Yet he waged the war that ended slavery, and for that was shot in the back of the head by a coward from your vaunted south.
He wanted to ship them back Africa.
This was not an idea orginal to Lincoln; it was a popular solution in the years leading up to the war. Go read some newspapers from the era.
He was also a socialist
Do you know the meaning of the word? Socialists don't grant freedom, they take it away.
who destroyed the form of government our Founding Fathers fought and died for
Nope. He defended the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy who thought it laudable to hold men in chains and confiscate the product of their labor. Answer me this: where in the Constitution does it grant one man the right to own another as property? That's where your whole story falls apart; you can't defend the south because to do so is to defend men owning each other.
There's a better definition of socialism: economic slavery.
If you want to complain about Presidents being socialists-- or worse, confiscating the product of a man's labor-- you need look no further than the White House today; that's where you should direct your energy.
You clearly don't understand history, or the definitions of political systems.
Karl Marx called him his favorite American
If you read Marx's letter to Lincoln in 1864, Marx is encouraging Lincoln in the fight against slavery. I agree with Marx on that point. Do you?
Lincoln remains the only president who caused more American casualties in four years than all of our foreign enemies have in two centuries.
The cost of eliminating slavery was indeed high.
Why did your heroes in the south fight so hard, and kill so many, in defending their 'rights', when the central right they were defending was the unconstitutional ownership of one man, by another?
The blood is on the south, not Lincoln.
He is also the only president who has left mass graves of Americans in his wake on American soil.
Again, the blame for those graves belongs with the south.
The only thing tragic about his assassination, is that it did not occur four and half years and 750,000 deaths sooner.
So said an anonymous troll on the internet, 150 years after the fact, in defense of slavery.
Your forefathers created a real mess, didn't they?
And yet, you have the insolence to complain about the man to whom history handed the thankless task of cleaning that mess? What kind of a man are you?
0 for 5, Grand Dragon.
If you can't up your game, we're going to have to call this off, because you're not very intelligent.
http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2007/02/clyde-wilson-lincoln-fable-part-iii.html
According to Just War Theory, which in general rests upon assumptions that war should not be a tool of politics but be defensive action, damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain, and all other means of response must be shown to be inadequate. Does the surrender of Fort Sumter justify Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the South under this perspective? When vast opportunities for negotiation and peaceful settlement were available and underway and had the support of large numbers of influential citizens in every part of the country? Just War theory requires that war not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be fought and have a reasonable prospect of success. Does the vast destruction of life and property and constitutional freedoms justify Lincoln’s war under this view? The prospects for success? Success was acheived only by a previously inconceivable vastness of mobilization, casualties, and debt, and, even so, was long in doubt. Let’s not even mention Lincoln’s violations of Just War theory in systematically terrorizing the noncombatant population of the South.
And then, we have the Great Emancipator. He took a raft trip down to New Orleans as a young man and had his eyes opened to slavery, which he vowed to strike against. There is no evidence for this Road-to-Damascus experience. What we do know is that Lincoln shared in the property of his wife’s slaveholding family and on at least two occasions was counsel for slaveholders seeking return of runaways. It seems clear that he used the N-word all his life and that he was a white supremacist like all other Midwesterners of the time (and later). The only options he offered to emancipated blacks were to be sent out of the country or to “root hog or die,” in any case to stay out of the North. In answer to these facts, the apologists have imagined a Lincoln who wanted racial equality but had to adjust his public words in order to advance a recalcitrant people as far as they were able along the path of righteousness. Or else, we are told, he mysteriously “evolved” into an egalitarian, perhaps using the same magic by which the Supreme Court “evolves” the Constitution................