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.
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.
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.
The founding fathers based the constitution of the Roman Republic. One is the most famous books The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by gibbons came out in 1776. For one the Roman system was based on precedent which is why they wrote down the constitution. The other parts like ex post facto or making a crime after the fact, the government confiscating property randomly, and other latin parts were specifically based on the failures of the roman republic.
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.
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.
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.
The founding fathers based the constitution of the Roman Republic. One is the most famous books The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by gibbons came out in 1776. For one the Roman system was based on precedent which is why they wrote down the constitution. The other parts like ex post facto or making a crime after the fact, the government confiscating property randomly, and other latin parts were specifically based on the failures of the roman republic.