Lincoln was a great leader exclusive of the war, darn him

[bripat9643]

600,000 dead to save his presidency. Absent his assassination, he would be considered a villain.

Tens of millions died for Stalin and Mao's power grab, and the left still considered them heros.

What leftist hasn't been seen wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, and he was a mass murderer.

Lefturds love mass murdering dictators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat cannot show where the Constitution permits secession.

He admits fail.

 

[Contumacious]

Slavery was the law of the land and therefore no justification for making war on anyone. According to the definition in the Constitution Lincoln was the traitor because he is the one who made war on the states of the union.

Article III Section 3​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

No one was fighting for slavery, bub, in April 1861, but Lincoln was fighting to keep the Union. The South had no legal right secede. Show us in the Constitution where it gives states the right to leave.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to post a shred of evidence that supports the claim.

Show in the Constitution where it denies states the right to leave.

Your position that everything that isn't expressly permitted is forbidden is a truly novel theory of law.

Comrade Starkiev's native language is Russian. So type s-l-o-w-l-y and loudly.

Also he confuses the USSR and US Constitution.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

and the center and much of the sensible right. With good reason. He was a great president, he eliminated slavey (regretfully, the south forced him to) built the cow colleges, passed the homestead act and the national banking act. He was universally admired because he was so spectacularly admirable.

the democratic politicians who opposed him were, by and large, colossally dim, those who would go to war again a state twice the size with sinues uf war like a heavyweight boxer against the 96lb weakling deserved the thumping they missed out on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Almost all of the center and a solid majority of the right think AL is the greatest.

Fuck the far right or the loonies of the far left. Don't even consider anarchists or libertarians, because they are even loonier.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat cannot show where the Constitution permits secession.

He admits fail.

I don't have to show that, dumbass. You have to show that the Constitution denies it. You said Lincoln was enforcing the law by invading Virginia. What law?

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery was the law of the land and therefore no justification for making war on anyone. According to the definition in the Constitution Lincoln was the traitor because he is the one who made war on the states of the union.

Article III Section 3​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.​

No one was fighting for slavery, bub, in April 1861, but Lincoln was fighting to keep the Union. The South had no legal right secede. Show us in the Constitution where it gives states the right to leave.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to post a shred of evidence that supports the claim.

Show in the Constitution where it denies states the right to leave.

Your position that everything that isn't expressly permitted is forbidden is a truly novel theory of law.

Comrade Starkiev's native language is Russian. So type s-l-o-w-l-y and loudly.

Also he confuses the USSR and US Constitution.

He certainly has a Stalinist interpretation of the American Constitution, and he keeps jabbering about imaginary laws.

 

[bripat9643]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

and the center and much of the sensible right. With good reason. He was a great president, he eliminated slavey (regretfully, the south forced him to) built the cow colleges, passed the homestead act and the national banking act. He was universally admired because he was so spectacularly admirable.

the democratic politicians who opposed him were, by and large, colossally dim, those who would go to war again a state twice the size with sinues uf war like a heavyweight boxer against the 96lb weakling deserved the thumping they missed out on.

Aside from the Homestead Act, everything else he did were colossal disasters for America.

 

[bripat9643]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

and the center and much of the sensible right. With good reason. He was a great president, he eliminated slavey (regretfully, the south forced him to) built the cow colleges, passed the homestead act and the national banking act. He was universally admired because he was so spectacularly admirable.

the democratic politicians who opposed him were, by and large, colossally dim, those who would go to war again a state twice the size with sinues uf war like a heavyweight boxer against the 96lb weakling deserved the thumping they missed out on.

The South didn't go to war with the Union, dolt. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

 

[Contumacious]

Almost all of the center and a solid majority of the right think AL is the greatest.

Fuck the far right or the loonies of the far left. Don't even consider anarchists or libertarians, because they are even loonier.

Comrade , do you get sexually aroused when you think about 650,000 fellow American corpses laying on the countryside?

.

 

[occupied]

I was responding to the overly long post by gipper on the last page where the poor little south was just minding it's own business when the the North decided to beat them up for no good reason. For some reason his post would not quote right so I edited it out.

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.

Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The weirds here put the casualties totally on lincolns head. I would argue they are totally Davis'. Davis insisted on the firing at Sumter, contrary to the advice of some of his generals, who argued this would stir up a hornets nest. Prior to Sumter, there were people arguing for peace. Large numbers of northeners were saying, in Greely's formulation, "erring daughters, depart in peace." It was Davis who insisted on bloodshed. It falls on Davis the whole of the war.

 

[bripat9643]

Almost all of the center and a solid majority of the right think AL is the greatest.

Fuck the far right or the loonies of the far left. Don't even consider anarchists or libertarians, because they are even loonier.

Comrade , do you get sexually aroused when you think about 650,000 fellow American corpses laying on the countryside?

.

The figure for the total number of people killed during the Civil War was recently revised upward to 850,000.

 

[bripat9643]

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.

Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.

That's how easily led morons decide who started the conflict. According to that theory Poland started WW II.

 

[bripat9643]

The weirds here put the casualties totally on lincolns head. I would argue they are totally Davis'. Davis insisted on the firing at Sumter, contrary to the advice of some of his generals, who argued this would stir up a hornets nest. Prior to Sumter, there were people arguing for peace. Large numbers of northeners were saying, in Greely's formulation, "erring daughters, depart in peace." It was Davis who insisted on bloodshed. It falls on Davis the whole of the war.

That's precisely why Lincoln engineered South Carolina into firing on the Fort. It was sucker bait so Lincoln could blame the war on the South and inflame the public.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

But Lincoln wasn't angling for war. Davis was the bloodthirsty fire eater. All lincoln was doing was shipping food to the forts.

 

[bripat9643]

But Lincoln wasn't angling for war. Davis was the bloodthirsty fire eater. All lincoln was doing was shipping food to the forts.

Yes, Lincoln was angling for war. He was doing everything possible to start a war. Even many of those who worship him admit that.

Resupplying a fort within the borders of a sovereign country is an act of war. I know all you Lincoln cult members would like to pretend it isn't, but educated people know the truth. Your entire position rests on ideas that are just plain false.

 

[gipper]

Too bad you did not read my post.

It clearly informs the reader that secession was always an option available to the States. It also informs that the South tried to peacefully secede, but Lincoln more or less told them to fuck themselves.

An Jake claiming since the Constitution does not provide for secession, means secession is unlawful, is proof he does not understand the Constitution. Does it not?

I didn't read it because I have heard it all before. Secession might have been allowed had the South not acted so hostile and provocative. From Nov. 1860 up to Ft Sumter in April 1861 the South went on a rampage of seizing federal property and private property belonging to Northerners. They seized forts and imprisoned union troops as well as engaging in a campaign of espionage against the north. They made it clear from day one that they intended to be expansionist and had no interest in being good neighbors. They wanted the West and they ultimately wanted South America as possessions and a place to sell excess slaves and were willing to fight the North to have their way. No union troops were called up until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the federal government pretty much did nothing until then.

The South could have possibly kept their independence but they had to be boastful, violent hillbillies bent on taking what they coveted by force. In short, they became a rogue state and therefore could not be allowed to exist.

The one who was violent and bent on using force was your beloved god like figure, Dishonest Abe...a confirmed white supremest.

You are the one taking the side of traitors who started a bloody civil war rather than give up their slaves like decent human beings.

Wrong. They weren't traitors and Lincoln started the war.

Who fired the first shots? That is traditionally how we decide who started a conflict.

Since SC fired on Ft Sumter, in which no one was killed, Dishonest Abe was fully justified in launching total war on all the seceding states, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, terrible suffering, total destruction of half the nation...leading to the imperial government we have today...not logical, but statists love it.

 

[gipper]

It is amazing to me that, even 150 years later, any criticism of Abraham Lincoln is met with hyper-emotional hysteria. Apparently, he is among the pantheon of the secular Left.

and the center and much of the sensible right. With good reason. He was a great president, he eliminated slavey (regretfully, the south forced him to) built the cow colleges, passed the homestead act and the national banking act. He was universally admired because he was so spectacularly admirable.

the democratic politicians who opposed him were, by and large, colossally dim, those who would go to war again a state twice the size with sinues uf war like a heavyweight boxer against the 96lb weakling deserved the thumping they missed out on.

Abe was hated and despised by most in the North and South, when he lived. After death, the Rs and the Northern establishment did all they could to lionize him. It worked on many...and even after the truth of his heinous actions have been clearly exposed, dupes continue being dupes.

Only in America can a murderous tyrant traitor, be considered great...well I suppose there are other examples. Some in Russia and China still think Stalin and Mao were great too.

 

[gipper]

But Lincoln wasn't angling for war. Davis was the bloodthirsty fire eater. All lincoln was doing was shipping food to the forts.

Lincoln a saint. Davis a devil.

How can one be so blind and so simplistic?

The statist indoctrination dies hard.