1764
Comments (256)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
140
Bullet3250 140 points ago +143 / -3

BY A DEMOCRAT.

97
South_Florida_Guy 97 points ago +98 / -1

A Democrat and an actor!

63
24601 63 points ago +65 / -2

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.

11
FuckGovernment 11 points ago +12 / -1

I was reading yesterday about the strong likelihood that General Patton was actually assassinated and did not actually die from an automobile accident.

1
RabidZoo 1 point ago +1 / -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?

-7
eraser3000 -7 points ago +17 / -24

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

15
24601 15 points ago +18 / -3

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.

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

3
WinMoreReeLess 3 points ago +3 / -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.

1
eraser3000 1 point ago +1 / -0

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
DJT_JR6544 1 point ago +3 / -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
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!

15
Conservativechick 15 points ago +16 / -1

Democrats gonna Democrat.

7
NomadicKrow2 7 points ago +12 / -5

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.

7
MasklessMarvel 7 points ago +9 / -2

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

10
NomadicKrow2 10 points ago +10 / -0

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
phandaal 5 points ago +5 / -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.

2
3-10 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
24601 -2 points ago +3 / -5

Bankers and Globalist Democrats...

11
phandaal 11 points ago +14 / -3

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.

7
Pepega 7 points ago +7 / -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.

9
Bullet3250 9 points ago +9 / -0

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

so you comment is very true.

3
basedvirginian 3 points ago +3 / -0

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

1
DJT_JR6544 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

1
DontArkancideMeBro 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

-5
Bullet3250 -5 points ago +3 / -8

SC fired the first shot.

No one wanted war.

Everyone thought it would be over 'in months'

NO ONE thought 700,000+ would die.

And arguments about 'northern bankers' are just BS.

4
rabbidlemur 4 points ago +4 / -0

If nobody wanted war there would have been no war. Its very possible no one knew how expensive the war would be, but people on both sides were keyed up for war, while others were trying to avoid it.

As for SC firing the first shots, I don't think any country would put up with another country owning a fort that is within their borders, that controls access to a major port. That was an intentionally provocative action that Lincoln did in keeping the fort occupied.

I don't think Lincoln was necessarily the bad gut either. As another use said, I just see people doing their best with the difficult situations they find themselves in.

-6
ALargeRock -6 points ago +1 / -7

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

6
phandaal 6 points ago +6 / -0

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."

7
randomusers239874 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not at the time; the democrats then would have been more conservative than conservatives now. In fact, the war actually started because the North wanted to keep tariffs on imported goods, and the South didn't (as it hurt their economy more), so if anything the Southerners were "globalists" in that sense of the word.

4
24601 4 points ago +4 / -0

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.

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

Just curious what is political affiliation has to do with anything cuz you do understand the way out of what's going on in this country is Unity not more division you sound exactly like the left

13
I_have_lady_parts 13 points ago +13 / -0

Lol fucking unity. The country is forever divorced. No reconciliation.

6
Bullet3250 6 points ago +6 / -0

Democrats seem to follow the MSM.... without question.

Republicans seem to know the MSM is lying....

That is the DIVISION.

THE MSM "IS" THE DIVISION.

2
PromiseImNotASpook 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which is ironic, because when you watch BLM protests, they constantly yell at each other not to talk to the MSM because they lie... but then they turn around and guzzle down MSNBC or CNN.

0
Usurper-Biden4 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah but we shouldn't Pander to the narrative

4
DJT_JR6544 4 points ago +4 / -0

We aint singing koombaya with 'em. They want us dead.

1
Latin_Patriot_MAGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

the "unit" (always false) is sought by the TYRANS to STAY ALWAYS in power.