinds of mischief by the States.

Like Jefferson Davis said, "The name of America is United STATES, not United STATE."

But the real cause of the War was the location of the Transcontinental Railroad. The North wanted it run between Chicago and San Francisco. The South wanted it run between New Orleans and Southern California. And both sides went to work influencing the Territories to become free or slave, to add political weight to the final decision. The Northern railroads actually funded the Missouri riff-raff to go to Kansas to cause trouble. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer in the thick of the struggle, and the War came.

 

[Weird Harold]

It is not, "on top of that", as we are an integral part of, 'that', as were the Dinosaurs and the Mammoths.

We are a part of nature, but unlike the aforementioned species, we determine our future by changing our environment.

We do indeed determine our future by changing our environment -- that's exactly what the Climate Change aregument is all about.

The dinosaurs and mammoth didn't slash and burn millions of acres of rainforest that scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere.

The Dinosaurs and mamoth didn't dig up millionsof tone/barrels of carbon that "nature" sequestered millionsof years ago and add that carbon to the active carbon cycle.

As far as we know, the dinosaurs and mammoths didn't generate clouds of smog that were visible from space and covered most of the Indian Ocean -- the visible smog is only a small part of that noxious cloud, the majority of it is CO2.

Are we changing the climate? who cares? We are undeniably fucking with the natural carbon cycle and that can't be a good thing. Part of that carbon cycle's normal functioning is as a major component of the processes that regulate global temperature.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A Case for Global Cooling...

Interesting article, seems not all scientists agree...Article Here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globalcool3.jpg

And geologically 15,000 years is a short span in the a world that is billions of years old. And of course if you just show the last 500 years of the above graph it would look really bad for mankind...but, taken in perspective as a whole, the last 500 years aren't really that bad.

 

[Austin8]

I'm weary from explaining the facts about the Civil War, but folks can do the research themselves.

The American Civil War did not end slavery. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property, NOT citizens, and had no rights. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves could reside in States where slavery was illegal. The War didnt change anyone's status. A slave was a slave at the end, just as he was a slave at the beginning.

So the War wasnt about slavery. Lincoln freed no one, and he certainly freed no slaves in States like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, DC, and Delaware, which did not secede from the Union. And he likely had no military authority to confiscate slaves as war prizes (this was the foundation of the Emancipation Proclamation). Had Southerners wanted to, they could have petitioned SCOTUS to return their slave property after the War. The Lee Family was paid for Arlington. And its no slam dunk that secession was illegal. The Constitution doesnt address perpetual union, and the 10th Amendment openss the door for all kinds of mischief by the States.

Like Jefferson Davis said, "The name of America is United STATES, not United STATE."

But the real cause of the War was the location of the Transcontinental Railroad. The North wanted it run between Chicago and San Francisco. The South wanted it run between New Orleans and Southern California. And both sides went to work influencing the Territories to become free or slave, to add political weight to the final decision. The Northern railroads actually funded the Missouri riff-raff to go to Kansas to cause trouble. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer in the thick of the struggle, and the War came.

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

I too grow weary, James, but I'll continue to explain the facts out of loyality to the South... I must say how refreshing to find someone such as yourself who truly understands the (War Between the States).

The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks.

Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.

Lincoln himself stated the opinion of the Northern people at during a meeting with a group of Black leaders during the War, saying, "There is an unwillingness on the part of our people [Northern Whites] to live with you free colored people.

Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but it is a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate." Acting upon this sentiment, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws, and started shipping free Northern Blacks out of the country down to poverty-stricken Haiti.

Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free Blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America.

At the end of the War, a few weeks before Lincoln was assassinated, Union General Benjamin Butler asked him what he was going to do with all the recently free Southern Blacks.

To this Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all."

 

[freshface]

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

I too grow weary, James, but I'll continue to explain the facts out of loyality to the South... I must say how refreshing to find someone such as yourself who truly understands the (War Between the States).

The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks.

Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them.

Lincoln himself stated the opinion of the Northern people at during a meeting with a group of Black leaders during the War, saying, "There is an unwillingness on the part of our people [Northern Whites] to live with you free colored people.

Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but it is a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate." Acting upon this sentiment, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws, and started shipping free Northern Blacks out of the country down to poverty-stricken Haiti.

Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free Blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America.

At the end of the War, a few weeks before Lincoln was assassinated, Union General Benjamin Butler asked him what he was going to do with all the recently free Southern Blacks.

To this Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all."

Rewrite history often? Here's Lincoln on freeing the slaves in a letter he wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862:

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 would also point out that northerners were already living with blacks, both the ones who were freed there as the north abolished slavery and the ones who escaped there from the south. Can you name a northern state that was "free from blacks?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yep. Lincoln was a racist and his Debates with Stephen Douglas are full of insults aimed at blacks. Lincoln manipulated the abolitionists into supporting his run for President, along with offering homesteads to Micks & Germans, and high tariffs on cotton to discourage sales to France and Britain. New England wanted cheap cotton for its textile mills, and it wanted to sell the South inferior New England manufactured goods. Lincoln got them all.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FRESHFACE

Lets assume for the moment that youre not a mind drooling assclown.

Lincoln couldnt free anyone because the Supreme Court had him painted into a corner with regards to slavery and black citizenship. Blacks werent citizens and they had no standing in American courts. Thus, whatever action Lincoln took with regard to emancipation was illegal.

Now suppose youre a member of that court (we're still assumming that youre not a complete fool) and Lincoln waltzes in, hugging Sambo and Topsy, and lets you know that he dont give a fat rats ass what you decided, Sambo & Topsy are going to his house. Are you gonna shrug your shoulders, bend over, and grab your ankles?

 

[Austin8]

Rewrite history often? Here's Lincoln on freeing the slaves in a letter he wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862:



I would also point out that northerners were already living with blacks, both the ones who were freed there as the north abolished slavery and the ones who escaped there from the south. Can you name a northern state that was "free from blacks?"

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln.

He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.

Lincoln and the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave states, if only the Southern states would return to the Union.

The South refused the offer.

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

Spoken like a true yankee freshface..