Is Abraham Lincoln the biggest American traitor?

[Stanley Kobrick]

In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States with less than 40% of the popular vote




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uPX5I6hUc

[Stanley Kobrick]

https://i.postimg.cc/mDfyPPnJ/Victim-of-Congo-atrocities-Congo-ca-1890-1910-IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[iamgine]

Pretty sure he wasn't the biggest american traitor. Maybe try benedict arnold?

[Stanley Kobrick]

Pretty sure he wasn't the biggest american traitor. Maybe try benedict arnold?

did you watch the video? it's fascinating, a lot of undisclosed information on Abe. it opened my eyes to many new things, you can even say awoke me from a sheeple state

[BigKobeFan]

As long as barry is an american, he is the biggest traitor

[Stanley Kobrick]

As long as barry is an american, he is the biggest traitor
we can't say Obama is a true american citizen though, he never showed his birth certificate

[TheMan]

^^^ Two American idiots back to back :applause:

[coin24]

OP is definitely the biggest f@ggot

[Pointguard]

In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States with less than 40% of the popular vote

Its always the Republicans that don't get the majority vote. But he did get much more than the other candidates. And the Democrats had a northern and southern candidate instead of just one candidate. There were four viable candidates back then and the South wasn't really in step with the North. My guess is that 30% was considered a majority. The other candidates would have been much more sloppier than Lincoln. This presidential race might have had the best debates ever - so it wasn't like he didn't earn it. He was a true thinker and was better organized than the other candidates.

[bladefd]

Here's the issue.. The Constitution does NOT explicitly give any state the right to secede so South Carolina and the other states' secession is already not a legal act they are afforded. As commander-in-chief, Lincoln is afforded all the rights by the constitution to hold the Union together by any means or not hold it together if he so wishes because it is not forbidden one way or the other. The founding fathers expected that would never become an issue.

However, since it is not explicitly forbidden to secede, the states can certainly try then fight back, of course, but they will most likely lose.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Its always the Republicans that don't get the majority vote. But he did get much more than the other candidates. And the Democrats had a northern and southern candidate instead of just one candidate. There were four viable candidates back then and the South wasn't really in step with the North. My guess is that 30% was considered a majority. The other candidates would have been much more sloppier than Lincoln. This presidential race might have had the best debates ever - so it wasn't like he didn't earn it. He was a true thinker and was better organized than the other candidates.


Here's the issue.. The Constitution does NOT explicitly give any state the right to secede so South Carolina and the other states' secession is already not a legal act they are afforded. As commander-in-chief, Lincoln is afforded all the rights by the constitution to hold the Union together by any means or not hold it together if he so wishes because it is not forbidden one way or the other. The founding fathers expected that would never become an issue.

However, since it is not explicitly forbidden to secede, the states can certainly try then fight back, of course, but they will most likely lose.
very interesting and well thought points

[beermonster]

Well, he was one monster of a human being. Couldn`t care less if millions and millions of people died in a cruel way. Was only interested in his own agenda, hat no empathy for human life whatsoever. Ultimately used blacks as a justification for his policy when in reality he could not have cared about them less. He was just as bad as all the other politica leaders who slaugtered millions and millions of their own people on the 19th and 20th century.

[FKAri]

Well, he was one monster of a human being. Couldn`t care less if millions and millions of people died in a cruel way. Was only interested in his own agenda, hat no empathy for human life whatsoever. Ultimately used blacks as a justification for his policy when in reality he could not have cared about them less. He was just as bad as all the other politica leaders who slaugtered millions and millions of their own people on the 19th and 20th century.

So you're saying he was the American Mao Zedong? What a GOAT