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

Two things in my previous replies you must have missed: 1) I didn't read the article this thread is based on - I don't care what the author says, I'm responding to some of the replies; and 2) I don't want to make life a permanent tribunal on the sins of the past,as you state - I stated very clearly that I don't impose today's moral values on events of the past. I'm just pointing out misconceptions by some on this thread.

Another mistake you made is when you imply Virginia could have abolished slavery at any time. Don't forget, we had 160 years under the King and Parliament before the Revolution, and had the Civil War not occurred, slavery probably would have died a slow, natural death due to its increasingly non-profit nature as industry and technology advanced. We'll never know...

Eauxgod! You just make it up as you go along. The US abolished the importation of slaves in 1808. There was some small clandestine and illegal trade going on afterwards to Texas, Florida and South Carolina, but do you really think a slave ship could have sailed into Boston harbor illegally during the Civil War with slaves on board without attracting notice and condemnation? And what exactly would have been done with those slaves? If you have some real evidence that slaves entered the port of Boston as late as 1863 present it now, or stop making such claims. More information here.

You should thank Lincoln every day.

I agree wholeheartedly!!

Thank you Mr. Lincoln, for overpowering government
Thank you Mr. Lincoln, for overstepping your constitutional boundries(and I don't give a dern about Whiskey Acts created to cover a small rebellion 65 years prior, the powers he used were NOT in the Constitution)
Thank you, Mr. Lincoln for attacking Southern ports and allowing your generals to burn and pillage the South
Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for giving our current POTUS a honest to goodness blueprint to follow when setting up military tribunals(even though yours were declared unconstitutional in 1866 by the SCOTUS)
Thank you, Mr Lincoln for starting one of the worst wars in history up to that time(even though you didn't get Congressional support)
Thank you Mr. Lincoln for ballooning the national debt 100 TIMES in a short four years

You know we do have a lot to be thankful to Lincoln for < /sarcasm>

"It was a problem as the ~~southern~~ northern demand for ~~slaves~~ cocaine provided a ready flow of cash to entice ~~owners~~ dealers into the practice. "

So that justifies the Northern practice of sailing to Africa to obtain slaves? Why were the northerners not charged with kidnapping?

And what flag was it that was on those slave ships since 1641? (The 1st slaves arrived in 1638 aboard the Desire - Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641 with the Body of Liberties). Why were the northerners not charged with kidnapping?

Do you forget about the millions of slaves that died crossing the Atlantic? They died on Northern ships.

I did miss your statement that you don't apply our values to the past, so parts of what I said may not apply to you personally. But I stand by what I've said as a characterization of how these debates go in general.

had the Civil War not occurred, slavery probably would have died a slow, natural death due to its increasingly non-profit nature as industry and technology advanced. We'll never know...

Agreed, but if "we'll never know," then surely "could" is preferable to "would." And people living at the time could only judge by what people actually said, not by some pattern that we coming afterwards see in history.

Finally, I urge you to read the article and see what you think about it. Sometimes reading what a real loony on one's own "side" thinks, can make one rethink things, or at least understand what people on the other "side" are reacting to.

"...in the wake of the assasination, editors, generals and public officials across the South voiced the opinion that the region had lost its best friend. Indignation meetings, so-called, were convened in many places. Lincoln stood for peace, mercy, and forgiveness. His loss, therefore, was a calamity for the defeated states. This opinion was sometimes ascribed to Jefferson Davis, even though he stood accused of complicity in the assasination....

He [Davis] read the telegram [bringing news of Lincoln's death] and when it brought an exultant shout raised his hand to check the demonstration..."He had power over the Northern people," Davis wrote in his memoir of the war," and was without malignity to the southern people."...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."...

[in 1880] a young law student at the University of Virginia, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, speaking for the southern generation that grew to maturity after the war, declared, "I yield to no one precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy"...the leading propenent of that creed was Henry W. Grady, editor of the Atlanta Constitution. In 1886 Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was Introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."

--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48

Walt

Lincoln may not have been perfect, but he was a great statesman nonetheless. He was able to convince the Europeans (many of which felt that America fell under the heading of "unfinished business") to keep their mitts off while we settled our little contretemps over here on this side of the pond.

A feat of statesmanship that wasn't equalled until Bismarck unified the Germanic states (if then).

But more importantly, he did all he could to neutralize bad feelings because of the war (remember "malice towards none?"), and along with Davis, Johnson, Lee, and Grant managed to do so rather successfully (though posthumously in large measure).

Of the aforementioned leaders, he was the only one called on to sacrifice his life for his cause.

I take a look at some of the other leaders that the Union had to offer and shudder. Imagine McClellan as president for example. It came close to happening. During the summer of '84, it was pretty much taken for granted by everyone, including Lincoln himself that he was a gone gosling. That was because up to that point, the only battles won by the Union were in the west where the stakes weren't nearly as high.

No, Lincoln wasn't perfect, but there are few who have reached such heights as he.

As the Civil War drew to a close, Jefferson Davis (1808-1889), president of the Confederate States of America, fled Richmond with his cabinet in early April 1865 and began a trek southward with federal troops in pursuit. While still weighing the merits of forming a government in exile, Davis was captured by Union soldiers near Irwinville, Georgia, in early May 1865 and was indicted for treason against the United States government on 24 May. Whether by accident or design, Davis was wearing his wife's dark gray raglan (a short-sleeved cloak) and black shawl when he was captured. Although one of Davis's own aides was persuaded his chief had indeed disguised himself as a woman to abet his escape, First Lady Varina Howell Davis (1826-1906) was incensed at accusations of her husband's cowardice in the Northern press. Her letter to the powerful Montgomery Blair (1813-1883), a friend of earlier years and postmaster general under President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), provides a firsthand, detailed account of her husband's capture. Readers must decide for themselves whether the sequence of events was entirely coincidental or the efforts were calculated to deceive and were subsequently misconstrued by a wife's protective instincts.

Source: http://www.civilwarhistory.com/101899/DavisCapture/jefferson_davis_capture.htm

"And don't forget how the cheap labor was treated in the factories. When one dropped, bring in another. I think it would be preposterous to argue that they were treated better than the slaves in the South. In fact, due to financial investment and dependence, I would dare say that slaves had more protection. They weren't even allowed by most owners to work in factories (and there were factories in the South) because of the possibility of injury."

Do you really want to stand by that one? Do you really think that slaves were better off than Northern factory workers? I'll give you a chance to back out.

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.