2454
Comments (362)
sorted by:
175
Bullet3250 175 points ago +180 / -5

BY A DEMOCRAT.

130
South_Florida_Guy 130 points ago +132 / -2

A Democrat and an actor!

79
24601 79 points ago +82 / -3

Booth was a paid mercenary...

If there's one thing that should be learned from the 2020 craziness, stolen election, outright fraud, lies, and blatant murder in the streets... it should be that there is a strong likelihood almost ALL so-called conspiracy theories of the past are probably TRUE.

28
deleted 28 points ago +30 / -2
16
unaor 16 points ago +16 / -0

He went hard on the "true" enemy, the one that controls everything. Of course he was silenced for it.

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
3
RabidZoo 3 points ago +3 / -0

I saw something about that a few months ago. I was watching 'Patton' and doing some digging...saw something about that. Your source online by chance?

-9
eraser3000 -9 points ago +21 / -30

Booth was probably the good guy, Lincoln and Karl were friends. Better dead than red.

16
24601 16 points ago +20 / -4

Lincoln and Karl

In most cases, the good guy gets murdered by the Totalitarians. So, I'd bet that Lincoln was the good guy... whatever he might have thought about the writings of Karl.

23
War_Hamster 23 points ago +27 / -4

Lincoln is an interesting one to interpret. He certainly employed some totalitarian tactics.

-2
Katedenson -2 points ago +3 / -5

Tbf he kind of had to in order to keep the union together because it was that much of a crisis. Kind of like how in moments of peril when time was of the essence the romans would select one man as dictator.

That way they didn't have to waste time with the Senate

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

If it was a binary choice, it is one of the stronger defenses for Lincoln.

I think it's fair to ask if getting to that point could have been avoided had not his backers' economic interests not been such a high priority. And by "economic interests" I mean the NY banking cartel.

-4
pray4peace4 -4 points ago +5 / -9

Ahhh... the Antifa shills are here today spreading their disinformation.

7
unaor 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yeah, suspending all rights and arresting people who call you out on it is as American as ice cream on apple pie! /s

0
eraser3000 0 points ago +1 / -1

Idiot

17
basedvirginian 17 points ago +26 / -9

Habeus corpus being suspended during the civil war and jailing political rivals indefinitely makes you the “good guy” now?

3
Bullet3250 3 points ago +11 / -8

Civil War with the Nation at risk - you bet.

10
almond_activator 10 points ago +13 / -3

Lincoln had to choose between the soul of the Nation and the body of the State, and he chose the latter. He preserved the territory at the cost of the founding notion that we were self-governed and members of the Union by our consent.

He chose poorly, in my opinion.

1
VirPopulus 1 point ago +3 / -2

Habeas corpus ...

0
RagnarDanneskjold420 0 points ago +7 / -7

Yeah, when your political rivals are trying to destroy the country in order to establish an explicitly anti-American system of government.

Trump could have done certain things during the 2020 election that would have been considered “authoritarian” but it would have been completely justified. The Democrats stole an election and now we have Joe Xiden.

Yes, sometimes it’s ok to break the rules a bit to save the nation from the Democrats.

6
minotaurbeach 6 points ago +7 / -1

Trump really should have called Marshall law

2
iDinduNuffin 2 points ago +4 / -2

They were seceding, they didn't destroy shit in the union.

-13
deleted -13 points ago +2 / -15
17
basedvirginian 17 points ago +22 / -5

Lmao how does pointing out things that Lincoln actually did make me a lost cause fag? Is it simply because I’m from Virginia and am pointing these facts out?

Learn real history, my guy. Lincoln wasn’t a saint like Common Core history wants you to believe. Everyone is flawed—even historical heroes

14
MageGills 14 points ago +22 / -8

It's Lincolns fault our country is the way it is today. Lincoln was a tyrant who wanted outrageous taxes and full government control, just like the democrats of today.

21
basedvirginian 21 points ago +23 / -2

People seem to forget that the civil war enabled the bloated federal government we have today...

Not saying slavery was right with this, btw. Fuck slavery. But fuck propaganda to make our population not realize the true result of the civil war

18
MageGills 18 points ago +21 / -3

Slavery was on the way out the door anyways.

12
TrumpTrain425 12 points ago +17 / -5

Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slavery beyond padding his army with former slaves.

6
DJT_JR6544 6 points ago +7 / -1

Indeed there was propaganda, and the federal system was a danger from the beginning. I also have thought that the Constitution was not written with full onowledge of the size of the land it would govern in the modern day. This larger place also naturally gave the federal government even more power to wield and ultimately abuse.

-4
pray4peace4 -4 points ago +2 / -6

Ahhh... the Antifa shills are here today spreading their disinformation.

3
almond_activator 3 points ago +4 / -1

In most cases, the good guy gets murdered by the Totalitarians.

Does this mean that all the ardent Communists killed by Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were "the good guy"?

1
waxonwaxoff87 1 point ago +2 / -1

The best compliment I could have for those 3 were that atleast they killed everyone equally.

0
tombombadil 0 points ago +1 / -1

They definitely did not kill everyone equally...

0
24601 0 points ago +2 / -2

...ardent Communists killed...

I reject and ALL broad brush painting of people. Such is exactly how Totalitarians rise to power.

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +6 / -3

I'd bet that Lincoln was the good guy

LOLOL! you could call him Abraham Biden09

5
3-10 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m no fan of Lincoln, but that is a lie.

The claim that Lincoln regularly read Marx, or picked up economic doctrines from Marxist writings, is entirely anachronistic. Marx did not publish the first volume of his treatise Capital until 1867, some two years after Lincoln was assassinated. His earlier writings on the relationship between capital and labor primarily appeared in obscure European outlets with little circulation in North America, and even the Communist Manifesto of 1848 went almost completely unnoticed in the English-speaking world until sometime after 1870. https://www.aier.org/article/was-lincoln-really-into-marx/

4
WinMoreReeLess 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lincoln's death doomed the South to the harsh reconstruction his opposition wanted. This resulted in fertile ground for elements like the KKK to grow and prosper compounding the race issues of the 20th century. He wasn't perfect, but he was far more forgiving than many of his contemporaries.

3
DJT_JR6544 3 points ago +5 / -2

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/31/wapo-article-preposterously-claims-abraham-lincoln-karl-marx/

This article disagrees with that sentiment. Why are we believing leftists who have an axe to grind? They will lop our heads off with that very axe.

1
eraser3000 1 point ago +2 / -1

People if you are down voting because this hurts your feelings then I disagree, but if your down voting because you actually know the truth, then please share it with us.

1
JimzeBMk1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Sorry to be pedantic, but wasn’t JWB part of the Know-Nothings?

1
TheRealPizzaPope 1 point ago +1 / -0

A Democrat and an actor and a racist!

19
Conservativechick 19 points ago +20 / -1

Democrats gonna Democrat.

8
NomadicKrow2 8 points ago +15 / -7

Booth had the right idea, though. Sic Semper Tyrannis. Thus Always To Tyrants. If he was around today, though, he'd probably be sucking Biden's dick. He was probably like all the idiots who say Trump was a fascist, but they're too ready to give up the 2A and call for restrictions on the 1A.

14
MasklessMarvel 14 points ago +17 / -3

it's amazing how no one knows anything about Lincoln

He was so hated that, in order to win the next election, the republicans decided to improve their optics by saying Lincoln freed the slaves

he did not. he only freed the slaves in non-Union states

that was in order to get them to fight for the North (which was losing the war) and to economically damage the agriculture based South

and their are so many other things about this despicable dictator people don't seem to know about

12
NomadicKrow2 12 points ago +13 / -1

Either way, those optics work for us today. Republicans freed the slaves. They ask for reparations? 600,000 white people died to end slavery, reparations have been paid in blood.

Hell, slavery was a losing game and was almost done away with on its own, then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and made slavery profitable again. But anyway, it only took the U.S. about 80 years to end slavery. It took the rest of the world 300+ years. And some places still have open air slave markets, like Qatar.

5
iDinduNuffin 5 points ago +5 / -0

those optics work for us today

But do they though?

Nobody cares about the 600k dead whites. The people demanding reparations would gladly kill 600k more if they got to keep their money.

2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact that our opponents are unable to recognize the high ground doesn't mean we don't have it.

1
iDinduNuffin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Having it doesn't mean it does anything for us either, though.

1
Wexit-Delecto 1 point ago +1 / -0

It doesn’t guarantee we’ll win but it does guarantee we won’t win the wrong way.

6
phandaal 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those areas that were not currently under Union control. It was a purely tactical move meant to destabilize the Confederates when the war didn't go as quickly as the Federal government had hoped.

3
3-10 3 points ago +3 / -0

Less about destabilizing and more about keeping Britain from recognizing the CSA.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
ImReallyRich 5 points ago +6 / -1

Democrats have historically been the anti American party.

1820s - 1920s = KKK, trail of tears, slavery

1940s - 1950s = big government, Jim Crow, segregation

1960s - present = mental enslavement of minorities, division, eroding Bill of rights

2
Bullet3250 2 points ago +2 / -0

DEMS need some sort of political 'CONFLICT' to get elected... so they ARE FORCED to CREATE fake narratives in the Greatest Nation on Earth - in order to divide the people.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
ImReallyRich 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aside from big banking I don’t really see what republicans did (historically) that was so bad.

-2
24601 -2 points ago +4 / -6

Bankers and Globalist Democrats...

14
phandaal 14 points ago +18 / -4

Lincoln was fighting on behalf of bankers. The greatest fear of the Northern ruling class was that all of their trade would start going through Southern ports if the Confederates won their independence.

8
Pepega 8 points ago +8 / -0

I think the only thing i can start to guarantee about history and especially war both sides were probably lead by selfish interests of the powers that be while the peasants and common folk are conscripted or forced to fight and die in the dirt. Whether their pride in their what ever fooled them into sacrificing it all for other people's bigger interests or not is still a tragedy. From cavemen, to feudal lords, and all the way up until today... 98% of the people fighting probably don't have much fucking skin in the actual game of players moving the pieces.

History really does seem to be a lot more grey in almost every conflict. Written by the winners then into whatever sounds best for them. Sometimes it might be true, other half true, and just as often complete horse shit. Just because something is recorded does not make it accurate.

13
Bullet3250 13 points ago +13 / -0

3% of Southerners were 'slave holders'...

so you comment is very true.

-1
barronwin -1 points ago +0 / -1

should've been 0%

2
Bullet3250 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well - it ended that way.

4
basedvirginian 4 points ago +5 / -1

Isn’t it also true that a large amount of the federal government was funded by Southern states’ trade? Before income tax, the gov got most of its money through tariffs/exports so I imagine the region with the hottest commodities would be subsidizing the gov too

7
5
basedvirginian 5 points ago +5 / -0

Huh. Super interesting! Breaks the narrative like a twig

Maybe that’s why people haven’t really heard about it

4
Bullet3250 4 points ago +4 / -0

Items like - that burn the 1619 Project to the ground instantly.

2
tombombadil 2 points ago +2 / -0

The south’s only major commodity at the time was cotton and that was mostly being traded up north to be processed.

2
Jleinf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agree, a free trade south would smoke the north and kill their tax revenue

0
DJT_JR6544 0 points ago +2 / -2

Well, he made the greenback currency and I have oft heard it said that is why he was assassinated

2
DontArkancideMeBro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, but that is before the federal reserve system. Greenbacks were fiat. 1860s we were still using real money gold and silver.

1
DJT_JR6544 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did the greenback help world bankers? It would be another 60 years before the federal reserve bank.

-6
ALargeRock -6 points ago +2 / -8

So it was the bankers who wanted the states to stop allowing people to be owned as property?

7
phandaal 7 points ago +9 / -2

They gave zero shits about slaves. Just like leftists today allow themselves to be motivated to a berserker state over "racism," people in the past were manipulated by "slavery."

-4
ALargeRock -4 points ago +2 / -6

Manipulated by the thought that people, who were literally slaves, shouldn’t be?

What?

Are you suggesting there wasn’t slavery in southern states, as if it was just a boogeyman like racism is being used today?

3
phandaal 3 points ago +5 / -2

This comment is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. I had actually typed out a clarifying response but I'll probably just get another "lol wut slavery isn't fake" comment so fuck it.

But hopefully anyone else reading these comments can see that it is possible both for slavery to exist and for it to not be the reason why rich people in one part of the country might want to go to war to keep another part of the country economically subservient to them.

2
Tomato 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love it when they put words in your mouth too. "So you are saying THIS"

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
3
24601 3 points ago +4 / -1

I don't buy any of the "official" narrative of either "side" anymore...

I'd bet that the Civil War was an artificial divide purposefully instituted for the purpose of power consolidation by the Big Business of the day... whatever "side" that might have been. Just like today's Uniparty... the Uniparty from 1860 wasn't neatly divided North and South.

Before 2020, I would argue one or the other "side" of the discussion, and try to figure out who had facts on their side. But now, I don't buy any of it...

There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq === The North and South are at war because of slavery or tariffs or xyz thing

We, the common citizens, have been duped by the ruling class since Washington finished up the Revolution.

1
tombombadil 1 point ago +1 / -0

The big business of the day was cotton. Plantation owners were the wealthy elite, with huge political influence. The uni-party was pro-slavery, which is why Lincoln was hated so much.

57
Sweighbar 57 points ago +67 / -10

It's too bad he was assassinated. It made him a martyr and covered up his anti-constitutional actions.

If history sounds like a good vs. evil play, it's probably bullshit.

21
eraser3000 21 points ago +24 / -3

Exactly

11
DonJr2032 11 points ago +14 / -3

Lincoln was a huge white supremacists. He might have freed the slaves, but he certainly didn't think whites and blacks were equal in any respect.

15
geekesmind 15 points ago +16 / -1

Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to africa or the Caribbean islands.

8
PepeTheTrueKing 8 points ago +8 / -0

beautiful idea, it would have saved us a lot of troubles

7
UnsubtleAardvark 7 points ago +9 / -2

Hardly the worst idea.

If nothing else it's kill the We Was Kangz narrative dead.

6
MAGAsJustBegun 6 points ago +11 / -5

Well, there is some truth to skill sets and intelligence, as when you have multiple generations of people who haven't developed advanced language skills, no factories, philosophy, farming, infrastructure, ect...

Well, when you have multiple generations of people like this, is passes down genetic traits that make it much harder than others to be intelligent.

Of course, intelligent people come from all over the world, and it isn't formal education that makes us smart.

It's usually natural.

Anything past 5th grade I didn't actually learn much that was important.

Yet outside of highschool, I learned a fuck ton. Got very interested in history.

0
_Nosoup4you 0 points ago +5 / -5

I can agree with this if I weren't a Christian.

There's weird anti-christian rhetoric in this sub, which frankly comes off as deep far-left ideologies dressed up as conservatism.

Which brings me to another point, somewhat conspiratorial : that there are far left actors here pushing an agenda to show divide and misrepresent conservative ideas.

Also deeply racist, intelligent sounding arguments like yours are inherently radically left ideologies.

Finally you cannot reconcile Christianity with superiority of races. Since God created all man in his image, and also since Christ died so that all(jew and gentile) can be saved.

"God is no respecter of persons"

-1
DeplorableCentipede -1 points ago +3 / -4

God created Adam in his image, but clearly not everyone remains in his image since the different races look so different. Image also says nothing about how we are on the inside. In that regard, humans are clearly nothing like God.

-3
NerBolanski -3 points ago +2 / -5

God created dogs, birds, snails, and lions. Would you tell me all those animals are equal? You might be a Christian but You are also a leftist who believes in Universalism and globalism.

Racism most times is realism; People observe things and document them down because it is true. Equality doesn't exist. Every race has its own uniqueness; It is suicidal to think that You can mix everybody from all cultures and races together and not get a big mess.

The person You responded to, never claimed that one race is superior to another. He just claimed that all races have their unique skill sets and some of the skill sets to build great modern societies are rare in sub-Saharan Africa.

2
eraser3000 2 points ago +3 / -1

Don't confuse races vs cultures. Races are equal. Cultures are not.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
NerBolanski 0 points ago +1 / -1

equality means a lot of things. nowadays, people use equality to mean equal outcomes and opportunities.

0
undercoverincali 0 points ago +1 / -1

There is a mountain of evidence proving you otherwise.

-2
NerBolanski -2 points ago +2 / -4

races are not equal. they have different outcomes, different DNA, and so on. all races are valuable in the sight of God and have equal rights but they don't have equal outcomes or mindset. Culture is a function of race.

-9
DonJr2032 -9 points ago +3 / -12

There are 2 types of people in this world:

  • People that know everything that you can see and beyond has an origin and did not come from nothing, that it was created at a specific time in the past. That all humans are brothers and sisters, children of our creator.

  • Racists people like you that believe white people are at a higher level than black people

6
MAGAsJustBegun 6 points ago +9 / -3

And it's not racist to say whites are at a higher level than black people.

It's literally factual. Look at graduation rates, GPAs, test scores, income, ect.

That's actually one of the main talking points of leftists. That blacks have these issues because of people like me.... Who have nothing to do with any of that.

I'm sure Candace Owens would agree. This can change, but the parenting needs to change.

More black kids need a mother AND a father. And to live in a home where the parents work for a living, not be lazy and live off of the government.

It's a cycle of failure. And it can be broken through good family structures, which BLM and leftists hate.

Communists hate the nuclear family.

-3
DonJr2032 -3 points ago +3 / -6

Society and upbringing are one thing, but saying that black people are inherently inferior due to genetic (evolution) issues is another.

Some of you might disagree, but you take the 'supposed' low IQ people that are claimed to be genetically inferior, put them an environment for success (non-gangster infested city in middle America), and if properly raised (loving family, morals...) I assure you the great grand children (or prior) will be proven to be equally as intelligent as anyone else. This is because (outside of retards) we all are human of the same flesh and we all have the same human potential. That's not to say we all have the same motivation, energy, or will.

6
basedvirginian 6 points ago +6 / -0

To play devil’s advocate, then how do you explain the disparities in black children who were adopted by whites and then raised in the environment you were describing in regards to IQ?

Because very famous longitudinal studies found that those children did not experience a dramatic uptick in IQ

I’m not trying to make this “muh genetic superiority,” but rather point out that there are differences and adopting a one size fits all mentality just causes more problems.

I wish there were simple fixes for this problem, but focusing on just one part of the picture won’t help bring up any community. Rather, it will just breed more and more resentment

-1
undercoverincali -1 points ago +1 / -2

I don't understand people like you who say that there is no difference between races.

Africans have 0% Neanderthal DNA for one example. Every single other haplogroup on the planet have Neanderthal DNA.

Another example is how Africans have a distinct category in regards to genetic relationship between them and the rest of the world when compared to the close differences between Europeans, Asians, and "Americans" (N. and S. American natives).

When the Caucasoid / Mongoloid split happened, moving West and East obviously, those peoples created religion, writing, architecture, metalworking, the wheel.... pyramids, cities, they domesticated animals etc etc.

That literally never happened in the countless millennia that they existed without white or asian interference.

There is incredibly vast and undeniably distinct differences between blacks and the rest of the world.

You are ignorant but the good news is that you can fix that by learning more.

5
MAGAsJustBegun 5 points ago +6 / -1

That's not racist, it's literally genetics lol.

I didn't say there aren't very smart black people.

There's a reason dropout and failure rates are so high in black communities. It isn't because the schools lack funding or resources.

It's because so many kids don't even care to learn.

The fact is, when animals with certain traits breed, those traits get passed down.

That's why adopted children who one day meet their biological mother and father find they have a ton in common with them, despite not growing up together.

It is what it is.

It's not that I think whites are better than blacks.

I know that most black people who choose to work hard and succeed in life will do just as well as any white person.

But you can't deny the role genetics play in overall intelligence.

High IQ people most often breed high IQ children.

Low IQ people most often breed low IQ children.

Partly genetic, mostly how the life at home is for the child.

2
ADAM_SCHITT 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think it's a stretch to say that genetic differences can have an affect on mental abilities/traits. It's the same way genetic differences have an effect on physical abilities/traits. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat people equally because of it.

2
basedvirginian 2 points ago +2 / -0

I did not get that he was saying whites are better than blacks

What I got was that there’s genetic differences that have played into how cultures develop and manifest themselves in today’s societies.

It fucking sucks to realize it, but a lot of the cultural differences between blacks and whites can be attributed to the environments of Africa vs Europe.

Each race has its own strengths and weaknesses, just as each person does. I’d argue it’s more malicious to ignore these differences in the vain hope we can bring everyone up to the same standard in just a generation or two.

0
NerBolanski 0 points ago +1 / -1

Imagine being this stupid and not having introspection. Lincoln knew that diversity or direct mixing of two distinct races would always cause trouble especially when You consider these two groups on average.

Humans have evolved differently for thousand of years.do you think that races or tribes don't have their unique skills, qualities and attributes?

1
barronwin 1 point ago +2 / -1

very few people did at that time. I'm glad we live in a world in modern times where all races are equal. The color of your skin should not determine how people treat you

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
MasklessMarvel 9 points ago +9 / -0

anti-constitutional actions.

You mean like having our own army and navy fire on our own cities and kill our own citizens?

8
basedvirginian 8 points ago +8 / -0

Don’t forget jailing political dissidents! That’s my fav

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +3 / -0

right

the suspension of habeas corpus

4
theblackprince 4 points ago +5 / -1

"Cross the Rubicon, Don!"

"Oh, a Lincoln thread? Let me get my pearls."

2
Sweighbar 2 points ago +2 / -0

So you're saying the Constitution isn't absolute? Sounds like somebody else I know...

1
theblackprince 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's definitely not perfect.

2
Nezmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

Are current times not good vs evil in your eyes?

1
eraser3000 1 point ago +7 / -6

Lincoln and Marx

41
eraser3000 41 points ago +51 / -10

Abe wasn't the hero we all grew up thinking he was.

23
phandaal 23 points ago +30 / -7

Definitely not. Sad that we can recognize that 99% of what we learn in history books is bullshit crafted by the ruling class and Marxist professors, but when it comes to Lincoln we gobble up the bullshit and then ask for more.

16
War_Hamster 16 points ago +21 / -5

I'm actually impressed that the comments about Lincoln here understand his controversial place in history. That's not a viewpoint I encounter very often. Refreshing.

8
Pepega 8 points ago +9 / -1

his presidency to me so far is best described as grey at best. Leaning towards probably not that great slightly.

But at least definitely no constitutional fundamentalist super duper anti slavery hero he's made out to be. That said, maybe he truly believed in the union's need to exist to fight off older countries and said fuck it using every over reach of power he could in war time... We look back as truther's and hate that.

But I'm really starting to think even the founding father's just accidentally created something so near perfect and infallible. Greatest experiment of all time we are still experiencing in the tiny toot of history, just a couple century... that's nothing...

All i know i truly believe in is freedom and this bastardized version of it is the only shiny beacon in just about all modern history of it... Ands that's worth fighting for.

The revolutionary war and wars like the scots rebelling under England are about the only wars i can guarantee as righteous. When the common folk rebel against their rulers. Sometimes they also get steered and fuck up their new shit with communism... But i'm sure the fighters believed in it...

World history seems to be a lot more grey in every single conflict. Just know in modern history it's always the common folk fighting the fights of the powers that be... That's all i need to know.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
War_Hamster 0 points ago +1 / -1

And the banks to fund them all....

6
phandaal 6 points ago +6 / -0

Lincoln has always been a tricky spot for this forum. You can have the most cynical, untrusting, Alex Jones-watching pedes on Earth and you toss Lincoln out and all of a sudden it's "muh Republican, muh slaves" like the worst we see on the left.

It's an incredibly emotional blind spot and you can see from the downvotes that some people straight up can't even stand seeing Lincoln being questioned.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yup, hence my use of the term "controversial".

The truth is, the history that was taught to us is quite often inaccurate, and Lincoln was put on a pedestal despite some pretty glaring examples of some rather odious policies.

Lincoln also has the historical benefit of being martyred. That's always gained him sympathy points.

3
phandaal 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah I'm happy to see a majority here correctly calling it out. I used to get way more shit for this back when T_D was on reddit.

Nice to see more people overcoming their indoctrination.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

We red-pill each other too, I guess.

I enjoy educating others almost much as I enjoy expanding my own knowledge here. We've got some pretty sharp Pedes.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

You left out my favorite: suspending Habeas Corpus.

Yes, they've done that recently too.

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lincoln was controversial

That's like saying Hitler was mean

https://patriots.win/p/12i4MjTtTj/x/c/4DzepNoCGcZ

4
War_Hamster 4 points ago +4 / -0

That's literally the definition of "controversial". You listed a set of alternative facts that goes against the accepted version of history.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.

I happen to agree with at least some of your version.

1
MasklessMarvel 1 point ago +1 / -0

I understand the definition but it is a very polite term to use for Lincoln

and that's not my version

history only has one truth

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree it's polite. It's also accurate.

History has multiple truths until the controversy is settled.

And I'm very much on your side regarding Lincoln. He's in my bottom 5 of POTUS in history. The whole point of my comment was that it is nice to see others who don't accept the accepted narrative about Lincoln.

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +3 / -0

but see, here's the problem with Lincoln

He was so unpopular that, in order to win the 1856 election, the repubs knew they had to improve his optics. That's when they pushed the "he freed all the slaves" narrative as well as his other god like characteristics (Honest Abe my red, white and blue ass)

the 19th century version of CNN

that is the story that history recorded so that is the story that was put in the books and gets taught to every schoolkid today

since we are about to have another one, i am researching the Civil War. So much about it is left out or lied about

2
BadManOrange 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is that any different from the US Founding Fathers who everyone acts like were the most perfect men who ever walked the face of the earth? History is written by the victors, but to an extent certain types of propaganda that foster national pride aren't necessarily terrible things. For many people the history of their nation is an important aspect of loving their nation. To hear that national heroes were very imperfect men would harm their ideal image of the nation.

12
basedvirginian 12 points ago +17 / -5

I remember going to the American History museum in DC when I was about 11 with my grandparents. When we saw Abe Lincoln’s hat, my grandpa said “one of the greatest presidents my ass. Anyone who was in office during the war would’ve been seen as ‘one of the greatest presidents’”

11 year old me just thought, ah a bitter confederate mad at the yanks for winning, but after looking more into Abe Lincoln...

Fuck the propaganda about that guy.

12
The_Gay_Deceiver 12 points ago +13 / -1

starts war over tax revenue that kills 700,000 Americans and gulags any journalists who are trying to report on how awful the war is to maintain public support for it

so heckin honest and wholesum

6
basedvirginian 6 points ago +7 / -1

Don’t forget “freeing” the slaves....

....only in confederate territory and letting union bois keep theirs :)

8
eraser3000 8 points ago +11 / -3

Too much for you huh, it's a big red pill.

3
MAGAsJustBegun 3 points ago +3 / -0

The new red pill is the black pill! Reality baby!

2
leg_hairs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Any resource or topic one could check out to get enlightened?

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ken Burns: The Civil War

2
Bullet3250 2 points ago +5 / -3

Sure he was.

One of our Greatest.

2
-2
Bullet3250 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Revisionist BS....

Try not to be fooled...

READ THE LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATES - and you will know LINCOLN'S OWN WORDS... instead of some slime 'revisionist' garbage.

5
MasklessMarvel 5 points ago +5 / -0

oh, yes, because we know a politician would never say something to appease the voters then actually doing something else

like promising the south he would not abolish slavery. then after he was elected immediately siding with the abolitionists

0
Bullet3250 0 points ago +2 / -2

The republican party was formed to end slavery.

The South left the Union because of this fight.

Had the South not left - maybe Lincoln would not have signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was 'THE WAR' itself that gave him those powers.... I hope you know that. As the Confederate states did not fall under Yank control - the Proclamation held legally.

IF the South had stayed in.... and SC does not fire on that fort... Lincoln does not have the power to sign that document.

4
MasklessMarvel 4 points ago +4 / -0

not true

the war was about money and powerful, not slavery. slavery was used as a tool

Lincoln promised the south he would not interfere with slavery when he ran for office. when he became president, he took an abolitionist stance

ending slavery would be a tremendous economic blow to the agricultural south and give the industrial norht dominance

so the south said fuck this and started secession

the north did not want to lose all of that tax money so war

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in non-union states. The idea was to hurt the South economically and to get freed slaves to fight for the north

Regarding Ft Sumter

Lincoln wanted a war but he did not want to be blamed for starting it

The Ft was the last place there was Union troops in the south

So Lincoln baited the south by sending a supply ship to the fort

The Confederates saw this and assumed the North was about to invade, just as Lincoln had planned

So they fired the first shot

Maybe you are right. If Lincoln's plan failed, the war would have not have started there

but I feel it eventually would have started somewhere else

2
Bullet3250 2 points ago +2 / -0

Everything that I know... contradicts most of the information you present.

And again - all I can say is 'REVISIONIST HISTORY' (books from post ~1970) - is ALL BULLSHAT - ALL IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN - NOT DRIVEN TO FIND THE TURTH...

and that is what you are telling me.... more revisionist history.

Go to History books written BEFORE 1970... books that QUOTE IN CONTEXT, leaders from the era.

Lincoln DID NOT WANT WAR....

The NORTH DID NOT WANT WAR.

SLAVE OWNED FARMS earned LESS per ACRE than similar farms that hired workers....

And the US was moving away from Slavery since the very first Draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Remember - again - only 3% of Southerners even owned slaves. Buying a slave was for the RICH only. And it was the same RICH who brought the war to the South.

24
BIDENTHEKIDSNIFFER 24 points ago +25 / -1

He wanted to send all the freed slaves to Liberia btw.

14
OldbreedAmerican76 14 points ago +14 / -0

One of the few good ideas he had. To bad it didn't happen.

3
basedvirginian 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wasn’t Johnson already in the process of stopping this before Lincoln got yeeted?

24
MAGAsJustBegun 24 points ago +24 / -0

The war had nothing to do with slavery.

They made it about slavery, but that's not what it was about.

It was about money and power. The North needed the south. The south didn't need the north.

I'm obviously against slavery, but I think having two counties, south vs the north would have been very good for us freedom wise.

Slavery would have 100% ended either way.

Slavery in white European nations was outlawed a crossed the world.

Now slavery just exists in Asian, middle eastern, and African nations. Not European majority nations.

The south really did value freedom.

The North valued high taxes and regulations, having the government stick their fingers in your entire existence.

I'm not anti Lincoln. I think he was very smart to do what he did. He made a major power move to make America stronger than ever before, and is to credit for turning us into a world power.

Now, I don't care about economics as much as I care about freedom.

All I want is true freedom, which we don't have.

We have more freedom than most of the world, but it's still not nearly enough.

5
MasklessMarvel 5 points ago +5 / -0

Lincoln only freed slaves in non Union states

This was to get them to fight for the North (which was losing) and to destroy the agricultural economy of the South

1
MonsieurBanjo 1 point ago +2 / -1

The south fought to preserve the institution of slavery

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-9
deleted -9 points ago +1 / -10
0
ObamasLooseButthole 0 points ago +1 / -1

looks around in 2021

Maybe they had a good point...

17
Sour_Limey 17 points ago +17 / -0

Lincoln was shot in Ford's theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln.

6
MasklessMarvel 6 points ago +7 / -1

"Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have seven letters.

Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46 and later to the presidency in '60.

Both married women in their 20s while themselves in their 30s.

Both lost a son while living in the White House.

Both were shot in the presence of their wives.

Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39 and were known by their three names, composed of fifteen letters.

Booth ran from Ford's Theatre and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from the Dealey Plaza warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Both presidents were runners-up for the party's nomination for vice-president in '56.

Both successors were Southern Democrats surnamed Johnson; both were born in '08 and their first names contained six letters.

The assassins were both Southerners.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[and made their views strongly known in '63. 

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which became law a year later. A century later, Kennedy presented his reports to Congress on Civil Rights, during the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom that same year.

Both presidents were shot in the head on a Friday and died at nearby locations (Lincoln at the Petersen House across the street and Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital down the road).

Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car: a Lincoln limousine.

Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to Ford's Theatre. Kennedy had a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln (whose husband Harold's nickname was Abe), and she warned him not to go to Dallas

Both Oswald and Booth were assassinated before they could be put on trial.
1
FrankZappaSA 1 point ago +1 / -0

...and both the Lincoln and the chair from Ford's theater are on display at the Henry Ford in Detroit.

-5
BallsackPaneer -5 points ago +5 / -10

According to some Kennedy is still alive. Trust the plan.

9
Latin_Patriot_MAGA 9 points ago +9 / -0

Kennedy Son not Kennedy Father

if you're going to offend those people, at least offend them correctly

1
BallsackPaneer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah good catch.

It appears that I have offended 8+ and counting.

2
Nezmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

No.

15
MasklessMarvel 15 points ago +20 / -5

Lincoln was the most hated President in history- by both sides

he lied to win the election

he shut down newspapers that spoke against him and forbade assemblies

he signed a bill instituting a draft but had a clause that allowed rich people to buy their way out of it

the streets became overrun with violence and rioting

he allowed waves of immigrants even though the country opposed it

he literally and intentionally duped the South into starting the war that he wanted

he used the blacks as a political tool (by freeing the slaves in non Union states so they would fight for the North)

does any of this sound familiar?

11
basedvirginian 11 points ago +12 / -1

My ancestor came over during the potato famine, was immediately drafted into the Union Army for his citizenship, and then was a POW in Savannah as a part of the Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Politicians have been using immigrants to fight their battles for millennium. How the public doesn’t catch on is beyond me

10
MasklessMarvel 10 points ago +10 / -0

The Irish were given three choices:

Work on the railroads and more than likely die

Fight for the North and almost definitely die

Be deported back to Ireland and die along with their families

plus they were totally hated by the people who lived here to the point of being murdered

and the blacks think they have something to whine about

how did the Irish react to their horrific treatment? burning? looting? killing?

many of them became policemen, firemen and otherwise served their communities

not to mention there were many more Irish slaves than black ones

but we call them "indentured servants" so it does not count

7
basedvirginian 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yup. If Irish Americans were hip to the amount of bigotry we faced, we’d have an Irish History Month in a minute thanks to leftists

...jk we’re white so we don’t count

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +4 / -1

that's the problem

they are white and have no distinguishing characteristics to identify them as an oppressed group as blacks, gays, retards etc do

so they don't provide any political benefit

2
basedvirginian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Maybe in the summer time we’d do better

After all, it should be easy enough to tell all the Irish people apart by their sunburns 😂

5
rosv 5 points ago +5 / -0

I have never heard this type of info..where did you learn all this...probably is true...we live in a evil dark world...we need to stay focused on what is good and enduring ...can you share something about president lincoln that is good...Im always looking for the good in a person...

3
DJT_JR6544 3 points ago +3 / -0

History is complicated and all men are flawed. What men say is true, probably isn't entirely.

I find the only objective truth is found in the Gospel of Christ.

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

mostly from Ken Burns documentary but also from other sources

the Civil War was a big part of history in the area I come from. Lotsa historical sites, old battlefields etc

1
basedvirginian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can I ask if it’s VA? Most battles were fought here and for the most part we aren’t super ready to give up our past

1
MasklessMarvel 1 point ago +2 / -1

the area I come from is MO where there were a lot of battles. My father is from Lexington and I have fsamily in Booneville, both places where major battles were fought

I used to live in Winchester VA which changed hands 72 times during the war

now I actually live close to Harpers Ferry

I guess the Civil War follows me around

3
MonsieurBanjo 3 points ago +3 / -0

History looks back at Abraham Lincoln as one of the best presidents in American history. And there's a reason for it

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

yup

Lincoln was only elected by 40% of the vote

He then pissed off both sides by saying he was not going to abolish slavery but then decreed it would be limited to those states already had it

thus the South said fuck you and fought for self government

because of that and all of the shit he did after, the republicans (a new party back then) had an image problem

so to enhance the optics, they started the "he freed all the slaves" crap plus the honest Abe and all of the other bullshit

it was the 1860's version of CNN

that is what was put in the history books

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
1
basedvirginian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh, we’d still have the same problems. White liberals are responsible for enabling the hatred of America. The Native Americans would be our oppressed minority de jure instead

12
OldbreedAmerican76 12 points ago +17 / -5

Sic semper tyrannis.

3
basedvirginian 3 points ago +5 / -2

Virginians took their motto v seriously back in the day

12
FireCrotchPsaki 12 points ago +12 / -0

Thanks Demonrats

10
bubadmt 10 points ago +10 / -0

It was an accident! He thought it was a cattle prod!

2
basedvirginian 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is criminally under updooted lolol

9
ContraryMerry 9 points ago +9 / -0

In the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottawa in August 1858, Lincoln countered Douglas’ accusation by stating: “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.” >

A little truth here would set a few of us free.

8
Truglow 8 points ago +10 / -2

And to think he was in the process of sending the slaves back to their country of origin. Democrats never change.

1
TacticalKeyboard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was he really? The education system failed me. Have a good link to read?

2
DonJr2032 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lincoln was a white supremacist. This is documented, but not discussed.

0
NerBolanski 0 points ago +2 / -2

He was like MOst normal men back then. I see him more as a race realist. Most people back then were race realists.

1
DonJr2032 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you mean that you believe the black people were actually an inferior race and he realized and accepted that?

1
NerBolanski 1 point ago +2 / -1

His statement was more like "Blacks and Whites can't live together because they have district differences and My race suffers from contact with yours and Yours suffer from contact with mine".It was more like he acknowledged that the two races were different and there would be disaster mixing them together. Malcolm X shared similar opinions about civil rights; he felt that Blacks should be a little more independent before they start integration because they largely had lower skill sets useful in the economy.

The same observation Lincoln had of blacks is almost the same observation that many Indians, Arabs, and Persians had of blacks over the centuries.

if you ask me my opinion, I think they can do better but it would take a long time and it would require us not to be cucks and honest with them.

6
geekesmind 6 points ago +6 / -0

They try to push that slavery was the cause of the civil war

No it was taxation!! The north wanted the southern states to pay 80% in taxes

4
HighVoltage 4 points ago +4 / -0

The South's agricultural exports constituted the vast majority of the tax base that funded the Federal Government. In exchange for all these taxes, the South received almost nothing in return - very little railroads, no industrial investment, etc. Instead, the great money powers in New York were skillfully paying off the kleptocrats in DC to funnel money into their railroad and shipping businesses. Can't blame the South one bit for saying fuck that.

3
yurimodin 3 points ago +3 / -0

So basically just like today but the North is China

1
basedvirginian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Swamp creatures never change :)

6
MAGAMight 6 points ago +6 / -0

Where's John Wilkes Booth when you need him?

6
bratt 6 points ago +6 / -0

SOMETIMES I LONG FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS. People were more direct, rolled up their sleeves and got to work doingt the necessary.

4
CiaramellaLevelSoy 4 points ago +6 / -2

Lincoln was a tyrant.

4
QuietSpark 4 points ago +5 / -1

Lincoln was a tyrant that used federal power to kill Americans because they refused to be extorted by taxation. The emancipation narrative is bullshit, Lincoln proposed legalizing slavery and the South still seceded.

5
HighVoltage 5 points ago +5 / -0

And few know that Lincoln didn't actually care about emancipation at all. The bullshit Emancipation Proclamation came toward the end of the war, when the North was truly sick of the fighting and watching all their neighbors get slaughtered trying to conquer the Southerners' homeland. So along comes the Emancipation Proclamation coupled with Lincoln's decree that only freed slaves in the areas that were still held by the Confederacy. Lincoln, being a colossal piece of shit, wrote that he would keep of disallow slavery if one or the other would preserve the union. He is a farce.

4
Weallseethetruth 4 points ago +4 / -0

Good!! He was a tyrant!! He suspended habeas corpus and had people locked up and murdered with no trial... He sent troops against his own citizens... The south would have won the war had they had the technology and sheer manpower that the North had!! .... The civil war is what started the big government that we are under the boot of right now.... Yes slavery was part of it but States rights was the major issue... The south would have done away with slavery on their own eventually because it's not a good model for a successful country.... It doesn't work!! You get better, faster and smarter employees by hiring and paying them... The south would have freed them eventually anyway... So what we really lost was States rights!!!... Remember Lincoln wanted to send all then riggers back to Africa after the war because he said they would NEVER stand on equal footing with white men.... He was right about one thing at least

4
Redpill-notCommieRed 4 points ago +5 / -1

Republicans could never trust actors ever again.

4
SaltyBobCat 4 points ago +4 / -0

If he would of just sent them back...

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
3
MAGAsJustBegun 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for posting the truth in the comments!

With all of this said, who do people think our greatest presidents were?

I think Trump and JFK belong in that list. Idk about Ronald Reagan.

Andrew Jackson belongs there, right?

Washington obviously takes the throne.

Does Thomas Jefferson get a spot?

IDK too much about many presidents.

4
rosv 4 points ago +4 / -0

George Washington and Donald J Trump...history will reflect that...and worse installed president biden and johnson....both installed

5
MAGAsJustBegun 5 points ago +5 / -0

History still doesn't recognize that JFK stole the 1960 election.

I like JFK over Nixon. I would've voted for either. Both were decent, but if JFK was successful in his endeavors, Trump wouldn't have been cheated today, and alphabet agencies wouldn't exist.

JFK was the first to expose the deep state, Trump was the second to publicly speak about them as JFK did.

But yeah, the 1960 election was a cheat. The JFK family was involved with the mob back then, and rigged multiple elections in major cities like Chicago.

2
rosv 2 points ago +2 / -0

Interesting... I am sure the mob took out kennedy and wow a whore chaser he was.. and his wife jackie should have punched him in his face for cheating on her..woman need to control their men.. ive been married 32 years and im the one in our marriage keeping it good in the lords eyes because my husband is a wild man... he is straight out of Easy rider...but he knows i will make his life miserable if he would cheat...someone is getting arrested and some one is going to the hospital...men can be ridiculous..oh but they clean up so nicely :)

3
WonkoTheInsane 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good.

3
South_Florida_Guy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Deranged democrats ruin everything! And an actor at that!

3
anonymousdonor 3 points ago +3 / -0

As much as I dislike Lincoln, he was a check on the radical republicans.

3
Thep1mp 3 points ago +4 / -1

Death to tyrants.

3
concealedaces 3 points ago +3 / -0

Shame it didn't happen before the civil war he helped start....

3
Usurper-Biden4 3 points ago +4 / -1

Genuinely astonished how many people.

A. Believe the goverments story of Lincoln's assassination. B. Automatically put political affiliation at the top of things they use to describe people. (Good thing they can keep the division narrative going without youse watch msm) C. Don't understand how extremely close civil war/global war is. E. Didnt realize I skipped D.

3
BasedMonkey98 3 points ago +3 / -0

Now in 2021 Rhino Pedophiles front a political organization bearing his name to collude against Trump.

2
niconicoreeee 2 points ago +2 / -0

holy shit fam this thread is an eye opener for Lincoln, some interesting reads and batshit insane comments too - not judging or anything but damn

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
nutmeg 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's seems so long ago but it really wasn't. My, how we've changed.

2
hansgruber7 2 points ago +2 / -0

Was Lincoln really sitting with what appears to be a Muslim foreign leader when this happened?

2
Im_too_BASED 2 points ago +2 / -0

... by a Jesuit.

2
abrahamlincolnsghost 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you for remembering

2
Trumpwonbidencheated 2 points ago +2 / -0

Leftists have always been terrorists to this country.

2
Priopism 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lincoln sent millions of Americans to kill each other because he couldn’t allow the union to split under his presidency.

2
Onlinespec 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good riddance.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
A_Russian_Wall 2 points ago +5 / -3

Lincoln was a tyrant, may he burn in hell.

2
TheMadManDidItAgain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Democrats have been pretending to be upset about this for 156 years.

2
the_federalist 2 points ago +2 / -0

By a radical marxist democrat nonetheless. They were here then trying to incite race wars, just the other way.

1
UndercoverCentipede 1 point ago +2 / -1

Lincoln is still alive. Trust the plan.

1
fsoawesome 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wish it would have happened sooner. Lincoln was a commie shill - manipulated the American people and feigned interest in the black folk. It was all a marketing ploy and was the beginning of the end. Just look at the shit's time as a senator. He was pure garbage.

1
Pixel 1 point ago +1 / -0

No secret service yo.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
CanadaDidPearlHarbor 1 point ago +2 / -1

Not all heroes wear capes... but seriously thanks to this douche we’re all suffering