1. What did you expect this great bourgeois revolutionary to be: a socialist?! I'm surprised at you. Maybe you'd also like to have Cromwell and Robespierre to have been socialists. And as for the support that you insinuate Lincoln gave to genocide, when I clicked on that link, I came to an article which makes no mention of Lincoln, but has another link to an article accusing him of being responsible for the "massacre of 38 Dakota Sioux Indians". That's BULLSHIT, John, He pardoned many more Indians involved with that massacre by the Indians of the settlers. Read it and weep. Don't be so damn woke: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/09/dako-n09.html
First, you have not shown that a single sentence in my article is false. (For example, I never made the statement about the Dakota Indians that you put into my mouth (article.))
Second, you wrongly assume that I did "expect this great bourgeois revolutionary to be: a socialist." Well, I did not. Ditto re Cromwell and Robespierre etc. whom you toss in.
Third, my article is directed to the many people who DO assume that Lincoln and the Founding Fathers were great men on the side of ordinary people. Do you have a problem with articles that set the record straight for such an audience? It sounds as if you do. I suggest you reconsider your attitude in this regard, my friend.
Lincoln personally was concerned with the lives of ordinary people, though he was limited by bourgeois position. You set up a crude ahistorical dichotomy here--either you're a socialist leader, or you don't give a rats ass about people. that is really simplistic. And you implied that he supported genocide, when in fact the story of the Dakota Sioux shows just the opposite. Why don't you spend your time going around defacing statues of Lincolm? Or just tearing them down? Like so many woke young idiots are doing today?
I didn't use the Dakota Sioux hangings as an example of anything in my article that you are responding to. Yet you keep harping on it. That is your problem, not mine.
You have adopted a rather hysterical tone here. My article simply set the record straight. You seem to be a hero-worshipper of Lincoln. I'm sorry to have offended your sensibilities with a bit of simple historical truth.
Yea, he is my hero John. Just like Lenin and Trotsky are my heroes--though I don't think they were by any means perfect, either (they were Blanquists). What I'm not, is a person who thinks that to by my hero, you have to be a revolutionary democratic socialist. Otherwise, I rip your statue down!
1. What did you expect this great bourgeois revolutionary to be: a socialist?! I'm surprised at you. Maybe you'd also like to have Cromwell and Robespierre to have been socialists. And as for the support that you insinuate Lincoln gave to genocide, when I clicked on that link, I came to an article which makes no mention of Lincoln, but has another link to an article accusing him of being responsible for the "massacre of 38 Dakota Sioux Indians". That's BULLSHIT, John, He pardoned many more Indians involved with that massacre by the Indians of the settlers. Read it and weep. Don't be so damn woke: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/09/dako-n09.html
First, you have not shown that a single sentence in my article is false. (For example, I never made the statement about the Dakota Indians that you put into my mouth (article.))
Second, you wrongly assume that I did "expect this great bourgeois revolutionary to be: a socialist." Well, I did not. Ditto re Cromwell and Robespierre etc. whom you toss in.
Third, my article is directed to the many people who DO assume that Lincoln and the Founding Fathers were great men on the side of ordinary people. Do you have a problem with articles that set the record straight for such an audience? It sounds as if you do. I suggest you reconsider your attitude in this regard, my friend.
Lincoln personally was concerned with the lives of ordinary people, though he was limited by bourgeois position. You set up a crude ahistorical dichotomy here--either you're a socialist leader, or you don't give a rats ass about people. that is really simplistic. And you implied that he supported genocide, when in fact the story of the Dakota Sioux shows just the opposite. Why don't you spend your time going around defacing statues of Lincolm? Or just tearing them down? Like so many woke young idiots are doing today?
I didn't use the Dakota Sioux hangings as an example of anything in my article that you are responding to. Yet you keep harping on it. That is your problem, not mine.
You have adopted a rather hysterical tone here. My article simply set the record straight. You seem to be a hero-worshipper of Lincoln. I'm sorry to have offended your sensibilities with a bit of simple historical truth.
Yea, he is my hero John. Just like Lenin and Trotsky are my heroes--though I don't think they were by any means perfect, either (they were Blanquists). What I'm not, is a person who thinks that to by my hero, you have to be a revolutionary democratic socialist. Otherwise, I rip your statue down!