Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Dishonest Abe Lincoln Was A Racist

Yes, the deified Lincoln, worshiped by "liberals", was a racist.

5 comments:

  1. You know who was also racist? The entire South.

    I have news for you: black people don't care if they were freed by a racist or a saint, nor do they care why anyone was fighting. In fact, all one needs to know about the Civil Way is that a bunch of slave owners got a bunch of idiot white people (not unlike yourself) to fight and die for their right to exploit people economically as property.

    And I don't know why you single out "liberals," unless all the conservatives who gush about being in the "party of Lincoln" don't count. It's pretty much just contrarian whiners who have a hard-on for the Slave States who hate Lincoln.

    But you just keep telling yourself Lincoln was a tyrant. That will draw attention away from the Slave States who fought tooth and nail for the "right" to keep people in chains. I'm sure that will work out for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, "conservatives" worship the Tyrant, too Bret. And, no, the South fought for independence, nothing more. If the war didn't start to end slavery, that couldn't be the ultimate reason the South really seceded.

    Besides, they were far more racist in the North. And on slavery, even prominent Southerners, such as Robert E. Lee and President Jefferson Davis, knew slavery's end was inevitable (and said so) even if the South won the war. They were not fighting to "preserve slavery". That's just another Lincoln Cult lie that you've bought hook, line and sinker.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's pretty much just contrarian whiners who have a hard-on for the Slave States who hate Lincoln.

    That's what hypocrites and liars like you always say about those who oppose tyranny. It's probably how many "liberal" and conservatives" talk about opponents of U.S. wars, whether Iraq and Afghanistan or the drug war.

    And please explain why Lincoln's actions in office, from suspending habeas corpus to shutting down opposition newspapers (and in some cases arresting their editors), weren't tyrannical and justly to be "hated".

    ReplyDelete
  4. the South fought for independence

    You misspelled "slavery" there.

    They were not fighting to "preserve slavery"

    Of course not, they seceded to preserve slavery. They fought because they're assholes.

    And please explain why Lincoln's actions in office, from suspending habeas corpus to shutting down opposition newspapers (and in some cases arresting their editors), weren't tyrannical and justly to be "hated".

    My friend, FDR ordered Japanese people into concentration camps, and Churchill was no saint. This doesn't mean the Axis powers are therefore the good guys because the history we were told about the Allies was glossed over.

    I don't have to like Lincoln one iota in order to see the Slave States for what they were: a bunch of rich fucks who duped a bunch of inbred hicks to fight and die for the right to preserve slavery (a threat that was nothing but a paranoid delusion of the wealthy Southerners, as you so eloquently pointed out on many occasions that Lincoln was, in fact, not elected to end slavery nor planning to do so).

    Read the history, and not from a history book, but from the actual words of those who voted to secede. They were calling themselves the Slave States for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You misspelled "slavery" there

    Ah, you're a pedant to boot! But where did I misspell it? Sorry, but that's the "correct" spelling.

    Listen, Bret, I'm done with you on this, because you can't understand basic issues.

    Lincoln was a tyrant, and his acts violated not only the U.S. Constitution as it existed at that time, but all moral laws and decency as well, and his war cost 600,000 American lives and caused untold amounts of suffering among those left alive.

    I don't have to like Lincoln one iota in order to see the Slave States for what they were

    Let's take this moronic sentence of yours and update it.

    I don't have to like George W. Bush one iota to see Saddam Hussein and his sons for what they were, evil dictators who tortured their opponents and ruled by terror, even killing thousands of their own citizens.

    Makes about as much sense as your statement.

    The question, in both the case of the Iraq war and Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression, is one of morality. It is immortal to engage in any war that violates the non-aggression principle. It doesn't matter that Saddam was evil and George W. Bush's war got rid of him. To oppose that war is not to have supported Hussein or his regime. To believe that Lincoln's war was morally wrong doesn't mean one believes slavery was morally right.

    In addition, the motives of the North DO matter, whether you believe that or not. Having no comprehensible or coherent worldview, I wouldn't expect you to grasp that, but you could make more of an effort.

    What Lincoln did was evil, and has had lasting effects far beyond the immediate years that followed the "Civil War" (a misnomer if ever there was one). It created a Federal monster that has grown inexorably since his time, destroying both the restraints of the original constitution on the Federal government and the corresponding rights of the States and the people, including those in the Bill of Rights, such as the 4th amendment, torn to shreds by Federal government that is Lincoln's legacy, a government that would have been unimaginable to the Founders, or to the leaders of the Confederacy, who, if their side had won, would have left on the North American continent, at the very least, something resembling a free nation.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails