Abraham Lincoln

Abe was a very wonderful human being totally dedicated to freeing those unfortunate slaves who were being oppressed by wicked white men. True or false? False like a lot of history that we are fed. Try a few quotes from Honest Abe Quoted. He was the well known liar lawyer who would have made a good second hand car salesman.

Modern historians are a fraud upon the public. George Orwell  tells us in his book, Nineteen Eighty Four that

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

Or as Henry Ford said - History is bunk.

Professor DiLorenzo gives us a different view of Lincoln and gets abused by aforesaid historians. This means he could well be telling the truth. Also look at the next one for confirmation.

Abraham Lincoln, War Criminal And Mass Murderer
QUOTE
L. Neil Smith - it's February 12. Once again time for a reminder of one of the worst tyrants in American history: Abe Lincoln, America's Lenin.
UNQUOTE
Abe is a very wonderful human being, isn't he? Politicians say so. It must be true. Try looking at the facts then decide.

 

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum/Random House).

Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe - Amazon review tell us that:-
Far from being a "laughable screed," as claimed by the curiously anonymous Publishers Weekly editor above, Lincoln Unmasked is a serious, scholarly work. Only a thoroughly biased, ignorant critic would pen such a characterization, and his or her opinion should simply be ignored.

If you look at what Lincoln did -- as opposed to what he said -- it is hard to refute DiLorenzo's portrayal. Just take the single premise that despite the South's attack on Fort Sumter, it was Lincoln who declared war on his countrymen. Think about it for a moment. What kind of leader sends troops to kill his fellow citizens? Even assuming that the south wasn't maneuvered and provoked into the attack (it was), and that there were casualties at Ft. Sumter (there were not), what would a reasonable person -- let alone a leader -- do in response? Would a reasonable person try to understand what had happened, to meet with the "attackers" -- or would he immediately say "kill them"? Would a great President negotiate with states who wanted to leave the Union, to keep them in the fold -- or would he state "stay or die," and plunge the entire nation into conflict? Would he try to keep chaos and calamity to a minimum -- or condemn 600,000 to death in a ghastly internecine war, which he personally micro-managed?

Just considering that one premise -- and there are many, many more that cast Lincoln in an extremely negative light -- it is difficult to understand how anyone, let alone so-called academics, could consider Lincoln a great President, or even a decent human being. The group of "Lincoln scholars" who idolize him can, indeed, be labeled a cult, because their adulation is based not on Lincoln's deeds, but on an "ends justifies the means" rationale that "he saved the Union," regardless of cost. It is similar to the reverence of dogs for their master -- it is not based on logic and truth, but on a mindless devotion to a higher power or concept. Those who praise "Father Abraham," while ignoring or obfuscating the unpleasant truths about him, deserve nothing but contempt, and DiLorenzo provides plenty.

My only complaints with the book are that it could be longer, and it presents only one side. There is no attempt to analyze possible thought-processes which might have led to Lincoln's specific actions. Of course, this is not the author's purpose, which is to offer a "prosecutor's brief" in response to the Lincoln cultists, and in this DiLorenzo succeeds quite well.

Highly recommended.


Mr. DiLorenzo's well-written and well-researched expose of Abraham Lincoln tells truths long ignored aka hidden by modern historians, chiefly his undeserved reputation as "the Great Emancipator" who fought a war out of strictly benevolent reasons. The harsh truth, as he so eloquently points out, is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed NO ONE AT ALL, and that although slavery was one cause of the war, it was not "the" cause.

While no intelligent person alive today would not admit that the end of the South's "peculiar institution" was the only good thing that came out of the war, the ugly fact remains is that Lincoln was no less racist than most men of the day, and that he used that cause as a propaganda tool. The man who claimed to despise racism gave free reign to federal troops in the west to wipe out the Indian tribes while supposedly advocating equality to all in the northeast and south!

We do historical figures no honor by elevating them to martyrs, and prevent future generations from benefitting from the mistakes of the past. I highly recommend this book to serious students of politics, of the antebellum period, Lincoln buffs.

~Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe~ is a nice follow-up to Thomas DiLorenzo's much heralded book, The Real Lincoln, though it is certainly no substitute for the original. I recommend that readers read both books in tandem, particularly if they haven't read the first book.

This powerful little tome is an erudite challenge to the Lincoln legacy. DiLorenzo points out that so much of the lore that has surrounded the Lincoln legacy is almost completely bereft of historical fact. Likewise, he casts light on Lincoln's real legacy of unconstitutional usurpation, political patronage, corruption, and setting the stage for the colossal rise in big government that reached fruition in FDR's New Deal. We Americans live in the wake of Lincoln and FDR, and live with the political consequences of the Lincoln legacy. Constitutionally-limited government, states' rights and the Tenth Amendment only seem to exist on a piece of parchment and in our collective memories, but has no bearing whatsoever with the present reality.

Thomas DiLorenzo has taken criticism for being an economist by training and not an historian, but seriously is that really what matters? When I met him in person, I told him he could take it as a compliment that his critics say he is not an historian given the ideological non-sense of most historians these days. Given their cultic celebration of state power, their extol for mindless state intervention in the economy, and their much heralded sacred cows FDR and Lincoln, all things considered, who would want to be regarded as an academic historian anyway?

When Thomas DiLorenzo debated that mindless egalitarian Harry Jaffa, he was confronted with an absurd ad hominem [ Latin for personal abuse - Editor ] which likened the critics of Lincoln to fascists. DiLorenzo takes the bull by the horns, and illustrates how Lincoln and Hitler have more in common on their understanding of state sovereignty and the nature of the Union. Likewise, political radicals like Karl Marx were not congratulating Jefferson Davis on his election, but rather Abraham Lincoln.

Politically-correct critics can also take their usual jabs and punches, and call it a 'revisionist work,' but in the wake of the late War between the States, many scholars including northerners had challenged the Lincoln legacy in the immediate aftermath of the war. Lincoln frankly was not that popular overall in his time, and the cult of Lincoln came long after his death.

All things considered, this is a well-researched read, but no substitute for the first DiLorenzo book on Lincoln. Though, I highly recommend it. DiLorenzo is to be commended for his scholarship.

"Sir, We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority."
--Karl Marx on behalf of the International Working Men's Association, addressed to Abraham Lincoln

 Comment | Was this review helpful to you? 

 

What is this Lincoln cult that DiLorenzo speaks of? Last time I checked, pro-Southerners like Shelby Foote (RIP) were saying the same admiring things about Lincoln as all the Lincoln jock riders that DiLorenzo despises so much.

Seriously, I have no problem with bringing Lincoln to task for his mistakes -- but this guy seems to know absolutely nothing about the political and social context of the civil war years.

Secession is legal: Even the doughfaces in Buchanan's cabinet though [ sic ] the union unbreakable--as did most of Lincoln's own party. Secession is criminal -- so said James Madison. If he doesn't know what's constitutional, who does? Read Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793, McCullough vs. Maryland 1819. Or Webster. Or better yet, Andrew Jackson.

Tariffs: The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to $56 million with a population of 34 million. Federal taxation per capita amounted to less than $2 per person. Yes, the Slavocracy were lightly taxed on luxury goods imported into the south -- goods that they "earned" by wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. Then again, the Federal government before the war lost close to 9 million dollars every year delivering mail in the south because of decaying roads and an archaic transportation system. (They profited heavily in the more modernized north.) What's funnier than hell is that the Confederacy itself placed tariffs on exports. Hypocritical.

civil liberties: Yes, evil King Lincoln suspended habeas corpus -- actually he was goaded into it by Seward, who feared an invasion of the capitol. Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus, too. What does DiLorenzo think about that? Unfortunately, DiLorenzo hardly ever brings up the virtual identical actions of the Confederacy or the fact that liberty was stepping on even harder during the Revolutionary War (thanks, in no small part, to DiLorenzo's hero, Thomas Jefferson (read Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Dark Side).

Jeff Davis -- responsible for conscription, martial law, suspending habeas corpus, shutting down newspapers and making southerners carry id cards. Confederate jails were filled with men like Parson Brownlow of the Knoxville Whig, who rotted in one of the Confederacy's "libertarian" prisons for two years for describing the average southern soldier as brainwashed by the Slavocracy, dirt poor yet bragging that he should be allowed to bring his slaves into the territories.

colonization: Actually DiLorenzo's hero Thomas Jefferson, in one of his more antislavery moments, was the first president to mention colonization as an effective solution to the race problem. Lincoln went along with it -- even the most militant abolitionists like Chase supported colonization -- publicly until he got Northerners to grudgingly accept the idea of enlisting black troops, then never spoke of colonization again.

 

 

Abraham Lincoln Quoted

Abraham Lincoln was a very wonderful human being, the man who started a civil war in America to free them poor black folks from the nasty White Man. We know this is true because Jews told us. Of course we know that Jews never lie except when it makes money or it seems a good idea or for the fun of it or whatever. They were the ones who brought us that wonderful activist, the fighter for justice & the down trodden, the Very Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King.

So what do the records tell us that Honest Abe said? Something rather different. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.
PS This little piece owes it origins to Fred, a real Southerner who knows what happened. See Dixie

From http://quotationsbook.com/quote/44759/

 

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/44759/
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Source Notes: Source: ABRAHAM LINCOLN, fourth debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas, Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 3, p. 14546.

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/44759/

 

 

 

 

 

Abraham Lincoln, War Criminal And Mass Murderer

 

From http://billstclair.com/blog/abe_lenin_2010.html 

L. Neil Smith - it's February 12. Once again time for a reminder of one of the worst tyrants in American history: Abe Lincoln, America's Lenin.

Quote:
Suppose a woman -- with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated -- desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?

History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force -- "sell to us at our price or pay a fine that'll put you out of business" -- for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That's what a tariff's all about. In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or afterward -- rolled into one.

Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.

 

 

 

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP key.  Home

Updated  on  Wednesday, 06 May 2015 08:16:23