...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

Discussion in 'Education' started by Liberty, May 13, 2010.

  1. Liberty
    Offline

    Liberty Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Thanks Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    colorado
    Ratings:
    +548
    They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
     
  2. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    Nah. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire group of people; Lincoln was after territory. Imperialistic, yes, but not genocidal or even in the same ballpark as the Holocaust.
     
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

    and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

    might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  5. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
     
  6. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south. Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
     
  8. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,918
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,929
    He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.

    Where do you people come from? Mars?
     
  9. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Lincoln didn't free any slaves.
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    That is retarded. You appear to be retarded.

    It fits.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page