Posted on 11/19/2001 6:28:43 AM PST by tberry
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA’S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL
By Ron Holland
from Southern Caucus http://www.southerncaucus.org
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
Right,& I suppose you believe no smoking of marijuana occured after 193x when the marijuana trade became illegal in the US.
In the 1750's or '60's the Virgina legislature approached the King of England with a petition to stop bringing slaves into the colony. When did the Northerners start to address such ideas? And don't forget, many northern states had slavery. 10,000+ in the state of New York at the time George Washington died, according to the 1800 federal census.
Another lie! Less than 10% of the slaves sold by the New Engladers were sold to the Southern states. Over 90% of the bloody yankee trade went to Brazil, Cuba, & various Carribean contries...
The 'slave nation' you refer to was created by England to harvest tobbaco. Do you ever actually read history other than Walt's infamous cut & paste hack jobs?
Wanna see the spit fly from a dowager's lips (and who doesn't)?
THE CORN LAWS!
I feel sorry for you for your inability to read and comprehend the English language.
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.
Your source for that please?
I reserve the Holy pedestal for my Lord. But the earthly individuals I admire most in American history are Washington, Adams and Lincoln. Each had earthly flaws, but each was absolutely magnificent in a supreme time of need.
Now if you want to talk about slimy, grubby political hacks, let's talk about Jeff Davis. He's down in the dregs with that other good 'ol by from Arkansas we just got rid of. I can see either of them running around dressed in women's cloths trying to get away from the law. Men of conviction ---- LOL.
As has been pointed out again, and again, and again, the proclmation was applied to precisely where the proclaimer's power did not extend. Thus, if you can read, you can see the proclamation for what it was, intended purely for propaganda effect in England and Europe, and devoid of any practical effect on slaves, either in the Confederacy or in the remnant United States.
What is your point? It was a great humanitarian achievement -- in advance of Britain's emancipation. It was something that was within Virginia's power to do at any time. Yes, it was a gradual emancipation. But neo-Confederates and Southern nationalists are always saying that the South could have put through a gradual compensated emancipation and should have been "allowed" to do so. Why condemn Northerners for doing precisely what your friends argue that the South was always on the verge of doing?
If New York had not abolished slavery it is condemned. If it had it is still condemned. If they made visiting Southerners give up their slaves or leave them at home, the New Yorkers are condemned for abolitionism. If they let you keep them, they are condemned for not being abolitionists, and therefore being hypocrites. One suspects the New Yorkers' guilt has more to do with you or with the South than with anything they did or did not do themselves.
America honors those Southerners who tried to do away with slavery. I'd go further and say that it still honors those who tried to ameliorate the damage that institution did, and even those who fought for a cause they thought was right. Why is it so hard for you to see virtue or positive qualities in those on the other side?
The present generation recognizes that slavery and "racism" are a common heritage in the US, and maybe in the world. No one is going to be shocked by the fact that some Westerner somewhere may have owned or traded slaves. Very few would argue some special guilt of the South in these matters. But demonstrating that the guilt is wider than that doesn't mean that somehow the South has a special innocence. No one puts you or me in the docket because of what our ancestors may have done. But by the same token, our "innocence" or "anti-racism" doesn't mean that others in previous generations shared our views entirely. What they did is no reflection on you personally, but what you do or believe can't be attributed to Lincoln or Davis, Jackson or Stephens, without a preponderance of textual evidence to back it up. I'm not interested in judging, condemning or vindicating past generations so much as I am in seeing them as they were and understanding what they did and why.
If you want to make life a permanent tribunal on the sins of the past, that's your problem. An impartial judge would be as severe on your heroes as on those you want to put in the docket. And the sins of those you accuse, don't make the sins of those you glorify any less. And vice versa of course.
These "debates" reach insane dimensions, as the article we are responding to indicates. Every Southerner who might have had a qualm about slavery is an indication of Southern virtue. Every Northerner who might not have been zealous in his opposition to slavery is seen as a black mark against the North -- but also as a vindication of the South. And every Northerner who was fully passionate in his attack on slavery is also seen as a villain, a threat to the South and a justification for rebellion, and sometimes of slavery. Until you recognize impartial standards and realize that history is not just regional or personal pride, the "debate" will go nowhere.
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.