Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've forgotten more about the Civil War than these idiots will ever know.
It might be easier for you to read some history if your knees weren't constantly jerking so hard.
I listed some of the actions by Lincoln that, if they were engaged by George W. Bush, would absolutely have the hive-mind programming you to say BOOOOOOSSSSHHHH was a traitor.
So the first question, do you question if any or all of these elements are indeed fact? (I can wait while you log on to ThinkProgress to ask your masters.)
If you were unaware of these, does this indicate that you are well educated and informed?
From my perspective, your posts reveal you to be ignorant and uneducated.
I've forgotten more about the Civil War than these idiots will ever know.
You've failed to demonstrate any knowledge, thus far.
Did Lincoln cause the arrest and imprisonment journalists who criticized him?
(I'll wait while you check with DailyKOS)
Assuming the hive has now confirmed what I posted, were his actions legal? Were they Constitutional?
Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
Yes, he did want to provoke a war, but the threats of violence against the South made by parts of the Republican Party began before secession and the election of Lincoln, so he was basically catering to factions of his own Party in going to war.
A book by Hinton Rowan Helper, The Impending Crisis of the South, was published in 1857, purporting to deal with the economic impact of slavery on the South, was adopted by the Republicans as a propaganda tool. They published abridged editions of it and used it accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric.
from page 112 Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, James M. MCPherson. Alfred a. Knopf 1982.Leading Republicans raised money to print and circulate an abridged edition as a campaign document. This infuriated Southerners, especially as the Republicans added such inflammatory captions in the abridged edition as: "Revolution -- Peacefully if we can, Violently if we must." ...
Helper's book played a role in provoking one of the most serious deadlocks in the history of Congress. The Republicans had a plurality but not a majority on the House that convened in December 1859 over the election of Speaker of the House. States passed resolutions to vote on candidates based on whether they supported the book or not. It took 44 ballots, with ultimately the Speakership going to William Pennington.
Many who claimed they supported it had never read it. lol ...
The deadlock went on for 8 weeks, and one commentator noted "the only persons who did not have a revolver and knife were those who had two revolvers."
John Brown's raid had taken place two months before this Congress convened, and the support for that violence along with the threats of violence against the South in Republican campaign literature pretty much establishes the pattern of Republicans willing to use violence even before the secessions and election of Lincoln began.
.. over the election of Speaker of the House. States passed resolutions to vote on candidates based on whether they supported the book or not. It took 44 ballots, with ultimately the Speakership going to William Pennington.Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
Yes, he did want to provoke a war, but the threats of violence against the South made by parts of the Republican Party began before secession and the election of Lincoln, so he was basically catering to factions of his own Party in going to war.
A book by Hinton Rowan Helper, The Impending Crisis of the South, was published in 1857, purporting to deal with the economic impact of slavery on the South, was adopted by the Republicans as a propaganda tool. They published abridged editions of it and used it accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric.
Leading Republicans raised money to print and circulate an abridged edition as a campaign document. This infuriated Southerners, especially as the Republicans added such inflammatory captions in the abridged edition as: "Revolution -- Peacefully if we can, Violently if we must." ...
from page 112 Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, James M. MCPherson. Alfred a. Knopf 1982,
Helper's book played a role in provoking one of the most serious deadlocks in the history of Congress. The Republicans had a plurality but not a majority on the House that convened in December 1859.
Many who claimed they supported it had never read it. lol ...
The deadlock went on for 8 weeks, and one commentator noted "the only persons who did not have a revolver and knife were those who had two revolvers."
Amazing how effective contrived perceptions can be.
Which parts are new and surprising revelations for you? Did you just discover these facts yesterday?
Which parts are new and surprising revelations for you? Did you just discover these facts yesterday?
Yes, you are an uneducated dolt, most leftists are. I see you failed to answer the question, did you not get a response from the hate sites, telling you what you think?
Amazing how effective contrived perceptions can be.
Amazing how ineffective snarky juvenile trolling can be.
Aren't you embarrassed to post nonsense all the time? You should be.
I'd love to see the list of eminent scholars who can validate their hair brained theories.
Aren't you embarrassed to post nonsense all the time? You should be.
What have I posted that is "nonsense," sploogy?
Be specific.
See, here's the deal; you have yet to post anything on-topic or relevant. You claim to have knowledge, yet demonstrate only ignorance.
I know this works for Jon Stewart, but Stewart is designed to appeal to an audience of fucking retards, people like you. Here, the vacuous bullshit fails to impress. I suspect you are the recreation of a poster who used to regale us with tales of how much truth matters, while never engaging in truth....
Either way, you are an ignorant, uneducated troll, with the intellect of a lamppost.
I'd love to see the list of eminent scholars who can validate their hair brained theories.
Which theories, retard?
Be specific.
The one about Lincoln being a traitor. I'd like to know the name of even one legitimate historian who would agree with that kind of incredibly stupid remark.
Amazing how pop culture revisionist interpretations pass for history these days.
Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.
Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.
Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...
I'm just sayin...
