LDS Freedom Forum

How the Lincoln Myth Was Hatched
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him.

~ Larry Tagg, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America’s Most Reviled President

This quotation is the theme of Larry Tagg’s 2009 book, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, which utilizes thousands of primary sources to make the case that no American president was more reviled by his contemporaries – at home and abroad – during his own lifetime than Abraham Lincoln was. Tagg is no Southern apologist: He is a native of Lincoln, Illinois, and profusely thanks Harold Holzer, one of the high priests of the Lincoln cult, in his acknowledgements. This book establishes Mr. Tagg as a card-carrying member of the cult.

Anyone who has read The Real Lincoln (or scanned the "King Lincoln Archive" at LewRockwell.com) would not be surprised at all to hear that Lincoln was hated and reviled by most of the "great men" (and the Northern masses) of his time. As Tagg hesitantly admits in his Introduction, Lincoln was widely criticized in the North as a "bloody tyrant" and a "dictator" for his "arbitrary arrests, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the suppression of newspapers . . ." More specifically, imprisoning tens of thousands of Northern civilians without due process for verbally opposing his policies; shutting down over 300 opposition newspapers; deporting an opposing member of Congress; confiscating firearms and other forms of private property; intimidating and threatening to imprison federal judges; invoking military conscription, income taxation, an internal revenue bureaucracy, and huge public debt; and ordering the murder of hundreds of draft protesters in the streets of New York City in July of 1863 are all good reasons why Lincoln was so widely despised.


Tagg quotes the abolitionist Wendell Phillips as saying that Lincoln was "a first-rate second-rate man." Historian George Bankroft called him "ignorant, self-willed, and is surrounded by men some of whom are almost as ignorant as himself." The Lacrosse, Wisconsin Democrat newspaper editorialized in November of 1864 that "If Abraham Lincoln should be reelected for another term of four years of such wretched administration, we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart for the public welfare." In May of 1864 the New York Times said this of Lincoln:

No living man was ever charged with political crimes of such multiplicity and such enormity as Abraham Lincoln. He has been denounced without end as a perjurer, a usurper, a tyrant, a subverter of the Constitution, a destroyer of the liberties of his country, a reckless desperado, a heartless trifler over the last agonies of an expiring nation. Had that which has been said of him been true there is no circle in Dante’s Inferno full enough of torment to expiate his iniquities.

The inside cover of The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln claims that it is the first book ever written on how unpopular Lincoln really was. Well, not really. "Mainstream" Lincoln scholar David Donald remarked in Lincoln Reconsidered that Lincoln was wildly unpopular in his own time. Edgar Lee Masters wrote of the near universal hatred of Lincoln by his contemporaries in Lincoln the Man; and historian Frank L. Klement, author of Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads of the North, spent a career researching and writing about Lincoln’s Northern critics. Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall also discuss the critics of Lincoln’s tyrannical and dictatorial behavior, although these authors do their best to whitewash it all.


The most interesting chapter of The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln is the final Epilogue entitled "The Sudden Saint." Here Mr. Tagg explains how the Republican Party, with the aid of the Northern Yankee or neo-Puritan clergy, created out of thin air the myth of the "sainted" and "beloved" Abraham Lincoln. In order to understand why the role of the neo-Puritan, New England clergy was so important, one must understand that it was their neo-Puritanical religious fanaticism that fueled the war-making ideology of the North during the war. In his essay, "America’s Two Just Wars: 1775 and 1861," Murray Rothbard accurately described it as "a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent ‘postmillenialism’ which held that, as a precondition for the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth." Moreover, this "kingdom" is "to be a perfect society . . . free of sin," especially slavery, alcohol, and Catholicism.

Thus, the Northern "war against slavery" was not so much motivated by the injustice of slavery and the plight of the slaves, but the desire to use the military force of government to create a perfect society, a Kingdom of God on Earth. That’s why peaceful emancipation, which is what occurred in all the Northern states that ended slavery, was out of the question. (There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853, and in parts of New England into the early 1860s). Instead, explains Rothbard:

The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.


This is why the quintessential Yankee religious fanatic, Julia Ward Howe, referred to all the mass murder, burning and plundering of cities, and destruction of the war as "the glory of the coming of the Lord" in her "Battle Hymn of the Republic." To Julia Ward Howe, the death of more than 600,000 Americans was "glorious."

So it should not be surprising that the Yankee clergy teamed up with the Republican Party after Lincoln’s death to deify him. Lincoln’s assassination was a miracle of luck as far as they were concerned, for it put in their lap an opportunity to deify their Big Government political agenda along with Lincoln himself. As Larry Tagg explains, the Republican Party "saw that his death was a propaganda windfall – Lincoln could be made to stand for the North, for freedom . . . "

As for the Republican Party, they knew that they were all complicit in war crimes for having intentionally waged war on Southern civilians for four years, and continued Lincoln’s political tactic of invoking Scripture to attempt to "justify" their war crimes. (Unlike Lincoln, many other Republicans were actually Christians.) Thus, after Lincoln was assassinated and died on Good Friday, "pastors across America rewrote their Easter sermons," writes Tagg, "to include a new, exalted view of Lincoln as an American Moses, a leader out of slavery, a national savior who was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land."

Of course, they all knew that in his first inaugural address Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment that would have explicitly enshrined slavery in the Constitution; that he wrote a public letter to Horace Greeley explaining that his sole objective in the war was "to save the union" and not to disturb slavery; and that his real "last best hope" was "colonization," or the deportation of all black people from America. This all had to be forgotten, and history rewritten. And it was. Senator James Grimes of Iowa immediately recognized that the deification of Lincoln by the Yankee clergy and the Republican Party "has made it impossible to speak the truth of Abraham Lincoln hereafter."


Tagg explains how it was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who decided to use Lincoln’s funeral as a massive propaganda tool as he "made the martyr’s corpse a traveling exhibit of Southern wickedness." The funeral procession took a 1600-mile route, and Stanton prohibited anyone to obscure the damage done by the assassin’s bullet so that the corpse would appear as gruesome as possible.

The Yankee preachers joined in the political scheme to deify Lincoln, a man many of them had condemned just months earlier. One such hypocrite was Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, New York, the "greatest preacher of the age" according to Tagg. (Presumably, only Northern preachers can compete for such a title). Beecher "had attacked the President through the previous four years," writes Tagg, but now he "heaped only praise on Lincoln." "Beecher and the Radicals [i.e., Republicans] soon saw that all their [political] enemies would fall before the sword that Lincoln’s death had put in their hands, and they widened its swath to wound the Democratic press," says Tagg.

It wasn’t just the religious rhetoric of the Yankee preachers that intimidated all critics of the Republican Party regime, which would enjoy monopoly rule for the next several generations. The Republican Party supplied the requisite violence and intimidation. "The Democratic papers quickly realized that if they didn’t repent their opposition to Lincoln, they risked ruin by mobs like the ones that had gutted their offices in the first summer of the war." Tagg refers here to how the Lincoln administration organized Republican Party goon squads to roam the country and literally destroy the printing presses of opposition newspapers while soldiers often imprisoned (without due process) the editors and owners of many of the newspapers. This is all described in the above-mentioned books, Freedom Under Lincoln and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln.

Mistakenly believing that once the war was over, free speech had been restored in the North, one observer of the Lincoln funeral "sent up a cheer for Jefferson Davis" and "was set upon by mourners and nearly torn to pieces." A Chicago man said of Lincoln’s assassination in the lobby of a hotel, "it served him right." He was shot to death in front of dozens of witnesses, but "there was no arrest, no one would have arrested the man, " writes Tagg. Americans were imprisoned all over the North for making similar statements. "The doors of local jails rattled shut behind men in every city who were herd exulting the news of Lincoln’s death" (emphasis added). The editor of a Maryland newspaper was "killed by a mob after he had published criticism of Lincoln." Such mobs traveled from one paper after another that was supportive of the Democratic Party and "emptied their contents into the street amid the applause of an immense crowd" while warning other Democratic newspapers of similar treatment.

Media opposition to the Republican Party, which was the federal government for the next several generations, was rendered prostrate. The South was under military occupation for twelve years after the war. Consequently, ministers there were ordered to deliver sermons deifying Lincoln while many Southern newspapers were forced to do the same. These editors were "installed by Union armies" in the occupied South, as Tagg explains. Southern journalists were made to understand that the penalty for challenging the newly-invented Lincoln mythology was the "terror of confiscation and imprisonment." Not surprisingly, there were "sudden proclamations of Lincoln’s nobility" all throughout the South as well as the North. Thus were born the myths and superstitions about America’s most reviled president.


July 22, 2010

Chip45,

One thread isn't enough? I doubt that diLorenzo's writing is scripture. I read your excerpt, and most of it is highly interpretive, rather than revealing any new facts. The one thing I am failing to understand is why your side of this arguement cannot give our side of the arguement the benefit of acknowledgement that we may be well informed, honest and still disagree.

I have referenced several source documents in the other thread (Source documents meaning the original document, not what someone wrote about it) and you all keep going back to a few sources of highly interpreted non traditional analysis to belittle those of us who don't agree.

Maybe Mr. Rockwell, and Mr. DiLorenzo's works are inciteful and truly reveal what a rascal and horrible person President Lincoln was. However, there are those of us who don't agree. President Lincoln was presiding over a country in civil war. He was trying to hold a fragmenting union together, while dealing with true enemies of the state that were among us. If you study civil wars around the world, you will discover that few of them ever ended as well as ours did (check out the Mexican Civil war for example)...even though ours left many scars that seem to never heal. If the war had not been as complete, and devastating, and decisive as it was, the American Civil War (The war of the Rebellion, the war of Northern Agression or whatever you want to call it) would be known as the FIRST American Civil War. Most civil wars are fought violently over, and over and over again. Lincoln presided over the most divisive, difficult and dangerous time of our republic. You may interpretate this as it being divisive, difficult and dangerous because of President Lincoln, I don't.

The bottom line is that I don't (and I noticed those who posted similar positions as mine) try to infer that you are either ill informed or dishonest. We acknowledge that your non-traditional interpretation of the history of Abraham Lincoln does not convince us to your conclusions. However, that doesn't diminish my belief in your sincerity in your position.

What does bother me is that you don't seem to acknowledge that those who are not convinced by your evidence are educated and sincere also.

If you can't let go with just agreeing to disagree, you will always be frustrated at your fellow men, and you may bring the level of dicussion on this board down to such partisanship that it overshadows the many diverse good ideas shared among us Mormons about the dangerous times we live in and the current threats we must watch out for regarding our liberty and freedom

Regards,

George

It would appear that the current President must have read DiLorenzo's research and is why he feels he is a "new Lincoln".

BTW, did he come in vision after death and ask to have his temple work done?

He deserved Sainthood for trying to get back what the banksters took (and why he was marked for execution as a result).

I can only assume this is the "other" thread? http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... it=Lincoln

Gclayjr .... it's not about whether or not people agree or disagree, the fact is that we all have, collectively "speaking" have been mislead on a whole range of subjects, (not just history and in particular about Lincoln).

From a religious perceptive, we are told in various places that satan goes about deceiving the world.

I'll give you a personal account of how history is revised, particularly after a controversial figure is martyred. I'm old enough, perhaps you too(?), to remember how JFK was attacked and vilified during his first years in office as President. But once assassinated, his widow, along with an author (Arther Schlesinger - I think it was), concocted the whole myth of "camelot on the Potomac". It took them, about two weeks to create the myth and then, the whole nation accepted soon it and many still do today.

I lived through that time. I saw it happen and in fact, remember being emotionally moved by the funeral and the myth making that occurred afterward. All that happened before regarding JFK, all the criticism, was just not tolerated and few dared to mention it.

Had Lincoln not been assassinated, history might not have been so nice to him.

Orwell warns in his "1984" in words like, "those that control the present, control the past. And the past controls the future."

Further, even the historians that like Lincoln acknowledge the centralization of power that occurred under him. Likewise, the same for FDR. Thus, by jerks and jolts, the republic is undermined and centralization of power continues.

You tell me how this has all come about? And at whose hands? What leadership has worked this deed? There clearly have been certain presidents that oversaw bursts of centralization of power, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, (come to mind) and now seemingly about every president since Bush senior. Look at how FDR is worshiped by many.

And this is not just about understanding history, not about attacking a past president ... it's acknowledging the warnings given us by J. Ruben Clarke and Ezra T. Benson, David O. McKay, etc. regarding how dangerous the collective power of government is and how, over time, liberties can be lost. Its about how the war in heaven is being waged here on earth. How power is gained.

Why do people love to attack Lincoln so much? I highly doubt that we would have been better off without him and what he did. Have you considered the alternative? Here is what Darren's friend Bruce had to say on the matter:

A massive Army from France, Britain, Austria, Belgium and Spain, assembled by
that same Group of Guillotiners of whom we have spoken at such lengths, against
resolute efforts by Mexicans, militarily conquered and occupied the entirety of Mexico, a
land that is larger than the entire Confederacy, with a much larger population. Every
large population center of Mexico, from end to end, was securely occupied by this
gigantic European Army. There that large Army stood, during the course of the US Civil
War, along the southern border of the Confederacy, “side by side” with the traitorous
Confederate Army. The treacherous people that were the leadership of the Confederacy
had brought into the arrangement, by the Guillotiners who had sent this vast Army from
Europe, that, at the optimum moment of the War, this European Army was to cross the
Rio Grande River, join itself with the Confederate Army, and bring the US Civil War to a
standstill.
For its reward Napoleon III’s French Empire was to regain all of the Louisiana
Purchase Lands and much interest throughout the rest of the South. Spain was to regain
Texas, and Austria and Belgium were to continue ruling Mexico.
Then riots were to be fomented throughout the Northern States which, when they
were widespread, were the signal for a vast British and Canadian Army in Canada to
cross over from Canada into the US North to join itself with the European/Confederate
Army to conquer the Northern States and to re@subject the people there to a much more
stern and severe form of British Monarchical Rule than that from which they had thought
that they had escaped about 80 years earlier.

Instead of judging him based on the words and opinions that someone wrote almost 150 years later, perhaps we should judge him by his own words:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative ... quotes.htm

I think it took a great man to preserve the union and an even more amazing man to reach out to those who had tried to destroy everything for private gain in order to heal the country afterwards.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

"What Happened to the Constitution" discusses the Civil War...

http://movielocker.com/4084

Very little of that video had to do with Lincoln. There were quotes related to the South not liking the 14th amendment and the reconstruction acts - but the video never actually even discussed what the 14th amendment actually says. It simply talks around it.

During reconstruction, the South had been defeated and were not automatically ready to leave behind the huge profits made on the backs of slaves - regardless of the defeat. There were some sour grapes - which should come as no surprise. The emergence of the KKK was another manifestation of this. Even today, there are still stories about some in the south still holding on to that grudge against the north and the union putting an end to what was a very profitable practice of making money on the backs of others.

The 14th amendment took steps to ensure that the rights of citizens (including the southern slaves) would be protected. It was about doing away with slavery and not leaving a way for it to be re-instituted by the southern state governments.

Section 1 is about ensuring that the states didn't make any laws that would take away the rights of those who had been freed.
Section 2 is about ensuring that the freed slaves would be able to vote. If a state took away this right - their representation in congress would be limited. If a state doesn't allow part of its population to vote, then why shouldn't a corresponding representation percentage be lost?
Section 3 says if you took an oath to the U.S. and then violated it (which many in the south did) - you cannot come back and hold office again unless congress makes an exception. Those who had betrayed their country were not going to be allowed to come back into power except by exception of congress.
Section 4 says we will pay for debts related to ending the rebellion - we will not pay for debts related to the rebellion itself.

In any case, many parts of the reconstruction happened after Lincoln's assassination. The linkage does not hold up for the attacks on the constitution throughout the many subsequent generations up to the present day.

The ever continuing attack on the agency of man has come down through the centuries and is a continuation of that same war in heaven in the pre-existence. I personally think Lincoln was on the right side of that war in his day.

In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.
--December 1, 1862 Message to Congress

The following discusses the story of our rights in America...

http://72.35.183.153/wit/09rights.pdf

Chip45,

With the current bru-hah-hah going on over the firing of Shirley Sherrod, we must remember that context is everything. The record does not show that Lincoln was philosophically aligned with progressives like TR, Wilson, FDR or LBJ.

I don't need to repeat what I've said about the situation Lincoln faced.

The point I seem to fail to be able to make was stated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 13:12 "We see through a glass darkly"... I hope your confidence in your interpretation of Mr. Lincoln's record doesn't spill over into arorogance and...Pride!

And the belittling tone that you and others take towards those of us who haven't been convinced by Mr DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell and others does seem to be arrogant and condescending...but then I also "see through a glass darkly"

Regards,

George Clay

lincoln should have been impeached, then tried for treason for his willful acts contrary to the constitution and the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers, due to the "draft"...Hang'em

My view on the draft is that the Union felt it was necessary in order to counteract the draft initiated by the Confederacy. It was indeed the confederacy who first compelled its citizens to fight.

At least, for the Union's part, they took steps to make it less of a compulsion and more of a device to encourage volunteerism:

In the strictest interpretation of the draft, it must be acknowledged that the draft allowed the Union to survive. Congress did anticipate public indignation against the draft and left many opportunities of evasion open to the draft aged man. The draftee could obtain a substitute, or even pay the $300 commutation fee. Yet, the underlying purpose of the Civil War draft was to act as a threat and spur volunteering rather than functioning as an end in itself. Every community had the opportunity to raise its quota and thus entirely avoid the draft. Indeed, Plover and Stevens Point were able to avoid a number of the drafts. Only when the quota was not met was the draft imposed. Consequently, as Eugene Murdock notes, “Hence the Civil War draft, an unwelcome innovation in American life, was only a semi-draft, a device to raise a one million man army by encouraging volunteering.” Instructions for conducting the drawing of names for the draft were contained in the Provost Marshall’s Regulations and were followed fairly uniformly by all enrollment boards. Portage County's enrollment board was located at district six headquarters in La Crosse. Names of the enrolled men were often dropped into a wheel. A blindfolded or blind individual would then draw the names out of the draft wheel and hand them to the commissioner who would read the names aloud while a clerk recorded them in a book. The drawing would continue until the quota had been met. The remaining names would then be sealed in an envelope and stored until the next draft. Neither the Enrollment Act nor the Regulations stated the amount of time a draftee should be entitled to before arriving for his examination. The standard was generally accepted as ten days. While the ten days were explained as giving the man time to settle his affairs, many took the opportunity to flee north to Canada.

http://www.pchswi.org/archives/misc/cwdraft.html

freedomlover wrote:My view on the draft is that the Union felt it was necessary in order to counteract the draft initiated by the Confederacy. It was indeed the confederacy who first compelled its citizens to fight.
At least, for the Union's part, they took steps to make it less of a compulsion and more of a device to encourage volunteerism:
http://www.pchswi.org/archives/misc/cwdraft.html

who cares..great liberal rationalization, fact is, it doesn't matter what the south did, Lincoln did......it was wrong.......we are a "country" of states/republics, etc...hang'em high

Oh gclayjr .... "belittling tone"?

You say that Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and LBJ don't share the same political philosophy? I contend that they all wanted more centraliztion of power and did things to move our once republic form of government into an oligarchy, which is what we have today. And in that definition, they DO share the "same political philosophy", centralization of power, all for a "good cause" of course. Regardless of whether one seeks such power for "welfare" or "warfare", the results are basically the same, bigger government, less inididual liberty, ulitmately leading to some form of totaliatarianism. That is where we are headed and to understand how we got to where we are today, we should study the past to see how these inroads to our liberties have taken place, the techniques used to justify such inroads. We should try to understand the Helgelian dialectic, which is used today (it only takes about 1 hour of reading). We should look at the French pschologist Gustave Le Bon, (30 minutes of reading) and his work on the psychology of crowds to understand how propaganda techniques work. Thus we are less likely to succumb to such techniques which are still being used today. We ought to read The Road To Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. And if one wants to simply look at basic facts, (as you suggest), good - that too should raise serious questions about just how things really are. As just one example, look at the following time line regarding WW2 ...

(1) August 23, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets sign pact. (fascists & communists become allies, not surprising as they spring from the same totalitarian philosophy).
(2) August 25, 1939 - (two days later!) Britain and Poland sign a “mutual assistance treaty” to attack any nation that attacks Poland.
(3) September 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland, (less than a week later) on a false flag op at their common border, to justify the invasion.
Question #1 - Would Hitler have invaded Poland if he had not had this “pact” with Stalin’s communist Russia?
(4) September 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. (Germany did not declare war on them.)
(5) September 4, 1939 - British air force attacks German navy
(6) September 5, 1939 - America proclaims neutrality.
(7) September 17, 1939 - Russia invades Poland ! (just 16 days after Germany, of course, aren’t Russia & Germany ... allies? )
Question # 2 - Why don’t Britain, France, Australia & New Zealand, declare war on Germany’s communist ally - Russia? Remember the “mutual assistance treaty”.
(8) September 29, 1939 - Nazis & Soviets divide up the defeated Poland, (of course, aren’t Russia & Germany ... allies?)
(9) November 8, 1939 - Assassination attempt on Hitler.
(10) November 30, 1939 - Soviets invade Finland ! (of course - Stalin is every bit a tyrant as is Hitler)
Question # 3 - Again, why don’t Britain, France, Australia & New Zealand, declare war on Germany’s communist ally - Russia?
(11) December 14, 1939 - Russia expelled from the League of Nations (the first attempt at a “united nations” - so much for putting faith in peace through a one-world-government!)
(12) July 23, 1940 - Russia takes Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. (again - Stalin is every bit a tyrant as is Hitler.)
Question # 4 - Again, why don’t Britain, France, Australia & New Zealand, declare war on this obvious totalitarian ally of Nazi Germany?
(13) September 16, 1940 - United States passes the “military conscription” bill (I thought we were neutral! Pearl Harbor was still over a year away - remember, December 7, 1941, “The day to live in infamy”!).
(14) November 23, 1940 - Romania joins the Axis Powers, (another ally of Nazis Germany)
(15) June 14, 1941 - U.S. freezes all German and Italian assets in America.. (fascist Italy, ally of Nazis Germany)
Question # 5 - Why didn’t the U.S. gov’t freeze all Russian assets in America? The communist Soviet Union is Nazi Germany’s ally at this time & is actively participating in aggression and invasion! We froze Italian assets - why not Russian?
(16) June 22, 1941 - Germany invades Russia (NOTE* Russia invaded Poland in 1939 as Germany’s ally, and was Nazis Germany’s active ally for TWENTY-TWO MONTHS (almost two years)! Yet, the “freedom-defending” allies never declared war on Russia, we never even froze “Russian assets” !)
Question # 6 - WHY NOT? And .... why did we give Eastern Europe to Stalin, Hitler’s ally for almost two years, and who, because of his pact with Hitler, arguably made W W II possible?

Now I realize this thread has expanded way past criticizing Lincoln, but the thrust of that criticism is how we Americans are fooled into "worshipping" our leaders when many of those leaders do not deserve such. We need to be alert to the fact, as Hayek observes in his booklet mentioned above, "the worst rise to the top" in such power centers like government. People like congressman Ron Paul are extremely rare. The temptations at that level of power are very strong. Would we even be able to resist them?

So, please don't take offense gclayjr - okay?

One last point though ... I spent 1 year and 2 days in Vietnam - a war based on lies by LBJ and McNamara and Nixon and Kissinger ... I earned the right to be critical of presidents and their adminstrations. I earned the right to be skeptical when our "leaders" hype wars and get us into non-defensive wars. Just like today. When will the American people learn?

I watched a video of Hillary Clinton, during a recent interview, admit that "we" created the mujhadeen (aka Al Quida) ... to fight the Russians and now face our own creation. No surprise. I concluded that already - the point is, she ADMITTED it! The WW2 time line above indictes that things were not all above board then either.

Another suggestion - take the time to buy and read Seargent Nibley (BYU prof. Interesting reading. Hugh Nibley's memoirs of his WW2 experiences ... he was assigned to the 101st airborne (Band of Brothers series), as part of an intelligence unit. His observations help support the contentions about hidden agendas during WW2.

Bye.

Chip45,

As usual you missed my point in saying that Lincoln didn't share philosophy with TR, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ I was NOT saying that these guys weren't progressive statists who are trying to create a totalitarion state from our republic, I was disagreeing with your assumptions about the Lincoln's Philosophy and motivation.

So all you do by referencing all of the totalitarian things that were done by TR, Wilson, FDR and LBJ was reinformce my point

I wonder how many other things you don't understand?

Chip45,

I did a tour with the Marines 74-78 so I missed Viet Nam, but I hope that gives me the right to criticise. If you read my posts, I do not criticise your right to criticise, I don't even criticise your position,

What I do criticise are your insulting assumptions that those who don't agree with you are either ignorant or devious

This will be the third time that I suggest on this board that those on your side can learn to simply RESPECTLFULLY agree to disagree.

That is the mature thing to do!

REgards,
George Clay

gclayjr, then to your point that you seem to think I keep missing ... Lincoln was a Whig, (before he was a Republican), followed Henry Clay, was a railroad lawyer, etc. ... like so many presidents since, he had the corporate money power support and they wanted certain things done, they helped him to the presidency and they wanted their due when he came to power ... like we see today, the corporate welfare from the federal government.

Long before I ever knew of DiLorenzo, I had problems with the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysberg Address.

As to you accusing me of being disrespectful to those that disagree ... I don't make personal attacks in my responses, or label those that disagree ... it is not prideful to see easily we are deceived.

However, in general I conclude that the large majority of Amerians ARE dumbed down ... about our history, about the techniques that are used to manipulate us.

Watch what happens this November ... recent polls claim that only 11% of Americans approve of Congress. Supposedly a new low. One would conclude that we'd see a wholesale rejection of incombants this November, but ... I will be surprised if we even see 200 new faces in Congress. Why? How can this be? We are so easily fooled by slick talking politicians. The MSM helps in deceiving us. We do not take the time to education ourselves about "how things really were ... how things really are ..."

I have been a "victim" of such deception in my younger years and it has taken me years of study to shake off the indoctrination I've received in HS and college, and through the MSM, entertainment, etc. I realize that I can still succumb to emotional messages via the media and can still be manipulated. But, at least, now it takes a bit more convincing facade then the usual propaganda we get.

Okay ... I'll engage (and with respect) ... you wrote in an earlier post:

"President Lincoln was presiding over a country in civil war. He was trying to hold a fragmenting union together, while dealing with true enemies of the state that were among us. If you study civil wars around the world, you will discover that few of them ever ended as well as ours did (check out the Mexican Civil war for example)...even though ours left many scars that seem to never heal. If the war had not been as complete, and devastating, and decisive as it was, the American Civil War (The war of the Rebellion, the war of Northern Agression or whatever you want to call it) would be known as the FIRST American Civil War. Most civil wars are fought violently over, and over and over again. Lincoln presided over the most divisive, difficult and dangerous time of our republic. You may interpretate this as it being divisive, difficult and dangerous because of President Lincoln, I don't."

(1) Lincoln did not begin his presidency "presiding over a country in civil war", now did he? Some 7 states had seceded from the union at his inaugaration - right? No armed conflict had begun at that time. Was it [is it] their right to secede from the union? Jefferson thought so. And even Lincoln, as a freshman congressman (I think it was in 1848) even spoke before congress arguing that states have the right to secede. The 10th amendment seems to say so. So when did this "civil war" start and by whom? If one reads Lincolns first inaugeral address, he reveals over what issue he threatens to use force. It's accessible on the internet, not too long or full of the rhetoric of the time to discern the meaning of what he said.

Further ... did the Mexican state of Texas, in 1836, conduct a "civil war" within the Mexican republic at the time? Or did the Mexican state of Texas secede from that "union". A "civil war" or a secession? Duya think it was a good thing that Texas seceded from Mexico. Did they have the right to do so?

Further, did the orignial 13 colonies conduct a "civil war" with Britain in 1776? Or did they simply secede from the British Empire? Duya think it was a good thing that they seceded from the British Empire?

Further, did the French have a civil war in 1789? Or did some French province secede from that nation? Was a king overthrown? Was there a change in government? Duya think it was a good thing that has come out of the French Revolution? I don't.

In conclusion on this point, the French clearly did have a civil war in 1789. The 13 British colonies DID NOT have a civil war with Britain, it was a "war of INDEPENDENCE.

Texas conducted a secessionist war with Mexico in 1836, no "civil war".

The southern states did not conduct a "civil war" with the northen states. For right or wrong, whether you agree with their reasons for leaving the union, or not ... did they have the right to leave the union? Yes or no? Simple as that. I would not want to see the united States break up and I am fully aware of how certain European powers would've loved to see that happen. But ... either you believe that the government that was formed and sustained in 1789, was a voluntary union or one in which, once in, one lost the voluntariness of that union. Thus, how does one explain the 10th amendment, the words in the Declaration of Independence and in so many writings of the Founders.

The right for local, smaller political unions [states, colonies] to leave larger political structures, [united States, empires] that are deemed repressive, are part of the heart of our American tradition and how we came into being as a nation.

Words mean things and by describing the armed conflict between the northern state and southern states as a civil war, it deepens the deception regarding that conflict.

(2) And just who are these "enemies of the state" you refer to in your post? That phrase has a rather alarming ring to it. Where have we heard it before and by whom and to describe whom? In this case, people who simply disagreed with Lincoln?

I'm trying to understand how anyone can defend Lincoln and his blatant violations of the constitution. If you Lincoln supporters could explain your position on a few things I think it would help me understand your position a lot better.

First, I'll start off by quoting parts from the Cherokee Nation's leaders declaration on the civil war, I thought they were probably as close as we could get to a 3rd party view that is still an original source.

Cherokee Declaration and the American Civil War wrote: .... Conscious that they were a people few in numbers compared with either of the contending parties, and that their country might with no considerable force be easily overrun and devastated and desolation and ruin be the result if they took up arms for either side, their authorities determined that no other course was consistent with the dictates of prudence or could secure the safety of their people and immunity from the horrors of a war waged by an invading enemy than a strict neutrality, and in this decision they were sustained by a majority of the nation.
That policy was accordingly adopted and faithfully adhered to. Early in the month of June of the present year the authorities of the nation declined to enter into negotiations for an alliance with the Confederate States, and protested against the occupation of the Cherokee country by their troops, or any other violation of their neutrality. No act was allowed that could be construed by the United States to be a violation of the faith of treaties.

They started out neutral. I put this part in to show they are probably as close to an unbiased source as we'll get.

Cherokee Declaration and the American Civil War wrote: But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.
Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.
But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.

Here are the list of crimes Lincoln's administration is guilty of. Specifically.
a) violating free speech and freedom of the press
b) violating habeas corpus and unlawfully imprisoning people
c) unlawful offensive war
d) allowing troops to plunder and rape

Cherokee Declaration and the American Civil War wrote: Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.
The Cherokee people and their neighbors were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.
Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.
In now carrying this resolution into effect and consummating a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Confederate States of America the Cherokee people declares that it has been faithful and loyal to is engagements with the United States until, by placing its safety and even its national existence in imminent peril, those States have released them from those engagements.
Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861.

Now we see that they recognized that if the North won, they would not respect the treaties made with the Cherokee, as history has indeed shown was the case. Therefore the Cherokee finally joined with the south.

Now my question for the Lincoln supporters is this. These violations of the constitution are very well documented both here and with many other sources. They are above disputation. So how can you defend these actions of Lincoln's? Answer them one by one. If you can explain that, then I think I could more easily understand your position. Here they are again:

a) violating free speech and freedom of the press
b) violating habeas corpus and unlawfully imprisoning people
c) unlawful offensive war
d) allowing troops to plunder and rape

On another note, don't these violations sound familiar? These are the same things Bush and Obama have done. How can you castigate them while calling Lincoln a hero? I just don't understand. Either we believe in freedom and the constitution or we don't. It should not be set aside at the president's convenience.

a) violating free speech and freedom of the press

In terms of some of his actions against the press - I agree that he may have gone too far. However, I don't think his mistakes were made due to evil designs or villainous motives. I believe he acted out of what he felt was in the best interest of the general good of the people. I don't believe his objectives were to subjugate the people to tyranny. Rather, his aim was to save a government of freedom that had been established just 80+ years earlier.

Lets have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. -- Abraham Lincoln

b) violating habeas corpus and unlawfully imprisoning people

I will grant you that this indeed did happen. It was right at the outset and it was temporary. When Lincoln issued amnesty in 1862; he expressed regret at feeling the need to take such measures.

On Feb. 14, 1862, the Lincoln administration ended the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and issued an amnesty to political or state prisoners no longer deemed dangerous. The tone was almost apologetic, and the proclamation took pains to explain that, at the early stage of the war, "Every department of the Government was paralyzed by treason," and that Congress "had not anticipated and so had not provided for the emergency." Lincoln, as chief executive, had felt compelled to "employ with energy the extraordinary powers which the Constitution confides to him in cases of insurrection."

The amnesty proclamation also seemed to imply that the insurrection was all but extinguished. The amnesty may reflect Lincoln's desire to upset the Constitution as little as possible while prosecuting the war as vigorously as possible

Are there extenuating circumstances to laws? Absolutely. Was Nephi justified in committing the murder of Laban? The answer given was that it was better that one man should perish than that a whole nation should perish in unbelief.

So the question is whether the overall threat to the union justified Lincoln's actions. Given the circumstances with border states where many were undecided which way they leaned and "every depatment of the Government being paralyzed by treason"; I think possibly so.

Does this set a dangerous precedent for abuse? Possibly. If the President is an immoral man then he may suspend habeaus corpus for the wrong reasons. However, that is an independent action from what Lincoln felt compelled to do and does not put Lincoln in that same category.

c) unlawful offensive war

The first point to consider is whether the confederacy was in rebellion or had the right to secede on moral grounds. The declaration of independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Had the Union become the type of government that was becoming destructive of the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? Quite the contrary. It was the actions of the government to try and preserve these rights for the black populations of the south that so angered the south. The south could not morally claim the slaves were their property in the context that "all men are created eqaul". So all pre-civil war efforts to minimize or abolish slavery were actually in defense of unalienable Rights - not in destruction of them. Securing those rights is declared to be the reason for which governments are instituted among men.

The confederacy was being founded as a way to ensure that some of the people would have a government that would allow them to take away the God given rights from a large percentage of its population via slavery. Did the southern states allow the slaves to vote whether or not they wanted to stay in the union - of course not? Who would vote to continue being a slave to someone else? Therefore, the southern states did not have the "consent of the governed" when they left the Union. They did not do so on moral grounds - they did so out of greed.

Due to this, I believe the Union correctly decided that the southern states were in rebellion.

Do the rules of engagement change when states unlawfully go into rebellion? Does the government have a right (and even duty) to quell that rebellion? You say the civil war was an offensive war. I think it was more of a defensive war given the motives of the south for leaving.

One of the initial reasons given for establishing the government was to protect the general welfare of its citizens - that included the citizens in the south who were slaves. If one of the states of the union today were to secede from the union so that one part of the citizens of that state could then exploit another part of the citizens of the US outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government - would you say that is fine? The south didn't choose to secede - only those in power and in control of the government in the southern states chose to secede.

Did the union start the war in an offensive way? It seems to me that things heated up as a result of Lincoln trying to protect (defensive) the property of the Union that he had the duty to protect:

As the seceding states left, they had seized the United States arsenals, mints, and other public property within their borders. When Lincoln took office, only two significant forts in the South still flew the Stars and Stripes. The more important of the pair was square-walled Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, with fewer than 100 men.
Ominously the choices presented to Lincoln by Fort Sumter were all bad. This stronghold had provisions that would last only a few weeks--until the middle of April 1861. If no supplies were forthcoming, its commander would have to surrender without firing a shot. Lincoln, quite understandably, did not feel that such a weak-kneed course squared with his obligation to protect federal property. But if he sent reinforcements, the South Carolinians would undoubtedly fight back; they could not tolerate a federal fort blocking the mouth of their most important ATlantic seaport.
After agonizing indecision, Lincoln adopted a middle-of-the-road solution. He notified the South Carolinians that an expedition would be sent to provision the garrison, though not to reinforce it. But in Southern eyes "provision" spelled "reinforcement."
A Union naval force was next started on its way to Fort Sumter -- a move that the South regarded as an act of aggression. On April 12, 1861, the cannon of the Carolinians opened fire on the fort...
The firing on the fort electrified the North, which at once responded with cries of "Remember Fort Sumter" and "Save the Union" --The American Pageant

d) allowing troops to plunder and rape

It was one of the general's- Benjamin Butler - that put out the infamous order in New Orleans. Was it a mistake of Lincoln to not immediately discharge Gen. Butler? Possibly. However, do you think the motive for Lincoln not immediately removing the general was because Lincoln was in favor of the order? Is there any evidence that he was in favor of his general's policy. I don't know why Lincoln did not act more quickly - I suspect it more had to do with the need to keep a successful general in place and possibly not having an immediate replacement. He did discharge General Butler later.

In summary, I ascribe more to Farber's view of Lincoln more than the view that he acted maliciously:

He did go too far at times, although it was more often his subordinates who went too far, for instance, General Butler in New Orleans. Another example was the blundering General Burnside, whose General Order No. 38 led to the infamous Vallandigham case. As to Lincoln himself, his suspension of habeas corpus was pushed beyond its emergency justification; some actions against the press cannot really be defended; and military trials were improperly used in the North. There were also some more technical constitutional violations involving the procedures for spending money and expanding the military at the beginning of the war. On the whole, however, even many of Lincoln's most dramatic actions (such as the Emancipation Proclamation) were actually constitutionally sound.

He was a president that had to deal with some of the most difficult circumstances this nation has ever seen. He may have made mistakes along the way for he was not perfect - but his motives as far as I can tell were pure and he felt he was doing that which was right and would be in the best interest of the county he served.

gclayjr wrote:Chip45,
So all you do by referencing all of the totalitarian things that were done by TR, Wilson, FDR and LBJ was reinformce my point
I wonder how many other things you don't understand?

I will say this, LINCOLN set a precident and ground work for FDR and "gang" to destroy the constitution and states right...that simple...HANG"M high...treason

freedomlover wrote: So the question is whether the overall threat to the union justified Lincoln's actions. Given the circumstances with border states where many were undecided which way they leaned and "every depatment of the Government being paralyzed by treason"; I think possibly so.

Thanks freedomlover. I understand your position better now and I think this is the crux of the matter. I don't care what the circumstances, to my thinking there is never a justification to violate the constitution. Clearly you feel differently. I think that makes all the difference in the world when viewing Lincoln.

Rensai wrote:

freedomlover wrote: So the question is whether the overall threat to the union justified Lincoln's actions. Given the circumstances with border states where many were undecided which way they leaned and "every depatment of the Government being paralyzed by treason"; I think possibly so.

Thanks freedomlover. I understand your position better now and I think this is the crux of the matter. I don't care what the circumstances, to my thinking there is never a justification to violate the constitution. Clearly you feel differently. I think that makes all the difference in the world when viewing Lincoln.

I'm at the airport right now, and I can't find the quote, but there is a great one on this topic from James Madison in the Federalist Papers. The substance of it is that that law the people have set themselves to be governed with matters most in times that its provisions seem insufficient and overly binding.

It's sort of the antithesis of Rahm's famous "Never let a crisis go to waste", it appears that protection of our rights during a crisis is more important to staving our tyranny then in more typical times when we're more vigilant.