What is Digg?81 Comments
- russellkanning, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Next year it will be "hang your least favorite President Day" in downtown Keene.
- sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Hanging him in effigy almost 150 years after his death, that'll show him. I'm sure this hurts him much more than that bullet to the head.
- RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16hehe of course no one will hang effigies of the members of Congress who let President Lincoln get away with all of that. It's like people today who only blame Bush for domestic spying or prisoner mistreatment without also blaming Congress for not checking his executive powers. Oh no House of Reps, please don't pass another non-binding resolution that in no way stops my troop surge!!111~~
If people held Congress as accountable as the president, this country would be a better place... - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28About time people stop glorifying men with power! They are just like any other men and they do what is in their interest... Like our founding fathers warned us.
- bsmntdwllr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17For the record, it is "hanged" when in reference to someone's hanging. The dictionary is your friend. Use it like one.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hanged
This is my first comment on Digg. I've been on here since v1. I'm sorry it had to be to correct grammar, but I couldn't let that one slip. You seemed too confident. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26"That he was a lifelong white supremacist who advocated deporting slaves to Africa – crimes against humanity, particularly African Americans"
The problem with this one is that you are judging him by today's standards. Its not fair. Back in that day almost EVERYONE thought like this. They believed in different things. You can't judge people of the past by the standards of today. People of the Victorian Era can't be judged the same as people of the Romans. You can't judge American Revolutionaries like the people of the Renaissance. It doesn't make sense. Back in the time Lincoln lived there was a deep religious, social, ethical, and moral belief that African-Americans and Africans were different from Whites on many, many different levels. He was brought up like this. I do not believe that he was a white supremacist for believing this. It was a common belief at the time. - joshreed104, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@ fasda
Well, in the Declaration of Independence, it basically says that people should leave and form their own government if the current one is unjust. The south felt that the government wasn't being fair to them, so they left. By the founding fathers' ideals, that's what they should have done (this is not to say that the founding fathers would have necessarily agreed with the south's specific reasons for secession). - contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Oh man, Dubya's not gonna like that news one bit...
- gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Hanged", when talking about hanging someone, is proper english...
- Ayavaron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Wow. I never heard of most of these things listed here. It's weird how history glosses over flaws and glorifies people in hundreds of years. It's really kind of scary how our perceptions are toyed with.
- siliconentity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Being assassinated did a lot to burnish his reputation. Look how it helped JFK, who made many many big mistakes, and is still practically worshiped today.
- russellkanning, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Thank you. We had fun lynchin' Lincoln.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11i would agree with you, except that the president has not been held accountable either. poor approval ratings is hardly punishment.
- milarepa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@rockforever:
that's crap. many people were abolitionists. - chipset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Firstly, the only thing South wanted is was independence. As much as US itself fought for freedom from Britain, it didn't let go many parts of it (anyone, Phillippines?).
Secondly, point of the Civil War wasn't slavery. Study the bloody history.
Thirdly, when did US helped in World War II? They had their own battle going on, with little help in Europe. Most of the blood came from Soviet soldiers.
I would fight for Confederacy. - oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ voide
You, sir, are an idiot. Hung is the past tense of hang in all cases EXCEPT when talking about killing a person, when it is correct to say 'hanged'.
http://www.englishrules.com/writing/2005/hanged-or-hung.php
edit: bah, beat by 3 people, oh well at least we made our point! - SinkToTheBeat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Because we all know only retards support the protection of our constitutional rights.
- SinkToTheBeat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There were much better ways to preserve the Union, such as abolish the tariffs that were hurting the south. I sincerely believe slavery would have been abolished in relatively short time had the civil war not occurred, and had the north given the south some time to adjust. Many lives could have been saved.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The point is not to hurt HIM, but to show the people who accept tyranny because they have been taught to worship him that he really was the tyrant the people of his own time accused him of being. It wasn't just southerners who recognized his tyranny when he was alive but everyone who cared about freedom, north and south alike.
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Well, for all Lincoln did to expand freedoms. He revoked more rights faster than any other president. I mean, outlawing criticizing the government? That's pretty harsh.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This affects everyone who believes that it is okay for Bush to suspend habeas corpus because Lincoln did the same thing and he was a saint. Until we recognize Lincoln's treason, we won't be able to recognize Bush's treason, and that affects ALL of us.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Bah! England also freed the slaves, you know. As did many other slave-owning nations. The US was practically the last nation to free the slaves, and it's the ONLY one that did so with violence and bloodshed. Assuming for the sake of argument that Lincoln passionately wanted to free the slaves (which he didn't), we're still stuck recognizing him as the most incompetent leader in the world at the time. He was the only one too stupid to come up with non-violent means of ending slavery.
- kgonzales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You make many assumptions in your posting. History would most certainly have been different. Who is to say that the World Wars would have happened, or would have happened in the same way? Would the South really have kept slavery with the advent of modern farm equipment? Would England (who would have ended up being a major trading partner of the South, and was prior to the War of Northern Aggression) forced the South to free their slaves and make other human rights changes to continue their trade with them, much like the USA is doing with China?
You do realize that Lincoln told the Union border states they could keep their slaves, as only slaves in the Confederate States were "freed" in the Emancipation Proclamation? i.e. Tennessee, a Confederate state, had their slaves set free. Kentucky, a Union state, was free and legal to keep theirs. I'm guessing you did not. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It is not constitutional rights, it is unalienable natural rights backed legaly by the constitution so that government officials can be held legaly responsible for violating someone's rights by the power of court rather than direct violence.
- sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7X was a racist.
So were millions of others when X lived.
Therefore, X cannot be criticized for being a racist.
Let's try this with some other attributes.
X was a rapist.
So were millions of others when X lived.
Therefore, X cannot be criticized for raping women. - GRAFFITI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just remember government schools teach -- government good... freedom bad.
All of the "Great Presidents" they told me about in school have one thing in common... they all over stepped the Constitutional limits placed on the Federal Government.
Lincoln tried to arrest a Supreme Court Justice because he didn't rule his way. He arrested people for speaking against the war. Held people without trial. - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"'Dishonest Abe' HUNG on Presidents day"
That's what she (Mary Lincoln) said! - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Who knows how history would have been if the South had won. Lincoln would have been in serious trouble as the northerners would have wanted to lay the blame on somebody. He may have been hanged. I also suspect the 2 nations would have become friends like the US and UK did after the revolutionary war. What would have happened with slavery is anybody's guess.
- elitexero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't see pictures...
- jake13jake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Live free or die, bitches.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9He will hang, but will he...blend?
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's one thing to let a man rest in peace. But in this case, Lincoln is often cited as a precedent for things like... suspending habeas corpus. As Bush and his cronies in congress have recently done--and this time, probably permanently.
- peregrine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Well this is a tricky topic. If you defend abe you have to defense stalin cause stalin believed 'the ends justifys the means' which is whats happeneing here.
But lets compare this to bush. bush is taking away libertys and rights to fight a war. Hes loosing everyone hates him. Now lets look at an alternate reality and say he went into Iraq people greeted us as liberators, government set up everything hunkey dorey. And then Alqueda gives up, they catch osama. Bush would be seen as a liberator, a great president and a good guy.
I'd say if lincoln would have lost he would be considered one of the worst presidents in the history of the USA. - laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7i wonder if they shouted "Sic semper tyrannus"
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's bad enough his effigy was executed, but do really have to discuss to his genitals too?
- funka7ron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's a nice little doll they have there.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Just because someone was an abolitionist didn't mean they believed that they thought Blacks and Whites were equal."
Sorry, you lose. There were many abolitionists who DID consider blacks and whites to be equal. They were a minority, but they are sufficient proof that Lincoln's racist views were not some excusable phenomenon outside his control. And for the record, Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. Among other things, he supported the "black codes" in Illinois which banned blacks from taking residence there, and he publicly stated opposition to admitting new slave states to the union--why? Because he didn't want blacks "taking our jobs."
BTW, "marrying our daughters" is a red herring. I believe the police shouldn't be hassling junkies and shoving them in prison--but I wouldn't want one marrying my daughter, either. One's standards for sons-in-law are something else entirely. I wouldn't want my daughter marrying a Windows Vista user, either. - pcg2105, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It took the yankees in NH about 150 years what we have known about the tyrant, war criminal Lincoln down here all along since we pulled out of the Union. Welcome to the party.
- SMELLtheGluv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Why didn't they just use Giant John Wilkes Boothe?
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg+ for excellent thoughts, digg- for excessive spelling and punctuation errors. /grammar-police
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7History is a funny thing. Once you're dead they tally up all the good you did and all the bad you did, they compare them side by side, discard the minority, and write the books. Lincoln was ultimately a good man with good intentions, but he did do some serious ***** to make his dream a reality. It's important to remember that.
- sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow joybran way to miss the joke.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Forgive me.. This is the first time I've attempted to quote someone...
LonesomeFighter, I disagree with your assessment of what would have happened had the War of Northern Aggression been successfully defended against.
LonesomeFighter: "Who cares. Back then it was legit. We were in a Civil War and it is a miracle we won."
You're only using the term "we" the way you are because the North won. If the South was successful in their revolution, your perspective would be akin to some Brits towards U.S. today. Unless you lived in the south, and then you'd celebrate Independence Day on a different day.
LF: "If he did any less, America probably would be 2 different countries and quite *****."
Not sure how you make the leap that instead of 3 large countries in North America, we'd have 4, and that would be "*****".
LF: "***** enough to not of helped out in the World Wars."
If "we" didn't involve ourselves in WWI, there likely would not have been WWII. That wouldn't have been "*****"
LF: "***** enough to not have invented stuff."
This level of "*****-ness" has more to do with whether or not "we" remained a free market, and kept the value of uninvolvement with the rest of the world's affairs, other then trade. Innovation, and success are symptoms of freedom. Besides, competition is good for innovation, and industry. One more country to compete, and trade, with.
LF: "***** enough for most of American's relatives to not want to emigrate to the USA."
I think you're wrong here, too, but I won't argue the point. Instead, I'd like to point out that if we didn't have such ridiculous welfare state now, we'd likely attract proud, free, people from around the world, and export people who would prefer to exchange freedom for lack of responsibility of their own lives. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@milarepa
He, too, was an abolitionist. Also, I never said that there were no abolitionists. Just because someone was an abolitionist didn't mean they believed that they thought Blacks and Whites were equal. There are many, many accounts of people saying that there should be no slavery, and that it was morally, spiritually, and socially wrong, but most if not all would say that Afro-Americans and Whites were not equal. It was just a common belief at the time that slaves were sub-white. Abolitionists? Yes. There were tons and tons of them. But did they want them marrying their daughters? Hell no. This is a really tough point to argue. But just to let you guys know, I'm a pretty big hippie that loves history class. Not a white supremicist defending white power or something.
Go read a (recent) history book on the subject. Its hard to defend this point because we want to believe that the abolitionists were the good guys, but in fact, there were really no good guys, just the lesser of two evils. - boothkid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Beaten to the punch. Digg down.
- Bender4Pharoah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Next Presidents day, let's vilify Grover Cleveland!
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I did study the bloody history, but you can try reading the bloody post to see what we were talking about.
- gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Was that advice given to you by Moses?
- johnry07, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3the selling point of this digg, for me, was in the description... "Pictures of the hanging are also displayed."
oh boy, dead people suspended by rope :]
/sarcasm - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4You forgot the whole slavery bit.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is