833
Comments (58)
sorted by:
20
DaninElkhart 20 points ago +21 / -1

Last year he was a white supremacist. 🙄

9
pajama 9 points ago +10 / -1
2
magaberries 2 points ago +2 / -0

Huh?

1
johnrambo 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't agree with that, I think he was a igdaf er more than that and believed they didn't fit here. He wanted to send the freed slaves to hati because the climate and place would be better suited for them as it was closer to the environment that they came from. I guess he figured closer to the equator. Lincoln said if he could end the war by freeing all the slaves he would, and if he could end the war by not freeing any slave he would, and if he could end the war by freeing some of the slaves he would.

They also painted Grant as a sloppy drunk, a lot of times based on hearsay with no direct witnesses to the particulars of the event and like to mention that he had hemorrhoids.

Johnson was the worst president up till the GroPedist in cheat but you've probably never heard his name or of the great compromise after the massive voter suppression by the democraps after the civil war. By voter suppression I mean murder of blacks that would have voted for republicans in the streets. Then murdering their family that attempted to retrieve their bodies. Even after surrender.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
1
johnrambo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lincoln had a drawer full of letters when they cleaned out his desk. That was his way of dealing with his thoughts was writing letters that he didn't send. I'm sure there was a gambit of go fuck yourself letters, sarcastic letters and any combination of satirical letters you could imagine. It's be like using a tweet or fb post to prove something.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
johnrambo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only to you, sweet cheeks. And not the ones on your face.

Do you have any of these letters that I could see?

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

I doubt that he was but I don’t really care where he stuck his duck. I think his wife was fugly so that’s probably where that came from. Democraps have always been garbage hum. …. I can’t even call them humans. But they love homos anyway.

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

The best part is if the left is successful in this rewritting of history Republicans can say the first LGBTABC123 president was a Republican and that the Democrats have never had one since. Barry doesn't count because Big Mike pretends to be a woman.

18
MickHigan2 18 points ago +23 / -5

Who destroyed the printing presses and utterly destroyed the first amendment?

Who referred to God over 300 times in his speeches but never once Jesus Christ?

Who told Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to stand down with "Order No. 11"?

How much of the general public supported the war with their brothers?

Abe Lincoln... He may have not been Gay.. But he sure as shit would be a " muh feels" liberal nowadays.

3
DonaldTrumpSwag 3 points ago +6 / -3

Ben Franklin was a deist, he actually said something along the lines of he didn't believe in Jesus as a real person, but his teachings are everything perfect for humanity.

I would have gladly had him as a president.

9
3-10 9 points ago +9 / -0

He wasn't a Deist, he was a Theist, though controversy about his Christianity exists. I think he later in life did accept the tenets of Christianity.

The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.

Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. More, and W. Janes, 1793), p. 149.

A Deist wouldn't accept the Resurrection of the body.

“Here is my Creed, I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them.”

Franklin to Ezra Stilesm March 9, 1790

But Hemphill is charg’d with denying the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, and that too for preaching the Laws of Christ. Let us then consider what the Scripture Doctrine of this Affair is, and in a Word it is this: Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance: By his Death and Sufferings, he has assur’d us of God’s being ready and willing to accept of our sincere, tho’ imperfect Obedience to his reveal’d Will; By his Death and Sufferings he has atton’d for all Sins forsaken and amended, but surely not for such as are wilfully and obstinately persisted in. This is Hemphill’s Notion of this Affair, and this he has always preach’d; and he believes, ’tis what no wise Man will contradict.

That the ultimate End and Design of Christ’s Death, of our Redemption by his Blood, &c. was to lead us to the Practice of all Holiness, Piety and Virtue, and by these Means to deliver us from future Pain and Punishment, and lead us to the Happiness of Heaven, may, (besides what has been already suggested) be prov’d from innumerable Passages of the holy Scriptures. If St. Paul’s Authority be of any Weight with these Rev. and Ghostly Fathers, he distinctly tells us that the Design of Christ’s giving himself for us, was, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar People, zealous of good Works.6 And he elsewhere tells us, that Christ dyed for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him, (i.e. in Obedience to his Laws) which died for them, and rose again.7 And St. Peter expresly tells us the same thing, when he says, that Jesus Christ bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, that we being dead unto Sin should live unto Righteousness.8 Our Saviour himself, as was before observ’d, tells us, that he came to call Sinners to Repentance. But what need I trouble the Reader with quoting any more Passages to this Purpose? To proceed then,

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-02-02-0011

While I don't think all his doctrine was sound, I do believe it is pretty clear he believed in Christ and Lord as Savior.

2
Crappydatum 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nice research on Franklin, Pede

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

Thanks! Biggest issue in this country is the misinformation and lies spread about our founding and our history, especially the Christian roots of our country.

3
Crappydatum 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes indeed.

I got into a multi year spat with a prof who was claiming Jefferson was an atheist. I eventually went to Monticello and took pictures of the Jefferson Bible written by his own hand to demonstrate he did Indeed believe in Christ. So much so that he translated the original Greek focusing on Jesus' own words. The prof had PLENTY of "sources" claiming to know what Jefferson thought.

The whole separation of church and state is a misreading of a letter he wrote to Adams. He wasn't talking about a blanket moratorium, he was saying the US would never follow the lead that England did with setting up the Church of England

1
RationalThought 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did your Prof eat his words, or did he double down?

1
Crappydatum 1 point ago +1 / -0

He refused to discuss the matter any further 😎

1
StoryTimeHour 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks - great post!

-6
deleted -6 points ago +4 / -10
-1
Spicemustfiow -1 points ago +5 / -6

This account is clearly part of the same propaganda campaign. It’s just socialists attempting to malign popular conservative figures.

You can read any one of Lincoln’s speeches and see the inherent desire for personal responsibility among the public.

Your complaints are ridiculously moronic as well. “He said God 300 times but not Jesus”. You could say that about literally any president ever.

Also you act like sentiment at the time about the civil war mattered. As if we can’t see it’s benefits from the modern context.

Go back to CTH.

1
MickHigan2 1 point ago +6 / -5

Did I just get called a "Propaganda Campaign"??????? Are we being cereal right meow? This is probably the best post of all time on PDW.

You need a serious reality check, brother. I am not mad at ya... but you gotta stop assuming that everyone is a part of "A propaganda campaign".

Abraham Stinkin' was, perhaps, the first step to the downfall of our society as he let "Internationalists" into our society. He was a good pawn until the Greenback scheme... then they knew they had to get rid of him as he served his purpose on dividing the world's most powerful nation.

1
Spicemustfiow 1 point ago +5 / -4

When someone takes a position as moronic as your own, supports it using 3 ridiculous notions THEN tries to frame his mistakes as “anti-globalism” when he is caught how should I define that?

As legitimate thought? Calling you a propagandist is doing you a favor.

Am I supposed to define anti-slavery as a globalist position now? The US was years ahead of the “globalist” position on slavery anyway.

What’s even funnier is how you wanted us to accept civil war era opinions on whether or not a war was good. Yet now I’m supposed to use the modern take a globalism to define a person whose decisions are 160 years old.

👌

If you’re not a propagandist you’re the most retarded historian I have ever seen.

1
MickHigan2 1 point ago +2 / -1

Meh... I was thinking about some witty comeback. But, as it sits, fuck it. I still love ya even though you are partially retarded.

-2
Ogcarvattack -2 points ago +2 / -4

The south were britians bitches though...

15
ComradeSanders 15 points ago +16 / -1

He was a big bank shill and wanted broad overreach for the feds. He wasn’t gay but he sure was a faggot.

1
MageGills 1 point ago +4 / -3

Damn. I was 10 minutes late to making this comment.

10
IWanttotalknow 10 points ago +11 / -1

It's a thing they do. They try to make <insert historical figure> gay. Spin up complete conspiracies out of nothing, associate things that have nothing to do with homosexuality with homosexuality (i.e: two dudes are friendly and hung out a lot = "close male interconnectivity beyond the norm for it's era suggests <historical figure> potentially was privately homosexual."

It helps piss off guys who get annoyed with anything beyond polite friendship between men being seen as requiring a "no homo bro" while also trying to erase/decenter positive and healthy male interaction that can much more easily be found in the past.

i.e: The Marquis de Lafeyette and Lincoln had a deeper and more personal relationship than just casual friends. Lafyette named his only son George, a respect/admiration thing. They'll take that and imply instead it was "possibly" homosexuality.

Fucking tiresome and stupid.

5
BeefSupreme29 5 points ago +5 / -0

Personally, I like turning their "logic" on them.

Oh, this historical figure was gay? Cool. Hey, didn't your gay historical figure own slaves? Oh darn, I guess that means the gays are responsible for slavery! What do you mean that's ridiculous, they're your rules!

3
PatriotCrusader1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

i.e: The Marquis de Lafeyette and Lincoln had a deeper and more personal relationship than just casual friends. Lafyette named his only son George, a respect/admiration thing.

I think you mean The Marquis de Lafeyette and Washington... I don't think Lafeyette made it to the time of Lincoln, at least in an impactful way but I could be wrong lol. Btw anyone who doesn't know who The Marquis de Lafeyette is is doing themselves a disservice to American, and Western Civilization's, History.

But I agree with your overall point, while I don't agree with the majority of Lincoln's actions and especially considering his election was considered "secure," doesn't make me view him much better, this is just another front in the culture war for SJWs to seethe at. Was he gay? Probably, but why bring that up now? Oh because it's suddenly convenient because gays are props.

1
IWanttotalknow 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol, correct, it's Lafeyette and Washington, I can't believe I messed that up :3

2
PatriotCrusader1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

No worries man and I didn't mean to sound pretentious! Lafeyette is just a baller, well up until a certain event in the French Revolution, but he's still an enormous figure in the history of Revolutionary Republics. Have a good one!

5
bills_gash 5 points ago +6 / -1

It's probably the original Democratic campaign smear they used against him when he ran.

4
D-Dub 4 points ago +6 / -2

Yeah for real.

It makes me think of tesla and the bird he "loved" too much. I doubt that was true. I bet he just had a pet bird he really like and people who didn't like him smeared him, because he was honestly kind of a weirdo.

Democrats have always been vile and disgusting. They have always been corrupt and they have tried( and succeeded many times) steal tons of elections. I wouldn't doubt they just wanted to smear him as being less of a man at the time.

2
glow-operator-2-0 2 points ago +2 / -0

Democrats are just one political arm of Liberalism.

Liberalism - not even once.

5
Americanus 5 points ago +6 / -1

Just like they did with "gay" animals and that "transgender" lion.

As if animals can choose their lifestyles and they asked that lion how it identified.

2
glow-operator-2-0 2 points ago +4 / -2

I'd like to see those slandered carnivores kill and eat their slanderers.

Then fuck the corpse.

Fuck what you kill.

Kill what you fuck.

1
LookAtMyHog 1 point ago +1 / -0

That would get you off, huh?

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
mercynurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

When the movie Lincoln was released, people in California were discussing this.

People there also admitted to not knowing Lincoln was Republican.

🤡🌎

2
batsoup 2 points ago +7 / -5

I was taught about "gaybe" Lincoln back in 2003. I don't care if he was gay, gay people can still be badass and not political puppets.

10
HuggableBear 10 points ago +12 / -2

This entire propaganda camapign is the result of a book by exactly one raging homo.

Lincoln wasn't gay. In any world but clown world, that author would have been laughed out of town and destitute.

1
MickHigan2 1 point ago +2 / -1

I bet Lincoln would be acting like Chuck Schumer nowadays.

2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +2 / -0

Probably. Just because I am defending him against slander does not mean that I like him. At its root, he is the man who single handedly ended the American Experiment when he refused to allow states to dissolve their contract with the federal government.

He literally did what King George had been doing 100 years earlier and he's lauded as a hero instead of a big-government tyrant.

1
3-10 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yes, and back then the way room and boarding was set up, men often shared the bed, 2, 3, even 4 at a time, but no way did it mean homosexual sex was occurring.

It is like saying, because I slept in the same sleeping bag as a fellow soldier when it was sub-zero outside I must have been gay, well...I am NOT. I just knew that I would sleep more comfortable with body extra body heat than not.

First time in the field, pretty much every guy refused to sleep in the same sleeping bag as another guy, but after a day or two freezing in sub-zero temps, they all started slipping into their battle buddy's bag and using the extra bag as padding to prevent the cold of the ground from creeping up.

2
coolhandcuke 2 points ago +2 / -0

He did share a bed with a guy he'd recently met after moving, but apparently, this was common back then.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
FuckRedditMAGAMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lincoln: has a bunch of kids with his wife

Leftists: dude that's so gay

2
DickJohnson 2 points ago +2 / -0

Abe Lincoln was also a vampire hunter!

2
Pepbrandt 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lincoln was gay. He died from a sex operation gone wrong by his secret lover.

1
PROCIsAsshoe 1 point ago +2 / -1

lol if they're obsessed with pointing how there's ever been a gay man in American politics, talk about Franklin Pierce.

1
MR_ROBOT1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Any other decade, a movie with a flaming gay Lincoln ranting about how he wanted to set the slaves free would be hilarious!

1
ravioli_king 1 point ago +4 / -3

Pretty sure James Buchanan was gay. He's the only President to never be married.

He's also the President before Lincoln who probably lead to the Civil War, and lead to the birth of the Republican party split from the Democratic-Republican party (back when it was legitimately the Uniparty).

1
Kaiheitai 1 point ago +2 / -1

Faggotry is so tiresome and oppressive. At some point normies are going to snap Rwanda style against the degenerates

1
LookAtMyHog 1 point ago +1 / -0

"at some point" "someday..." "two more weeks"

I can only yawn so much

1
Poopybuttboy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lincoln was a gay tyrant

1
ragnarokrobo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sic semper tyrannis