Razörfist's Spergs Arguing Politics

The big problem with Lincoln is that he was assassinated before we could really see what he would do with his executive powers.

Was he a dictator during the civil war? Yeah, but as the early roman republic taught us that is not a bad thing. You need strong centralized leadership during periods of great conflict, especially civil wars, to actually solve those conflicts. However, its what leaders do after the conflict is resolved that really defines them. The methods Lincoln employed, while questionable, did bring the desired result of ending the war.

If he had his powers repealed and returned power back to the states, there would be no question that he was one of the greatest presidents to ever live. While there is another reality where he refuses to hand the powers back and becomes an all powerful dictator who is remembered as one of its worst.

Its in that ambiguity that creates so much division between those who view him as a saint and those who view him as a devil.

As for the emancipation proclamation (because I can understand the confusion people have with it), its was quite clearly a brilliant diplomatic ploy to keep those border states that remained neutral at the time, specifically Kentucky where A MASSIVE number of the US's horse population came from (horses not only were useful as calvary, but for pulling wagons and artillery pieces and were arguably one of the main reasons the south could never realistically launch offensives deep into northern territory as they had far fewer horses than the north to carry the supplies needed), from being pushed to the southern side. If those border states didn't rebel, they could keep their slaves (for the time being at least). Even them remaining neutral was a positive since it stripped the south of valuable resources that the North had in spades.

Danny boy is being a contrarian though and deliberately not acknowledging the above facts and realities going on throughout the civil war. Its definitely not right to call Lincoln a saint, but calling him the devil is just as incorrect.
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: FunPosting101, REGENDarySumanai, Scarface1 and 2 others
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
He wielded the power to arrest his critics and used the Bill of Rights as toilet paper, and put down a riot in New York by military force, killing 300 people. If he really wanted to free slaves, he could've done it. After all, constituent disapproval never stopped him from doing what he wanted.
Click to expand...
And? He used his powers to arrest people who were stopping him from ending the war, put down a violent riot that was killing black people (remember, by this point, the Radical Republicans convinced him to make the war about freeing blacks) and he needed to conquer the South first to force it to abandon slavery, which he did.

It's like every one of your complaints didn't take into account the context that the man was fighting a war TO KEEP THE NATION TOGETHER. If he failed, America would've died the way the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth died, or how the South died in real life: died of states' rights. Poland couldn't unite to stop the Germans and the Russians from carving it like a cake. The HRE couldn't unite to stop Napoleon. And the South couldn't unite to stop Lincoln, to the point where Jefferson Davis couldn't even get the reinforcements he needed for the Southern war effort because A) the South feared him just as much as they feared Lincoln and B) they needed soldiers at home to keep their slaves obedient.

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
That's another good question, why would Northern states care if the South kept slaves? They too, had slaves. Abolishing slaves in the South does nothing to rally slave-owning Northerner's to his side, and started a riot in New York that he put down with murderous force.
Click to expand...
Most of the North had abandoned slavery at that point, and the border states abandoned slavery after the war. And Lincoln had every right to put down a riot that was literally killing the same race of people that he was fighting to free.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 8656k67d, Caesare, FunPosting101 and 4 others
I do thoroughly enjoy how every argument against Lincoln or the Union is some variety of "well.. he could have been a nicer guy". The man could have burnt the south to the ground and in anno domini 2022 not a single soul would weep. The only reason the Lost Cause myth even exists to begin with is because the same people who started the war were still alive by the end of it, allowing them to revise their history and beliefs in hopes of being embraced by the annals of history as anything but treacherous slave owners. a luxury not afforded to the Bar Kokhba rebels or yellow turbans.
Lincoln wasn't a saint, but the critical-lens of extremely pedantic criticisms ring hollow and hypocritical when they are uniquely applied to him and no one else. For the sake of justifying contrarianism people go to extreme lengths to nitpick every little detail of his administration. Of course he wasn't a fucking saint, few people worth their salt would ever argue otherwise.
But on the long list of Americans who not only helped their fellow man, but also preserved and protected their countries, Lincoln is definitely on there.
Contrast that with Jefferson Davis who would happily throw young southern white boys into the meatgrinder to preserve the wealth and safety of the plantation class and slavery. the same boys made impoverished by slavery in the first place.
(also worth noting: not only was the confederacy first with using conscription in america, but the amount of conscripts in the confederate army was roughly double that of the union at its peak by percentage. the Confederacy america's Russia).

Every nation, realm, region, state or entity in human history that started a rebellion or revolt, throwing the first punch, was subjected to unimaginable retaliatory horrors, from slavery to widespread crucifixion, public execution and torture of figureheads etc.
The south in contrast was treated with kiddie gloves, their politicians allowed back into the government, their lands not annexed by unionists and their dignity preserved. Yet still people have the audacity to act as if Lincoln, a president put in charge of ensuring that not only does his country re-unite, but does so with minimal damage (lest a confederacy victory turns the south into the Congo with its own civil wars), was a bad guy for using whatever powers he had to ensure as much. Its pedantic at best, and downright contrarian at worst.

This is not an argument from "might makes right", mind you, its an argument based on realism. Based on reality itself. In real life you dont get to walk away from a rebellion with a participation trophy and a bucket of pride. Lincoln could have used his popularity and power to assassinate all his rivals and become the de-facto tsar of America. but he didn't. The fact that Jefferson David wasnt "disappeared" or gangstomped in the night by "mysterious angry negroes" is a testament to this.

All leaders, good or bad, do commit actions in times of crisis that we'd consider highly illegal. that does not justify the actions, but were we to apply the same lens to Lincoln that we've done to literally any other historical leader in human history, from Hadrian to Hideyoshi, from The bruce to Washington, we'd find that Lincoln was exceedingly gentle with his iron grip when you compare him to any other leader, or "dictator", in history. Even Washington has a shadier track record.

Speaking as a European, hailing from a continent were we build monuments to national heroes for less than what Lincoln did, The cold harsh truth is that if it Weren't for lincoln the US would at best be Russia 2.0, or at worst civil war ridden Africa.
count your lucky stars, you contrarian knuckledraggers.

Also, concerning slavery, lets cut this down to brass tacks.
>The republicans want to limit slavery to the south, mainly to promote industrialism and the birth of a middle class.
>democrats want slavery to spread, untethered and unbound (irony intended), and see the Republican attitude as a threat.
>Lincoln never said he wanted to end slavery, and made that clear several times. however, a republican victory was seen as the nail in the coffin for slavery, and so the south seceded.
>the south attacks Fort sumter, thus starting the war.
>To the north, the war is about preserving the union. to the south, its about ensuring slavery remains a right.
>The Union get its teeth kicked in, countries like Britain plan on potentially recognizing and even aiding the confederacy (euros love their cotton).
>Union decides that Emancipation is an additional goal of theirs, thus turning the war into a Moral one.
>Britain steps back, since they've already "ended" slavery themselves, and thus do not want to appear to fight for slavery.
>Union industrial power combined with *The Sherman* effectively hamstrung the south from obtaining victories, with southern generals being too reliant on suicidal heroic charges. Confederate soldiers likewise desert the army in droves due to southern favoritism towards plantation class people (check: Twenty Negro Law).
>Union wins, South eats shit, slavery is "ended".

edit: addendum
 
  • Dumb
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: 8656k67d, Caesare, FunPosting101 and 9 others
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the reason people like Razor seem to consider Lincoln "the great Satan" is his actions effectively turned America from "America: Union of states similar to the EU" to "America: 1 nation made of 50 28 32 whatever number of states there were at the time." Ignoring that if America stayed that "union of states", it would've likely broken into pieces long ago (if i remember, prior to the civil war, there were already issues states had with one another anyway; to say nothing of attacks from outside) and he'd likely be making his videos in a sombrero and a poncho than his metalhead look.

Of course, this doesn't make Lincoln "best guy on earth", he was more complicated than that; but Razor seems to dislike him way too much, especially with him linking Lincoln to shit done by Andrew Dice Clay or other whigs in general than what Lincoln himself specifically did.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Disagree
Reactions: 8656k67d, AnonymousKot, Deogracias and 3 others
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the reason people like Razor seem to consider Lincoln "the great Satan" is his actions effectively turned America from "America: Union of states similar to the EU" to "America: 1 nation made of 50 28 32 whatever number of states there were at the time." Ignoring that if America stayed that "union of states", it would've likely broken into pieces long ago (if i remember, prior to the civil war, there were already issues states had with one another anyway; to say nothing of attacks from outside) and he'd likely be making his videos in a sombrero and a poncho than his metalhead look.

Of course, this doesn't make Lincoln "best guy on earth", he was more complicated than that; but Razor seems to dislike him way too much, especially with him linking Lincoln to shit done by Andrew Dice Clay or other whigs in general than what Lincoln himself specifically did.
Click to expand...
This faggot hates Aberham Lincoln? The same Lincoln who fought against the Kike Confederacy and the banks? The same Lincoln who wanted to deport niggers back to Africa? The same Lincoln who led the nation a war to end the South's breeding and creation of more niggers? Not shocking.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: FunPosting101, Kenya Jones and Deogracias
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the reason people like Razor seem to consider Lincoln "the great Satan" is his actions effectively turned America from "America: Union of states similar to the EU" to "America: 1 nation made of 50 28 32 whatever number of states there were at the time." Ignoring that if America stayed that "union of states", it would've likely broken into pieces long ago (if i remember, prior to the civil war, there were already issues states had with one another anyway; to say nothing of attacks from outside) and he'd likely be making his videos in a sombrero and a poncho than his metalhead look.
Click to expand...
It's basically Lolbertarian politics 101: hate all politicians who go for centralization. Never mind that decentralized states back in Europe either fell into ruin (Holy Roman Empire) or were gobbled up by their neighbors (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Never mind that said centralization which Lincoln started helped make America the superpower that it is today. Never mind that said centralization helps with literal welfare for the very same part of the country that fucking rebelled in the first place. If people like Razor got their way, America would be a lot like Renaissance Italy: full of local states that each have their own army and national identity, who can and will go to war with each other over the stupidest thing. Either that, or a full-blown plutocracy like Dubai where the rich have everything and the poor are just fucked.

Every damn time you have decentralization, it leads to a mess. The Italian city-states work together to foil the Holy Roman Empire's attempts to centralize them all into one body of power, they eventually go to war with each other over the stupidest shit possible. (One war was literally over a fucking bucket, true story) The Holy Roman Empire became decentralized after the death of Emperor Frederick II, and it remained a decentralized mess full of internal conflicts until Napoleon put it on the knees and busted a cap on the back of its head in 1806. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth remained decentralized, and it became easy prey for the Germans and Russians slicing it up like a birthday cake. And the South literally fell because of States' Rights; it could not muster the force to withstand Lincoln's forces once the North found their groove and solidified their attack plan, because the local power-brokers in the South feared Richmond as much as they feared DC.

Literally, people like Razorfist have never truly studied history. They only study parts of history that make them feel happy. They conveniently black out any parts that would contradict their utopian vision of a small-government paradise. Just as the SJWs they fight conveniently forget how Communism killed millions. Small-government politics died in major countries for a reason: it's because a government that gives more power to local states than it does to the central authority is no longer a government, but just a tool for local elites to fuck with.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 8656k67d, Caesare, FunPosting101 and 8 others
@Hagfish
The only reason the Lost Cause myth even exists to begin with is because the same people who started the war were still alive by the end of it, allowing them to revise their history and beliefs in hopes of being embraced by the annals of history as anything but treacherous slave owners. a luxury not afforded to the Bar Kokhba rebels or yellow turbans.
Every nation, realm, region, state or entity in human history that started a rebellion or revolt, throwing the first punch, was subjected to unimaginable retaliatory horrors, from slavery to widespread crucifixion, public execution and torture of figureheads etc.
The south in contrast was treated with kiddie gloves, their politicians allowed back into the government, their lands not annexed by unionists and their dignity preserved. Yet still people have the audacity to act as if Lincoln, a president put in charge of ensuring that not only does his country re-unite, but does so with minimal damage (lest a confederacy victory turns the south into the Congo with its own civil wars), was a bad guy for using whatever powers he had to ensure as much. Its pedantic at best, and downright contrarian at worst.
Click to expand...

That's another thing I'd like to shine a light on. The way Lincoln and his generals put down the South was by far, one of the nicest ways to put down a rebellion. Even in Christian Europe, most rebels would be at best, made into serfs, or at worst, hanged, beheaded, or burned at the stake, depending on who they rebelled against and why. The Southern rebel leaders were treacherous slave-owners who profited off the backs of humans held in bondage, and by the end of the war, they still had their lives and their homes. The Bar Kokhba rebels were put down like rabid dogs. The same goes for most of the Yellow Turbans. The slave revolt under Spartacus ended with 6000 surviving rebels getting crucified on the road from Capua to Rome. The Southern rebellion was literally put down in the most humane way possible.

Just imagine if it was someone else other than Lincoln whom the South was rebelling against. Someone like Marcus Licinius Crassus or Emperor Hadrian would've had the plantation families' lands sown with salt, their plantation houses burned down, and the plantation owners, along with the Southern political elite, their generals, and their soldiers, would be crucified by the thousands on the road from Richmond to Washington DC, with their children being sold as slaves. If they fought against the Han Dynasty that the Yellow Turbans fought against, the plantation families and those who fought for them would all be put to the sword, every last man, woman, and child. That was how they punished rebellion back in the day. Either the rebels were crucified or sold into slavery, or those who partook in the rebellion, especially the leaders, would die along with their entire family line. Pick your poison.

Hell, even Christian rulers could be just as punitive; Emperor Basil II of Byzantium would've done what he did to the Bulgarian army and send the Southern soldiers home...........with their eyes gouged out, (the standard punishment for rebels in Byzantium) as a vivid reminder to the South to never rebel again, not to mention making them a massive drain on resources to care for. William the Conqueror would've probably eradicated the plantation class as a whole, and replaced them with his Norman buddies, giving away the plantation owners' estates to his best Norman warriors as a gift, along with the wives and daughters of the plantation owners, all the while "apologizing" to God for his misdeeds by building more churches, like he did with the rebelling Anglo-Saxon nobility when he conquered England in 1066. (He killed all the nobles, gave away their lands to his Norman buddies, then built churches as a way to apologize to God for his actions.)



Shit, imagine the Southern rebels fighting Jefferson's idols, the French Revolutionaries, (who actually voted to free the black slaves in Haiti) then imagine the Committee of Public Safety responding to the Southern rebellion by "downsizing" the plantation class with the Guillotine while jailing or executing anyone accused of even associating with the plantation class. And those guys lived in the late 1700s, not even a century before the Civil War.

So again, what Lincoln did with these rebels, letting them go home and rebuild, without so much as a slap on the wrist, was one of the most humane ways to deal with rebels who just made a mess of your country. Razorfist is a fucking moron to paint Lincoln as if he was a tyrant like Palpatine, when the Palpatines and Vaders of both the Roman world and Christendom, as well as the freedom fighters of the French "Enlightenment" that Jefferson loved so much, would've done far worse to the Southern rebels had they been in Lincoln's shoes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Winner
Reactions: 8656k67d, Caesare, Super Kami Guru and 12 others
Maniacal Foreigner said:
Personally, I'm still stuck on Lincoln taking anyone and everyone who dared to even criticize him publicly and putting them in prison. That is some thin-skinned absolute monarch shit, however noble his intentions may or may not have been.
Click to expand...
Really? That's tame compared to everything else happening in the world during Lincoln's time. Censorship laws were everywhere in Europe in the 1860s, not even a century before that, you had the French Revolution where they had no problems taking your head if you looked suspicious to them, and in other parts of the world, you can be executed just because the head honcho didn't like you, or you were of the wrong political stripe. Lincoln's deeds look like overkill to us, but in his time, he's basically treating them with kid gloves, while the rest of civilized Europe pretty much already did what he was doing.

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
Except for the United States.
Click to expand...
False. The early US, leading up to the Civil War, was a mess. If it wasn't political turmoil between the Federalists and Democratic Republicans, it was shooting wars in the western territories between slave owners and white freedmen who didn't want to give up their jobs to slaves. It was not as stable as the US was after the Civil War. Nor was it a superpower. It was regarded by most empires at the time as a complete joke.

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
And by contrast, more dictatorships or otherwise authoritarian nation has fallen more frequently than a decentralized state has.
Click to expand...
Nope. Most dictatorships fall to the might of another centralized state. The decentralized forces of Protestant Northern Germany, England, and the Dutch feared the Spanish Empire and at most, could barely check its power, but it was the centralized French Monarchy, first under Cardinal Richelieu, then Napoleon, which defeated the Spanish Empire, first in the Thirty Years War, and then in the Napoleonic War, the latter of which caused Spain's colonies to revolt.

Hell, the US would've lost its initial war with Britain if it wasn't for Bourbon-controlled France and Spain helping them out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Agree
Reactions: 8656k67d, Caesare, Super Kami Guru and 7 others
LORD IMPERATOR said:
It's basically Lolbertarian politics 101: hate all politicians who go for centralization. Never mind that decentralized states back in Europe either fell into ruin (Holy Roman Empire) or were gobbled up by their neighbors (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Never mind that said centralization which Lincoln started helped make America the superpower that it is today. Never mind that said centralization helps with literal welfare for the very same part of the country that fucking rebelled in the first place. If people like Razor got their way, America would be a lot like Renaissance Italy: full of local states that each have their own army and national identity, who can and will go to war with each other over the stupidest thing. Either that, or a full-blown plutocracy like Dubai where the rich have everything and the poor are just fucked.

Every damn time you have decentralization, it leads to a mess. The Italian city-states work together to foil the Holy Roman Empire's attempts to centralize them all into one body of power, they eventually go to war with each other over the stupidest shit possible. (One war was literally over a fucking bucket, true story) The Holy Roman Empire became decentralized after the death of Emperor Frederick II, and it remained a decentralized mess full of internal conflicts until Napoleon put it on the knees and busted a cap on the back of its head in 1806. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth remained decentralized, and it became easy prey for the Germans and Russians slicing it up like a birthday cake. And the South literally fell because of States' Rights; it could not muster the force to withstand Lincoln's forces once the North found their groove and solidified their attack plan, because the local power-brokers in the South feared Richmond as much as they feared DC.

Literally, people like Razorfist have never truly studied history. They only study parts of history that make them feel happy. They conveniently black out any parts that would contradict their utopian vision of a small-government paradise. Just as the SJWs they fight conveniently forget how Communism killed millions. Small-government politics died in major countries for a reason: it's because a government that gives more power to local states than it does to the central authority is no longer a government, but just a tool for local elites to fuck with.
Click to expand...
Someone asked him about the Holy Roman Empire in the chat and this was his response.

youtube.com

YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com youtube.com
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LORD IMPERATOR
Darkrider said:
Someone asked him about the Holy Roman Empire in the chat and this was his response.

youtube.com

YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com youtube.com
Click to expand...
Razorfist didn't even get the argument. Damn, this guy is dense. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't ineffective because it was religious; Spain was religious, and it was a powerful Empire because it was centralized. The HRE was screwed because it was decentralized, and it had so many internal conflicts and interests that the Empire could barely pull together when a crisis like Napoleon or the Turks hit. Also, we are living in the America made by Hamiltonian Federalism. America has been that way since after the Civil War when States' Rights was literally defeated. It has its flaws, but even in its corrupted, declining state, it's a lot better than what most disorganized, decentralized nations have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wampak
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back