Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?

[RandallFlagg]

He suspended habeas corpus which is absolutely unacceptable...

Obama has done away with "Due Process" and the far left is ok with it!

It started way before Oblama, Reagan did us a good number...

Proof?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

It is hard to pinpoint Abraham Lincoln's economic leanings, but one thing is clear. Republicans today hate Lincoln and his pro-Black, anti-Capitalist, private-property stealing, big government policies.

Lincoln's party was responsible for the largest growth of Federal Government in US history, whether it was from building Railways and Canals, to confiscating Plantation owner land and giving it to former slaves (do you think after the slaves are freed the former slave holder should also be forced to surrender some of their land?!)

Lincoln's policies also created the largest land-give-away in history such that 75% of American households owned their own property by 1890.

Of course, the Southern/Conservative counter-revolution has all but destroyed the US middle class created by Lincoln's liberals and the eventual Progressive Democrat movement.

Why then do I say Lincoln was a communist?

Well it's simple.

Lincoln believed that if a person worked, they were entitled to own the fruits of their labor, and this is a directly communist statement.

It's not necessarily Marxist, but that is not what I am claiming.

What Lincoln believed was that Capital belongs to the person who worked to create it, not to the person who owned it because a piece of paper says so.

You know sonny, I worked in Moscow during the 80s. It's funny that you would include that statement because I (literally) saw thousands of Russians that were nearly always on the verge of starvation from their communist government. Too bad they weren't allowed to keep the "fruits of their labor".....isn't it.

Not to mention the nearly 5 million Russians who were murdered by Stalin....too bad they weren't allowed to "keep their fruits"

I used to stand in the window of my apartment in Moscow and watch the babushkas standing in bread lines - praying to God that they didn't run out BEFORE they got to them.


Yes Sir - communism = good times.

Stalin didn't murder Russians, and the Russians in the 1980s weren't "starving", there was a bread shortage after Chernobyl due to a World Wide Wheat Embargo placed upon the USSR at the time.

You don't know much about Russian history, or you're just a liar.

Stalin didn't murder Russians? Say what?

Are Ukrainians now Russians? Do you people have any specificity in your garbage talking points?

Do you even know how to communicate accurately?

I know millions died under Stalin. That's just a fact

Indeed. A conservative estimate is 40 million....

 

[initforme]

Slave owners were vermin scum. Lowlifes.

 

[Rustic]

10 Reasons Lincoln Was Secretly A Terrible President - Listverse
By now, you’ve probably guessed that Lincoln wasn’t exactly the great equality-lover that Hollywood likes to pretend he was, but there’s one ethnic group who felt that more keenly than perhaps any other. For all their talk of equality, the first Republican presidency in history was marked by a shocking wave of brutality toward Native Americans.

In 1863, the Lincoln administration oversaw one of the biggest land-grabs in history—turfing the Navajos and Mescalero Apaches out of their New Mexico territory and into a reservation called Bosque Redondo 725 kilometers (450 mi) away. The journey there was the very definition of a death march. Thousands of people were herded across the baking desert with little in the way of supplies, surrounded by an army who summarily executed stragglers. When the survivors made it to Bosque Redondo, they were shoved into squalid, disease-ridden camps and simply left to die. By the time the decision was reversed, one-third of those interred were dead of exposure or starvation.

As bad as that is, it’s far from the only example. Massacres were frighteningly routine during these years and often went unpunished—unless it was the Native Americans doing the massacring, in which case execution was de rigueur. That’s before we get onto the devastation caused by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and the thousands it displaced. In short, the presidency of Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a great time to be Native American.

 

[TheCrusader]

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.
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

It is hard to pinpoint Abraham Lincoln's economic leanings, but one thing is clear. Republicans today hate Lincoln and his pro-Black, anti-Capitalist, private-property stealing, big government policies.

Lincoln's party was responsible for the largest growth of Federal Government in US history, whether it was from building Railways and Canals, to confiscating Plantation owner land and giving it to former slaves (do you think after the slaves are freed the former slave holder should also be forced to surrender some of their land?!)

Lincoln's policies also created the largest land-give-away in history such that 75% of American households owned their own property by 1890.

Of course, the Southern/Conservative counter-revolution has all but destroyed the US middle class created by Lincoln's liberals and the eventual Progressive Democrat movement.

Why then do I say Lincoln was a communist?

Well it's simple.

Lincoln believed that if a person worked, they were entitled to own the fruits of their labor, and this is a directly communist statement.

It's not necessarily Marxist, but that is not what I am claiming.

What Lincoln believed was that Capital belongs to the person who worked to create it, not to the person who owned it because a piece of paper says so.

You know sonny, I worked in Moscow during the 80s. It's funny that you would include that statement because I (literally) saw thousands of Russians that were nearly always on the verge of starvation from their communist government. Too bad they weren't allowed to keep the "fruits of their labor".....isn't it.

Not to mention the nearly 5 million Russians who were murdered by Stalin....too bad they weren't allowed to "keep their fruits"

I used to stand in the window of my apartment in Moscow and watch the babushkas standing in bread lines - praying to God that they didn't run out BEFORE they got to them.


Yes Sir - communism = good times.

Stalin didn't murder Russians, and the Russians in the 1980s weren't "starving", there was a bread shortage after Chernobyl due to a World Wide Wheat Embargo placed upon the USSR at the time.

You don't know much about Russian history, or you're just a liar.

Stalin didn't murder Russians? Say what?

Are Ukrainians now Russians? Do you people have any specificity in your garbage talking points?

Do you even know how to communicate accurately?

Sonny - you need an education. Your public school teachers screwed you over.....

You make an incorrect statement then back-up your idiotic claims with references to websites, rather than peer reviewed primary-sourced historical papers.

You say "Communism bad because a fascist named Stalin killed Ukrainians for a very complex reason and set of motivations".

Why don't you say "Capitalism bad because US private citizens owned millions of slaves and brutally killed and raped them for 200 years."

The reason is because you're a biased piece of shit.

 

[Moonglow]

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.
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

It is hard to pinpoint Abraham Lincoln's economic leanings, but one thing is clear. Republicans today hate Lincoln and his pro-Black, anti-Capitalist, private-property stealing, big government policies.

Lincoln's party was responsible for the largest growth of Federal Government in US history, whether it was from building Railways and Canals, to confiscating Plantation owner land and giving it to former slaves (do you think after the slaves are freed the former slave holder should also be forced to surrender some of their land?!)

Lincoln's policies also created the largest land-give-away in history such that 75% of American households owned their own property by 1890.

Of course, the Southern/Conservative counter-revolution has all but destroyed the US middle class created by Lincoln's liberals and the eventual Progressive Democrat movement.

Why then do I say Lincoln was a communist?

Well it's simple.

Lincoln believed that if a person worked, they were entitled to own the fruits of their labor, and this is a directly communist statement.

It's not necessarily Marxist, but that is not what I am claiming.

What Lincoln believed was that Capital belongs to the person who worked to create it, not to the person who owned it because a piece of paper says so.

You know sonny, I worked in Moscow during the 80s. It's funny that you would include that statement because I (literally) saw thousands of Russians that were nearly always on the verge of starvation from their communist government. Too bad they weren't allowed to keep the "fruits of their labor".....isn't it.

Not to mention the nearly 5 million Russians who were murdered by Stalin....too bad they weren't allowed to "keep their fruits"

I used to stand in the window of my apartment in Moscow and watch the babushkas standing in bread lines - praying to God that they didn't run out BEFORE they got to them.


Yes Sir - communism = good times.

Stalin didn't murder Russians but Ukranians because of their uprisings against central government and himself was a Fascist, and the Russians in the 1980s weren't "starving", there was a bread shortage after Chernobyl due to a World Wide Wheat Embargo placed upon the USSR at the time.

You don't know much about Russian history, or you're just a liar.

They were called Kulaks...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Slave owners were vermin scum. Lowlifes.

Sonny, I'm black and have been all my life. Do you have any clue exactly how many slave owners there actually were? 99% of the people around back then were poor dirt farmers - they could hardly have afforded slaves when the majority of people were slaves themselves.

Think about it. there wasn't 300 million people in the country then - there were probably no more than 5 million at any one time.

 

[initforme]

Those who don't like Lincoln are anti american

 

[RandallFlagg]

You know sonny, I worked in Moscow during the 80s. It's funny that you would include that statement because I (literally) saw thousands of Russians that were nearly always on the verge of starvation from their communist government. Too bad they weren't allowed to keep the "fruits of their labor".....isn't it.

Not to mention the nearly 5 million Russians who were murdered by Stalin....too bad they weren't allowed to "keep their fruits"

I used to stand in the window of my apartment in Moscow and watch the babushkas standing in bread lines - praying to God that they didn't run out BEFORE they got to them.


Yes Sir - communism = good times.

Stalin didn't murder Russians, and the Russians in the 1980s weren

't "starving", there was a bread shortage after Chernobyl due to a World Wide Wheat Embargo placed upon the USSR at the time.

You don't know much about Russian history, or you're just a liar.

Stalin didn't murder Russians? Say what?

Are Ukrainians now Russians? Do you people have any specificity in your garbage talking points?

Do you even know how to communicate accurately?

Sonny - you need an education. Your public school teachers screwed you over.....

You make an incorrect statement then back-up your idiotic claims with references to websites, rather than peer reviewed primary-sourced historical papers.

You say "Communism bad because a fascist named Stalin killed Ukrainians for a very complex reason and set of motivations".

Why don't you say "Capitalism bad because US private citizens owned millions of slaves and brutally killed and raped them for 200 years."

The reason is because you're a biased piece of shit.

Poor little fellow.......I feel for you.

 

[Rustic]

Lincoln’s modern reputation is that of a brilliant man who would stop at nothing to do the right thing, especially regarding slavery. The truth is somewhat less perfect. In reality, Lincoln was first and foremost a pragmatist. Sometimes that pragmatism led him to support some truly disgusting laws.

Take the Fugitive Slave Act. This depressing bit of psychopathy made it a citizen’s duty to hunt down and report runaway slaves on pain of imprisonment and an enormous fine. It also stripped all black people of what few rights they had and made it possible for free-born men to be enslaved if a plantation owner simply claimed they were a runaway. Not only did Lincoln not oppose this law, he ran on a platform of enforcing it in the Northern States, most of which had traditionally ignored it. But even this doesn’t come close to his support for the 13th Amendment.

Yes, there were two 13th Amendments—the one Lincoln’s now associated with, and the one he openly supported in his inaugural address. The purpose of this original 13th Amendment was to make it illegal for congress to interfere with slavery in the South, virtually guaranteeing it would last forever. That’s right—the man who eventually “freed the slaves” very nearly condemned them to an eternity of servitude instead. How different history could have been.

 

[Moonglow]

He suspended habeas corpus which is absolutely unacceptable...

Obama has done away with "Due Process" and the far left is ok with it!

It started way before Oblama, Reagan did us a good number...

Proof?

Confiscation of suspected drug use and sales monies and property...Property and cash immediately taken into custody without conviction...

 

[TheCrusader]

Slave owners were vermin scum. Lowlifes.

Sonny, I'm black and have been all my life. Do you have any clue exactly how many slave owners there actually were? 99% of the people around back then were poor dirt farmers - they could hardly have afforded slaves when the majority of people were slaves themselves.

Think about it. there wasn't 300 million people in the country then - there were probably no more than 5 million at any one time.

25% of Southern Households were slave owners.

They even wrote treatises on how after states dipped below 18-15% households owning slaves the slavers lost political power and slave states turned free states and abolished slavery.

The South instituted policies throughout the 1830s-1850s to try and bolster the number of slave holding households in each slave state because of this.

There were competing debates on the price of slaves because too high a price reduced the households involved in slavery, but slaveholder were extremely greedy and wanted to raise prices for their own gain despite the greater good of their own political power.

This is one of the leading causes of the Civil War.

Southern Capitalism | Duke University Press

 

[Rustic]

If you’ve ever so much as been in the same room as a lawyer, you’ll know that habeas corpus is an important legal principle. In essence, it means any state that orders your arrest has to then justify your continued imprisonment before a judge. Getting rid of it means anyone can be summarily rounded up, imprisoned, and left to rot. Lincoln ditched it within two months of taking office.

To be fair, the 16th president had his reasons. There was immediate danger in April 1861 of Maryland seceding to join the Confederacy, and Washington risked being overrun by Southern troops. The trouble is, when you’ve crossed a line once, crossing it again becomes a lot easier. Once he was done imprisoning Maryland’s legislature, Lincoln turned his sights to the rest of the country—and the results weren’t pretty.

Without waiting for congressional approval, Abe authorized the indefinite imprisonment of citizens across the Union, culminating in an 1862 attempt to have habeas corpus suspended for draft-dodgers—a suspension he intended to enforce by deploying the military against state judges. Although it was a measure born of desperate times, it allowed Jefferson Davis to portray the Confederacy as a place where liberty was valued—a move that nearly won the South some vital allies in Europe. It could have been an utter disaster—the fact that it wasn’t only proves how little appetite Europe had for declaring war.

 

[initforme]

Slave owners equal scum no doubt inarguable. The south was wrong.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lincoln’s modern reputation is that of a brilliant man who would stop at nothing to do the right thing, especially regarding slavery. The truth is somewhat less perfect. In reality, Lincoln was first and foremost a pragmatist. Sometimes that pragmatism led him to support some truly disgusting laws.

Take the Fugitive Slave Act. This depressing bit of psychopathy made it a citizen’s duty to hunt down and report runaway slaves on pain of imprisonment and an enormous fine. It also stripped all black people of what few rights they had and made it possible for free-born men to be enslaved if a plantation owner simply claimed they were a runaway. Not only did Lincoln not oppose this law, he ran on a platform of enforcing it in the Northern States, most of which had traditionally ignored it. But even this doesn’t come close to his support for the 13th Amendment.

Yes, there were two 13th Amendments—the one Lincoln’s now associated with, and the one he openly supported in his inaugural address. The purpose of this original 13th Amendment was to make it illegal for congress to interfere with slavery in the South, virtually guaranteeing it would last forever. That’s right—the man who eventually “freed the slaves” very nearly condemned them to an eternity of servitude instead. How different history could have been.

My take on Lincoln is this easy: Lincoln stated, in his reply to Horace Greely, that if he could have saved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so.

Lincoln, being held up as some sort of pious statesman is incorrect. However, we are one country because of the man. Yes, he suspended Habeus Corpus in a time of war. But it was reinstated immediately after the war. Perfect? Hell no, but again, we are one country because of the man.

 

[Rustic]

While we’re on the subject of free speech and all, let’s meet Clement L. Vallandigham. An Ohio Democrat during the dark days of the Civil War, he was by all accounts a bit of a miserable idiot, who liked nothing better than to rile his Republican rivals by opposing everything they stood for. Since this was the 1860s, that meant campaigning to end the war and criticizing Lincoln for his cavalier approach to civil liberties. A criticism Lincoln responded to by having Vallandigham arrested, tried by the military, and deported behind enemy lines.

Just to be clear, Vallandigham wasn’t a spy. He wasn’t aiding the Confederacy. He was just a guy who had a misguided admiration for the South and felt uneasy about winning a war by crushing civil liberties. Deporting him for expressing these views was about as far from democracy as you can possibly get. Then again, Lincoln did a lot of things that don’t exactly sit well with our idea of a democratic leader.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Slave owners equal scum no doubt inarguable. The south was wrong.

Um....there were as many slave owners in the North as the South.

 

[Rustic]

Let’s pretend for a second that today’s front page of The Washington Post is running a big hatchet job on Obama. The claims are unsubstantiated, even libelous, and contain quotes misattributed to the president that could damage the Afghanistan withdrawal effort. Now imagine the article turns out to be a fake and Obama responds by sending in the military to seize the paper’s offices and arrest its editors. There’d be outrage, right?

Well, that’s exactly what Lincoln did in 1864. When two newspapers got conned into printing a fake message from the president, Honest Abe reacted by ordering a military takeover of the titles. The rationale was that the article in question was damaging to the government during a time of national crisis—an excuse you may recognize as one recently deployed by Egypt’s bloodthirsty military junta. In the end, Lincoln did the right-ish thing by having the imprisoned editors released—three months after he gave freedom of speech a flying kick to the teeth.

 

[Rustic]

For a president widely agreed to have been a strategic genius, Lincoln sure had a knack for picking incompetent generals. In November 1862, he ordered talentless nobody Ambrose Burnside to take control of the Army of the Potomac—an outfit so well-trained and equipped that anybody should have been able to lead them to victory. Do you want to guess what happened next?

Five days after taking up his post, Burnside unveiled to Lincoln his plan for a daring assault on the Confederate capital. The President gave his approval and Burnside marched his troops into the Battle of Fredericksburg—a humiliating slaughter that saw the Union defeated with embarrassing ease. Undeterred by his costly failure, Burnside waited just over a month before launching his next offensive—a little something known today as the Mud March.

Originally a plan to outflank General Lee’s troops, the Mud March quickly dissolved into farce after Burnside led his men through an apocalyptic rainstorm. Bogged down, the Yankees fell over one another, marched into each other’s units, and created a vast human traffic jam that sent the Confederates into hysterics. To make matters worse, Burnside attempted to boost morale by issuing each man hard liquor—resulting in a mass of disheveled, drunken Union soldiers brawling with one another in a seething mess of mud and idiocy. Lincoln finally removed the incompetent general in January 1863, but not before he’d single-handedly made a mockery of the entire Union war effort.

 

[Rustic]

It’s no secret that Lincoln utterly detested slavery. He once famously remarked that “if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” But there was at least one other thing he hated with equal ferocity—subordinates stepping on his toes. In May 1862, these two passions collided with depressing results.

A few weeks earlier, Union soldiers under the command of General David Hunter had managed to occupy a fair chunk of South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. With the Confederacy now vanquished in the region, General Hunter did something both deeply heroic and entirely unexpected—he declared all former slaves in the occupied states free. Sadly for the 100,000 or so slaves his proclamation affected, a week later the “Great Emancipator” reversed his order, crushing any dreams of freedom they may have had.

Sure, Hunter never really had the right to issue his order, and Lincoln himself would devise the general Emancipation Proclamation just a few months later. Still, the incident remains a reminder that Lincoln valued other things above abolition—namely, his own inflated ego.