Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
If it's "OMG YOU CAN'T CALL RACISTS RACIST", um, **** that.
If it's "OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT OTHER PEOPLE I AGREE WITH ON SOME ISSUES ARE RACISTS BECAUSE I WILL ASSUME THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING ME RACIST AND THATS MEAN"(see every thread about Tea Partiers), um, **** that too.
Nearly every anti-Lincoln argument written in this thread is derived from a small handful of neo-Confederate "scholars" who have somehow latched onto the libertarian movement. The overwhelming majority of those neo-Confederates are racists.
loltastically wrong. The pre-eminient Lincoln revisionist is Tom DiLorenzo, who is no more a "Neo-Confederate" than Barack Obama, much less a racist. He is a hardcore libertarian individualist anarchist, and finds slavery, as it was practiced in both the North and South both before and throughout the war, to be an abhorent violation of natural human rights. Every despicable thing that Lincoln did that he points out he also points out that the Confederate government also did; made war on civilians, instituted a draft (I.e. slavery), paid for the war with inflation and debt, etc.
People like Fly have to lie and claim that Lincoln revisionism must necessarily be pro-Confederate, revealing that they haven't bothered to actually read any of it, so that they can smear it, the authors and all their ideas with slavery and racism, so that you will not question the status quo of the pro-centralized state academic Lincoln Cult that began to metastesize almost immediately upon his death. People like Fly worship Lincoln despite the fact that he was a thoroughly corrupt racist dictator and war criminal because he destroyed the concept of Federalism and centralized power by force, they way they like it.