We still live under the empire Lincoln set in motion and we still have to look at his ugly mug on pennies and $5 bills.
How dreadful for you!
Posted on 06/17/2002 1:35:37 PM PDT by shuckmaster
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! --Ron Holland.
There are, of course, many faults of the Confederate government, but it was born and bred in the time of fire. Davis wanted control over everything and drew on much of his experience as a commander to lead the Confederacy.
However, I fear it extends only to nitpickery and vacuity. Russ would agree that to call our second greatest president such inappropriate terms shows the namer is a mendacious moron. Thus, you become a defender of mendacious morons. Have at it they need all the defense they can get since a mountain of lies cannot stand against the pinprick of truth.
This is true! Lincoln prayed to God for guidance, and God enabled him to preserve the Union. This allowed America to become the superpower that it is today.
I am a Southerner and I value my heritage, but I value my country even more! The Civil War split my family almost in half, so I had ancestors that fought on both sides.
BTW, once you form your own country, please don't come begging to the United States for foreign aid.
We still live under the empire Lincoln set in motion and we still have to look at his ugly mug on pennies and $5 bills.
How dreadful for you!
By a vote of 9-0 in ex parte Milligan the Supreme court held otherwise - what's unconstitutional during peace is unconstitutional during war:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."Lincoln himself didn't consider the EP "constitutional". And he issued the EP to prevent the slaves from fighting against the union.
The term "War of Northern Agression" can only be seen as an orwellian term when we consider that 11 of the first 15 presidents were southern, that tariff rates were set just the way that southerners wanted them, and that the Supreme Court had sided strongly with southern interests. The most intrusive piece of federal legislation --by far-- prior to the ACW was the Fugitive Slave Act which made a mockery of states rights -- nothern states rights, which was also the import of the Dred Scott decision.
You can call it the WNA all you like, but there is no basis in the record for that, and whatever you had to say of value will be compromised BY that.
Don't forget also that the so-called CSA raised a 100,000 man army when the US army was only 17,000 strong. Don't forget that the so-called CSA actually promulgated a declaration of war before Presidend Lincoln called for volunteers to restore the rightful authority, and don't forget that the forces of the so-called CSA fired the first shot.
It was really the war of 'southern hubris, lack of analytical powers, and dearth of adult behavior'. It was in fact the:
SHLAPDAB
Walt
Proof?
Here's what he said
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not.
Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union.
I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?
....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union...
Negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/24/63
Should I call you a liar now, or later?
Walt
That, of course, is why Americans are moving South in increasing numbers.
I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government --- that nation --- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.
Abraham Lincoln, "To Albert G. Hodges", 4 Apr 1864, Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, Ed.), Vol VII, p. 281.
I think you'll have to wait.
Now you know how many in the South feel, except what you call history has been modified since 1860, and still occurs.
Last month, I requested a US Park Service Historical Brochure from one of the 1861 war parks. The official from the park said that they were temporially out of the brochure because the Park Service had requested that they all be returned to Washington.
When asked why they were not available, the official said that the historical brochure was being rewritten.
When asked what of the history of the site could be 'rewritten' he said that "we have got to get the paragraph about slavery being the cause of the war into the copy".
The question here is not about the validity of the slavery=cause issue, but why in 2002 the US Congress would "remember the war", and go to the trouble to direct the US Park service to add its historical analysis of the cause of the war.
Is it really over? It isn't over for the US Congress and Park Service.
Why is the insertion of this explanation important to them? They won, but they can't get over it?
Do we need more proof that the winners write the history?
Do we need any more proof that it might be wise to question what the publishing houses, certain historians, and now, the Federal Government, would like for us to believe. Sounds as if they have to bolster their story....in 2002!
I think not. In both the Hodges letter you provide and the Conkling letter I quote, Lincoln states that the EP WAS constitutional.
Even if you could torture the Hodges letter into meaning that "Lincoln thought the EP unconstiutional", the Conkling letter was conveniently ignored by you -- so you could lie and distort the record.
Walt
Tortured? Just what part of "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful" don't you understand?
Besides, the Conklin letter was dated 24 Aug 1863, while the letter to Hodges was 4 Apr 1864, some 8 months later. Distort the record? Lincoln clarified it.
You revisionist yankees don't even bother researching before making up lies to smear Southern conservatives do you? If you, or anyone else, wants to order this excellent book:
just click on the graphic, order, and Amazon will send 15% directly to help keep shucks.net online so the truth about lincon's tyranny will continue to reach the masses.
Lincoln is clearly saying in the Hodges letter that the measures he took -were- constitutional because of the extreme nature of the situation, a position he took at the time and then avowed to Hodges in April, 1864.
In the Conkling letter he states point blank that the EP was constitutional. That letter was written in August, '63.
Nothing in the Hodges letter nine months later contradicts what he wrote to Conkling.
You tried to pull another fast one, and as usual, you got caught.
Walt
What Lincoln said -is- the record, good bad or indifferent. You have tried to distort the record, if only by ignoring the Conkling letter, which you have seen many times before.
It is simply false to suggest that Lincoln himself thought the EP unconstitutional. It is a lie.
Walt
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.