You've never studied neuroscience have you?

Don't...
It will ruin your belief system.

Because he was a Quaker?

How is saving the union in itself something positive? What is intrinsically bad about there being two Americas?

And people tend to ignore the fact that the slavery issue was only a minor cause of the war, compared to the tariffs and the taxes imposed in the south in their international trade. And Lincon's opposition to slavery was, as mentioned, not moral, but rather populist and economic (the abolition of slavery was seen as a requirement for industrialization in the south). Never before has the fact that the victors write history been more evident than in the case of the American Civil War. Lincoln was an *******, as was Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. I really don't see why Americans feel that they have to idolize these people, they were all hypocrites.

To return to the original topic, probably Oscar Wilde, Hitler and Napoleon. Wilde for being generally awesome, and Hitler and Napoleon because they had an exceptionally large influence on the history of Europe, and to hear their first-hand accounts would be gold.

I'll agree that Washington, Adams, and Franklin were all pretty much jerks who get glorified for dubious reasons, but Jefferson? Come on, Thomas Jefferson was the man! Of all the deist pussies who lead the American Revolution, he is perhaps the only one I actually respect and admire.

He viewed blacks and natives are little more worth than cattle, I fail to see what's so good about him.

did you read my whole post? i'm pretty sure i mentioned that stuff about lincoln. and preserving the union was good, in my opinion, because it would have only resulted in continuing slavery (despite it not being lincoln's main goal...emancipation DID happen) as well as further wars and territory disputes.

and jefferson was awesome. you have to start remembering that you can't put the standards of today on the people that lived over 200 years ago. jefferson, despite having slaves, treated them well and had them because, well, it wasn't taboo. if you lived in that time and had money i would be hard pressed to think you wouldn't own slaves. in 200 years people may think it was incredibly stupid and insensitive to drive around in an internal combustion engine polluting the atmosphere, but i'm sure you don't think much of it now.

this post in no way is endorsing slavery...i'm just showing how someone's reputation can't be judged by our current standards.

The fact one was imposed by the rich upon the poor for purely selfish reasons.

I was going to explain but it would be a waste...

...because there is a certain ridiculous irony to that whole post, Lincoln, Franklin are ... and Hitler in heaven ... I'm speechless

I'd really want to see my family. particularly my little cousin. I could care less about these interesting people, they don't mean anything to me if I'm no longer on the planet, LOL!

What other standards do you suggest we view them with expect for our own? If we aren't able to judge people throughout history, then all wrong-doings in the past suddenly becomes immune to criticism.

It didn't say "Supposing there is a heaven", it said "Supposing there is an afterlife". I'm quite certain that if there is a hell, Hitler is there.