The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War

Snap Out of it, America! ^ | 1/20/14 | Michael Hutcheson

[mhutcheson]

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial---which he did.
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics. The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians---this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children---civilians---white and black, slave and free alike---were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661).

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states---where he could not reach them---and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states---where he could have freed them at once.

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

[anton]

Well, slavery was over both for political and economic reasons before the Civil war. And, the beginning of federal power stems from the Civil War, not from The Great Society.

Admittedly, things ran well until recently, but once the federal government crushed States rights, it was only a matter of time.

[central_va]

Reading original sources and contemporary news papers of the era verify your article. Good job.

[Fuzz]

Slavery is more than just an ‘economic issue’.

[ought-six]

“What a better world this would be if the South succession had been a achieved permanently.”

Whom or what did the South succeed (after all, “succession” follows the root word “succeed). Good God, man; if you can’t get the basic term correct please cease making any comment relative thereto.

[rockrr]

Most people call it The Civil War or the War Between The States, either of which are more accurate (and less provocative).

[OldPossum]

Bookmark.

[ought-six]

“In the name of intellectual honestly, southerners might as well admit that slavery was in fact, an important factor. Northerners should admit that it was far from the only factor, and that Lincoln broke the law on multiple occasions.”

Well, slavery itself was not the issue for the South. Rather, it was the desire and belief that what they (the South) developed and earned they should be able to keep; or, if taxes had to be paid by the South (which were the “revenues” Lincoln so eagerly wished to keep), that an equitable portion of those revenues should be spent on Southern infrastructure, Southern improvements, etc.

No one who is honest will deny that the Southern states got short shrift when it came to spending federal revenues.

[rockrr]

BTW: How many of those 3/5th’s voters actually got to vote?

[anton]

Oh, a little English tutor weighing in. Thanks. I’ll call you next time I need some estrogen.

[anton]

You do know, I hope , that it didn’t matter whether they voted or not. What mattered was that the population of a state, including 3/5 of the slave population gave them a certain number in the House of Representatives.

[ought-six]

“But the North won the war and as usual the winners get to write the history.”

It was ever thus.

[Fuzz]

“You do know, I hope , that it didn’t matter whether they voted or not.”

They were slaves. Perhaps there’s a point you’re missing here?

[central_va]

[Kenny Bunk]

Finally, 150 years after the fact, we have a compromise?

....Southerners might as well admit ...... Northerners should admit

[Windflier]

Oh, a little English tutor weighing in.

You object to promoting standard English? You must love Ebonics and Spanglish.

[KC_Conspirator]

There is a reason that Lincoln is referred as the Great Emancipator.

[rockrr]

In the early days of the Republic there wasn’t a mechanism for personal taxation (income tax). There needed to be a way to determine the wealth of each state, and therefore its tax obligations and an amendment ws proposed that would determine wealth by population of each state.

The south howled that this was unfair since they had so many nig....black folk around. They didn’t want them to count at all (when it came to figuring taxes). The two sides haggled on what percentage slaves should count and agreed on 3/5ths but ultimately that measure died.

Then a mere four years later another quarrel arose revolving around the method of determining representation in Congress. This time the south squealed when it looked like their, er, slaves wouldn’t be counted (why should they be?!). Again the 3/5th rule was proposed and this time accepted.

The south, who didn’t want slaves to be counted when it would impact their pocketbook wanted them counted when it would impact their ability to bully congress.

[rockrr]

And the losers write the myths.

[SkyDancer]

I meant the Union. All the states. The South wanted to continue in slavery. In fact South Carolina wanted slavery kept in the Constitution otherwise they wouldn’t sign it and it needed the approval of all the then existing states to ratify it.

[ought-six]

“Um, didn’t the south start it?”

Actually, no. If you recall your history (but then, maybe you don’t), first Buchanan, and then Lincoln attempted to send reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter (after Fort Moultrie was evacualted because it was less defensible than Sumter). That, in itself was an act of aggression towards South Carolina, which had already seceded. South Carolina fired on Sumter to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of a hostile military reservation in its own harbor (i.e., Charleston Harbor).

Look at it this way:

Who would be the aggressor? North Vietnam for sending troops and supplies to a fort it occupied in South Vietnam, and refused to relinquish after North Vietnam and South Vietnam split; or South Vietnam for firing artillery to stop that reinforcement and resupply?

In that scenario I would argue that North Vietnam initiated the conflict, and thus was the initial aggressor.