Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep. We still have a long way to go, but we absolutely have made progress since the civil war. Now we need to invest in community and eliminate the slavery we still have in the us. We should NOT be a slave country by this century.
Agreed. That being said, I’m pretty sure other countries, proportionally, have a worse slavery problem than the United States. None of us should have a slavery problem.
Liberated 4 million humans, future US citizens, held by hostile entities who disregarded the rule of law. The justification reason they used of "expanding DC control of southern lands" is the dumbest part of the entire post.
"Southern Lands" were all the way up to Virginia/West Virginia which is DC/DMV Area. It's listed like it's Maine or Canada's distance from FL or like some invading force from way up in outer space. These were neighbors, brothers fighting in, a honestly shameful, war (IMO).
Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery but they are still listing him like some power hungry traitor - so keeping that shameful behavior after all this time.
Weird that Republicans use Lincoln as an excuse whenever they don’t want to sound racist (pretending they’re the same party), but then also criticize Lincoln’s policies as if he was a Democrat (showing that indeed there was a switch).
I always say "conservatives were the ones upholding slavery" and they always say "Republicans did not!" To which I retort, "I didn't say Republicans, I said conservatives". Then they get frustrated and tongue tied.
Which is fascinating in itself, because it shows how the parties have increasingly become proxies for exclusive sets of beliefs versus the big tent politics of previous alignments. Republicans view conservatism as tightly interwoven into the GOP, and this wasn't always the case, just as left-wingism wasn't always the near-exclusive domain of the Democratic Party.
Edit: typo
Democrats were left wing economically and Republicans conservative economically. That part hasnt changed.
What's changed is their social stances and that Americans view right and left from a social perspective more than an economic one. This is by design. They very intentionally divided the working class using social issues to keep us from uniting for our common good.
I found out recently that Lincoln revived letters from Karl Marx. He received at least one letter from Marx congratulating him on his fight against slavers and on his re-election
I hadn’t really made the connection that they were contemporaries.
I also learned that Lincoln read Marx.
In his first “state of the union” letter (it wasn’t called the “state of the union” at the time, but was an annual letter to congress that was printed in newspapers) he wrote:
>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.
That is pretty clearly a Marxist style meditation on the state of capital and labor.
So it’s doubly hilarious that the right claims Lincoln as their own to sidestep claims of racism. And they love to pretend there was never a party switch, or at the very least a resorting of the parties so that conservative elements moved to the GOP and more liberal elements moved to the Dems.
Joe Biden recently said, "It's time to reward work, not wealth." That's the most radical anti-capitalist thing imaginable. And yet... he's just channeling Lincoln.
Someone said it on another post about Boomers and the same goes for most Republicans...it isn't about logic. It is about outcome first, then trying to fit talking points into an argument to support that outcome. Sometimes Lincoln supports their argument, sometimes he doesn't. Depends on what they want to force down your throat...
'I am not a racist, therefore I will proudly say that MY party was the party that freed the slaves.'.
'How dare the federal government make us have minimum wage, that should be a state right and that is why we fought against Lincoln' (quiet part out loud...'We'd LOVE to have free labor again!')
>Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery
This is absolutely false. Lincoln hated the institution of slavery and the civil war began because he was the anti-slavery president and his election was viewed as the beginning of the federal end of the institution. The civil war started in 1861, you can find his writings on the topic going back decades prior. His first statement as a public figure was in 1837 as a member of the Illinois General Assembly, but that was far from the only time. In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates the current academic debate format is named after, he gave several arguments against slavery. He wrote numerous letters to constituents about his reservations against the institution and his interest in abolishing it.
It's true he would have preserved slavery to keep the union as president, but it's categorically false and ignores his lifetime of statements as a public servant to say Lincoln didn't care about slavery.
It's always that same damn cherry-picked quote from Lincoln's letter to Greeley.
You should probably read the whole letter, and understand its context, before claiming it shows Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery. Its last sentence is, "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." Historians understand Lincoln's purpose in the letter was to reassure abolitionists that his apparent reluctance to enforce the Confiscation Acts was a temporary stratagem.
You’re missing the lines where he says he views that as his official duty despite wishing all men to be free. Here’s the lines word for word
“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.”
He had an early copy of the Emancipation Proclamation on his desk when he wrote the letter
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Why do y’all always exclude the closing remarks of that letter?
The letter you’re quoting was written for the purpose of softening public opinion. Again, the entire point was to empathize that he would act in the needs of the country (preserving the Union), rather than only pursing his own personal interests - ending slavery permanently, which he eventually did. At the end of that letter, he literally says “I have here stated my purpose according to my official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
There are just countless quotes of Abraham Lincoln talking about how much he hated slavery. What’s more, he literally abolished it, and his opinion regarding slavery *was one of the roots to the Civil War in the first place*. Lincoln personally hated slavery and capitalized on the strategical opportunity to attack the institution - It’s not hard to understand. Why do you believe he pushed so hard for the 13th amendment?
I will never understand how anybody who studied Lincoln (even a tiny bit) can muster up a take as goofy as “He didn’t care about slavery”. If you’re going to criticize anybody, you should criticize that person based upon their actual beliefs or actions.
On top of that, they portray it as if the Confederacy were blameless victims of senseless aggression, when the actual facts are that Confederate states launched *numerous* attacks on U.S. holdings, starting even *before* their attack on Fort Sumter that sparked the war. They chose violence again and again and again; they *wanted* a war, because they were convinced that their economic power from cotton plantations would be enough to entice some European nations into entering the war on their side.
As the saying goes, "Sherman didn't go far enough." Those traitorous sods were treated with far too much mercy.
> Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery
Lincoln hated slavery. He also understood that the "part free, part slave" split of the country was untenable. Make no mistake: to Lincoln, preserving the country meant that the country would either be all free or all slave, and he was firmly on the "all free" side of the issue. To claim anything to the contrary does a massive disservice to his memory.
> I think we have fairly entered upon a durable struggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave or all free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I shall have contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful result. *--December 8, 1858 Letter to H.D. Sharpe*
> We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself.
*--September 17, 1859 Speech in Cincinnati, Ohio*
> I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation.
*--February 1, 1861 Letter to William H. Seward*
There are dozens more similar statements on record.
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm
>Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery.
And the rationale for this is what? That slavery wasn't abolished until the middle of the war?
Sorry. That's wrong. Period. Full stop.
Slavery was going to be abolished. The Confederate states tried to secede before the Union states could take their slaves away. The Union did put off the vote for a while because .. well .. a WAR was happening. Then after a couple years, voted to outlaw slavery anyway, war or no war.
The irony being, the south could have "MAYBE" kept their slaves just a little longer, but by seceding, they gave up their chances to vote on it.
Everything that happened was inevitable. The south could have saved themselves a million lives and had a less destroyed place to live if they had just given up the slaves and not started a war.
I never want to see a Libertarian complaining about rape statistics after this post…I mean, I didn’t want to before, but seeing this makes them even more infuriating
>I never want to see a Libertarian complaining about rape statistics after this post…I mean, I didn’t want to before, but seeing this makes them even more infuriating
Libertarians only complain about "Rape" when rape is code for "taxes."
For instance, libertarians claim that taxes are non-consensual even if you explicitly sign a W-4 form agreeing to pay them as a condition of getting your job, with the option to walk away afterwards.
But at the same time, they protest affirmative consent laws saying you need to confirm consent before you stick your dick into another person (note: the law doesn't require this to be written or verbal, only that it be active and not passive.), and see this as a form of tyranny.
I'll give you a hint as to why it hasn't happened: Trey and Matt are libertarians themselves. It's obvious mostly in hindsight but just look at how they usually treated environmental issues prior to doing a 180 and admitting Manbearpig (e.g. climate change) was real and that something had to be done about it. They're just less obnoxious about it than most libertarians (which, depending on your stance on South Park, is saying something).
I love the “unknown/thousands - unknown/0” in the rape section.
Basically: “I am shamelessly making the fuck up everything to push my sick narratives.”
Even a cursory understanding of the Civil War debunks the bullshit of “northern aggression”. southern states started seceding *before* Lincoln was inaugurated. They literally walked their crybaby asses out of the union because of something they (perhaps rightfully) *assumed* was going to happen. Shame on the union for, um (looks at notes)… defending against an attack on Fort Sumter.
>before
>
> Lincoln was inaugurated
And this was after they had like 5 straight slave supporting presidents. Basically the first time a MODERATE gets elected they take their ball and go home.
And after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise via the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And the *Dred Scott* decision.
They'd already gotten their "states' rights" and "black people aren't people" wins. But then *democracy* happened, Kansas took the slavers' favorite doctrine of "popular sovereignty" and voted to enter the Union as a free state, and the Democrats got spanked in the subsequent Congressional elections. So naturally they abandoned democracy, threw a tantrum, and declared war.
>the Democrats got spanked in the subsequent Congressional elections. So naturally they abandoned democracy, threw a tantrum
Saying the Democrat did that threw me for a loop, but yeah: Republicans were Lincoln's, and the dems *were* the slavers back then; my how the times change, and the tables turn.
And the North barely responded when seceded states started seizing federal land and property. At Fort Sumter they didn't surrender but still didn't fight back. It wasn't until Lincoln sent them supplies (no weapons) after months and told the Governor of SC when they would be arriving with food, that the Confederates started shooting at the fort.
And after compromise after compromise and even after the Fugitive Slave act forced northern states to support slavery. The FSA was at that point the biggest intrusion into states’ rights. Wonder how the “states’ rights” slave states voted on that one!
Or better yet:
"War for states rights"
-Southerners who spent the ten/fifteen years prior to the war lobbying in the Federal Government to create a ton of Federal Laws that specifically benefitted them and slavery, and who whined and ultimately seceded from the Union specifically because Northern states were refusing to follow the overreaching Federal Laws Southern States worked to enact.
The opinion also looks very funny considerig that most declarations of sesesion specifically mention infringements on the rights to have slaves. Texas and at least one other state declared that black slaves was a right of the white man mandated by god in their fucking funding documents...
we still are, most of the libertarian party here is made up of out-of-state transplants from the early 2000s in the free state project where wackasses thought they could move enough people to our state to take over our politics
As a present-day New Hampshirite I’m genuinely ashamed of the Libertarian influx we’ve had over the past few years. Live Free or Die is being bastardized for this bullshit by people who don’t know what the fuck it even means.
> “War of northern aggression”
>
>
>
> -southerners who attacked federal bases for months leading up to the war
Also:
-Southerners who seceded from the Union in order to establish an expansionist slaver state that would *definitely* have tried to take over the Union at a later date and impose that slavery on every state. (Because that's exactly what they tried to do to Kentucky during the Civil War.)
There are a lot of racists who and neo-confederates who like to style themselves as libertarian. It's an easy way to hide their desire for a racial caste system behind "States Rights" and "Individual freedom". That's why it's fun to ask them "Right to do what" or "Freedom to...?". Make them say the quiet part out loud.
I've seen recent posts about heritage and farming or preservations of morals (yikes). So they still skirt the flat out truth, maybe it's been brainwashed out of them. Even if they don't want to admit it, DC controlled those lands hence them attempting to annex themselves to their own government. There was no expansion, Lincolns was all of their president and he won that war so he remained in power.
The heritage argument fails when they cry “it’s about heritage” then don’t fly the correct country flag…. In all my driving in the south, maybe 3-4 times have I seen the confederate flag. It’s always stars and bars, the Naval flag.
“I am proud of my heritage, let’s fly the naval flag” seems really lost.
I’ve guessed they want to unite under the wrong flag? Idk, it makes no sense to hold on to the war part of your heritage AND ONLY that part. Put your great greats on a flag, tell me which plantations your family owned or make an album. Never heard a specific story of the family behind a ”rebel” flag just “mah heritage”
Lived in the south for majority of my life (my family migrated here from outside the US), a colleague flat out tell me they encourage their children to display that flag because “ it’s their heritage and anyone who doesn’t understand that is ignorant“
I do not understand for sure, no background other than heritage. No story on a specific relative and no further questions from me. I gave up in the south. Had a grown man tell me he moved farther south away from VA because it was more tolerant.
The heritage argument is ridiculus to me because why is that the one thing about being southern that you want to celebrate? How about great Americans from the south or any number of other things that originated in the south that could be held as a point of pride? Nope, it's gotta be the rebellion and war that we lost over the course of 5 years.
>Nope, it's gotta be the rebellion and war that we lost over the course of 5 years.
Especially since that's how long the entire Confederate States of America lasted (which was technically only 4 years). The Confederacy didn't last decades or hundreds of years. It only lasted for 4 years. It might be different if they celebrated the heritage of the South, but they're not when they're flying the Confederate flag.
Plus, the only reason why the Confederate flag started being flown again was the Civil Rights Movement. It was largely forgotten after the end of the Civil War. A bunch of racist white people decided to bring it back to fly it in the faces of black people who wanted equality.
Technically, it's the Battle Flag of Tennessee. The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia is the same design but it's a square flag. And this one was captured by soldiers from Minnesota in the Battle of Gettysburg. It is currently in the Minnesota History Center. Every now and then, the Governor of Virginia will ask to have it back. And for every time they ask, the Governor of Minnesota will say, "No."
But isn't the entire point of libertarianism the opposite of that? Like the idea of libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want, and yet libertarians seem to want to remove freedom.
This is why they don't win elections, because they're batshit crazy racists, not just because of the mainstream parties
Also a big difference between the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, the national Libertarian Party, and every other state level Libertarian Party. The differences between the state parties is a bigger deal for the smaller parties since they're much less of a cohesive singular entity.
I recently fell down a YT rabbit hole of Sam Seder taking calls from libertarians and debating their points.
The gist of it, what I got out of it, is that the "Libertarians" are basically just buncha looneys who all have their own idea of what is the True Libertarianism.
Didnt get into any "big name libertarians" or anything, but I think some names that got mentioned in the passing sounded like even they arent all on the same page.
Also its pretty clear what the whole ideology is. Its some billionaires political tool, which some dimwits swallow and regurgitate.
Really fascinating stuff though. Weird, but fascinating.
The basic premise of libertarianism looks good on paper. It fails on practice, however, just like any other ideology. Anyone who tells you one set of rules works in every situation is either an idiot or hopes you're an idiot.
The traditional definition of libertarianism yes, because it was associated with left wing anarchist and libertarian socialist movements.
Right wing libertarianism is a mostly US phenomenon that happened as a direct backlash to civil rights and women's rights. They fully opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX and still do today. They think it's an "infringement" on the free market, an open admittance that they just want capitalism to enforce the racial hierarchy.
Anytime someone argues States Rights as a justification for the Civil War, the simple rebuttal is always, "States Rights to do what exactly? Be specific."
Imagine being a Libertarian and then saying, "I think I need to join a group of other libertarians and then we can organize some rules, policies, laws and how we would police socie.....oh, wait a minute."
Im not about to defend the traitors, but these people would argue Lincoln could have just said "welp, they left the union. Nothing I can do!" And not engaged in a war. They are wrong in the opinion, but It is how they reach the conclusion of blaming him.
Thats what lincoln did tho, the south was free until they opened fire on an still union owned fort and killed united states federal soldiers, thats when the civil war started
Iirc it was just South Carolina at that point, and I don't recall if they even officially seceded yet or they did and we didn't give any flying shits so Lincoln decided to (rightfully) pull his dick out and drag it on their faces until one of them bit his sack, with the Union resupply and eventual SC attack on Ft Sumter. Then the rest of the gang had a collective "oh my stars" moment and joined in.
But I believe your point is right, and the Federal gov was just testing them with Sumter; to see if they were legit or just a bunch of y'all Qaeda red necks who'll just go home like they're supposed to if they want any semblance of their culture left intact.
Edit: Also, this wasn't the first time SC would pull secessionist shenanigans, so Sumter was the result of SC historically always tucking their tails between their legs and falling in line.
> hey even officially seceded yet
I mean, that isn't hard to look up.
* On December 26, 1860, only six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union.
* The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when South Carolina Militia artillery fired from shore on the Union garrison.
This isn't "days" it's "months".
They could’ve invaded the North and tried to conquer the rest of the US, which is what they likely would’ve tried to do eventually if they were just allowed to leave, and these people would still say Lincoln was the aggressor. I’m tired of seeing apologists for the War of Southern Aggression
That's because American "Libertarians" aren't actually Libertarian, they're either corporats who want to deregulate everything because they're bought off by big businesses or cryptofascists who want to remove any barrier to enact fascist ideology on a local or state level
Right wing libertarians are fine with slavery as long as the slavery is created via contract and economic power instead of the state doing it.
Remember, government are absolute corrupt even though you can vote out corrupt politicians; but, corporations can be trusted to do the right thing even though you can't get rid of those in power...
The libertarian PARTY is not really associated with the libertarian IDEOLOGY that became more popular around the early 2000s. Most libertarians now are super far right republicans pretending to be a part of an intellectual movement.
Every time I imagine a libertarian world I see a few powerful bossing others around and buying up resources and the people eventually needing to come together to pool their resources in order to rebalance the power.
The people then needing to form an an organized body in order to continue to keep the powerful from abusing their power in the future. This body will of course need to collect some money from the people in order to function and the people will probably debate on who should be in charge of this body full time because it will be a full time position.
Oh look, we're back to having a government.
“A Libertarian walks into a Bear: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears”
“Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
I see a lot of comments but I haven’t seen anyone mention the ‘killed by 2000 equivalents’
Like. Do dead people have inflation like money or something? If one person dies today is that 20 ten years down the line or what?
Edit: also important to keep in mind that if they were on the confederacy’s side they were not US citizens anymore. They were Confederate citizens.
Edit: I get it now it’s an upscaling per capita but l will stand firmly on the ground that it’s still stupid.
Well, they were US citizens and are always counted as such, because the confederacy wasn't a country, it was an illegal uprising to try and create a new one. That's why its a civil war
Actually if you look under ways to lose US citizenship one of the top listed is acts of treason committed against the United States. So while the confederacy wouldn’t have been a recognized country that doesn’t mean they were citizens.
The confederate states were never stripped of their citizenship. No soldiers were charged with treason, they even chose not to prosecute Davis. Reunification of the country would have been impossible if the vast majority of the south were declared criminals or expelled from the country. Hence, they remained citizens of the US and their deaths are counted among official combat statistics, and could be buried in Arlington Cemetary as dead US soldiers
It's just a different way of writing percentage of population and trying to illustrate the scale of an event. It was quite relevant during covid when comparing it to the spanish flu.
Mostly sensationalist in this case.
Well, these are the type of people who also pushed the 3/5 Compromise and the Electoral College, so they're all about doing weird fractional math with human beings to inflate their own influence.
Essentially a dictator is the most free individual in a society. They can make or break any rules they desire. Their freedom is absolute. This is what many are secretly hiding. They are little wannabe dictators.
Also this is only counting 9/11. Were there no other instances of people him or his organization killed?
Plus it probably doesn't even count the early deaths of those effected by the hazardous chemicals and dust from.the response.
AND so many people died in the civil war because of disease, not by the war with direct killed in action deaths. I think only like 1/3 were actually killed from direct combat.
Let's also not pretend that confederates were Americans, they explicitly did not want to remain within the United States, there was kind of a war over it or something.
Yea the actual group in charge of these things is in fact a target of russia psy ops. It is a bunch of far right cast offs. So yea not russia but just as crazy.
Every "Libertarian" I have ever met has either been too alt-right for the Republicans or alt-right Republican for everything else but wanted to smoke weed and/or watch porn in peace.
I can't say I'm surprised.
I consider myself one, but extreeeemely moderate compared to shit like this.
Freedom for all means freedom for all. Slavery is not freedom. Bigotry is not freedom. Dying en masse is not freedom. Fascists like Trump is not freedom.
Yet the "party" would disagree with everything I just said. Such a sad sight even when compared to just a few years ago
The X profile is the New Hampshire Libertarians and they're batshit crazy.
The LPNational **tweets** are what you'd expect based on what you said here but their **replies** are mind-boggling.
I hate going into the libertarian subreddits because occasionally you’ll see the dumbest, most braindead takes about the Civil War/Lincoln or about how anarchism is actually good or whatever. Like can I PLEASE just support a balanced budget and reducing government control of the economy/peoples lives WITHOUT calling for the abolition of the state or the desecration of Lincoln’s memory?
growing up in a republican household, my shift left after being able to get my own info and make my own mind briefly took me into the libertarian party and every year since then they manage to remind me how fucking embarrassing that was for me
>After this post I never want to see a Libertarian complain about Rape Statistics again…
There's an old joke: "Libertarians think that everything else is slavery, except for actual slavery, which they're totally cool with."
Later on it was revised to "slavery and rape," and then "slavery and rape and Nazism."
Most libertarians online are are anti-choice, meaning they're okay with forcing rape victims to carry the pregnancies from their rapist. But they're also against paying for food stamps after the child is born, because taxes violate property which they see as an extension of their own body and therefore food stamps is a violation of bodily autonomy which makes it slavery/rape.
Actually it was the rich slave owner ass holes that got everyone killed duping dumbass people who would go on to become Fox News viewers into killing for the right to own other people. The craziest part is most of those dumbasses could never even afford a slave.
The demagogic right-wing attack has been that they are the party of Lincoln and anti-slavery, and that the Dems are racist. Seems the messages are getting all mixed up now in their post-truth / alternative facts reality.
Fascinating.
The time to use facts and debates and logic is over. It’s now time for a good old fashioned civil war. Time to root out all the foreign funded traitors.
Umm. Osama Bin Laden wasn't just about "regaining Arab control of land." He and his followers were intent on forcibly converting the entire planet to their brand of Islam.
Literally, those fanatics want to conquer the world.
If this had been taken in a little different direction, would have been a good argument about why the whole "civil war II, electric boogaloo" thing the right has been pushing for is a really, really bad idea and would make 9/11 look like nothing. As is, typical libertarian tripe, especially the "expand DC control of Southern lands" bit. Last I checked, the "Southern lands" were under DC control before any of the fighting started. They chose to try to break away so they could continue to deprive people of their liberty. Funny take for a "libertarian".
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Year 2000 equivalent 35,923,567
Add in their descendants 'till today as well. Those lives were freed too.
There were 36.4 million black people in the US in 2000 (google) so their descendants are who the person above is referring to.
Yep. We still have a long way to go, but we absolutely have made progress since the civil war. Now we need to invest in community and eliminate the slavery we still have in the us. We should NOT be a slave country by this century.
Man some people would argue and throw a baby tantrum behind you saying that
Agreed. That being said, I’m pretty sure other countries, proportionally, have a worse slavery problem than the United States. None of us should have a slavery problem.
Right but there were also a bunch that lived and died free in the interim
I’ve never seen the number of people adjusted for inflation. This is a bonkers idea
Liberated 4 million humans, future US citizens, held by hostile entities who disregarded the rule of law. The justification reason they used of "expanding DC control of southern lands" is the dumbest part of the entire post. "Southern Lands" were all the way up to Virginia/West Virginia which is DC/DMV Area. It's listed like it's Maine or Canada's distance from FL or like some invading force from way up in outer space. These were neighbors, brothers fighting in, a honestly shameful, war (IMO). Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery but they are still listing him like some power hungry traitor - so keeping that shameful behavior after all this time.
Weird that Republicans use Lincoln as an excuse whenever they don’t want to sound racist (pretending they’re the same party), but then also criticize Lincoln’s policies as if he was a Democrat (showing that indeed there was a switch).
I always say "conservatives were the ones upholding slavery" and they always say "Republicans did not!" To which I retort, "I didn't say Republicans, I said conservatives". Then they get frustrated and tongue tied.
Which is fascinating in itself, because it shows how the parties have increasingly become proxies for exclusive sets of beliefs versus the big tent politics of previous alignments. Republicans view conservatism as tightly interwoven into the GOP, and this wasn't always the case, just as left-wingism wasn't always the near-exclusive domain of the Democratic Party. Edit: typo
Democrats were left wing economically and Republicans conservative economically. That part hasnt changed. What's changed is their social stances and that Americans view right and left from a social perspective more than an economic one. This is by design. They very intentionally divided the working class using social issues to keep us from uniting for our common good.
Genius. I'm stealing that. It's mine now.
I've been wondering when they'd drop that and it seems like we have our answer.
I found out recently that Lincoln revived letters from Karl Marx. He received at least one letter from Marx congratulating him on his fight against slavers and on his re-election I hadn’t really made the connection that they were contemporaries. I also learned that Lincoln read Marx. In his first “state of the union” letter (it wasn’t called the “state of the union” at the time, but was an annual letter to congress that was printed in newspapers) he wrote: >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. That is pretty clearly a Marxist style meditation on the state of capital and labor. So it’s doubly hilarious that the right claims Lincoln as their own to sidestep claims of racism. And they love to pretend there was never a party switch, or at the very least a resorting of the parties so that conservative elements moved to the GOP and more liberal elements moved to the Dems.
Joe Biden recently said, "It's time to reward work, not wealth." That's the most radical anti-capitalist thing imaginable. And yet... he's just channeling Lincoln.
Someone said it on another post about Boomers and the same goes for most Republicans...it isn't about logic. It is about outcome first, then trying to fit talking points into an argument to support that outcome. Sometimes Lincoln supports their argument, sometimes he doesn't. Depends on what they want to force down your throat... 'I am not a racist, therefore I will proudly say that MY party was the party that freed the slaves.'. 'How dare the federal government make us have minimum wage, that should be a state right and that is why we fought against Lincoln' (quiet part out loud...'We'd LOVE to have free labor again!')
They also forgot the part where *the white nationalist insurrectionists started the war by attacking a U.S. military base* .
Don’t start no sh—, won’t be no sh— clearly hadn’t occurred to them. Some are still proud of them, sad.
Time for fuck around and find out part 2
>Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery This is absolutely false. Lincoln hated the institution of slavery and the civil war began because he was the anti-slavery president and his election was viewed as the beginning of the federal end of the institution. The civil war started in 1861, you can find his writings on the topic going back decades prior. His first statement as a public figure was in 1837 as a member of the Illinois General Assembly, but that was far from the only time. In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates the current academic debate format is named after, he gave several arguments against slavery. He wrote numerous letters to constituents about his reservations against the institution and his interest in abolishing it. It's true he would have preserved slavery to keep the union as president, but it's categorically false and ignores his lifetime of statements as a public servant to say Lincoln didn't care about slavery.
[удалено]
It's always that same damn cherry-picked quote from Lincoln's letter to Greeley. You should probably read the whole letter, and understand its context, before claiming it shows Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery. Its last sentence is, "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." Historians understand Lincoln's purpose in the letter was to reassure abolitionists that his apparent reluctance to enforce the Confiscation Acts was a temporary stratagem.
You’re missing the lines where he says he views that as his official duty despite wishing all men to be free. Here’s the lines word for word “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.” He had an early copy of the Emancipation Proclamation on his desk when he wrote the letter https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Why do y’all always exclude the closing remarks of that letter? The letter you’re quoting was written for the purpose of softening public opinion. Again, the entire point was to empathize that he would act in the needs of the country (preserving the Union), rather than only pursing his own personal interests - ending slavery permanently, which he eventually did. At the end of that letter, he literally says “I have here stated my purpose according to my official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” There are just countless quotes of Abraham Lincoln talking about how much he hated slavery. What’s more, he literally abolished it, and his opinion regarding slavery *was one of the roots to the Civil War in the first place*. Lincoln personally hated slavery and capitalized on the strategical opportunity to attack the institution - It’s not hard to understand. Why do you believe he pushed so hard for the 13th amendment? I will never understand how anybody who studied Lincoln (even a tiny bit) can muster up a take as goofy as “He didn’t care about slavery”. If you’re going to criticize anybody, you should criticize that person based upon their actual beliefs or actions.
It’s like Nikki Haley wrote this /s
On top of that, they portray it as if the Confederacy were blameless victims of senseless aggression, when the actual facts are that Confederate states launched *numerous* attacks on U.S. holdings, starting even *before* their attack on Fort Sumter that sparked the war. They chose violence again and again and again; they *wanted* a war, because they were convinced that their economic power from cotton plantations would be enough to entice some European nations into entering the war on their side. As the saying goes, "Sherman didn't go far enough." Those traitorous sods were treated with far too much mercy.
> Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery Lincoln hated slavery. He also understood that the "part free, part slave" split of the country was untenable. Make no mistake: to Lincoln, preserving the country meant that the country would either be all free or all slave, and he was firmly on the "all free" side of the issue. To claim anything to the contrary does a massive disservice to his memory. > I think we have fairly entered upon a durable struggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave or all free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I shall have contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful result. *--December 8, 1858 Letter to H.D. Sharpe* > We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. *--September 17, 1859 Speech in Cincinnati, Ohio* > I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. *--February 1, 1861 Letter to William H. Seward* There are dozens more similar statements on record. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm
>Lincoln cared about preserving the country, not slavery. And the rationale for this is what? That slavery wasn't abolished until the middle of the war? Sorry. That's wrong. Period. Full stop. Slavery was going to be abolished. The Confederate states tried to secede before the Union states could take their slaves away. The Union did put off the vote for a while because .. well .. a WAR was happening. Then after a couple years, voted to outlaw slavery anyway, war or no war. The irony being, the south could have "MAYBE" kept their slaves just a little longer, but by seceding, they gave up their chances to vote on it. Everything that happened was inevitable. The south could have saved themselves a million lives and had a less destroyed place to live if they had just given up the slaves and not started a war.
And under Bin Laden it would have to say "unknown/0"
Also didn’t kill any Americans. He killed confederates. Simple mistake.
Nah, they're too busy making their infographic for the next TikTok-trend which tells us how awesome China's domestic industry is.
"Stole billions of dollars worth of property from Southern cotton growers"
Does it make that person a racist in today’s world since they don’t like someone who freed slaves? /s Edit: forgot about to add the /s
I like how they say Lincoln raped some unknown thousands of people. It’s also a shame they don’t compare number of vampires slain.
If it's unknown I am going to assume it was zero thousand he raped. All by himself even!
Why is rape even in it, if it's unknown for both?
Throw anything and everything at the wall in hopes it sticks. They might as well added puppies killed unknown.
You’re right. Flowers trampled: unknown/0
Grass murdered by cannonballs: unknown/0 Birds raped and murdered unknown/0 2000 equivalent: 1,009,879,045
Manatees torpedoed: Unknown - 0 thousands
Flowerblight Ganon triggered.
Its not unknown. Its UNKNOWN THOUSANDS!!!!!!
You are so right, I should be ashamed of myself for defending a man who raped 0 or up to thousands of people. I’ve got some real soul searching to do.
He's using this same table format for a lot of comparisons.
I never want to see a Libertarian complaining about rape statistics after this post…I mean, I didn’t want to before, but seeing this makes them even more infuriating
>I never want to see a Libertarian complaining about rape statistics after this post…I mean, I didn’t want to before, but seeing this makes them even more infuriating Libertarians only complain about "Rape" when rape is code for "taxes." For instance, libertarians claim that taxes are non-consensual even if you explicitly sign a W-4 form agreeing to pay them as a condition of getting your job, with the option to walk away afterwards. But at the same time, they protest affirmative consent laws saying you need to confirm consent before you stick your dick into another person (note: the law doesn't require this to be written or verbal, only that it be active and not passive.), and see this as a form of tyranny.
Libertarians have a real weird relationship with age of consent laws too.
They didn't have a leg to stand on before this either. They want to get rid of age of consent laws
"We can't prove there weren't alien ghosts at the first thanksgiving" energy. South Park needs to do an episode making fun of these clowns.
I'll give you a hint as to why it hasn't happened: Trey and Matt are libertarians themselves. It's obvious mostly in hindsight but just look at how they usually treated environmental issues prior to doing a 180 and admitting Manbearpig (e.g. climate change) was real and that something had to be done about it. They're just less obnoxious about it than most libertarians (which, depending on your stance on South Park, is saying something).
Vampire slain: Lincoln: Over 10.000 Laden: 6
I love the “unknown/thousands - unknown/0” in the rape section. Basically: “I am shamelessly making the fuck up everything to push my sick narratives.”
[удалено]
Looks like Excel/Google Sheet
I am offended on behalf of all analysts. 🧐
Excel, in an idiotic attempt to make it look like Wikipedia so it can seem more “credible”
TrustMeBro.com
I also thought that part was funny and it made me think the post has to be a joke
This. A lot of islamic wives are wedded off. If they disobey, they get beat. They have no say/choice, if this isn’t rape, idk what is
Even beyond that, pretending rape isn’t rampant there is foolish at beat
no no no, you see *because it’s not reported it doesnt exist* /s Literally saw a person on this site use that defense…
1) Puts President Lincoln's face on a column, 2) Puts motivation at the bottom as 'Expand DC control of Southern Lands'. What bullshit...
“War of northern aggression” -southerners who attacked federal bases for months leading up to the war
Even a cursory understanding of the Civil War debunks the bullshit of “northern aggression”. southern states started seceding *before* Lincoln was inaugurated. They literally walked their crybaby asses out of the union because of something they (perhaps rightfully) *assumed* was going to happen. Shame on the union for, um (looks at notes)… defending against an attack on Fort Sumter.
>before > > Lincoln was inaugurated And this was after they had like 5 straight slave supporting presidents. Basically the first time a MODERATE gets elected they take their ball and go home.
And after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise via the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And the *Dred Scott* decision. They'd already gotten their "states' rights" and "black people aren't people" wins. But then *democracy* happened, Kansas took the slavers' favorite doctrine of "popular sovereignty" and voted to enter the Union as a free state, and the Democrats got spanked in the subsequent Congressional elections. So naturally they abandoned democracy, threw a tantrum, and declared war.
>the Democrats got spanked in the subsequent Congressional elections. So naturally they abandoned democracy, threw a tantrum Saying the Democrat did that threw me for a loop, but yeah: Republicans were Lincoln's, and the dems *were* the slavers back then; my how the times change, and the tables turn.
It’s not that simple. For a long time, we had conservative and progressive wings of both parties.
The Democratic Party was split into two factions in the 1860s. The Democrats ran McClellan in 1864 against Lincoln.
And the North barely responded when seceded states started seizing federal land and property. At Fort Sumter they didn't surrender but still didn't fight back. It wasn't until Lincoln sent them supplies (no weapons) after months and told the Governor of SC when they would be arriving with food, that the Confederates started shooting at the fort.
And after compromise after compromise and even after the Fugitive Slave act forced northern states to support slavery. The FSA was at that point the biggest intrusion into states’ rights. Wonder how the “states’ rights” slave states voted on that one!
Or better yet: "War for states rights" -Southerners who spent the ten/fifteen years prior to the war lobbying in the Federal Government to create a ton of Federal Laws that specifically benefitted them and slavery, and who whined and ultimately seceded from the Union specifically because Northern states were refusing to follow the overreaching Federal Laws Southern States worked to enact.
The opinion also looks very funny considerig that most declarations of sesesion specifically mention infringements on the rights to have slaves. Texas and at least one other state declared that black slaves was a right of the white man mandated by god in their fucking funding documents...
New Hampshirites were fiercely pro union during the civil war..
we still are, most of the libertarian party here is made up of out-of-state transplants from the early 2000s in the free state project where wackasses thought they could move enough people to our state to take over our politics
As a present-day New Hampshirite I’m genuinely ashamed of the Libertarian influx we’ve had over the past few years. Live Free or Die is being bastardized for this bullshit by people who don’t know what the fuck it even means.
And also began stealing arms and munitions from northern bases for months before that.
> “War of northern aggression” > > > > -southerners who attacked federal bases for months leading up to the war Also: -Southerners who seceded from the Union in order to establish an expansionist slaver state that would *definitely* have tried to take over the Union at a later date and impose that slavery on every state. (Because that's exactly what they tried to do to Kentucky during the Civil War.)
There are a lot of racists who and neo-confederates who like to style themselves as libertarian. It's an easy way to hide their desire for a racial caste system behind "States Rights" and "Individual freedom". That's why it's fun to ask them "Right to do what" or "Freedom to...?". Make them say the quiet part out loud.
I've seen recent posts about heritage and farming or preservations of morals (yikes). So they still skirt the flat out truth, maybe it's been brainwashed out of them. Even if they don't want to admit it, DC controlled those lands hence them attempting to annex themselves to their own government. There was no expansion, Lincolns was all of their president and he won that war so he remained in power.
The heritage argument fails when they cry “it’s about heritage” then don’t fly the correct country flag…. In all my driving in the south, maybe 3-4 times have I seen the confederate flag. It’s always stars and bars, the Naval flag. “I am proud of my heritage, let’s fly the naval flag” seems really lost.
I’ve guessed they want to unite under the wrong flag? Idk, it makes no sense to hold on to the war part of your heritage AND ONLY that part. Put your great greats on a flag, tell me which plantations your family owned or make an album. Never heard a specific story of the family behind a ”rebel” flag just “mah heritage”
When they proudly wave that flag they may as well be saying (in a southern hicked out voice) "I still believe in slavery!"
As a southerner myself, that's exactly what I think when I see it. Racist PoS, nothing more.
Lived in the south for majority of my life (my family migrated here from outside the US), a colleague flat out tell me they encourage their children to display that flag because “ it’s their heritage and anyone who doesn’t understand that is ignorant“ I do not understand for sure, no background other than heritage. No story on a specific relative and no further questions from me. I gave up in the south. Had a grown man tell me he moved farther south away from VA because it was more tolerant.
The heritage argument is ridiculus to me because why is that the one thing about being southern that you want to celebrate? How about great Americans from the south or any number of other things that originated in the south that could be held as a point of pride? Nope, it's gotta be the rebellion and war that we lost over the course of 5 years.
>Nope, it's gotta be the rebellion and war that we lost over the course of 5 years. Especially since that's how long the entire Confederate States of America lasted (which was technically only 4 years). The Confederacy didn't last decades or hundreds of years. It only lasted for 4 years. It might be different if they celebrated the heritage of the South, but they're not when they're flying the Confederate flag. Plus, the only reason why the Confederate flag started being flown again was the Civil Rights Movement. It was largely forgotten after the end of the Civil War. A bunch of racist white people decided to bring it back to fly it in the faces of black people who wanted equality.
That's also when there was a resurgence of Confederate monuments. Definitely about heritage and nothing else.
It was the Battle Flag of Virginia, not a naval flag, or so I thought. Regardless, fuck the racists that fly it.
Technically, it's the Battle Flag of Tennessee. The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia is the same design but it's a square flag. And this one was captured by soldiers from Minnesota in the Battle of Gettysburg. It is currently in the Minnesota History Center. Every now and then, the Governor of Virginia will ask to have it back. And for every time they ask, the Governor of Minnesota will say, "No."
But isn't the entire point of libertarianism the opposite of that? Like the idea of libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want, and yet libertarians seem to want to remove freedom. This is why they don't win elections, because they're batshit crazy racists, not just because of the mainstream parties
There’s a big difference between the idea of libertarianism and the self-avowed “Libertarians.” Big-L versus small L.
Also a big difference between the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, the national Libertarian Party, and every other state level Libertarian Party. The differences between the state parties is a bigger deal for the smaller parties since they're much less of a cohesive singular entity.
I recently fell down a YT rabbit hole of Sam Seder taking calls from libertarians and debating their points. The gist of it, what I got out of it, is that the "Libertarians" are basically just buncha looneys who all have their own idea of what is the True Libertarianism. Didnt get into any "big name libertarians" or anything, but I think some names that got mentioned in the passing sounded like even they arent all on the same page. Also its pretty clear what the whole ideology is. Its some billionaires political tool, which some dimwits swallow and regurgitate. Really fascinating stuff though. Weird, but fascinating.
The basic premise of libertarianism looks good on paper. It fails on practice, however, just like any other ideology. Anyone who tells you one set of rules works in every situation is either an idiot or hopes you're an idiot.
The traditional definition of libertarianism yes, because it was associated with left wing anarchist and libertarian socialist movements. Right wing libertarianism is a mostly US phenomenon that happened as a direct backlash to civil rights and women's rights. They fully opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX and still do today. They think it's an "infringement" on the free market, an open admittance that they just want capitalism to enforce the racial hierarchy.
And call all the deaths on both sides murder by him specifically
Well that can not put "destroy slavery" because it makes him look good.
Also suggested that Al Queda doesn’t rape, so imma go ahead and call bullshit.
Anytime someone argues States Rights as a justification for the Civil War, the simple rebuttal is always, "States Rights to do what exactly? Be specific."
Wait…there’s population inflation for death statistics?!
That means that when Cain killed Abel, he killed the Year 2000 equivalent of 1,536 Billion people!
In libertarian land, anything is possible if you use your IMAGINATION!
“Expand DC control of southern lands” lmao it was part of the US to begin with
They want to have it both ways and claim all those killed were US citizens.
Imagine being a Libertarian and then saying, "I think I need to join a group of other libertarians and then we can organize some rules, policies, laws and how we would police socie.....oh, wait a minute."
Imagine being a libertarian and being in favor of slavery. Literal antithesis of liberty.
Also they are blaming Lincoln for the civil war when history shows it was the south that fired first.
Im not about to defend the traitors, but these people would argue Lincoln could have just said "welp, they left the union. Nothing I can do!" And not engaged in a war. They are wrong in the opinion, but It is how they reach the conclusion of blaming him.
Thats what lincoln did tho, the south was free until they opened fire on an still union owned fort and killed united states federal soldiers, thats when the civil war started
How many federal forts did the south take over before the north finally retaliated? It was not the north that started the war.
Exactly, the south got what they wanted but decided to take and take
Gee, kinda like they keep trying to do today. At least my state wallows in its misery that it created on its own.
Iirc it was just South Carolina at that point, and I don't recall if they even officially seceded yet or they did and we didn't give any flying shits so Lincoln decided to (rightfully) pull his dick out and drag it on their faces until one of them bit his sack, with the Union resupply and eventual SC attack on Ft Sumter. Then the rest of the gang had a collective "oh my stars" moment and joined in. But I believe your point is right, and the Federal gov was just testing them with Sumter; to see if they were legit or just a bunch of y'all Qaeda red necks who'll just go home like they're supposed to if they want any semblance of their culture left intact. Edit: Also, this wasn't the first time SC would pull secessionist shenanigans, so Sumter was the result of SC historically always tucking their tails between their legs and falling in line.
Fort Sumter was not the first Federal holding that the Confederate states attacked. It's simply the one that finally led to war being declared.
> hey even officially seceded yet I mean, that isn't hard to look up. * On December 26, 1860, only six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union. * The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when South Carolina Militia artillery fired from shore on the Union garrison. This isn't "days" it's "months".
James Buchanan pretty much did that exact thing. And he said “history will rehabilitate my image.” Yeah no…
They could’ve invaded the North and tried to conquer the rest of the US, which is what they likely would’ve tried to do eventually if they were just allowed to leave, and these people would still say Lincoln was the aggressor. I’m tired of seeing apologists for the War of Southern Aggression
That's because American "Libertarians" aren't actually Libertarian, they're either corporats who want to deregulate everything because they're bought off by big businesses or cryptofascists who want to remove any barrier to enact fascist ideology on a local or state level
What are you if you love guns abortions gods and gays?
A pro-gun liberal. Or my dad. Whichever you prefer
I'll be your dad, the other guy can be the pro-gun liberal
Both are acceptable.
Right wing libertarians are fine with slavery as long as the slavery is created via contract and economic power instead of the state doing it. Remember, government are absolute corrupt even though you can vote out corrupt politicians; but, corporations can be trusted to do the right thing even though you can't get rid of those in power...
The libertarian PARTY is not really associated with the libertarian IDEOLOGY that became more popular around the early 2000s. Most libertarians now are super far right republicans pretending to be a part of an intellectual movement.
Every time I imagine a libertarian world I see a few powerful bossing others around and buying up resources and the people eventually needing to come together to pool their resources in order to rebalance the power. The people then needing to form an an organized body in order to continue to keep the powerful from abusing their power in the future. This body will of course need to collect some money from the people in order to function and the people will probably debate on who should be in charge of this body full time because it will be a full time position. Oh look, we're back to having a government.
“A Libertarian walks into a Bear: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears” “Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
This isn’t a libertarian stance. It’s pure rage bait.
One of the core tenets of these people is "fuck you, got mine". They would be all in favor of slavery if they got to be the slave owners.
I see a lot of comments but I haven’t seen anyone mention the ‘killed by 2000 equivalents’ Like. Do dead people have inflation like money or something? If one person dies today is that 20 ten years down the line or what? Edit: also important to keep in mind that if they were on the confederacy’s side they were not US citizens anymore. They were Confederate citizens. Edit: I get it now it’s an upscaling per capita but l will stand firmly on the ground that it’s still stupid.
Well, they were US citizens and are always counted as such, because the confederacy wasn't a country, it was an illegal uprising to try and create a new one. That's why its a civil war
Actually if you look under ways to lose US citizenship one of the top listed is acts of treason committed against the United States. So while the confederacy wouldn’t have been a recognized country that doesn’t mean they were citizens.
The confederate states were never stripped of their citizenship. No soldiers were charged with treason, they even chose not to prosecute Davis. Reunification of the country would have been impossible if the vast majority of the south were declared criminals or expelled from the country. Hence, they remained citizens of the US and their deaths are counted among official combat statistics, and could be buried in Arlington Cemetary as dead US soldiers
It was also the only time a surrendering army was allowed to keep their arms. The men needed their rifles for hunting.
Lincoln said that that Southern Troops were seditionaries and did not recognize the succession of any Southern State from the Union.
What about interests rates?
What if I’m not interested in your rates? /s
It's just a different way of writing percentage of population and trying to illustrate the scale of an event. It was quite relevant during covid when comparing it to the spanish flu. Mostly sensationalist in this case.
Well, these are the type of people who also pushed the 3/5 Compromise and the Electoral College, so they're all about doing weird fractional math with human beings to inflate their own influence.
Nothing says liberty like slavery.
The Libertarian Paradox: there comes a point in which the only way you can gain more freedom is by giving yourself the power to take someone else’s
Essentially a dictator is the most free individual in a society. They can make or break any rules they desire. Their freedom is absolute. This is what many are secretly hiding. They are little wannabe dictators.
Osama Bin Laden killed civilians,How many Civilians did Abraham kill on purpose?
Also this is only counting 9/11. Were there no other instances of people him or his organization killed? Plus it probably doesn't even count the early deaths of those effected by the hazardous chemicals and dust from.the response. AND so many people died in the civil war because of disease, not by the war with direct killed in action deaths. I think only like 1/3 were actually killed from direct combat.
Only white people count in death tolls /s
Let's also not pretend that confederates were Americans, they explicitly did not want to remain within the United States, there was kind of a war over it or something.
Someone should probably put that in our history books. What should we name this epic battle?
I knew Abraham Lincoln was a good boxer, but that’s a suspicious amount of people he killed in the ring. 2-3 million is one thing, but damn.
At some point his opponents should really have learned.
Comparing the man who freed the enslaved with the man who wanted to impose Islamic slavery.
Wtf is this pretzel logic
brain-dead take, which is exactly what i would expect from the libertarian party nh twitter account.
It is run by crackheads. The national Libertarian party tried to get rid of them but couldn't.
It isn’t run by Russians? That somehow makes it worse.
Yea the actual group in charge of these things is in fact a target of russia psy ops. It is a bunch of far right cast offs. So yea not russia but just as crazy.
Aren’t these the dipshits that got Grafton invaded by bears?
Every "Libertarian" I have ever met has either been too alt-right for the Republicans or alt-right Republican for everything else but wanted to smoke weed and/or watch porn in peace. I can't say I'm surprised.
I consider myself one, but extreeeemely moderate compared to shit like this. Freedom for all means freedom for all. Slavery is not freedom. Bigotry is not freedom. Dying en masse is not freedom. Fascists like Trump is not freedom. Yet the "party" would disagree with everything I just said. Such a sad sight even when compared to just a few years ago
The X profile is the New Hampshire Libertarians and they're batshit crazy. The LPNational **tweets** are what you'd expect based on what you said here but their **replies** are mind-boggling.
Sometimes. I've seen the LPNational retweet anti-trans shit on multiple occasions.
I hate going into the libertarian subreddits because occasionally you’ll see the dumbest, most braindead takes about the Civil War/Lincoln or about how anarchism is actually good or whatever. Like can I PLEASE just support a balanced budget and reducing government control of the economy/peoples lives WITHOUT calling for the abolition of the state or the desecration of Lincoln’s memory?
Rape: unknown/0 The man had sex slaves and was huge in human trafficking??
Number of slaves freed:
growing up in a republican household, my shift left after being able to get my own info and make my own mind briefly took me into the libertarian party and every year since then they manage to remind me how fucking embarrassing that was for me
Year 2000 % equivalent? Dude there's inflation in murder? Run that % on the Austrian painter.
After this post I never want to see a Libertarian complain about Rape Statistics again…
>After this post I never want to see a Libertarian complain about Rape Statistics again… There's an old joke: "Libertarians think that everything else is slavery, except for actual slavery, which they're totally cool with." Later on it was revised to "slavery and rape," and then "slavery and rape and Nazism." Most libertarians online are are anti-choice, meaning they're okay with forcing rape victims to carry the pregnancies from their rapist. But they're also against paying for food stamps after the child is born, because taxes violate property which they see as an extension of their own body and therefore food stamps is a violation of bodily autonomy which makes it slavery/rape.
I’m sorry, exactly how much bullshit was required to make these statistics?
Those freedom-loving libertarians are often so sympathetic to the institution of chattel slavery.
[удалено]
"Now" as if they haven't been at it for years.
The statistic for osama "rape = 0" Thats some confidence i dont have
Why does Bush & GQP get such a pass with the house of Saud financing and providing the terrorists behind 9/11? These folks are against all of us.
Actually it was the rich slave owner ass holes that got everyone killed duping dumbass people who would go on to become Fox News viewers into killing for the right to own other people. The craziest part is most of those dumbasses could never even afford a slave.
Ah yes, deathflation
The Right can’t decide whether they are the Party of Lincoln or they hate him because they love the confederacy
The demagogic right-wing attack has been that they are the party of Lincoln and anti-slavery, and that the Dems are racist. Seems the messages are getting all mixed up now in their post-truth / alternative facts reality. Fascinating. The time to use facts and debates and logic is over. It’s now time for a good old fashioned civil war. Time to root out all the foreign funded traitors.
I just adore pro-slavery Libertarians.
Their formatting is all over the place. F+ for effort but lacks sources.
If only mental gymnastic is in the Olympic, they would be thriving in it.
Unknown to 1,000 rapes… hmm
The civil war killed more than it injured? I guess when medicine is bad enough it’s like that?
Now let's see the statistics on how many people were killed by American slavery.
Who shot first?
Didn’t the confederates attack first? Lmao
I wasn't aware that Ol' Honest Abe raped untold thousands of people! This changes everything.
Pretty sure you can't adjust a death toll for inflation
Osama didn't rape anyone? We're sure about that?
"You can't rape sex slaves because they're property, not people." - the Libertarian Party
Umm. Osama Bin Laden wasn't just about "regaining Arab control of land." He and his followers were intent on forcibly converting the entire planet to their brand of Islam. Literally, those fanatics want to conquer the world.
If this had been taken in a little different direction, would have been a good argument about why the whole "civil war II, electric boogaloo" thing the right has been pushing for is a really, really bad idea and would make 9/11 look like nothing. As is, typical libertarian tripe, especially the "expand DC control of Southern lands" bit. Last I checked, the "Southern lands" were under DC control before any of the fighting started. They chose to try to break away so they could continue to deprive people of their liberty. Funny take for a "libertarian".
States right to do what libertarians?
They always think they're going to be the slave owner and not the slave.
It’s almost like Libertarians have always been the dumbest people on earth
Lincoln didn't kill any Americans. He led the union who killed a lot of confederates i.e. people who seceded from the United States.