Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
This article gives another perspective on liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The history both Lincoln and Sherman has been written by the victors and beyond reproach. Do we want to restore honor in this country? Can we restore honor by bringing up subjects over 100 years old? Comments are encouraged.
Randy's Right aka Randy Dye NC Freedom
The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org
It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative — given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment — but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.
Just ask about either Amendment.
If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.
But if — and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people — you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.
Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.
Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.
The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over — income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery — a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up — then clearly, slavery won.
Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression — in the south, it lasted half a century — he didn’t have to live through, himself.
In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country — that can’t be done by force — he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.
If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.
Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars — more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime — and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.
The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents — rather than mere hundreds of thousands — to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.
Source: John Ainsworth
http://www.americasremedy.com/
We battle each other instead of the dems.
Randy’s got his head up his ass
You don't really believe that the Southern states invented the concept of chattel slavery, do you?
LOL.
I liken Civil War/Lincoln threads to attending a midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Everyone dresses in period costumes and recites their lines by rote. Food fights optional.
chcukle
Also wasn’t he gay?
Have you met any libertarians who would favor invading another country to end slavery?
Could you then call Washington a terrorist because he personally lead an army to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion?
Slave economics, race repression, race obsessions, dragging black Repubs out of their homes and shooting them in front of their families, lynch mobs, fire hoses, church bombings, all of that is Democrat history. Never put yourself in the position of trying to defend Democrat history.
They have done their best to try to re-write history. Don’t help them.
If you think its fine for one man to own another man, and if you think libertarianism is all about protecting the right of the slave-owner in preference to the enslaved, good for you, but don’t pretend you’re a Republican or a libertarian either one.
Do you always answer a valid point with another question?
A Lincoln thread, posted by a newbie no less.
I'm sure there is much in the way of cogent analysis and insightful commentary. But I'm not actually going to read it to find out.
It’s always fun to do the Time Warp with people in Blue and Gray uniforms!
Not so much with the guy dressed a sweet transvestite from transsexual, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
The freedom loving, libertarian Southerners were enslaved by the Northern push for the end of slavery. Is that about it?
In 2000, Smith said he'd run for President if he got one million signatures. He could only muster 1,500, but still appeared on ballots as the Libertarian Party candidate in Arizona, even though Harry Browne was the party's national nominee.
L. Neil lives in fantasy world where the Whiskey Rebellion was a success and a libertarian utopia ensues:
In L. Neil Smith's alternate history novel The Probability Broach (1980), Albert Gallatin convinces the militia not to put down the rebellion, but instead to march on the nation's capital, execute George Washington for treason, and replace the Constitution with a revised Articles of Confederation. As a result, the United States becomes a libertarian utopia called the North American Confederacy.
In other words he's got his head so far up his own rear that he has to open his mouth to see where he's going.
Now you'd think a science-fiction writer might be intrigued about the possibility of slave-owning states successfully rebelling and establishing their own plantation state south of the Mason-Dixon line, but I guess how that would end up is just too obvious to be worth the trouble of writing.
Nope. You forgot, VOTE RON PAUL.
I wouldn't use the term "terrorist", but Washington was certainly in the wrong and he knew it. Remember he pardoned everyone involved in the Whiskey rebellion.
It's also worth pondering that Washington was a large scale whiskey producer himself and benefited personally from the tariff since it raised the bar against smaller producers.
Randy's wrong.
And , THEY’RE TAKING AWAY OUR HOME GARDENS!!!
Lincoln’s Fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.