Started By
Message

"The United States are going to war."
Posted on 12/5/13 at 7:34 am
Posted on 12/5/13 at 7:34 am
Prior to the US Civil War, that would've been the grammatically correct form. Now, of course, the correct form is "The United States is going to war."
Thanks Lincoln
Thanks Lincoln
Posted on 12/5/13 at 7:43 am to genro
So would that make Lincoln the original grammar nazi?
Posted on 12/5/13 at 7:46 am to genro
National Treasure 2 and Nick Cage taught me this.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:07 am to genro
No biggie... Lincoln got what was coming to him.

Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:09 am to reggierayreb
Right? How dare he make you pay your laborers! What an a-hole.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:10 am to genro
It's funny how a tyrant who took a shite on the constitution and wanted to ship all black Americans back to Africa is regarded by many as our nation's greatest president.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:19 am to TreyAnastasio
Trey Anastasio... History buff extraordinaire

Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:32 am to reggierayreb
Sorry, I forgot yall like to say that the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:38 am to OBReb6
The grammatical difference really signifies how Lincoln shifted the way our country is set up. And how we view it as citizens. The simplest of grammatical changes is so powerfully indicative of how our nation's entire identity and structure has changed.
It used to actually make a difference what state you were from, aside from property taxes. Now it's all just one big bland country and states don't mean shite.
It used to actually make a difference what state you were from, aside from property taxes. Now it's all just one big bland country and states don't mean shite.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:42 am to genro
Well seeing as each state was it's own entity (country) that was grammatically correct. I wish that had never changed but that is a whole other discussion
This post was edited on 12/5/13 at 10:46 am
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:44 am to genro
Lincoln was the first president to use executive order which probably preserved the Union.
The more you know.
The more you know.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:50 am to mwlewis
Lincoln gets a thumbs up for preserving the Union, the North winning the war, and ending slavery.
He gets a thumbs down for insane breaches of power, castrating the states (all states, not just southern states), and centralizing all power at the federal level. He turned the Union into something it was never meant to be, and permanently and fundamentally fricked up the balance of power. Our federal government has been shitting all over its own damn Constitution every single day since Lincoln.
He gets a thumbs down for insane breaches of power, castrating the states (all states, not just southern states), and centralizing all power at the federal level. He turned the Union into something it was never meant to be, and permanently and fundamentally fricked up the balance of power. Our federal government has been shitting all over its own damn Constitution every single day since Lincoln.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:50 am to TreyAnastasio
That's not the issue at hand though. The issue is you equating Lincoln to freeing the slaves. Did he free them with that document that was a publicity stunt to keep European powers from getting involved? Why didn't he "free" them from the slave states that had not joined the confederacy, which he actually had control over?
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:53 am to TreyAnastasio
So why did he wait two years into the war to free the slaves? Slavery was a horrible blight on our history but that does not change the narrative: Lincoln only freed the slaves as an act of war not out of benevolence.
This post was edited on 12/5/13 at 10:57 am
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:54 am to OBReb6
The EP was a pointless PR move for Europe. But the fricking war was about slavery, and Lincoln won the war.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 10:59 am to genro
quote:
But the fricking war was about slavery, and Lincoln won the war.
Of course it was, but only because paranoid southerners made it that way.
My only point is that Lincoln shouldn't be regarded as the patriot of civil rights as he is when he wouldn't have done anything regarding slavery until it became a useful war tactic, and being that he in fact was a racist who wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 11:04 am to OBReb6
quote:He was an abolitionist. For his time, those were very, very liberal views when it came to race. He was one of the least racist politicians of his time, easily. People were shitheads back then.
he in fact was a racist who wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 11:05 am to OBReb6
They see the colonel next to our name and start assuming all sorts of things.
Posted on 12/5/13 at 11:16 am to genro
He wasn't an abolitionist in the same sense that John Brown was. He couldn't give two shits about Black Americans, he just considered slavery to be morally wrong, like a lot of people did at the time.
He brought about something that was good, but he did not do it for the reasons that we regard him for, and he should be viewed as such.
He brought about something that was good, but he did not do it for the reasons that we regard him for, and he should be viewed as such.
This post was edited on 12/5/13 at 11:17 am
Popular
Back to top

8







