Lmaoooo

Exactly - Lincoln never conceded slavery was acceptable, but compromised on timing and implementation. He could have demanded immediate abolition in 1861 but issued the Emancipation Proclamation strategically in 1863 for rebellious states only to keep border states loyal.

As the thread points out, Lincoln never compromised on his core principle that slavery was morally wrong, but he made endless tactical compromises to actually end it. He delayed emancipation timing, and cut deals with border states. Moral clarity + political pragmatism = results.

He did this before in 2020

What’s so interesting is that my family did genealogical research years ago and found that while most of the slave rebellions were unsuccessful, there were three that succeeded, and one of them is how my ancestor made it back to Nigeria.

I’m sick of the false equivalency. I’m sick of the political violenceone side wages while the other writes op-eds begging for calm. I’m sick of pretending murder and protest are the same. And I’m sick of a media too timid to name what’s in front of our eyes.

In the coming days Republicans will say: “What about BLM?” But destroying property during a protest is not like murdering politicians and spouses in cold blood. One is destruction of property, the other is taking a life. If you can’t see the difference, you’re choosing not to.

The goal now is not only to normalize political violence, to make it just another partisan issue. But this isn’t about left vs right. It’s about whether we let extremists with guns decide who lives or dies based on their political views. That should terrify every American.

And you’re going to see Republicans try to equate this with the BLM protests, as if serious property damage from five years ago is somehow the same as political assassinations, the cold-blooded murder of two public servants and their spouses. Don’t let them blur the lines.