ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA’S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

Because of Lincoln, the former American constitutional republic fell from a dream of liberty and limited government into the nightmare big government we have today without the earlier checks and balances of state sovereignty. After Lincoln, In foreign policy, the US forgot George Washington’s warning about neutrality and we became an aggressive military abroad until today we have troops defending the Washington Empire in over 144 nations around the world.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connections as possible. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.—George Washington

Lincoln shares his war criminal actions with other well know tyrants that waged war on their own people. History shows us that politicians make war against their own citizens even more than against foreign nations. The reasons are often to establish and preserve their power base, as was the case in the Russian Revolution and the Mao Revolution. For others, like Hitler, it was misguided super patriotism and racism that brought death to tens of millions. Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency. Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln was an honorable statesman who let election year politics and the special interests supporting his presidential campaign corrupt a once great man. He knew what he was doing was wrong and unconstitutional but succumbed, as in the case of many modern day politicians, to the allure of money, power and ego.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. -- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

This quote above shows Lincoln as a statesman 12 years before he plunged the United States into its most disastrous war. Suffering a death toll so high in death rates as a percentage of total population, his act of carnage ranks with the political genocides of Stalin, Lenin and Mao during their communist revolutions. A death toll so great that it dwarfs the American deaths in all of our many declared and undeclared wars before and since this American holocaust of death and destruction.

From the following quote you can see that later Lincoln radically adjusted his rhetoric to meet the needs and demands of his business establishment supporters and financial supporters.

No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. --Abraham Lincoln

Why the complete change in rhetoric and actions? Simple, to preserve high tariffs and corporate profits for the Northeastern business establishment. Lincoln who earlier in his career had obviously favored the right of peaceful secession, provoked a war that killed 600,000 Americans, as a pay back to the eastern manufacturing establishment that bankrolled his presidential campaign. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. Thus the real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth and hide the ultimate costs of Lincoln’s American holocaust. While Lincoln’s death toll is small in comparison to total deaths by Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, there are many similarities between these men. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.

Still the US constitutional republic, as established by our founding fathers, was in effect destroyed by Lincoln’s unconstitutional war just as surely as Mao and Lenin over threw the existing Chinese and Russian governments. The multitude of Lincoln apologists would say that this is just another Confederate argument certainly not accepted by most historians. I might counter that the opinions and books of these "so called" establishment historians who live off my tax dollars through government funding at liberal controlled universities and think tanks are prejudiced towards Lincoln and Washington DC. They are no different from the official government historians in China, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.

History shows us that a fair and honest discussion of Lincoln’s wartime actions will not be possible as long as the Washington political establishment remains in power. Since Lincoln, the Washington Empire has reigned supreme and omnipotent and for this reason, establishment historians have never honestly debated the Lincoln war crimes.

Consider this. Was a fair and honest account of Lenin or Stalin written and published during the Soviet Communist regime? Of course not. Could a less than worshipful history of Hitler’s Third Reich have been published until after 1945? No! Even today, with only nominal communist control of China, an honest appraisal of Mao’s revolution and crimes against the Chinese people still is not possible. It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Just as Lenin’s statue could not be toppled in Red Square until after the fall of the Soviet Communist government, or the truth about Hitler couldn’t be told until after defeat of Nazi Germany, it is the same here in the United States. It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged. The Lincoln Memorial should be remodeled to show the horrors of "Lincoln the War Criminal" with the opportunity for all to visit Washington and learn how war crimes, genocide and holocaust are not just crimes that foreign politicians commit. Government and political tyranny can and has happened here just like in Germany, China and the Soviet Union and that through education and honest history, it will never happen here again.

In the future, may we have the opportunity to learn about the Nazi holocaust at the United States National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and then have the chance to visit the Lincoln War Crimes and American Holocaust Museum a few blocks away. One will state for all the world that NEVER AGAIN will a tyrant or government be allowed to target, exterminate and destroy an ethnic, racial or religious minority. The other will pledge NEVER AGAIN in America will we allow a president or government to make unconstitutional war against Sovereign states or their citizens and then cover up the truth up for over 145 years.

We should start today with an honest appraisal of what Lincoln really did to Dixie, how our black and white innocent noncombatants suffered under his total war policy against civilians. Finally we should address the cost in lives, lost liberty and federal taxes the citizens of the US have had to endure because our limited constitutional republic was destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a smart politician and he could have been an excellent president, had he considered the short-term costs of his high tariff and the long time price every American had to pay for his war of invasion. It is time to stop worshipping Lincoln and educate the public about the war crimes he committed against the citizens of the Southern States so this WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN

Ditto said: "And you can't point to anything from the constitutional convention or the debates of ratification that any of the authors or any of the opponents of the constitution say what was intended was anything other than a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation were specifically intended and described in that document to be a perpetual union of states, and the Constitution was specifically noted in the preamble to be for the intention of forming a "more perfect union" that was possible under the Articles of Confederation. You would have us believe that while both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were remarkable in their insights and anticipation of future legal conflicts involving constitutional law, but somehow the idea of secession seemed to escape all of their attention? Not a word of a right to secession was mentioned in any of those debates. That is because they all knew and understood perfectly that it was a perpetual contract. The only conceivable way out was through amendment or a new convention, which the south never even attempted." Complete nonsense. The Declaration of Independence is nothing less than a secessionist document. Furthermore, three states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to "alter or abolish" – by force, if necessary – a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes "secession" sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming "independence". The original 13 states formed a "Confederation," under which each state retained its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence." The Constitution didn 't change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were "granted" and "delegated" by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government. Far from being a new-fangled idea in 1861, the right of secession was implicit in the very language of American politics – in the words "state," "sovereign," and "federal" – from the beginning. It was also positively asserted many times, even in the North, before 1861. As a matter of fact, the Hartford Convention in 1814, attended by delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, opposed the War of 1812 as well as many of the policies of Thomas Jefferson and his successors. Guess what their solution was? That's right, secession. There were secessionist cries from some Northern states over the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, the Whiskey Tax, the War of 1812, the admission of Texas, and the Mexican War. But I doubt you'll read about any of this in the government-approved public school textbooks. It was not secession that was unconstitutional, but the suppression of secession. The North fought the War by allowing its chief executive to exercise dictatorial powers, raising armies and money and suspending civil liberties without consulting Congress, and even arresting the Maryland legislature and installing a puppet government. This was "government of the people, by the people, for the people"? What happened to "the consent of the governed"? Then again, the Northern enemies of secession weren’t always rigid in their principles: they did allow a pro-Union part of Virginia to secede from Virginia. That’s how the United States got West Virginia. Since Virginia never legally ceded that territory, as prescribed by the Constitution (Article 4 Section 3), that was the only real case of unconstitutional secession. To make matters worse, the North never admitted that Virginia had legally left the Union. How, then, could it be split without its legal consent? Of course, after the war, the North forced the seceding states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment at bayonet point as a condition of re-admission to the Union it insisted they had never legally quit. Yet most of those states had already ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, so they were apparently back in the Union after all. The hypocrisy is dizzying. But wars aren’t necessarily won by the intellectually consistent. dixiepatriot Union by force....Confederate by CHOICE!!!

1. Paragraphs are our friends < P >

2. The Declaration of Independence is nothing less than a secessionist document.

Which formally meant war. The Declaration enumerated the various attempts to petition the Crown for redress to which the Crown responded with force. The Colonies asked for basic representation and were denied. The Southern states had full representation yet when they didn’t get their way decided to take their ball and run home to Mommy. They apparently thought they could have their cake and eat it too. They were wrong.

3. Furthermore, three states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution.

They did no such thing. They simply reserved the rights not granted to the Federal Government. The passage of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 9th and 10th amendments, essentially made those resolutions moot.

Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession.

Wrong. Our next to the last defense is the Constitution. Our final defense is rebellion. We are a nation of laws and those laws are meaningless if some can choose to ignore them at their pleasure by using tortured legal arguments --- be it the Federal Government or State Governments. There is not now, nor has their ever been, a right of secession. That would be anarchy because it would mean that the law only applies on your terms. If you don’t like that fact, call for a Constitutional Convention and make the changes that would allow secession.

4. Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to "alter or abolish" – by force, if necessary – a despotic government.

What’s your point? The force part was necessary if the South wanted to secede. It wasn't legal to do so just as it wasn’t legal under British Law for the Colonies to revolt against the King. Lincoln was much kinder than George III would have been. He didn't order any or the rebel leaders hung. He legally could have.

5. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes "secession" sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming "independence".

It wasn't the Declaration of Secession. It was Independence and it didn’t occur until after a full year of war and the arrival in New York harbor of the biggest naval armada in history to put down that rebellion. Unlike the Slaveocrats in the South who talked big and hid behind bogus legal arguments while others did the fighting, the guys that signed the Declaration of Independence had real guts. They were rebels and were proud of it. They didn't pretend to be otherwise.

5. The original 13 states formed a "Confederation," under which each state retained its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence." The Constitution didn 't change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution.

Wrong. By the agreement of all 13 at the Constitutional convention, only 9 of the 13 needed to approve the new Constitution and that decision was then completely and irrevocably binding on the others whether they ever approved it or not. (Kind of blows the unconditional states rights argument out of the water, doesn’t it.?)

6. The new powers of the federal government were "granted" and "delegated" by the states....

What is it about the words We the People don't you understand. The Constitution was not a contract between sovereign states but an agreement among all the people of the United States. It didn't say We the States. It is our contract, as a people, with the central government, not the state's contract. The proof of this is the fact that you, as a private citizen, can directly petition the federal government. You do not need to go through your state government to do so. By the same token, the Federal government can come directly to your aid if your rights are being violated. They do not need to go through the state government to do so.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will aauthorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." -- Original proposed 13th Amendment; passed by 2/3 of U.S. Congress; rejected by the Confederate States

"If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other,...the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." -- John Quincy Adams

"(America) was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

"Whenever Northern and Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed, and the former soothed. Monarchical Federalists, employing the government as a stepping-stone to monarchy, brought all this about by adopting constructions of the Constitution that they had promised would never occur in their earlier arguments supporting that document's acceptance." --Thomas Jefferson

"To coerce a State would be more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts." --James Madison

"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another." --Alexander Hamilton

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796.

"Force cannot change right." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors." --Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820.

"The future inhabitants of {both} the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better." --Thomas Jefferson

"A balance of power between two combinations of states, and not the existence of slavery, gave rise to this unfortunate, and absurd controversy. Banking, funding, and tariff interests united to beget the Missouri project, and that project begat the idea of using slavery as an instrument for effecting a balance of power." --John Taylor of Caroline, 1753-1824 decentralist political thinker, lawyer, planter, legislator

"If [Northerners]succeed in clutching the lands in all the new States hereafter to be made--which I take to be the whole secret of [their] exuberance and ostensible humanity about our Negroes--who can say how soon we may expect a Crusade against the slaveholding states to divest us of every remaining right which interfere in the smallest degree with their views?" --James Mercer Garnett (1770-1843) Virginia senator, agricultural reformer

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country...who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state has a right to withdraw. " -- Senator Henry Cabot Lodge

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South." -- London Times, 7 November 1861

"I do not know what the Union would be worth if saved by the sword." -- Senator William H. Seward

"Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?" --Thomas Paine

"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." -- Gen. W. T. Sherman

"The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." -- Gen. W.T. Sherman

"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." -- Adolf Hitler

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." -- Adolf Hitler

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?" -- Adolf Hitler

"People separated from their history are easily persuaded." -- Karl Marx

'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -- G. K. Chesterton

"...a revolution of government is the strongest proof that can be given by a people of their virtue and good sense." -- John Adams (1735 - 1826), (Diary, 1786)

British Historical Document, "Proclamation of Rebellion," 23 August 1775 Occasion: A proclamation by the King in response to the increasing hostilities in the American colonies.

Proclamation of Rebellion

Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open an avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of diverse wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Given at our Court at St. James's the twenty-third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign.

GOD save the KING.

[Down right Lincolnian, ain't it?]

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." -- General Robert E. Lee, CSA

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.