"Lincoln was a tyrant"

[Allasaphore]

Oscar, I never claimed any of your facts were wrong. I said they lacked citation and composed no argument at all.

A tyrant is, according to Merriam-Webster:
1.
a :  an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b :  a usurper of sovereignty
2
a :  a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b :  one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

To prove that Lincoln is a tyrant, you must prove that Abraham Lincoln fits at minimum at least one of these statements. Seeing as this thread is "Lincon [sic] was a tyrant", the burden of proving this lays upon you (which you have thus far failed to do).

Secondly, you should change the title of your thread. Your title is a statement indicating that you are arguing a point of view, not a statement expressing the existence of a poll.

[Duuring]

Your 'facts' are not necissarly wrong, they just lead to incorrect and biased statements. The entire text shambles - that's what I think.

[Wismar]

Oscar, I never claimed any of your facts were wrong. I said they lacked citation and composed no argument at all.

A tyrant is, according to Merriam-Webster:
1.
a :  an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b :  a usurper of sovereignty
2
a :  a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b :  one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

To prove that Lincoln is a tyrant, you must prove that Abraham Lincoln fits at minimum at least one of these statements. Seeing as this thread is "Lincon [sic] was a tyrant", the burden of proving this lays upon you (which you have thus far failed to do).

Secondly, you should change the title of your thread. Your title is a statement indicating that you are arguing a point of view, not a statement expressing the existence of a poll.

I did the same as many news papers do, take a statement out of its' context to stir up some emotions=more enjoyable and passionate discussions.

The title is just there for the discussion. It doesn't mean I think so.
This thread is not based on what I think so stop arguing against me.
I may have an opinion but I won't argue for it here since those debates tends to get to hot.

So this thread is focused on what y'all think about Lincon, his rights and wrongs.
So please go on...

[joer5835]

This thread is not based on what I think so stop arguing against me.

The article is sort of my argument and I take side with it.

Seems legit.

[Duuring]

This thread is not based on what I think so stop arguing against me.

The article is sort of my argument and I take side with it.

Seems legit.

+1 well spotted.

[Wismar]

This thread is not based on what I think so stop arguing against me.

The article is sort of my argument and I take side with it.

Seems legit.

If you would have read the whole thread then you would understand that I said that I had an opinion but I do not wish to discuss it.
Yes I have an opinion but that's it.

[Allasaphore]

Oscar, the issue is that the title of the thread and your OP present it as such. If you do not wish to see people shooting down that argument (and assuming it is yours, since you failed to use citation) as a logical fallacy and worth next-to-nothing in a historical debate, change the thread title to one indicating that you want the idea discussed. The present title is sensationalist at best and can hardly be expected to foster mature discussion on the matter.

Anyway, good luck defending your OP.

[Tali]

I've never seen such a unresearched, copied text of ignorant history. One can smell the Southern Revisionism steaming from it. I know you are a racist Oskar, but show some fucking common sense and do some research before you post shit like this.

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South.

Spoiler

[close]

Anyone with a pair of braincells can see that Slavery was, at the outbreak of the war, an affair centrered in the South-East. Maybe you lack said Brain cells.

Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery, and unlike the United States government, they did so without killing 600,000 of their own citizens. The shameful practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.

How can you be so biased, so stupid and so ignorant that you make this statement. Ending slavery peaceful were tried at several times, with fierce opposition from certain areas of the US. Can you guess which. The Fucking South. Southern Democrats were happy to violate other states rights if it meant securing their right to own other humans.

Those 600.000 that died were the result of a small, influent slave-holding class that refused to let go of the lifeblood of their economy, and the war they started. Blaming the Civil war on the North, or Lincoln, is downright stupid.

[Augy]

Most of the "great" presidents seemed to leave a long, deep trail of blood behind them, and Lincoln was certainly one of them. But the history we've got is the history we've got, in other words, all we can do is play a "what if" game regarding the alternatives. Could slavery have been ended without such an extreme massacre? I'd like to think so, but I don't think that any of us can prove it with any satisfaction.

In short, I think that Lincoln was a tyrant, that the Confederates were tyrants, and I am loathe to get into the business of choosing sides.

[Wismar]

I've never seen such a unresearched, copied text of ignorant history. One can smell the Southern Revisionism steaming from it. I know you are a racist Oskar, but show some fucking common sense and do some research before you post shit like this.

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South.

Spoiler

[close]

Anyone with a pair of braincells can see that Slavery was, at the outbreak of the war, an affair centrered in the South-East. Maybe you lack said Brain cells.

Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery, and unlike the United States government, they did so without killing 600,000 of their own citizens. The shameful practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.

How can you be so biased, so stupid and so ignorant that you make this statement. Ending slavery peaceful were tried at several times, with fierce opposition from certain areas of the US. Can you guess which. The Fucking South. Southern Democrats were happy to violate other states rights if it meant securing their right to own other humans.

Those 600.000 that died were the result of a small, influent slave-holding class that refused to let go of the lifeblood of their economy, and the war they started. Blaming the Civil war on the North, or Lincoln, is downright stupid.

No need to hate on me :/

I didn't write the article.
Please read through the thread before posting 

And thank you for reminding me that I'm a racist 

[MagicTeatowel]

I found this really interesting, thanks for enlightening me.

Spoiler

I'm not being sarcastic, genuine thanks.

[close]

[Tali]

I've never seen such a unresearched, copied text of ignorant history. One can smell the Southern Revisionism steaming from it. I know you are a racist Oskar, but show some fucking common sense and do some research before you post shit like this.

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South.

Spoiler

[close]

Anyone with a pair of braincells can see that Slavery was, at the outbreak of the war, an affair centrered in the South-East. Maybe you lack said Brain cells.

Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery, and unlike the United States government, they did so without killing 600,000 of their own citizens. The shameful practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.

How can you be so biased, so stupid and so ignorant that you make this statement. Ending slavery peaceful were tried at several times, with fierce opposition from certain areas of the US. Can you guess which. The Fucking South. Southern Democrats were happy to violate other states rights if it meant securing their right to own other humans.

Those 600.000 that died were the result of a small, influent slave-holding class that refused to let go of the lifeblood of their economy, and the war they started. Blaming the Civil war on the North, or Lincoln, is downright stupid.

No need to hate on me :/

I didn't write the article.
Please read through the thread before posting 

And thank you for reminding me that I'm a racist 

The way you wrote the OP implies you are behind it. In the future, reference to sources and use citation marks.

[Pinball Wizard]

First off, most of this is just bullshit until you actually bring in some articles, newspapers, and letters;not just some Swedish based article found on some unpopular website.

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South.

Answer were you got this from because I always learned that slavery was on both sides of the war, as taught by every single US history teach I have ever had.

Conversely, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South speaks to the fact, that at least for the Confederacy, the war was truly about states' rights and a rebellion against tyranny, not a defense of slavery.

Erm to some extent the war was over the defense of slaves. Granted, not the most important part, but it was a major issue put under "states rights". Lee wasn't the head of the confederacy, and the heads of the confederates would have to free all the slaves in the south to make it an issue apart from slavery. 

[WoM_Jordan_White]

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav'd a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev'd;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believ'd!

Thro' many dangers, toils, and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promis'd good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures.

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call'd me here below,
Will be forever mine.

John Newton, Olney Hymns, 1779


I felt an urge to post this. I think Lincoln did what was necessary to win the civil war, when it's civil.. it's anything but civil.

[Millander]

To preserve the constitution and Union he went beyond it. The South will paint him a tyrant but in actuality he was their only sympathizer. John Wilks Booth did more to harm the south than anybody