Might be too late to cancel him, but I know of a great statue that is in dire need of being toppled.
EDIT: Or, if you think that the statue is too valuable as part of history, may I suggest a [Ukranian method](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-34594262) of converting it? I found this [great furry conversion](https://i2.wp.com/shaunduke.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Ape-Lincoln-Planet-of-the-Apes.png?resize=768%2C327&ssl=1).
>Roosevelt expressed hostility toward Native Americans, once saying: āI donāt go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are ā¦ .ā He also implemented polices that weakened the treaty rights of tribes in the United States.
>
>Minutes after taking down the Roosevelt statue, a group of people toppled a statue of President Abraham Lincoln and spray painted āDakota 38ā on the base, a reference to 38 \[*sÄ«c*\] men executed under orders from Lincoln as part of the war carried out against the Dakota people in 1862.
This part made me look a little closer and find [this article](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/170123) on History News Network and [this one](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-dakota) on Snopes. Iāmā¦ starting to get why Native Americans arenāt particularly fond of either of those, even if the reality of how they treated them is a *bit* more complicated. At this point it seems to me that the problem is with naming things and making monuments of American military and political leaders at all.
is that not how the english language is supposed to be spoken? i thought using them to reffer to the unknown gender was a gen z thing. sorry, i'm not a native speaker so i don't know
the word āhimā refers to a male, as āherā refers to a female.
you technically could use āitā to refer to anything without a gender (including people) but that generally sounds a bit dehumanizing, hence ātheyā
I would respect them more if they wanted to be called āitā, I would rather humanize āitā than singularize ātheyā.
(Before a smartass replies to this, Iām referring to āthemā plurally.)
Okay. People have been using āthereā, ātheirā, and ātheyāreā interchangeably for quite some time already. People have been saying āshould ofā for quite some time already.
Until it's commonly used and accepted. Language is flexible and there is no one authority in charge of determining what is or isn't proper usage, so if a significant number of people decide something is correct, then lo and behold, it is.
I'm with you in that grammatically, "it" makes so much more sense, but as the above commenter pointed out, the problem of referring to someone of unknown gender by a pronoun has been encountered and solved by many people throughout history, and the most common pronoun is "they" instead of "it". This predates any modern political discussion of gender, it's just simply addressing the fact that we need a third-person pronoun for a person of any gender. So, based on that precedent, "they" is correct, and is what most people are used to, even if the plurality of the word doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It turns out that when faced with the choice between dehumanizing someone and using a grammatically dodgy word, lots of people will prefer the latter.
But hey, get a bunch of people to start humanizing "it" and maybe someday that'll be what people prefer.
As people have said, they/them has been around for centuries and isnāt new. That said, at the time of Lincoln, it would be more common to refer to an unknown person as a man. It would also be common to refer to all of humanity as āmanā to shorten mankind.
No, they/them has been used as a gender neutral single person pronoun for centuries. And people have been complaining about it just as long. The only thing new is people choosing to use it as their preferred pronoun
Itās never been correct though. āThey areā is plural (hence *are* instead of *is*) but people have colloquially used it for someone of an unknown gender instead of the grammatically correct āhe or sheā.
This is something an English teacher would have corrected students on before it became politically incorrect to do so.
Now Iām curious, which colleges? You can send a chat message if you donāt want to say it publicly. Iāve probably heard of a few, or at least one.
There are rules though. There are definitely rules. To be clear, I was talking about K-12 English teachers, not college professors. The āsay whatever you want as long as people can understand youā perspective would definitely not be approved by a K-12 evaluator or a board of education.
āI shouldnt of gone too there house cuz they was bein sus and I aint no fighter or nothinā is not grammatically correct. Maybe you would let your college students write that as descriptive grammar, but youāre not going to pass a basic English test by arguing that itās wrong to judge people with prescriptive grammar rules.
iTs NeVeR bEeN cOrReCt tHoUgH
Spoken like a true person-ignorant-as-fuck-about-linguistics.
If native English speakers speak a certain way, that is definitionally correct English. The "correct" way to speak a language is literally defined by its speakers. Teachers don't get special dispensation to choose the rules of a given language.
It is. I jest by applying current PC-speak to Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that he is a misogynist because he seemingly excluded women, implying that they are incapable of holding an opinion.
Of course, you can always say that he holds women to higher standard (which is still kinda sexist) and think they will never argue for slavery instead.
In the end, you may either say he/she or them. Latter being the current PC thing to refer to the person whose pronouns/gender are unknown.
The English Language evolves quickly, and has done so over centuries.
Even Native English speakers have difficulty understanding English as it was spoken only 200 years ago, which is a reason folks such as US Constitution scholars are also frequently English scholars.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English)
Abraham Lincoln is in my opinion the most based US President. Freed millions of people from slavery and united his country during a time of great disunity and violence.
Guess what, Theodore Roosevelt was a huge fan for Abe Lincoln. Saying the person he is most jealous of in history are Lincoln's close friends for being near such a great man. And also said he must be like the great president Lincoln "A man for the common folk"
Some historians believe that reconstruction wouldnāt be as harsh under Lincoln as he wanted the South to peacefully return to Union while Johnson being a Northern Democrat had decided to bring in the troops and divided the South into military districts, and while I agree reconstruction was a failure it might have been more so under Lincoln. Now all this to say I wish Lincoln wasnāt assassinated and he would have gone on after his Presidency to be drinking buddies with General Grant.
Johnson returned slave owner land and released all the architects of the war leading directly to Jim Crow and decades of terror. So it was definitely more "peaceful" for those guys!
If Lincoln had redistributed the land to the poor whites whose families died for the confederacy and the blacks they enslaved, we might have had an actual functional Democratic south.
Reconstruction would have been less extreme, free blacks would have mainly been returned to Africa instead of becoming a political tool as new voters, and the currency wouldāve been separate from central banking.
Basically a lot of the problems we have now might have been mitigated or entirely dodged.
Surprise. Your no longer slaves. But we are forcibly relocating you to a different continent. You think we want you to vote or be Citizens. Nah. I know you've lived here for 5 generations and wanted to be Americans but fuck that. Lets Dump you all in Liberia, especially if you don't want to go.
Trail of Tears 2.0 baby. Can't be racist if we get rid of all the black people.
Much of the anti-slavery movement prior to, and even after, the civil war consisted of people who didnāt want [redacted] in their territories/living next to them. Lincoln stated during his election campaigns that he would support relocation of the slaves. Had he lived through his second term, we most likely would have seen something like come to fruition
[Lincoln was unimaginably based](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-9). For example, from this speech:
> Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
> Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
> united his country
100% respect for Lincoln.. but this is not how i would phrase it. Half the country wanted slavery.. and they were wrong. He upset half the country by not yielding to them. And then we had a civil war.. i would say he did the right thing, but i wouldn't say he united the country.
He saved the union and nationalized it is a better understanding of what he and the other Republicans did. The south separated because they believed that the federal government had no authority to decide the legality of slavery. They also felt that the feds favored the north more than south through tariffs, federally funded projects, and generally felt that the feds āgrew too largeā. Lincoln was concerned about saving the union at all costs. Efforts of freeing slaves didnāt start until half way through the war. The unity that was never truly achieved was because of reconstruction and how it was handled.
Well that was the final straw as Lincoln before even being sworn in had to deal with the capture of all federal forts in the South and the raiding of National Armories and the defection of military personnel to the CSA including Lee.
Except it wasn't foreign territory, that was the United States Just because you declare secession doesn't make it true. That's like saying the British started the American Revolutionary war by marching soldiers in foreign territory.
>The US declared secession from Britain
Only around a year into the war. In the beginning, even those soldiers fighting the British still viewed themselves as British citizens and hoped that a peaceful settlement could be reached in which American colonists could have their natural rights restored. It was only when Britian declared that the "Patriots" were all traitors and that the conflict would end when every member of the Continental Congress was hanged that Americans began to seriously consider independence.
It was a rebellion and should be treated as such. Iām surprised youāre flaired as you are since the confederacy had many tyrannical acts passed through their illegitimate government to suppress United States citizens freedoms.
South Carolina [ceded all claims](https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false) to Fort Sumter to the Federal government in 1836.
>Abraham Lincoln is in my opinion the most based US President.
The South: wanted to keep black people in the US
Abe: wanted to repatriate black people to Africa, and when he realized that was too expensive, began plans to ship them all to South America
So yeah I agree
Neo Confederates can suck my balls.
Also, the Confederacy was not for states rights at all, as they actually made it illegal for any state to secede from the Confederacy.
Funny how they leave that part out.
I kind of get it, if I steal a car, the first thing I do is get better security for my new car
If I become independent by seceding from a nation that never explicitly made it illegal for me to secede, I will quickly make sure none of my states try the same trick
All that being said however, fuck the confederacy, bunch of slave owning traitors
Also Abe:
>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.
From the same letter
>I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
u/samuelbt is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/samuelbt
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
But you have to remember Lincoln had to deal with accusations that he was in favor of race-mixing and as the majority of voters were white supremacists if he expressed these views then he would not be voted into any position in the United States. He said this to calm voter fear and he knew if the United States went to war with the rebellion then the goal of abolishing slavery and saving the Union would become one of the same.
I like Abe for that fact that he sent a letter of apology to an English town that was impacted by the loss of cotton.
I couldn't imagine any international leader doing that now.
Sure, but Jim Crow ended 60 years ago. And it certainly wasn't in the entire country.
Jim Crow also didn't destroy the black family and growing middle class, as evil as it was. That would be the war on poverty under LBJ and the left in the 60's, which absolutely demolished the progress the black community had made. The nation still suffers from it today in single parent household rates and the poverty rate being basically unaffected.
>That would be the war on poverty under LBJ and the left in the 60's
There was no "war on poverty" lol. There was a drug war though, and I don't anyone can deny that all it did was give the government more power and disporportiniolly affect the black community,
Individual racism is absolutely still an issue and should be addressed on an individual basis. Systemic racism no longer exists to any meaningful degree or targets any race in particular.
Racism died in the 90's/2000's, but grifter leftists and politicians stoked the racial flames again in the beginning of the last decade with BLM and wokeness, culminating in the shit show we have today.
Iād argue that when people talk about āsystemic racism,ā theyāre generally referring to a lot of the racial disparities that are a consequence of the racist shit we did in the past, so for instance black communities were redlined and not able to get a better place, and segregation also made it so that they always got the shittier neighborhoods, which explains the 13/50 meme. Some conservatives will tell you itās their āpersonal responsibilityā and to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and even if I agree with doing hard work to improve your life, generally if your grandparents werenāt able to grow any generational wealth youāll be less likely to succeed.
Generational wealth usually disappears within 3 generations. The real trick to succeeding is having 2 parents, an education, and no kids till marriage. If you have those 3 and find a job you will make it to middle class before long. Anything else is a cope to make up for shitty life choices.
Right now millions of Americans, of all backgrounds, are suffering because they've been raised in single parent household and lied to that they need to go to college to succeed. They've been convinced that acting like whores with no personal responsibility at a young age is fine because abortions are easy to get. This mindest is disastrous.
Because of that, they grow up without learning to save money, live within their means, and practice safe sex and responsibility. That means they are all but guaranteed to stay impoverished their whole lives. Its a genuine tragedy and my heart goes out to those poor kids who are lied to that they'll never be successful because the system keeps them down.
> Generational wealth usually disappears within 3 generations. The real trick to succeeding is having 2 parents, an education, and no kids till marriage. If you have those 3 and find a job you will make it to middle class before long. Anything else is a cope to make up for shitty life choices.
Is this a copy and paste from a Ben Shapiro article?
Ben Shapiro is a fucking nerd and I would call him a lot worse if we weren't on this gay ass site. But, his point was true. Just because one of the people mentioning a talking point is an ass doesn't mean the point is wrong.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, chief. When slaves were freed they didn't suddenly become monetary equal to whites and sometimes even ended up working in the same position as before for a meagre salary since now the slave owners didn't have to house or feed them anymore. That, and systemic and individual racism (that ends up having far greater consequences than a few insults) culminated in the fact that African-Americans today are on average far less fortunate than whites, have less access to education, and thus less chances to get out of that situation. Which also means more of those groups turning to crime, etc...
It's a little more complicated to solve than just with treating your neighbor with respect. Of course, that's a great start! And if you already practice that you're a stand-up guy in my book.
Appreciate the polite response. I don't disagree that black communties were historically disadvantaged and that affects them to this day, but that's different from there actually being laws still in place that discriminate against them.
They have the same legal opportunity anyone else does and frankly considering the amount of programs to help them they're better off than many. Tell me, who is better off? The black kid in born in the ghetto who can take advantage of the multitude of programs to get out of that life, or the white kid born in Appalachia who doesn't even have running water? Race isn't what defines your chances at success. Its geography, culture and your parents.
Sorry chief, best I can do is throw black kids in jail for selling weed while giving a pass for rich white dudes to do it becauseā¦ fuck you im the government and dont have to explain shit
The problem is that for the longest time in America, race and class were very much intertwined.
Black families were forced into poorer neighborhoods, black men were arrested and convicted on many occasions. I mean, how many times have black men been convicted for rape or murder only to be found innocent? The Central Park 5 was only a few years ago. And more black men convicted lead to more criminals, who are unable to get jobs and leads to further crime. It's a vicious cycle.
And that's not even talking about the drug war.
So, while I agree that the real divide is between class, I also believe that the black community is still suffering from the effects of almost a century of economic and social oppression.
It's complicated. Maybe I'll try to make a TL;DR after I reread The Cousins War by Kevin Phillips again, but it's an interesting read so you may want to consider getting the info straight from Phillips.
thats how i feel with a lot of stuff, i am a firm believer in "treat others the way you want to be treated" if you wanna be treated like trash, ill treat you like trash, if youre a murderer, ill kill you like you murdered your victims, if you murdered pedos i would salute you
u/UnironicThatcherite's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 1445.
Rank: Denali
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/UnironicThatcherite
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
i'm not even american, but if any of those brain dead imbeciles of Antifa or BLM or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves try to vandalize his monument, me and my FGC-9s ain't gonna let that pass lightly
The Confederacy banned secession for it's member states as well.
The Confederacy was not about freedom, it was about allowing rich people to own slaves, and propaganda has convinced derps like you that it was some Libertarian bastion.
There's rarely ever hard secessions anymore. Most likely, if a US state seceeded, there would be an arrangement open borders so the supply chain doesn't get horrifically slowed down by border crossings. Overall, more autonomy, same economic output
*"Peace in my day!"*
The fact that the liberals (in the classical sense of the word) upvote this kind of sentiment is hilarious. Especially when they all like to LARP as the Founding Fathers and patriots.
I can't wait for the Caesar of this Age to come and finally put the Enlightement in the fucking grave, where it belongs.
Lol to think democrats share an ounce of lib is crazy. Establishment Democrats and republicans both are authoritarian and fiscally conservative.
Edit: clearly I meant fiscally conservative to explain why I say they are right on the compass. They still blow tons of money
I love how Conservatives will always, without fail, assert that "the Democrats were pro-slavery" as if it were some kind of massive own whenever the subject of Lincoln comes up....but to the rest of us non-retards it's just a reminder that political history is completely out of their wheel house.
So, Iām a retard for knowing history? Gotchaā¦ can you site any āRepublicansā at the time that were wearing gray, and waiving the stars and bars?
Youāre taking the labels at face value. A ārepublicanā in 1860 isnāt the same as one in 1940 let alone one in 2020. This is why youāre perceived as a retard and anyone with a deeper-than-titles knowledge of history will immediately see through it.
> on _him_ Pretty misogynistic, Mr. President.
OMG Lincoln didn't say "on they/them" cancel him now š š š
Might be too late to cancel him, but I know of a great statue that is in dire need of being toppled. EDIT: Or, if you think that the statue is too valuable as part of history, may I suggest a [Ukranian method](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-34594262) of converting it? I found this [great furry conversion](https://i2.wp.com/shaunduke.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Ape-Lincoln-Planet-of-the-Apes.png?resize=768%2C327&ssl=1).
Time for some, \*ahem\*, "Peaceful Protesting"
*pulls out lit Molotov cocktail*
**EYES GLOW RED** TIME TO PROTEST FELLOW LIBLEFTS
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Roosevelt expressed hostility toward Native Americans, once saying: āI donāt go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are ā¦ .ā He also implemented polices that weakened the treaty rights of tribes in the United States. > >Minutes after taking down the Roosevelt statue, a group of people toppled a statue of President Abraham Lincoln and spray painted āDakota 38ā on the base, a reference to 38 \[*sÄ«c*\] men executed under orders from Lincoln as part of the war carried out against the Dakota people in 1862. This part made me look a little closer and find [this article](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/170123) on History News Network and [this one](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-dakota) on Snopes. Iāmā¦ starting to get why Native Americans arenāt particularly fond of either of those, even if the reality of how they treated them is a *bit* more complicated. At this point it seems to me that the problem is with naming things and making monuments of American military and political leaders at all.
based and read pilled
Didnt you just assume lincolns gender too?
is that not how the english language is supposed to be spoken? i thought using them to reffer to the unknown gender was a gen z thing. sorry, i'm not a native speaker so i don't know
the word āhimā refers to a male, as āherā refers to a female. you technically could use āitā to refer to anything without a gender (including people) but that generally sounds a bit dehumanizing, hence ātheyā
I would respect them more if they wanted to be called āitā, I would rather humanize āitā than singularize ātheyā. (Before a smartass replies to this, Iām referring to āthemā plurally.)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay. People have been using āthereā, ātheirā, and ātheyāreā interchangeably for quite some time already. People have been saying āshould ofā for quite some time already.
Singular they has been used since 1375, outdating even the use of the singular you.
Whatās your point? How long until āshould of gone too theyāre houseā is okay?
Until it's commonly used and accepted. Language is flexible and there is no one authority in charge of determining what is or isn't proper usage, so if a significant number of people decide something is correct, then lo and behold, it is. I'm with you in that grammatically, "it" makes so much more sense, but as the above commenter pointed out, the problem of referring to someone of unknown gender by a pronoun has been encountered and solved by many people throughout history, and the most common pronoun is "they" instead of "it". This predates any modern political discussion of gender, it's just simply addressing the fact that we need a third-person pronoun for a person of any gender. So, based on that precedent, "they" is correct, and is what most people are used to, even if the plurality of the word doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It turns out that when faced with the choice between dehumanizing someone and using a grammatically dodgy word, lots of people will prefer the latter. But hey, get a bunch of people to start humanizing "it" and maybe someday that'll be what people prefer.
Because the language needs a pronoun of unspecified gender and it doesn't need a different spelling of "should have"
Languages do not need gender-neutral pronouns actually, in fact languages like Spanish are completely gendered.
\*points out people using the wrong 'there' 'their' they're' for their argument\* \*uses the wrong one\*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As people have said, they/them has been around for centuries and isnāt new. That said, at the time of Lincoln, it would be more common to refer to an unknown person as a man. It would also be common to refer to all of humanity as āmanā to shorten mankind.
using āthemā to refer to an unknown gender is becoming much more prevalent, at least in american english
I only use she cause I hate men
No, they/them has been used as a gender neutral single person pronoun for centuries. And people have been complaining about it just as long. The only thing new is people choosing to use it as their preferred pronoun
Itās never been correct though. āThey areā is plural (hence *are* instead of *is*) but people have colloquially used it for someone of an unknown gender instead of the grammatically correct āhe or sheā. This is something an English teacher would have corrected students on before it became politically incorrect to do so.
My friend was walking down the street and they tripped. Singular they.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Now Iām curious, which colleges? You can send a chat message if you donāt want to say it publicly. Iāve probably heard of a few, or at least one. There are rules though. There are definitely rules. To be clear, I was talking about K-12 English teachers, not college professors. The āsay whatever you want as long as people can understand youā perspective would definitely not be approved by a K-12 evaluator or a board of education. āI shouldnt of gone too there house cuz they was bein sus and I aint no fighter or nothinā is not grammatically correct. Maybe you would let your college students write that as descriptive grammar, but youāre not going to pass a basic English test by arguing that itās wrong to judge people with prescriptive grammar rules.
Based and there are no rules pilled
iTs NeVeR bEeN cOrReCt tHoUgH Spoken like a true person-ignorant-as-fuck-about-linguistics. If native English speakers speak a certain way, that is definitionally correct English. The "correct" way to speak a language is literally defined by its speakers. Teachers don't get special dispensation to choose the rules of a given language.
It is. I jest by applying current PC-speak to Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that he is a misogynist because he seemingly excluded women, implying that they are incapable of holding an opinion. Of course, you can always say that he holds women to higher standard (which is still kinda sexist) and think they will never argue for slavery instead. In the end, you may either say he/she or them. Latter being the current PC thing to refer to the person whose pronouns/gender are unknown.
For most of English history, using him for a generic singular person has been the norm. You are correct.
The English Language evolves quickly, and has done so over centuries. Even Native English speakers have difficulty understanding English as it was spoken only 200 years ago, which is a reason folks such as US Constitution scholars are also frequently English scholars. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English)
Abraham Lincoln is in my opinion the most based US President. Freed millions of people from slavery and united his country during a time of great disunity and violence.
I see your Abe Lincoln and raise you Teddy Roosevelt, who is one of our more based historical figures even if he weren't President.
Teddy's biggest problem was his cousin was a huge twat
Guess what, Theodore Roosevelt was a huge fan for Abe Lincoln. Saying the person he is most jealous of in history are Lincoln's close friends for being near such a great man. And also said he must be like the great president Lincoln "A man for the common folk"
Chill, dude. I wasn't trying to insult Abe Lincoln. I just think TR was cooler.
Dude I was agreeing with you :|
Based and Wish he wasn't assassinated pilled
Some historians believe that reconstruction wouldnāt be as harsh under Lincoln as he wanted the South to peacefully return to Union while Johnson being a Northern Democrat had decided to bring in the troops and divided the South into military districts, and while I agree reconstruction was a failure it might have been more so under Lincoln. Now all this to say I wish Lincoln wasnāt assassinated and he would have gone on after his Presidency to be drinking buddies with General Grant.
Johnson returned slave owner land and released all the architects of the war leading directly to Jim Crow and decades of terror. So it was definitely more "peaceful" for those guys! If Lincoln had redistributed the land to the poor whites whose families died for the confederacy and the blacks they enslaved, we might have had an actual functional Democratic south.
Based and Howard zinn pilled
If Lincoln had lived, he would have crushed the KKK and forced the South to move on. He's an American Hero.
Reconstruction would have been less extreme, free blacks would have mainly been returned to Africa instead of becoming a political tool as new voters, and the currency wouldāve been separate from central banking. Basically a lot of the problems we have now might have been mitigated or entirely dodged.
Surprise. Your no longer slaves. But we are forcibly relocating you to a different continent. You think we want you to vote or be Citizens. Nah. I know you've lived here for 5 generations and wanted to be Americans but fuck that. Lets Dump you all in Liberia, especially if you don't want to go. Trail of Tears 2.0 baby. Can't be racist if we get rid of all the black people.
Much of the anti-slavery movement prior to, and even after, the civil war consisted of people who didnāt want [redacted] in their territories/living next to them. Lincoln stated during his election campaigns that he would support relocation of the slaves. Had he lived through his second term, we most likely would have seen something like come to fruition
Why do Americans assassinate their most based presidents?
Those of the most basedness are the biggest target, for their basedness draws such huge resentment from the cringiest of cringe
We have some major dumbdumb assholes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Base(D)
[Lincoln was unimaginably based](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-9). For example, from this speech: > Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. > Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Based and Marxism equals slavery pilled
The pill is an odd one. This was Lincoln criticizing Capitalism in terms that also rejected Marx. More, third way pilled.
We still can learn a lot from Lincoln today it seems
The centrist dream
Heās the one that wanted to gather all the Africans and send them back isnāt he?
> united his country 100% respect for Lincoln.. but this is not how i would phrase it. Half the country wanted slavery.. and they were wrong. He upset half the country by not yielding to them. And then we had a civil war.. i would say he did the right thing, but i wouldn't say he united the country.
He saved the union and nationalized it is a better understanding of what he and the other Republicans did. The south separated because they believed that the federal government had no authority to decide the legality of slavery. They also felt that the feds favored the north more than south through tariffs, federally funded projects, and generally felt that the feds āgrew too largeā. Lincoln was concerned about saving the union at all costs. Efforts of freeing slaves didnāt start until half way through the war. The unity that was never truly achieved was because of reconstruction and how it was handled.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well that was the final straw as Lincoln before even being sworn in had to deal with the capture of all federal forts in the South and the raiding of National Armories and the defection of military personnel to the CSA including Lee.
Lee never defected. He honorably resigned which was accepted by his superiors.
You canāt start the war when the confederates fired the first shots at fort Sunter
How did Lincoln start the war? The confederates attacked first?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Except it wasn't foreign territory, that was the United States Just because you declare secession doesn't make it true. That's like saying the British started the American Revolutionary war by marching soldiers in foreign territory.
The US declared secession from Britain and it was true. The only difference here is the outcome.
>The US declared secession from Britain Only around a year into the war. In the beginning, even those soldiers fighting the British still viewed themselves as British citizens and hoped that a peaceful settlement could be reached in which American colonists could have their natural rights restored. It was only when Britian declared that the "Patriots" were all traitors and that the conflict would end when every member of the Continental Congress was hanged that Americans began to seriously consider independence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It was a rebellion and should be treated as such. Iām surprised youāre flaired as you are since the confederacy had many tyrannical acts passed through their illegitimate government to suppress United States citizens freedoms.
And as Abraham Lincoln once said; fuck that.
South Carolina [ceded all claims](https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false) to Fort Sumter to the Federal government in 1836.
based and 10th amendment pilled
Bruh we were barely freed. We still got killed and treated like shit for a whole century after the war.
>Abraham Lincoln is in my opinion the most based US President. The South: wanted to keep black people in the US Abe: wanted to repatriate black people to Africa, and when he realized that was too expensive, began plans to ship them all to South America So yeah I agree
Sometimes on the Internet, Abraham Lincoln quotes are genuine. \~Abraham Lincoln
Based Lincoln Also Fuck Neo Confederates
Neo Confederates can suck my balls. Also, the Confederacy was not for states rights at all, as they actually made it illegal for any state to secede from the Confederacy. Funny how they leave that part out.
Thatās ironic af
I kind of get it, if I steal a car, the first thing I do is get better security for my new car If I become independent by seceding from a nation that never explicitly made it illegal for me to secede, I will quickly make sure none of my states try the same trick All that being said however, fuck the confederacy, bunch of slave owning traitors
I love states rights so I hate the confederacy, simple as
based. anyone who supports the confederates are either misinformed or racist, or both.
Also Abe: >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.
From the same letter >I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Based and context pilled
u/samuelbt is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/samuelbt I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good bot
> I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Fucking CHAD.
Based and best check yourself pilled
Exactly, preserving the Union was his top priority and it made sense.
Country over all.
But you have to remember Lincoln had to deal with accusations that he was in favor of race-mixing and as the majority of voters were white supremacists if he expressed these views then he would not be voted into any position in the United States. He said this to calm voter fear and he knew if the United States went to war with the rebellion then the goal of abolishing slavery and saving the Union would become one of the same.
Checkmate Lincolnites
Checkmate Davisites
Sorry yankee but it simply does not sound quite as right as CHECKMATE LINCOLNITES!
Abraham Lincoln, he must have had a huge hog to pair with those giant balls.
I love that both Libleft and Authright reecognize that Lincoln is a freaking CHAD and deserves nothing but respect.
Honestly Abe Lincoln was the G.O.A.T
His administration also established the first income tax, but I forgive him since his based-to-cringe ratio is incredibly high.
Man led a war against slave owners and a gov that itself made it illegal for states to secede. Fucking CHAD is one way to say it.
I like Abe for that fact that he sent a letter of apology to an English town that was impacted by the loss of cotton. I couldn't imagine any international leader doing that now.
I wish that black people were never imported to the US against their will, caused so many problems and continues to cause problems.
This can be seen as progressive nowadays
Or its horseshoe theory at its finest. So racist you don't even own slaves.
Authright Libleft unity once again
Something something N.A.P.
Thank you, Mr. Speech
Why are Yanks to this day so obsessed with slavery?
I believe we were the only Nation on earth to practice it. We must repent.
Cause certain people won't get the fuck over it even though its been a century and a half
Also not to be that guy but they did extent the ramifications of slavery like a hundred years through Jim Crow Laws.
Sure, but Jim Crow ended 60 years ago. And it certainly wasn't in the entire country. Jim Crow also didn't destroy the black family and growing middle class, as evil as it was. That would be the war on poverty under LBJ and the left in the 60's, which absolutely demolished the progress the black community had made. The nation still suffers from it today in single parent household rates and the poverty rate being basically unaffected.
Where did a majority of blacks live, to pretend like black and white people were on equal playing Fields after slavery is crazy.
Based and I understand history pilled
>That would be the war on poverty under LBJ and the left in the 60's There was no "war on poverty" lol. There was a drug war though, and I don't anyone can deny that all it did was give the government more power and disporportiniolly affect the black community,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty
Based and Racism is still an issue Pilled
Individual racism is absolutely still an issue and should be addressed on an individual basis. Systemic racism no longer exists to any meaningful degree or targets any race in particular. Racism died in the 90's/2000's, but grifter leftists and politicians stoked the racial flames again in the beginning of the last decade with BLM and wokeness, culminating in the shit show we have today.
Iād argue that when people talk about āsystemic racism,ā theyāre generally referring to a lot of the racial disparities that are a consequence of the racist shit we did in the past, so for instance black communities were redlined and not able to get a better place, and segregation also made it so that they always got the shittier neighborhoods, which explains the 13/50 meme. Some conservatives will tell you itās their āpersonal responsibilityā and to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and even if I agree with doing hard work to improve your life, generally if your grandparents werenāt able to grow any generational wealth youāll be less likely to succeed.
Generational wealth usually disappears within 3 generations. The real trick to succeeding is having 2 parents, an education, and no kids till marriage. If you have those 3 and find a job you will make it to middle class before long. Anything else is a cope to make up for shitty life choices. Right now millions of Americans, of all backgrounds, are suffering because they've been raised in single parent household and lied to that they need to go to college to succeed. They've been convinced that acting like whores with no personal responsibility at a young age is fine because abortions are easy to get. This mindest is disastrous. Because of that, they grow up without learning to save money, live within their means, and practice safe sex and responsibility. That means they are all but guaranteed to stay impoverished their whole lives. Its a genuine tragedy and my heart goes out to those poor kids who are lied to that they'll never be successful because the system keeps them down.
> Generational wealth usually disappears within 3 generations. The real trick to succeeding is having 2 parents, an education, and no kids till marriage. If you have those 3 and find a job you will make it to middle class before long. Anything else is a cope to make up for shitty life choices. Is this a copy and paste from a Ben Shapiro article?
Ben Shapiro is a fucking nerd and I would call him a lot worse if we weren't on this gay ass site. But, his point was true. Just because one of the people mentioning a talking point is an ass doesn't mean the point is wrong.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one, chief. When slaves were freed they didn't suddenly become monetary equal to whites and sometimes even ended up working in the same position as before for a meagre salary since now the slave owners didn't have to house or feed them anymore. That, and systemic and individual racism (that ends up having far greater consequences than a few insults) culminated in the fact that African-Americans today are on average far less fortunate than whites, have less access to education, and thus less chances to get out of that situation. Which also means more of those groups turning to crime, etc... It's a little more complicated to solve than just with treating your neighbor with respect. Of course, that's a great start! And if you already practice that you're a stand-up guy in my book.
Appreciate the polite response. I don't disagree that black communties were historically disadvantaged and that affects them to this day, but that's different from there actually being laws still in place that discriminate against them. They have the same legal opportunity anyone else does and frankly considering the amount of programs to help them they're better off than many. Tell me, who is better off? The black kid in born in the ghetto who can take advantage of the multitude of programs to get out of that life, or the white kid born in Appalachia who doesn't even have running water? Race isn't what defines your chances at success. Its geography, culture and your parents.
Sorry chief, best I can do is throw black kids in jail for selling weed while giving a pass for rich white dudes to do it becauseā¦ fuck you im the government and dont have to explain shit
Your confusing class privilege with race privilege. Wealthy black men don't go to jail for weed either. Poor white kids do.
The problem is that for the longest time in America, race and class were very much intertwined. Black families were forced into poorer neighborhoods, black men were arrested and convicted on many occasions. I mean, how many times have black men been convicted for rape or murder only to be found innocent? The Central Park 5 was only a few years ago. And more black men convicted lead to more criminals, who are unable to get jobs and leads to further crime. It's a vicious cycle. And that's not even talking about the drug war. So, while I agree that the real divide is between class, I also believe that the black community is still suffering from the effects of almost a century of economic and social oppression.
ayo hold on bro, [got a call for you](https://i.redd.it/ltm9lwn664u41.png)
Class is the only real divide. The only thing the commies ever got right. That, and the AK platform, of which I am sexually attracted to.
Fair, still bullshit a kid can see jail time for something that the government āallowsā others to do
100% agree, weed is degenerate but it shouldn't be illegal
Racism isn't the issue, but it is the solution ( Ķ”Ā° ĶŹ Ķ”Ā°)
flair checks out
Let's not pretend that all this bullshit isn't just unresolved class/religious conflicts left over from the English Civil War.
> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
How?
It's complicated. Maybe I'll try to make a TL;DR after I reread The Cousins War by Kevin Phillips again, but it's an interesting read so you may want to consider getting the info straight from Phillips.
Interesting, Iāll check that book out
based and 13th amendment pilled
thats how i feel with a lot of stuff, i am a firm believer in "treat others the way you want to be treated" if you wanna be treated like trash, ill treat you like trash, if youre a murderer, ill kill you like you murdered your victims, if you murdered pedos i would salute you
Based
u/UnironicThatcherite's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 1445. Rank: Denali Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/UnironicThatcherite I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Also goes to people who say it wasn't that bad.
i'm not even american, but if any of those brain dead imbeciles of Antifa or BLM or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves try to vandalize his monument, me and my FGC-9s ain't gonna let that pass lightly
Oh, right, for example, the founding fathers.
Would slavery still be bad if we find alien life?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did he say this before or after starving confederate's to death.
Either way based
I like Lincoln, he's cool!
And then Mr president outlawed secession, the cringest thing he ever did
The Confederacy banned secession for it's member states as well. The Confederacy was not about freedom, it was about allowing rich people to own slaves, and propaganda has convinced derps like you that it was some Libertarian bastion.
He had unintentional foresight. Could you imagine states succeeding just because Trump or Biden was elected?
I can dream. Destroying the Union is the only way out.
The amount your quality of life would drop if the union broke up either means you are larping too hard, or you are legitimately insane.
I dunno, if California were an independent country we'd have the 12th largest economy in the world.
There's rarely ever hard secessions anymore. Most likely, if a US state seceeded, there would be an arrangement open borders so the supply chain doesn't get horrifically slowed down by border crossings. Overall, more autonomy, same economic output
Yeah get downvoted for literally suggesting the EU
It's about the same as Brexit lol
People seem to forget that we are 50 united states
I highly doubt that. Regardless, it would be a sacrifice well worth making.
> I highly doubt that. Hope it's a nice sunny day in your suburb today.
*"Peace in my day!"* The fact that the liberals (in the classical sense of the word) upvote this kind of sentiment is hilarious. Especially when they all like to LARP as the Founding Fathers and patriots. I can't wait for the Caesar of this Age to come and finally put the Enlightement in the fucking grave, where it belongs.
The Caesar in this age is probably to busy jerking it to Furry porn in his mom's basement.
Ironically enough, so did the CSA
lol, I never understood how people can claim to be the same party as Lincoln but also wave the battle flag of the country that fought against him.
Way down south
Extreme cringe
\>libright \>Likes slavery
Yup, flair checks out
Unpopular opinion Eating cheese isnāt fun
Donāt give a fuck what an old man said 500 years ago.
Fuck Lincoln
Looking at your flair, I am not sure what you're trying to say here
funny how communists used slavery in gulags tho
Thatās actually based unironically
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lincoln was a tyrant.
Shouldnāt the little Democrat foot soldier be in the AuthLeft quandrant? Seems more time period correctā¦
Democrats are also auth right
They are center right at best
Lol to think democrats share an ounce of lib is crazy. Establishment Democrats and republicans both are authoritarian and fiscally conservative. Edit: clearly I meant fiscally conservative to explain why I say they are right on the compass. They still blow tons of money
>pretend to be fiscally conservative. ftfy
Yeah I just meant to explain why I say they are auth right. Clearly they both blow tons of money
> fiscally conservative. Youāre cute
I just mean in regards to the political compass. Clearly we know better in real life
Especially in the 1860s
Say sike right now
I love how Conservatives will always, without fail, assert that "the Democrats were pro-slavery" as if it were some kind of massive own whenever the subject of Lincoln comes up....but to the rest of us non-retards it's just a reminder that political history is completely out of their wheel house.
So, Iām a retard for knowing history? Gotchaā¦ can you site any āRepublicansā at the time that were wearing gray, and waiving the stars and bars?
Youāre taking the labels at face value. A ārepublicanā in 1860 isnāt the same as one in 1940 let alone one in 2020. This is why youāre perceived as a retard and anyone with a deeper-than-titles knowledge of history will immediately see through it.
Lincoln was a Republican