|
July 21st, 2009 | #1 |
Administrator
|
Lincoln
How They Lie About Lincoln
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo There would be very stiff competition indeed for the literary award of "Most Absurd Lies and Myths About Lincoln." In the running would be almost all of Harry Jaffa’s writing, including the statement in his latest Lincoln book that "Lincoln opposed making voters or jurors of Negroes in the 1850s so that they could be voters and jurors today." Or Gabor Borit’s statement that Lincoln’s lifelong advocacy of "colonization," or deportation of black people from America, is an example of "how honest people lie." But there is a new entry to the field: an article from the February 9, 2009 issue of Newsmax.com by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen entitled "What Would He Say to Us Today?" It seems as though every time Newt Gingrich, who never served in the military himself, begins making the case for sending other peoples’ children off to die in another unnecessary war, he starts quoting Lincoln. A couple of years ago Gingrich wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he advocated a military invasion and occupation of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. The title of the article was "Lincoln and Bush." President Bush should "be like Lincoln," he said, and initiate five more wars simultaneously. More recently, Gingrich has been calling for the nuking of North Korea, so it is not surprising to me that he is once again waxing eloquently about Dishonest Abe. It is well known that the founding fathers feared democracy. Indeed, in Federalist #10 James Madison explained that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to create a constitutional republic that would hopefully "restrain the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy. Gingrich and Forstchen unwittingly admit that their hero literally destroyed the constitution of the founding fathers by describing the Lincoln Memorial as "his [Lincoln’s] throne" that is "Modeled after Grecian temples" and is "our American temple to democracy . . ." In reality, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple to the idea that government in America is not voluntary, and never will be as long as Lincoln is its primary symbol and as long as Lincoln mythology remains the state’s cornerstone ideology. Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for today’s population, Lincoln’s killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans. To Gingrich and Fortschen, this is how America became "united." To me, it sounds more like how Soviet Russia was "united" in its own "glorious union." Do these men really believe that Southerners in 1866 felt "united" with their fellow citizens in the North? The two people who were closest to Lincoln were his longtime law partner, William Herndon (who he affectionately called "Billy") and his wife, Mary Todd. In a biography of Lincoln Herndon wrote of how Lincoln was either an atheist or an agnostic. As a young man, said Herndon, Lincoln even wrote a book that argued that the Bible was not the word of God and that Jesus was not the son of God. When he decided to get into politics, the book was burned. When Herndon was preparing his biography he asked Mrs. Lincoln to comment on Abe’s "religious" views, and she told him that he never became a Christian. "Mr. Lincoln," she said, "had no faith . . . . He never joined a church . . . he was never a technical Christian." (See Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, p. 150). That Lincoln "had no faith" is no secret to the "Lincoln scholars." In her book Team of Rivals, the high priestess of the Lincoln Cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, acknowledges this fact but adds the usual spin: We should all feel even more sorry for poor, poor Abe, she says, since he suffered from not believing in an afterlife. Gingrich and Fortschen simply lie about this by writing that Lincoln "was a man of deep and abiding faith." They apparently write this on the basis of the fact that Lincoln, like Bill Clinton, was fond of quoting Scripture in political speeches. (Recall how Clinton used to clutch that fifty-pound Bible in front of the television cameras every Sunday?) Indeed he was. In his second inaugural address he blamed the whole bloody mess of the war on God, absolving himself of all responsibility by saying the war just "came," as though he had nothing to do with it. He also claimed to be able to read the mind of God by asserting that the war was God’s punishment of all Americans, North and South, for slavery. He did not attempt to explain why God would not also punish the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedes, and others who were responsible for 96% of all the slaves that were kidnapped and brought to the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the Lincoln regime, these countries all ended slavery peacefully, as Jim Powell documents in his excellent book, Greatest Emancipations. Lincoln is praised by "Lincoln scholars" for having been an obsessive micromanager of the war. He knew everything. He knew that Southern civilians were murdered and plundered from the very beginning, even before the Battle of First Manassas commenced. He authorized the bombing of Southern cities and he was also apparently obsessed with experimenting with larger and larger weapons of mass destruction – to be used on fellow Americans. He profusely thanked and rewarded officers like Sherman and Sheridan for waging war on civilians, as they did during Sherman’s March, the burning of Atlanta and Colombia, South Carolina, and the burning of the Shenandoah Valley. General Sherman wrote that Lincoln "especially enjoyed" his stories of how Southern women, children and old men were terrorized by Sherman’s "bummers," as his looting, pillaging, plundering, and raping "soldiers" were called. But to Gingrich and Forstchen Lincoln had a "deep sense of love and compassion" for everyone. He even knelt and prayed with a wounded Confederate soldier in a hospital, they claim; his "eyes filled with pain over the suffering of others"; and "was known for extreme gentleness to an injured animal." They list no sources or references when they write this, only saying that they come from "stories." Such stories are completely contradicted by Lincoln’s actual sociopathological behavior. Perhaps the most outrageous piece of propaganda in the Gingrich/Forstchen article is their statement that "Lincoln was the first president to invite and socially greet a delegation of African-Americans into the White House." They say this to give their readers the impression that Lincoln was enlightened on the issue of race. He was not. He was as much a white supremacist as any man alive. Moreover, the purpose of the White House meeting with the delegation of African-Americans was not to meet and greet, but to urge these men to lead by example and self-deport themselves to Liberia in West Africa. It is all explained in Lincoln’s Selected Writings and Speeches, in the entry for August 14, 1862. At this meeting Lincoln told the delegation of free black men that "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both . . . and affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate." He then made his sales pitch for the men to deport themselves to Liberia, an offer that they wisely declined. One would never know about this by reading the Gingrich/Forstchen article. (Besides, Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard has told me that this was not even the first time a black person had entered the White House). Neocons will apparently never stop lying about Lincoln, but we can all stop believing their lies. July 21, 2009 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html |
July 21st, 2009 | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 133
|
Wasn't true that Lincoln was part Nigger?
|
July 21st, 2009 | #3 | |
Member
|
Quote:
The description of Lincoln as taught to me seemed a close description of what a jewish president might behave as - and, ultimately I dismissed all study of him as a jewish fantasy. Simplistic as that dismissal may be, I could not suspend my intellect in order to believe what I was expected to accept. No one should ever take at face value what one is taught regarding the American Civil War since that war in particular had such impact on future America and thus the world in general. |
|
July 21st, 2009 | #4 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
I enjoy DiLorenzo twitting the neocons with the facts about Lincoln on race. Where DiLorenzo breaks down is in explaining why Lincoln's racial views were wrong. DiLorenzo, like all libertarians, pretends race doesn't matter. Everything is a matter of individual rights. So it's fun to (email him) twit him with the fact that black individuals commit tens of thousands of rapes, annually, against white women. It would be a good idea if everytime he wrote one of these articles 100 WN emailed him making these points. "In light of the destruction of Detroit and every other black-majority city, what makes you so sure that racist Lincoln was wrong and you libertarians who pretend race doesn't exist are right?" Something along those lines. |
|
July 21st, 2009 | #5 |
Administrator
|
The question as to whether Lincoln was an atheist is irrelevant, as most or a great many of the churchmen of the north, the 'sanctimonious madman' abolitionists, had exactly the same ideas about trashing the Constitution, doing whatever it took, to destroy the hated South. Actually, Lincoln was better than these with regard to race because, as DiLorenzo points out, he wanted to send blacks back to Africa. That was the correct thing to do, and who knows what Lincoln might have done had he not been assassinated. Nothing, of course, will make up for Lincoln's destruction of federalism. Take all power away from the state and stick it in Washington leads directly to where we are now. Decentralization and small states is the best way to go, and that is what our coming White nation will feature. Centralized power is beloved by two groups of people: natural-born dictators, and little men who hope the state will be used to crush their enemies and to get them through coercion what they can't earn on their own. Centralized power is for tyrants and losers.
|
July 21st, 2009 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
"like all libertarians, pretends race doesn't matter"
Hans Hoppe sez- "What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility. More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias." |
September 17th, 2009 | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
|
|
September 17th, 2009 | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
|
Unless, of course, one is attempting to build an interste freeway system in a modern world or to feed the nation's hungry white people or to provide for national defense with something more powerful than a flintlock rifle.
Yeah, by crackie, what we need is some of that ol' time tiny government, back before anyone had refrigerators or toilet paper. Last edited by richyrichard; September 17th, 2009 at 10:55 PM. |
September 17th, 2009 | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
|
You did good by posting Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He wrote two great books on the infamous Abram Springstein Lincoln. It is good to give DiLorenzo's books exposure.
|
September 22nd, 2009 | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
Linder knows what a scumbag Lincoln was. A cunning and talented scumbag, but a scumbag. What I can't figure out is why so many WNs, including Linder, completely ignore the historical record as well as the track record of politicians like Lincoln in their quest to portray him as some sort of WN, or that his take on race was anything but universalist and egalitarian. I've thought about making a project out of posting the texts of his speeches and writing, which show him to be an aracial demagogue.
Before I begin posting Lincoln's material, here is a piece by Arthur Kemp, in his "March Of The Titans": "Of Welsh and Scottish forebears, Jefferson [Davis -ed.] was a believer in slavery as a means of helping to uplift Negroes before they eventually became equal citizens - in strong contrast to his Northern opponent, Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send the Negroes back to Africa." ~ p. 412 One problem with this statement is that Davis never said or wrote or in any way advocated such a thing. What he did say was that he thought the negroes' experience in America would make them eventually capable of governing themselves. This implies that he looked forward to the day when racial separation would occur. The other problem with the statement is that the overwhelming evidence shows two things: that Lincoln said different things to different audiences and that Lincoln's objection to slavery had more to do with his belief that it was morally wrong than with any desire for separatism for the racial health of Whites. Foremost in his mind, of course, was how he could say one thing and do another, politically. On page 401 of his book, Kemp shows a drawing of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, captioned as: "It was during these debates that Lincoln made public his support for a law that made marriage between Black and White a criminal offense." Kemp is from South Africa and is apparently ignorant of the methods of American politicians during elections. Why would a Senatorial candidate in Illinois need to come out in favor of something as sensible as this? Well, first of all it made for votes. Second, it must have been a method of reassuring voters of his good sense, since Douglas had long since endorsed such a law. If not for men like Lincoln, Illinois would have already had such a law. All of the Southern states certainly did. Clearly, Lincoln felt the need to reassure voters about his racial views. Ask yourself why. The following is from "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln", edited by Roy P. Baler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, Vol. V, pgs. 371-375 (quoted in MOTT, Kemp, pg. 402). It was a speech delivered to the "Deputation of Free Negroes" in 1862, who had gone to Washington to plead for full emancipation. "You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be right or wrong, I need not discuss; but the physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is submitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. "Your race are suffering, in my judgement, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on equality with the White race. On this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I cannot alter it if I would. "I need not comment to you on the effects upon White men, growing out of the institution of slavery. See our present condition - the country engaged in war! - our White men cutting ones another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." It made for a great little speech. But if you think he was speaking to the black audience, you don't know Lincoln. It was 1862 and the Confederates were still winning. He was reassuring his troops! By 1863, when the Union took the upper hand, what did he do? Issue a Separation Proclamation? No, he proclaimed the negroes free and equal to the Whites. Perhaps some more on this before I begin posting from Lincoln's letters and speeches. But later. |
September 22nd, 2009 | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
|
Here's one of the more popular blatherings of Lincoln:
"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Aside from the humanist character of the statement, it is a nefarious lie. The Confederacy WAS the government of the people, by the people, and for the people of the South. THAT was their choice! And Lincoln caused it to perish from the earth. If Lincoln had genuinely believed in self-determination, he would have never invaded Virginia. |
September 25th, 2009 | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln1%3A472
Quote:
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
If you know anything about Stevens....
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...e=lincoln2%3A1
Quote:
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
Abe the Abolitionist (in 1848!)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...e=lincoln2%3A5
Quote:
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #15 |
Administrator
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #16 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
An early example of the alleged opposition he held to the barnburner-abolition-free-negro element of his party. The difference, at least in 1848, was over strategy rather than over principle.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A10 Quote:
|
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
Quote:
If you're referring to the WN-sounding quote I posted from Kemp's book, I ask you to examine my explanation of it again. It clearly demonstrates that the things he said that you like so much were only words and did not ever match his actions. Let's just say that I'm confident that, once I establish a good overview of Lincoln's career, and his true character, you'll agree with me that Abraham Lincoln never did anything but harm to the White race. |
|
October 2nd, 2009 | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A21
Quote:
Notice also Lincoln's claim of solid support for his amendment, and what actually transpired regarding that support (annotation #4). |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|