Abraham Lincoln

The worst president in American history. He split the country in half, and the people hated him so much they executed him.

As a publicity stunt to get reelected, he reinstated the fact that ALL men are created equal, expecially if theirs soldiers in the US army. All Black men in arms now had civil rights. This way, slaves from the South would escape and fight for the North.

If you need more info on this subject, feel free to ask.

Huzzah! for freeing the slave, but come on, I would expect this happening under much better circumstances.

people changes when they believe in goodness and are gullible(right word?)
it made democracy much more like a fairytale today and therefore easyer to swallow, that is a good thing but it may also be a bad.

Yea he sucks.
The American Civil War were about state rights, not slaves.
Lincoln probably needed a good reason to go war with the South.

Lincoln, Clinton, Obama, Bush... what's the difference? It's nothing but a bunch of guys that served or serve as teh heads of an organism that delimits what people can and cannot do and defend the right of a group to exploit another.

Add "wage" to slavery and poof you make it dissapear.

As a slave, being able to choose who your master will be doesn't make you free.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Lincoln, Clinton, Obama, Bush... what's the difference? It's nothing but a bunch of guys that served or serve as teh heads of an organism that delimits what people can and cannot do and defend the right of a group to exploit another.

Add "wage" to slavery and poof you make it dissapear.

As a slave, being able to choose who your master will be doesn't make you free.

Lets see, the most significant difference would be that Lincoln and Bush are Republican Party members, where as Clinton and Obama are Democrats.

Also yea, the end of Slavery gave birth too severe wage slavery in the US. Before this, the jobs payed more in the North, with the influx of Black workers (that Northern people despised) were payed much less, and too be fair, White Workers eventually had too be payed much less. Then Latin American started immigrating North, greatly increasing production, but decreasing the wages of the workers, add the asians migrating to the west to this equation and Fat Cat Bourgeous start trippling their work force, meaning each person gets paid significantly less, and the business makes significantly more.

Here come your Reps vs Dems differences in summary:

Reps: We believe in the bourgeoisie's right to own and control as much as they want, that the state should intervent as few as possible, mainly when it's just about forcing workers to accept contracts and such. We also believe that the state should preferably be conformed by part of the bourgeoisie if possible so they understand deeply the needs of the bourgeoisie and can protect them effectively. We believe people are not even free to choose with whom they sleep so we should shun homosexuals and protect the marriage institution. Some peolpe, just for their physical traits, are unworthy to exploit others so we should make it harder for them to join the bourgeoisie and state. We like to bomb other countries to be able to export freedom and make the world hate US for that. We like elephants.

Dems: We believe in the right of the bourgeoisie to exploit workers as much as they want so long as the state has a say on it, y'know the state's good at keeping workers at bay. The state should intervent more to keep workers more content and give a good impression, like the country is free, happy and all, by providing with welfare and support to the workers which will come from taxes that should mainly but not only target the bourgeoisie. People more often than not do not notice that taxation, regardless on whom it is applied, still indirectly affects everyone hehe, so it's k. We believe homosexuals, azns and black men have the same right as white men to exploit wetbacks, other homosexuals, black men and such. We believe skin colour and gender are important differences though as they served pretty well as political wildcards. Who you sleep with and how you sleep with is not important (unless your lastname is Clinton) so long as you don't interfere with the natural cycle of exploitation. We like to export freedom to countries bombed by reps and make people love us. Or bomb them too if reps failed to do so, we still get the luv. We like to sometimes act like reps, just without messing with bedroom or skin and procedence matters (while exploiting them for convenience, though) and still look better than them, cuz we're the progressive and they're not. We like donkeys.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Here come your Reps vs Dems differences in summary:

Reps: We believe in the bourgeoisie's right to own and control as much as they want, that the state should intervent as few as possible, mainly when it's just about forcing workers to accept contracts and such. We also believe that the state should preferably be conformed by part of the bourgeoisie if possible so they understand deeply the needs of the bourgeoisie and can protect them effectively. We believe people are not even free to choose with whom they sleep so we should shun homosexuals and protect the marriage institution. Some peolpe, just for their physical traits, are unworthy to exploit others so we should make it harder for them to join the bourgeoisie and state. We like to bomb other countries to be able to export freedom and make the world hate US for that. We like elephants.

Dems: We believe in the right of the bourgeoisie to exploit workers as much as they want so long as the state has a say on it, y'know the state's good at keeping workers at bay. The state should intervent more to keep workers more content and give a good impression, like the country is free, happy and all, by providing with welfare and support to the workers which will come from taxes that should mainly but not only target the bourgeoisie. People more often than not do not notice that taxation, regardless on whom it is applied, still indirectly affects everyone hehe, so it's k. We believe homosexuals, azns and black men have the same right as white men to exploit wetbacks, other homosexuals, black men and such. We believe skin colour and gender are important differences though as they served pretty well as political wildcards. Who you sleep with and how you sleep with is not important (unless your lastname is Clinton) so long as you don't interfere with the natural cycle of exploitation. We like to export freedom to countries bombed by reps and make people love us. Or bomb them too if reps failed to do so, we still get the luv. We like to sometimes act like reps, just without messing with bedroom or skin and procedence matters (while exploiting them for convenience, though) and still look better than them, cuz we're the progressive and they're not. We like donkeys.

yay, damn the we like donkeys ruined it all. make it objective and then it would be perfect.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We like elephants.

TheZ wrote:

We like donkeys.

Lmao!

Briljant!

They got the donkey from one a Democratic candidate got called an ass by a Republican candidate, and made it in to a positive thing.

Back on topic now.

Tyrlop wrote:

yay, damn the we like donkeys ruined it all. make it objective and then it would be perfect.

And either you didn't read at all, don't know what objective means or didn't understand.

Elephant = Symbol of Republicans. Donkey = Symbol of Democrats.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

yay, damn the we like donkeys ruined it all. make it objective and then it would be perfect.

And either you didn't read at all, don't know what objective means or didn't understand.

Elephant = Symbol of Republicans. Donkey = Symbol of Democrats.

i did i did, and i know but its too subjective i cant use this for anything, its so subjective that its not fun. it needs to be serious in a twisted way. and im not sure if its a donkey but i think its wierd animal from africa,

Thanks for brightening up my morning with that delightful representation of the one US political party's two sects.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We like to bomb other countries to be able to export freedom and make the world hate US for that. We like elephants.

Quote :

We believe homosexuals, azns and black men have the same right as white men to exploit wetbacks, other homosexuals, black men and such.

Naturally, as that's freedom

Quote :

They got the donkey from one a Democratic candidate got called an ass by a Republican candidate, and made it in to a positive thing.

Like Led Zeppelin, without the badass music that followed.

Tyrlop wrote:

i did i did, and i know but its too subjective i cant use this for anything, its so subjective that its not fun. it needs to be serious in a twisted way. and im not sure if its a donkey but i think its wierd animal from africa,

*yawns* Whatever, Tyrlop. You're not even really interested in debating this. And, if you knew what "subjectivity" and "objectivity" stand for, you'd know that the "we like donkeys" thing has nothing to do with either.

Underlined: obvious trolling

Black_Cross wrote:

Thanks for brightening up my morning with that delightful representation of the one US political party's two sects.

My pleasure:) It should be that clear for everyone else.

BC wrote:

Quote :

We believe homosexuals, azns and black men have the same right as white men to exploit wetbacks, other homosexuals, black men and such.

Naturally, as that's freedom

And don't forget equalty! So long as the black man can also rip off his black brother, slavery has vanished!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

i did i did, and i know but its too subjective i cant use this for anything, its so subjective that its not fun. it needs to be serious in a twisted way. and im not sure if its a donkey but i think its wierd animal from africa,

*yawns* Whatever, Tyrlop. You're not even really interested in debating this. And, if you knew what "subjectivity" and "objectivity" stand for, you'd know that the "we like donkeys" thing has nothing to do with either.

Underlined: obvious trolling
!

no dude! i mean it, the donkey thing doesn't matter and im not a troll! no obvious trolling.. i was simply tired. and i know what subjectivity and objectivity stands for mister smart-ass. you might(are) be smart but don't be an ass please..
what you just wrote was useful beautiful and so on. but i say this in a constructive matter, this is constructive critic: make it more objective. make it so the reader have to think himself and don't just get feeded like a baby. maybe make questions that the reader should answer himself, that would make the reader much more active just like our dear Bertolt Brecht would have done it. damn im losing respect for you.

Tyrlop wrote:

no dude! i mean it, the donkey thing doesn't matter and im not a troll! no obvious trolling.. i was simply tired.

Do you know what the following parragraph implies:

Tyrlop wrote:

yay, damn the we like donkeys ruined it all. make it objective and then it would be perfect.

It implies that the whole post was rendered unobjective (was ruined) due to the "we like donkeys part".

Sure it doesn't seem like you were giving any relevance to the donkey part, or that you were trolling

Tyrlop wrote:

and i know what subjectivity and objectivity stands for mister smart-ass.

You say that, but you don't demonstrate it, in fact, you demonstrate the opposite pretty much as per teh above parragraphs.

Tyrlop wrote:

you might(are) be smart but don't be an ass please..

Then don't taunt me.

Tyrlop wrote:

what you just wrote was useful beautiful and so on. but i say this in a constructive matter, this is constructive critic: make it more objective.

Before telling me that I should make it more objective, what about you tell me why it is not objective in a real way instead of saying that "we like donkeys" makes it unobjective

Tyrlop wrote:

make it so the reader have to think himself and don't just get feeded like a baby.

It in no way limits the capability of people to think for themselves, they can agree or disagree for themselves and engage in a critic if necesary by nulifying the points presented by me.

Also, I disagree with your analogy. Get fed like a baby? Like people can't judge for themselves? While reading, people interested enough in the topic will formulate questions themselves and even answer them. No need for me to put questions there.

Tyrlop wrote:

maybe make questions that the reader should answer himself, that would make the reader much more active just like our dear Bertolt Brecht would have done it.

Ever considered everyone has his/her own style and each writting may vary even within the personal style of the writer in accordance to the goals pursued by the writer while composing each writting?

Tyrlop wrote:

damn im losing respect for you.

It's not like I'm going to slit my wrists for that you know?

Liche wrote:

He split the country in half, and the people hated him so much they executed him.

I just reread this and it's actually pretty funny to me...


The south tried to secede from the United States to form the Confederacy. Had the Confederacy won, they would have stayed split in half. Booth assassinated him after the Confederacy lost, and the biggest manhunt in United States history began. People who were actors or who resembled Booth were in great danger (a man who was briefly confused with Booth was killed even after it was realized he was not Booth). Booth was shocked when he read a southern newspaper (he was keeping a journal or something, which is why we know this) and he was shocked to see that not only was he not recieving praise, it was the opposite. One way or another (and this I still don't understand) Lincoln had become a hero to much of the south.

This is just from what I remember on the history channel, so I can't really provide a source. I don't know how accurate any one here considers that as far as sources of information go...


Also, this guy was crazy.

MightyObserver wrote:

This is just from what I remember on the history channel, so I can't really provide a source. I don't know how accurate any one here considers that as far as sources of information go...

Okay, I can't proove you wrong on the stuff you wrote, but just keep in mind, that all the USA is pro-Lincoln and pro-North, as in, the North won the war, South is bad etc.
So don't you think HC can(not is) a little bit biased?

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay, I can't proove you wrong on the stuff you wrote, but just keep in mind, that all the USA is pro-Lincoln and pro-North, as in, the North won the war, South is bad etc.
So don't you think HC can(not is) a little bit biased?

I can tell by this that you haven't been in USA's south Wait, south? Even up to Virginia you can still feel the Southern spirit's alive and the Virginian members in his forum won't let me lie.

Oh in that case, 2012 means new civil war cuz THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay, I can't proove you wrong on the stuff you wrote, but just keep in mind, that all the USA is pro-Lincoln and pro-North, as in, the North won the war, South is bad etc.
So don't you think HC can(not is) a little bit biased?

I can tell by this that you haven't been in USA's south Wait, south? Even up to Virginia you can still feel the Southern spirit's alive and the Virginian members in his forum won't let me lie.

Yay! VIVA LA SOUTH!

This forum seems to be filled with people with rather un-mainstream perceptions about history.

I'm not sure if I like that or not.

It is true that the American Civil War was basically about states' rights [and power], and I do believe that states DO have a Constitutional right of secession.

However, I also believe Lincoln tried to avoid war, and he certainly wished to preserve the Union.

Hm... I say this without much knowledge of it but I do think Lincoln used the slavery thing as a excuse to have a good.. excuse.
And yeah it was just about state rights, but nowadays, and still speaking without knowing it for sure, it kinda looks like in American cartoons and shit, there is always the Union winning and shit and stuff. But yeah.. :/

carmen510 wrote:

This forum seems to be filled with people with rather un-mainstream perceptions about history.

Because mainstream perceptions of history don't present the full picture and sometimes even conceal some if not all of the main traits of history. There are many reasons why the current world is fucked up and this "mainstream perception" not only of history but of economy, politics and culture is one of them. Gramsci would probably label it as product of cultural hegemony.

carmen510 wrote:

I'm not sure if I like that or not.

Normal reaction considering that it conflicts with the views you've been traditionally taught.

@Zealot: Might be true, but I've been brought up with rather untraditional views of history and am still rather uncomfortable with this forum.

I've never quite understood how people can never make the easily-made connection between states' rights and slavery. It seems to be a pretty plain causal relationship; the Northern states of the union tended toward freeing the slaves, and the Southern states didn't because their economy was, for the most part, dependent on agriculture, which was a task primarily undertaken by slave labor. When Lincoln, during his campaign, made it clear that he would not expand slavery outside of the states wherein it was legal, the Southern states seceded - the first seven states of the Confederacy left the union just before Lincoln took office. It seems pretty plain and clear that the connection between the Southern states exercising their constitutional rights and slavery must be made in order to legitimately describe why the Civil War, and even the act of secession itself, occurred.

For a political radical, I'm actually not a big fan of alternative history. That having been said, I'm still not a big fan of Lincoln, whose sympathies towards blacks were not as sincere as most perceptions of him would reflect - the first few lines of this particular statement should suffice as enough evidence for now. Freeing the slaves was, primarily, a politically-motivated move, however noble of a thing as it was; but it shouldn't be regarded as a man, despite public pressure, staying true to his convictions and wanting to free an entire race of people from slavery. He did so because it was, frankly, a popular position to hold, but his public statements tend to reflect a general dislike for blacks, and that is pretty clear. And I don't think we should forget that he suspended habeas corpus.

But he certainly wasn't the worst president. And he certainly wasn't even one of the worst presidents. He was fine, really.

The worst president was Truman.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I agree with carmen510 with regards to Lincoln's intent to keep the union intact. It's pretty clear that he wanted peace; the North didn't have terribly too much to gain from a war.

EDIT 2: Also, in response to ZK: Gramsci kicks fucking ass. That is all.