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

I already addressed that with you in a previous post that you did not reply to.

You know...you make some valid points and then you say something foolish like this. You know very well this is a vast over statement. Davis was going to fire on EVERYONE. They were rioting for goodness sakes! He did exactly the right thing. Why do you suppose there was a food shortage in the first place?

At least Davis had the courage to position himself in the middle of the chaos and deliver the notice in person. You fail to note that NO SHOTS WERE FIRED and the riot ended 5 minutes later. Please quit using this argument to counter the draft riots they are not equal.

Know what? You may be correct, you make some valid observations but I will just stick with the memoirs if you don't mind. I like the information to be first hand. We are finding out new stuff everyday,

History has a habit of changing to many little things to paint the victors in the best light don't ya think? By Grants own words..

I know Grant was not anti-slavery

I know he would not have fought for the north without a commission that he liked. It was all about money for him.

I know he was planning on setting up a nice little Negro country island for all of the free slaves to move to. You know, so they could be with their own kind.(his words)

I know he had no firm convictions on slavery at all until AFTER the war.

So I will make my judgments on the totality of his comments if you don't mind.

"Grant was known as a softy when it came to scarring, abusing, or disfiguring slaves. He also didn't make all that much money, even as a general."

Please...Grant was a poor manager and business man. A failure at everything he attempted until Lincoln gave him a shot. He was not anti-slavery and slave owners did not mistreat domestic help which is what his wife owned.

In fact, your precious General Sherman states " The domestic slaves, employed by the families, were probably better treated than any slaves on earth"

It was all about money for Grant he had no deeply held views against slavery and was a serious bigot until the day he died if you judge him by today's morals. Which you continue to do to the Confederacy by the way.

The North does not now, or has ever had any superior moral claim on which to stand. Whether it was working poor children in forced labor or slaughtering Native Americans and seizing the land. There is blood enough to go around.

Get off of your high horse, slavery was wrong, I side with General Lee not Sherman or Grant. It was not the cause of the war and you have enough sins of your own to wash.

I side with General Lee not Sherman or Grant.

Really? Do you side with the Lee which paid passage for some of his slaves to emigrate to Africa? Something you Rebs keep hammering Lincoln on? Here, read all about it .

Or perhaps the Lee who said, "I have always observed that wherever you find the negro, everything is going down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see everything around him improving."

Or perhaps the Lee who said, "You will never prosper with the blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world-on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites."

When compared with current day beliefs there aren't too many people from the 19th century who come off as pillars of racial tolerance.

"When compared with current day beliefs there aren't too many people from the 19th century who come off as pillars of racial tolerance"

We always reach this point. I agree with you. That is why it is silly to keep bringing up a racist south by today's standard when the whole of the 19th century was racist by the same measurement.

"Really? Do you side with the Lee which paid passage for some of his slaves to emigrate to Africa? Something you Rebs keep hammering Lincoln on?"

Yes, I will take Lee with those quotes against Sherman and Grant. If you are defending the North as being an enlightened people in reference to "civil rights" or racial tolerance, it is a phony argument.

The easiest path for Lee would have been to accept Lincoln's offer and command the Army of the North. He could not, he chose the harder road. Sherman never would have made that sacrifice for the North and said so.

"I haven't read of any Southerners rioting against Jeff Davis for his policies."

errr...I didn't make that statement, but they were not rioting against Davis' polices. They were a unruly, ulawful mob that was destroying private property. He had every right to issue the order.

It was all about money for Grant

Just curious. What massive amounts of money did Grant make as a Union Army officer?

My understanding is that even as President, when many of his officials were feathering their nest, that he never made money for himself. It is well known that he literally accelerated his own death by working himself to exhaustion on his memoires which would provide for his family.

I have observed a peculiar pattern in pro-South vs. pro-Union posters on this forum.

The pro-Union posters are willing, even eager, to recognize the personal probity and even heroism of many Southern leaders, such as Lee and Davis, while holding to a belief that their cause was inherently evil.

Many of the pro-South posters seem to feel that their cause can only be upheld by attacks on the personal integrity of Union leaders such as Lincoln and Grant.

Why do you think this is? Why is it so difficult to admit that both Lincoln and Grant fought for what they thought was right, exactly as did Lee and Davis?

There were, of course, many opportunists and corrupt politicians on both sides. But not among the ones I have mentioned.

Oh, the riots in Richmond happened.

Eventually numbering some 50,000 people, the mob terrorized neighborhoods on the East Side of New York for three days looting scores of stores. Blacks were the targets of most attacks on citizens; several lynchings and beatings occurred. In addition, a black church and orphanage were burned to the ground.

But so did the New York Draft Riots

Willing to fight for Uncle Sam", but not "for Uncle Sambo", said one Pennsylvania newspaper. First Lincoln freed the slaves and now he was conscripting Northern men into the army and forcing them to fight and die to make his proclamation a reality. Thus reasoned many white workers in the North who were concerned about free blacks competing for their jobs. The unfair draft laws caused deep resentment throughout the North, and in the summer of 1863 protests and outbreaks of violence were common in virtually every Northern state. Secret societies were formed to organize resistance to the draft, and draft officers were assaulted.

Interesting quote from a Pennsylvania newspaper. Tell me, is Pennsylvania in the South? I forget. I thought it was over slavery and the utter despise that only the evil Southerners showed towards blacks.

You are soooooooooooooooo ignorant it is unreal. It isn't about slavery moron, its about RIGHTS! But you are soooooooooooo PC brainwashed that you couldn't come up with an original thought if someone paid you to. You spout this canned crap about "racist, and slavery", yet your state 'The Peoples Republic of California' has committed the most egrigious offenses against the Constitution, and you probably go right along with it. Of course you would being incapable of thinking for yourself. You probably don't know squat about the Constitution, or Bill of Rights. You definitely don't know squat about the Founder's original intent. And you're the type of person who's probably set back and let everyone else do the "dirty work" and you just live off their sweat and make a profit. You don't have a clue about what makng a stand is all about, nor do you have the character to do so.

"And you know all that from what source?"

Okay, your right. I was wrong on one of them, this one "This I know he would not have fought for the north without a commission that he liked. It was all about money for him."

I confused Grant with Sherman. To his credit Grant records about service to the Union.

"but announced that I would aid the company in every way I could and would be found in the service in some position if there should be a war. "

The rest are supported from statements in his memoirs

It was all about money for Grant he had no deeply held views against slavery and was a serious bigot until the day he died if you judge him by today's morals.

How do you explain the fact that Grant manumitted the one slave that he owned, 35 year old William Jones in 1859? William was worth a thousand dollars at the time, and Grant received nothing for the act. While you are at, you should explain the coincidence that Grants closest friends in Missouri, Henry and Taylor Blow. They bought Dred Scott and freed him in 1859 also. Hardly the act of your typical cruel and malicious Southern flesh monger.

You might also consider his biographer, Hamlin Garland, who talked extensively with Grants neighbors and friends in Missouri and concluded that the Grant family's use of slaves was 'a source of irritation and shame." Grant was not primarily an abolitionist, but it is remarkable to note that in his letters and writings, he never referred to blacks as 'slaves,' but only as 'Negro men' or 'servants.'

The primary complaint of his neighbors was that he paid the blacks that he hired far too much, and as southerners of the usual run of the mill racist type, they deeply resented that fact and the trouble that it caused. They also frequently complianed that Grant would never beat them as they felt he should.

What are you going to make up next?

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.