Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

On another thread, it occurs to me Bashir Assad
has less blood on his hands trying to preserve his nation
than Abraham Lincoln who led America into its' most lethal war. Even compared to WW2!

Who is The King of Blood?
Abraham Lincoln or Bashir Assad.
Nominations are closed.



Moi
How Do'ya make a poll?
No Not Pole. or Polack.


r > g

View attachment 37884
needs a Good, a Godly, war.
Deus vult​

 

More Americans died in the civil war than all other American wars combined. >600,000

 

Lincoln was the worst president in history. He trampled the constitution to save the Union and destroyed any notion of a small Federal Government

 

Abraham Lincoln did not have thousands of political prisoners or torture chambers. He also didn't start the war, your side did - and lost slavery and lost the war it started. Get over it.

 

Ever check out the prisoner of war camps on either side? And yes he started the war. Who declared war on who?

 

Lincoln is the most popular of all presidents by every poll, Washington second. While I would list Washington first, Lincoln was an extraordinary president and the county did not go as he wanted after his assassination. Even the South was outraged over the assassination because he was the best friend the South had at the time.

Also, Ron Paul and his pro-Confederacy BS is just that, BS. He always played to angry white male bigot with his defense of the Confederacy and opposition to the end of slavery, suggesting the entire national treasury, the entire net worth of the USA should have been given to slave owners to end slavery - which they wouldn't have accepted anyway, and who were already the richest people in the USA. Those evil men decided they each want their own private slave country. Being of astronomical wealth and personal power wasn't enough, they wanted total power and their own governments. That is what the civil war was about and that's why the mega-rich slave owners went to war - to have their own slave nations for each of their states.

With this, the South had to be completely crushed to obliterate the slave and bigotry culture itself, which such as your message shows still exists here and there as a yearning of some angry white men in this country. The Confederacy is gone and it isn't coming back.





Your side started the war fearing the end of slavery and your side lost. You'll just have to live with you can't own a slave.

 

You should erase "Abraham Lincoln" with "Jefferson David." The core premise of the poll is false. Jefferson Davis started the war, not Abraham Lincoln.

Southern slave owners in their quest for absolute power caused the deaths of over 600,000 people. They also feared democracy was going against them as to their having the legal right to rape, torture, murder and enslave people for their entire lives bartering them and treating them worse than cattle.

A few years ago I was visiting someone who had a ranch in rural old Texas. He showed me an ancient crude brick wall that still had the iron chains and shackles in the wall - where he chained up slave field hands for the night in open weather. That slave owner is one of the people the OPer claims was so terribly grieved by the Civil War. Ideally, that owner was shot in the gut and died slowly across a few weeks as a gut shot was always a slow death. Better would have been the slaves beating him to death.

Of course, this is a poll by a white man, so the deaths, torture and rape of black people are deaths he doesn't count. How many generations, how many millions, of black people did the slave industry and slave owners cause? The OP author absolutely doesn't care. Like slave owners, the OPer only counts white people's deaths as relevant.

 

Yes FDR is up there as well and he is the second worst. All this proves is history is written by the winners. Most of us have been brainwashed. More Americans died under those two president s than under any others and by a long way

- - - Updated - - -

Would you like me to show you Lincolns declaration of war?

 

The war begin with the Southern military attacking a government military base. That is, by definition both war and treason. The Southern kings and nobles wanted the war. They started the war. They figured they could barter cotton for enough weapons to win it and relying Europe would take their side needing the cotton. They calculated wrongly. Had it not been for that attack, there would have been no war. NO historian has even hinted Lincoln calculated any war plans before this and the only plans of anyone oppose to slavery was thru democratic process. But a majority was coming to oppose slavery, so slave owners opted for war and insurrection to stop democratic process.

Ron Paul was a pathological liar playing to angry white male bigots when he spoke of the Civil War and Lincoln. But if you understood Ron Paul's Congressional district at the time you'd understand why. He was financed by white mega rich oil refinery owners who hated the federal government because they couldn't pollute all they wanted to. It is likely he had the environmentally dirty Congressional District in the USA. This was the reason for his ranting against the North, against the Civil War and the federal government. He also realized quickly there are angry white male bigots all over the country who blame their failures on black people.

 

Lincoln was attempting to save The Union.

Assad is attempting to save his own position as Dictator.

The answer is Assad has more innocent blood on his hands because his actions are not righteous.

 

Hey, no surprise you also favored Hitler, not just slave owners.

Yes, show a military declaration of war by Abraham Lincoln PRIOR to the attack on Fort Sumter. if you think you can. The South did a Pearl Harbor style attack on Fort Sumter, too cowardly to formally declare war first. But I suppose you also believe Japan was right to attack Pearl Harbor too.

 

Pro-Confederacy/slavery white bigots who rage against Lincoln claiming he is responsible for white people deaths never make any secret they don't give a damn about black deaths because their lives are irrelevant. The premise of the OP is "black lives don't matter" at it's core.

The average life span of a slave was half that of white people. The average lifespan of a slave was age 22.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3040

5,000,000 blacks died in the slave trade to the USA. But the view of the OP poll is that equates to ZERO because that is the value placed on black lives. The OP then blames the war the South started to continue these practices for the total arrogance of slave-owners, the richest people in the USA - and realizing that they were going to lose the issue to American democratic process. Clearly, no one would more despise equality in voting than slave owners, so they went to war figuring they were so wealthy the could buy victory via weapons from Europe.

 

Iy started when Lincoln sent reinforcements through Southern territory to a Ft no longer on Federal land. They did not declare war on the US we did on them first.

 

Now your simply lying. I backed Hitler? How could Lincoln order the attack on his own fort? Thye did no such thing. They asked him not to send more troops there. Then they asked fror the troops to leave. They didnt pull any sneak attack. Lincoln wanted them to just as FDR wanted the Japanese to attack

- - - Updated - - -

Does the rhetoric never stop. Im no fan of slavery but I am a fan of the constitution. There was no need for such a war over this.

 

Japan demanded the USA stay out of Japan's backyard and out of Japan's war with China. This included US pilots shooting down Japanese aircraft. Hitler demanded the USA stop supplying the UK. in your logic, the USA started the war with Japan and Germany, for which FDR is responsible for all deaths of WWII after the US's entry into the war if not before.

Yes the war was justified. Nothing else would have stopped slavery and the formation of literally slave nations, .Slavery was even worse than genocide. But then I don't consider black deaths and the horrors of slavery as irrelevant. You do. The South wasn't going to give up slavery or white superiority. Over 100 years later, the South was still fighting against equality on the state level. You position is dependent upon declaring black lives are irrelevant. The Ron Paul line of slavery would have just come to an end on it's own is just so much BS and fully discounts how many more hundreds of thousands or millions of blacks would have been raped, tortured, murdered and otherwise died barely past becoming adults.

Claiming this is "constitutionalism" is without merit. You only like the Constitution when you think you can find a way to make it fit what you want it to fit. Quote the Constitution allowing sedition. Allowing states to take over US military bases. Bet you can't.

Why do you claim only white lives in that era mattered, huh? Why don't you count black deaths due to slavery - generation after generation after generation You only count white lives. Why?

 

Nonsense. Assad is a genocidal murderer and a clear and present danger. Lincoln is one of our best Americans ever and I find it offensive that you have tried to compare him to the anti-Israel Nazi Assad. I will flag this thread up with the moderators for the defamation of an American hero Lincoln.

 

The US embargoed Japan thats why they attacked us

There you go again. Where did I ever say only white lives matter? You simply make things up. Its like all those who call people homophobic just because they dont favor SSM. Its BS

They could have let the South be. Most likely slavery would have died off and they would have returned on their own. There was no justification for the war. The states didnt sign until death do we part when the signed the constitution

- - - Updated - - -

Im sure southerners saw him as a clear and present danger
The real Irony here is he is the first republican president and he pretty much destroyed the Republic saving the Union

 

Assad Genocidal?
How so or is the accusation, QED proof done.
Genocide would indicate going after a particular group as opposed to anyone who disses Assad. I say he just hates opposition. The way of the Baathist. Pan Arabism is their message and his Christians were safe. True.

Now Lincoln.
Some decades ago I read an essay proposing the War Between the States was the last great
Anglo Saxon vs Celt War, considering the population of each.
If YOU want genocide, how about Mr. Lincoln's war on the civilian Celtic peoples of the South.

Now, which tribe, sect, etc. was Assad out to kill. Just the critics.

rangecontraction, Remember W. C. Fields
"When I use a word it means what I want it to mean.
It is a matter if the word controls the man or the man controls the word!" ​

Moi


r > g

No ​

 

ever hear of Ft Sumter the south started the civil war and ultimately lost it

 

Go back and read the thread. Been there done that

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

 

no need 150 years ago just doesnt matter now

 

Lincoln did not disallow secession because he wanted to abolish slavery. Abolishing slavery was more of a bonus to him, but really it was moreso a diplomatic tool to prevent European powers from intervening on the behalf of the South. As for the soldiers, very few of the Union soldiers were in it to abolish slavery, and very few Confederate soldiers were slave owners. It was a fight for self-determination (albeit not considering the self-determination of Blacks) for the South, and fight to preserve the Union for Lincoln and the North.

source: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/...es/greeley.htm

Indeed, before the Civil War, he was a moderate who only sought to prevent the expansion of slavery.

Is preserving the union really a worthwhile goal... i.e. worth killing hundreds of thousands of Americans? I mean, we seceded from Britain because they were parasitic. Why didn't the South have the right to secede from the North because of irreconcilable differences? In terms of social policy, I think America would have done better without the South if they had been allowed to leave. Slavery would have eventually fallen on its own, and it really wasn't for another hundred years that black people were treated even remotely fairly anyway - due in part to having the South still a part of our country.

 

I am not in disagreement but that is not the topic. Look at where I am and you have my answer to your theoretical question.

 

The southerners started it. Lincoln owned their asses.

 

Yes but he was wrong in doing so. The South did exactly what the DOI told them was their right. The constitution is supposed to protect these rights not used to trample them