What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
129 Comments
- Aldanga, on 02/02/2009, -14/+42Suspension of Habeas Corpus, unwarranted invasion of an independent nation, censorship... yeah, Lincoln was a great President.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/02/2009, -12/+38The mythology of Lincoln has vastly overshadowed the ugly truth that he was one of the worst US presidents of all time. He had no interest to free slaves at the onset of the conflict and contributed to an insane number of lost lives.
It's not enough to say the Civil War a war based on economics because economics encompasses our lives, but it is vitally important to cite the economic climate under which the events took place in order to understand what actually happened. No doubt, slavery and racism were problems of their time, but the impetus for action occurred due to economic disparities and harsh treatment by the federal government towards southern states.
There are, secondly, some important constitutional issues, such as Lincoln's suppression of the press and public dissent of the war that should be considered in light of all the praise that people who consider themselves supporters of 'civil liberties' give this dead Republican. - ALiberalMind, on 02/02/2009, -2/+22Not to mention that he used the Emancipation Proclamation for his own political purposes. It was only meant to free the slaves in the South, but not in the North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emancipation_Pro ...
It wasn't until the 1960s when African-Americans finally got their constitutional rights. - Ishiguro, on 02/02/2009, -5/+19Fun Abe quotes:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
GO ABE! Way to hate blacks /s - darkened, on 02/02/2009, -2/+14I was just about to come here to comment "Am I the only person that thinks Abe is one of the worst president's our country has ever had?" I'm glad to see not every person is fooled by the skewed history perspective they love to give "honest Abe."
- stockgotti, on 02/02/2009, -7/+18Only Bush and FDR can be compared to being as bad as Lincoln. The fact that so many liberals idolize that scoundrel Lincoln today just because the mainstream media constantly mentions in the same sentence with Obama, just shows most people don't know history real well. Lincoln was the Bush of his day. Not even George W. Bush had the balls to declare war on half of America. Being given no right to a trial because the executive says you're guilty, troops patrolling American streets, torturing prisoners of war, martial law, etc.... Bush didn't invent all that. Lincoln was the first to do all of it.
- darkened, on 02/02/2009, -3/+12It's hard for me to justify which president was worse Lincoln or Wilson, I suppose as bad as the Federal Reserve is it doesn't top civil war.
- WiretapStudios, on 02/02/2009, -3/+11Johnny, at breakfast: “Dad, today is Lincoln’s birthday. He was a great man, wasn’t he?”
Dad, always eager to teach his young son a lesson: “Yes, son, indeed he was. And mind you,” he added pompously, “when Abraham Lincoln was your age, he was out splitting rails.”
“Yes, Dad, I know,” replied Johnny. “And when he was your age, he was President of the United States.” - stockgotti, on 02/02/2009, -1/+8I was going to mention Wilson too but 9 out 10 diggers wouldn't even know anything about him or what he did. But definitely I agree with you. I'd throw LBJ into there as well.
- bhuntsbarger, on 02/02/2009, -8/+14Does anyone know the difference between Hitler and Lincoln? Mass execution of Indians, half-white indians, and children ordered by President Lincoln ended up being the largest in US history.
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html - hellsing47, on 02/02/2009, -1/+6I love the Digg community's impossible standards.
- duncan202, on 02/02/2009, -5/+10Well the South didn't just one day decide to up and leave the Union now did it? Who's fault was it they tried to secede in the first place?
- patburke1980, on 02/02/2009, -14/+19i cannot believe all of these comments. un-***** believable.
Was lincoln supposed to just let the Confederacy have it's way? Was the Union not worth fighting for?
These comments make me sick. - Demolama, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5@NotAChickenHawk
You act like secession is a bad thing... if it wasn't for secessionist... the Glorious Revolution would have never occurred. After all what legal authority did the people of England have to overthrow King James II and replace him with William and Mary?... Or under what authority did the people of the united colonies of America have to rebel against the crown and declare themselves free and independent states? There was no anarchy into these transitions because it was a long drawn out process that lead to them to declare secession.
Secession is the foundation of a America. It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the contract of the said government when it no longer has the consent of the governed. No one advocates secession because of one disagreement....secession has always been the last resort when all other methods have been exhausted and as a result did not evolve into anarchy - inactive, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5"How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."
Also, his opposition to the abolition to slavery was based on his belief that if he could stop the expansion of slavery, it would eventually die out on its own, without federal intervention. - inactive, on 02/03/2009, -0/+5I second Washington but recoil in horror at your suggestion of monarchy. As did Washington himself.
Andrew Jackson, if only for the "you are a den of vipers!" comment. Such a badass as a man, mixed results as president.
Jefferson was one of my favorites, even if he intellectually peaked 25 years before he became president. - aletoledo, on 02/02/2009, -1/+6I think Lincoln was personally more corrupt and enriched himself more through government knowledge, whereas I don't know if Wilson personally profited from the things he did. Both we active in promoting the elite and subjugating the poor. It seems therefore that Lincoln edges out Wilson in terms of evilness, since he personally profited more.
- aletoledo, on 02/02/2009, -6/+11"Was lincoln supposed to just let the Confederacy have it's way?" turns into "Was Bush supposed to just let Saddam have his way?"
Seriously, people that idolize Lincoln don't really have much sense of history and can't really evaluate events as they truly are. I blame television and the corporate control of this idiot box for public indolence. - NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2009, -6/+11Suspension of Habeus Corpus: Read the Constitution...Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There was very clearly a rebellion under way. So what's your problem.
And invasion of an independent nation? Lincoln very clearly laid out in his first inaugural address precisely why secession was illegal and why the confederacy was clearly not an independent nation. Read it.
@ALiberalMind: Lincoln could not free the slaves in the border states without risking their leaving the Union and joining the confederacy. It wasn't for political purposes that he only freed the slaves in the south by the emancipation proclamation,it was for very practical purposes. In addition, he did not believe that he had the authority, via executive edict, to free slaves in the north. He believed he had the power to free the slaves in the areas of the U.s. in a state of rebellion via his constitutional authority to wage war and suppress the rebellion. And after the proclamation, near the end of the war he pushed the 13th ammendment through to ratification which did indeed free the slaves. - patrickchee, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5More facial hair?
- jh4rms, on 02/02/2009, -1/+6"The FED do's"? what are you...12?...I mean that's good if you're 12 and you know about the Federal Reserve...
- darkened, on 02/02/2009, -5/+10Actually yes, that's what the Constitution was founded on, he shouldn't have went to war with the south.
- RonPauls, on 02/02/2009, -0/+5Imagine 650,000 people.
Then imagine them all dead.
Then realize it wasn't an imagination.
That's Lincoln! - SouthsideIrish, on 02/02/2009, -10/+14And don't forget, he wrote the playbook that GW used for the last eight years. Yeah a great trampler of the Constitution.
- Akairenn, on 02/02/2009, -0/+4Washington.
We should've forced monarchy on that man and then elevated him to godhood. - fixyourthinking, on 02/02/2009, -1/+5How true ... and the emancipation proclamation was solely designed to free slaves to fight for the north and to die instead of whites. It's ironic how the EP is twisted in modern history.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2009, -3/+7Lincoln's objective was always to save the Union, above all else:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
That, and that alone, is what his oath *required* him to do.
""In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it'."
Lincoln did not start the Civil War. The southern states seceeded, mostly because they were afraid that Lincoln would free the slaves, or at the very least would be hostile toward their interest of expanding slavery. And the south initiated hostilities when they fired on For Sumter. So, aletoledo, when you say that Bush and Lincoln "Both started wars of conquest..." Lincoln did not start that war. And Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus to help suppress a rebellion, which is precisely provided for in the Constitution. Bush had no such justification. - flamesrule, on 02/02/2009, -0/+4not to forget he also represented a slave owner in court
- benold, on 02/02/2009, -3/+7I disagree. What rebellion? The southern states didn't rebel. They seceded. The Constituion permitted secession. The reason there even was a USA was to prevent things like what Great Britain did to the Colonies. The Federal government had overreached its bounds just like Great Britain did.
And Abe didn't even originally come up with the 13th Amendment as it is today. Originally, the 13th Amendment that he came up with said something to the effect that the federal government had no say in the issue of slavery. That it was up to the states to decide. He only pushed the change to fuel his warmongering... sounds like a recent President.... - Ishiguro, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3Well, Lincoln destroyed a voluntary union (notice lowercase) of sovereign states. He created an involuntary Union of political subdivisions. So, you decide which is better.
- OrangeTide, on 02/02/2009, -1/+4I have a few dozen steel cents. They aren't worth a huge amount unless they are a particularly rare year or from a collectible mint (like S).
- RonPauls, on 02/03/2009, -0/+3Lincoln ended the notion that government's maximum role was to protect life and liberty.
Instead, he popularized the sentiment that men work for the state, instead of the state working to protect the man. - yergi, on 02/03/2009, -1/+4Not to forget that Lincoln was also the dude that placed federal power above that of the states. Singlehandedly, probably the one worst act any president has ever performed against the vision of the United States and the founding fathers. Why do we have such problems today with marijuana laws and other such federal laws usurping state laws? It all goes right back to this man. Before his presidency, states actually had the right to make, carry and defend their own laws independent of the federal government.
I honestly hate it when he is worshiped in crap like that Nicolas Cage treasure movie. The man was not a great president, admitted to the fact that if he could end the war without freeing the slaves, then he would have. He did it for purely political reasons- by his own testament. Certainly not because he felt some brotherly sense of compassion, so please stop making him out to be such a great guy. He wasn't. - Akairenn, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3@NotAChickenHawk: Exactly where is it specifically denied?
One can argue the bit about all powers not explicitly granted being reserved to the people - but given the numbers of the ANV and other Confederate forces, it's fairly hard to say with a straight face that the people of the South were not in favor of secession.
No, by attempting to insist secession was somehow 'illegal', the US was no better than the tyrant they overthrew a century before. (On the plus side, we're slightly better than that tyrant now. I swear, the UK loves Big Brother more than we do. ;)) - kd1s, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3Lincoln has been whitewashed to some degree. This is the Lincoln that suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War after all.
And he's also the same man who kept this Union together.
BTW, regarding the 2003 Lincoln statue, this is is in Elizabeth City, NC.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/2128766023_284 ...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2198/2129542414_80c ...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2128766547_9ec ...
Erected in 1911. - WaxTrax, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3"Be excellent to each other. And, PARTY ON DUDES!"
-Abraham Lincoln - duewydo, on 02/02/2009, -1/+43. What is the most a Lincoln penny has ever sold for at auction?
A. $221,950
B. $373,750
C. $1.3 million
3) B. A 1944-S Steel Cent.
I just crapped my pants. I have a penny collection that has been handed down to me from my parents that I have been adding too and has every penny from every year starting ~1900. I know for a fact that there is a steel penny, in fact there may be a couple... (maybe I can pay off my house and then some with a single cent!) I would have to believe at that price it must have been perfect, while mine is warn... - Aldanga, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3Even the most evil man deserves legal representation and defense.
- 7levels, on 02/02/2009, -0/+3Lincoln and FDR sucked? So have we ever had a good President?
- fixyourthinking, on 02/02/2009, -3/+6Yes, if the confederacy had its way slavery would have died out as a cause of natural progression rather than twisting history as it has become. Today's view of the civil war is that it was fought over slavery - when in fact Lincoln put all slaves lives in danger. Mistreatment of slaves was in the minority and great things were accomplished because of their sweat and tears. Make no mistake that a Martin Luther King Jr. was coming and make no mistake that a black president could have possibly been a reality sooner had there been no civil war. Government regressed back to where we ran from in the USA under Lincoln.
- Spoomeister, on 02/02/2009, -0/+2"Also," Johnny added, "what does 'splitting rails' mean?"
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -0/+2How could a lincoln penny be 200 years old?
I costs 4 cents to coin a penny.
- Just a thought - inactive, on 02/02/2009, -5/+7patburke 1980,
You have been duped by the revisionist historians-who should be flogged for being such money worshippers. And you are probably only sick because the connections required in the brain for realizing one has been snowed all these years, are working correctly! The literature proclaiming what a sorry POS Lincoln was, is now surfacing! Go to your local library and read some TRUE FACTS. Thomas DiLorenzo has some mighty good books on Lincoln's escapades...
And...there's many BLACKS who know the truth and write about it too! - RonPauls, on 02/03/2009, -0/+2You make me sick.
Tyrnnical Abe killed 650,000 and furthered the big-brother centralized-power State. - maz2331, on 02/02/2009, -0/+2Much of the aftermath of the Civil War was caused by Booth's killing of Lincoln resulting in the ascendency of Andrew Johnson to the Presidency. Johnson was of the school of thought that the South needed to be "punished" for the war, as opposed to Lincoln who favored rapid reconcilliation. People in the North were no longer at all likely to favor "reconciliation" after the assassination.
Johnson was very heavy-handed in dealing with the former Confederate states, kept them under military occupation, and created the environment that led to the creation of the Klan as a reaction to the continued oppression. It started as a political movement by Democrats of the day, and then over a short period morphed to a racist organization. - ryanmarsh, on 02/02/2009, -3/+5I don't know why you liberals love Abe Lincoln so much. He was a racist by your own standards.
From NY Times 12/10/2008:
"He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States."
http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/abra ... - inactive, on 02/02/2009, -0/+2NotA, it is a black mark on our country's history, yes. England outlawed slavery in 1808 by a vote in parliament. Only America required a civil war to abolish it. So before someone says "can't judge the past by the morals of today", remember it took 55 years after 1808 for the emancipation proclamation, and 100 years after that for civil rights.
Granted, slavery was not as big a part of English society or their economy as was the case in the US, but the example remains. - wrobson, on 02/02/2009, -0/+2and where is Habeas Corpus now? Oh yea GONE with the patriot act!
and whats that...the United States of America...home of the free....will be keeping the Patriot Act even under the Obama administration?
have fun on July 4th with the mock celebration of independence. after all a country isn't really a country unless it owns its central bank and has control over the money supply. - BotchaMcCoola, on 02/02/2009, -0/+2Or did the US Civil War make them give up the idea?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
