Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Abraham Lincoln: Biggest Fraud in American History

Abraham Lincoln: Biggest Fraud in American History

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter2Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Last Friday, March 11, marked the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s first presidential inauguration. For generations the virtues of our 16th president and his martyr-like demise at the hands of an assassin have been proudly proclaimed to public school students; so much so that Lincoln has practically attained the status of a deity in our society. His other-worldliness is of course based on the claim that he singlehandedly engineered the freeing of the slaves and rightly saved the Union from the selfish interests of a few malcontents in the South. This shallow revisionist history of Lincoln’s motives and actions has been effective in convincing most Americans that the poor rail splitter from Illinois should be revered and worshiped. However, it is the discerning student of history who knows the aforementioned claims are dubious to say the least and a second look at the railroad lawyer is necessary to see the true character of the man known as “Honest Abe.”

To rebut that Lincoln ever sought to free the slaves all we need to do is read his own words written in a letter to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862, almost a year and half after becoming president.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union…”

In other words, all Lincoln cared about was keeping the country together under his leadership as president. As a moral concern, he didn’t care at all about freeing the slaves. In fact, his Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves located in states actively in rebellion against the United States. This was in order to allow those slaves to fight for the Union army. His executive order fulfilled his words that he would attempt to save the Union by freeing some slaves and leaving others alone. In essence the proclamation enhanced the ranks of the Yankee fighting force in the South while leaving close to 1 million slaves on the plantations of the border states loyal to the North.

If that’s not bad enough, new information about what Lincoln had planned for freed slaves after the War Between the States has been uncovered at the British National Archives and the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and published in a new book by university researchers, Philip Magness and Sebastian Page. According to the authors, speaking to an audience of freed slaves at the White House in 1862, Lincoln encouraged them to leave the U.S. and to resettle abroad. He stressed to them that he considered free blacks who sought a permanent existence in the United States to be “selfish” and encouraged them to relocate to Central America “”especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land — thus being suited to your physical condition.” He further engaged the British in secret diplomacy to get their permission to set up a colony for free blacks in Belize leading to his appointing a British agent to recruit volunteers for the endeavor. Lastly, just one year prior to his assassination Lincoln queried Attorney General Edward Bates on whether his colonization commissioner James Mitchell could still advise him, given that Congress had ended funding for Mitchell’s office.

Thus, one could argue that Lincoln used the slaves as military pawns in his conflict with the Confederacy. He granted them freedom in the South in order to recruit them to fight their former masters. Once the war was over, he would have been content double crossing them by not guaranteeing them the freedom they had fought for and instead shipping them off to a faraway place better “suited to their physical condition.” This is the Great Emancipator whom all American school children are taught to revere.

To be sure, there are other frauds in American history. Woodrow Wilson usually gets high praise for saving the world for democracy, but his policies during and after World War I led to the rise of Hitler and the next great world conflict. His racist tendencies have also been covered up by revisionists. Then there is the patron saint of statists everywhere, Franklin Roosevelt. His imbecilic economic policies prolonged the Great Depression by at least another decade. His handling of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor was either meant to start war with Japan in order to boost the economy, or it was grotesque negligence. Either way, he was guilty of treason or dereliction of duty.

It’s close but Lincoln takes the prize for biggest fraud. He was anything but a democrat and supporter of liberty as his transgressions against the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are legendary. The War Between the States that he directed took the lives of over a half million Americans on both sides. His position that the slaves should be used militarily solely to secure the Union and then discarded like last week’s leftovers was despicable.

Powered by

About Kenn Jacobine

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    When it comes to Woodrow Wilson, I recommend you read The Great Influenza by John Barry. In the book, he makes the strong case that prior to his own contraction of H1N1 flu, Woodrow Wilson was pushing for far less punitive actions against Germany at Versailles out of concern of what Germany might do by being forced to submit to such onerous sanctions…but he was so weakened by the flu that he was not able to stop France and England from imposing those same punitive actions that essentially made WWII not just a possibility, but an eventuality.

    But he doesn’t let Wilson off the hook, for he notes how Wilson not only effectively outlawed any ‘anti-American’ news, but he never once mentioned the H1N1 epidemic in public, never mind that it killed nearly one million Americans and perhaps five percent of all humanity – and led to the only year-to-year worldwide decline in population in modern history…mostly in a period of a little over four months. So if you ask me, that in and of itself is sufficient reason to call Wilson one of our worst presidents ever.

    But as to Lincoln, where do I begin? First of all, the fact that the Constitution does not expressly forbid states from seceding does NOT legalize it…for if a state secedes, it is essentially saying that the state is refusing to obey the legal authority of the federal government delineated in the Constitution. So NO, the South did NOT have a “constitutional right to secede” as you stated in your article that you used as a reference. A nation has a right, nay, a duty to put down a rebellion – and declaring ‘secession’ does NOT in any way protect a rebellious region from the efforts of the government to keep the country together as a whole.

    A rebellion or secession or WHATEVER you want to call it is ONLY LEGAL in ONE CASE – if the rebellion succeeds. If the original government is not able to keep the country together and the region in question becomes truly autonomous and self-governing, THEN AND ONLY THEN is secession “legal”, much less a constitutional right.

    Furthermore, whatever Lincoln’s views about slavery might or might not have been, the war WAS about slavery. Now I grew up with my fellow racists telling me that the War of Northern Aggression was all about “state’s rights” and economics…

    …but as the years passed and I began to see through their racism, I learned to instead take the word of those in charge of the states that were actually seceding at the time, who wrote their official opinions in the declarations of secession by the states of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas. Let my home state of Mississippi speak for the rest: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

    So YES, Kenn – the secession of the southern states WAS about slavery, and they fired the first shot! THAT, sir, means that the Civil War WAS about slavery! Granted, the North was NOT fighting to end slavery, but to keep the Union together…but the South most certainly WAS fighting to protect that most odious of human institutions!

    I know you are loath to question your long-held assumptions…but what I’ve shown you above should make it blatantly evident that NO, the South did not have a ‘constitutional right’ to secede as Supreme Court Justice Scalia points out; YES, the war WAS about slavery; and NO, Woodrow Wilson, tyrant though he was, did NOT ’cause’ WWII.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Kenn –

    I really can’t believe that you continued upon this line of argument after Dave Nalle schooled you in comment #22 of your article decrying Lincoln’s “unconstitutional” invasion of the South.

    It takes real humility to admit when one is wrong, Kenn. But not everyone thinks humility is a virtue. How about you?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”. This quote from the document that founded our country and the fact that the original states were just that – independent states is proof that any state has the right to secede. Each ratifying state voluntarily joined the Union by ratifying the Constituion. Thus they can leave it without an act of Congress. Good luck if they do it individually. But in the case of the South it was several states and one reason was slavery, but others included the Republican’s desire to impose a protective tariff, corporate welfare, and central banking on the nation. The South seceded peacefully to pursue it’s self-determination just like the folks in Kosovo and South Sudan – Washington supported both.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Gosh Glenn you are going to have to turn in your Democratic Party membership card now that you are identifying with Nino Scalia and Dave Nalle. I guess politics do make for strange bedfellows.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    On #4 –

    That’s the mistake you and so many other BC conservatives make: that I’m perpetually in lockstep with Democrats and liberals. What you and the others have yet to understand is that I make my mind up on what is right and wrong about a particular issue…and THEN see which party supports that issue in the way I see it. I’ve different views from my fellow liberals on several issues (have you heard me defend Reagan? I do)…but on the vast majority of issues, the Democrats are quite right and the Republicans are tragically wrong. Why do you think I left the Republican party to begin with?

    When the Republicans begin taxing wisely (instead of claiming “tax cuts are the cure for all the ills that ail you!”), when they begin holding their most popular pundits responsible for their weekly race-baiting, when they start believing in separation of church and state stop allowing the Religious Right to lead them around by the nose, when they start agreeing to major cuts in defense spending, when they stop believing that corporations have all the same rights as a human being (despite the fact that a corporation can’t be sentenced to jail), when they stop believing in unilateral military action as anything other than the LAST response in a diplomatic spat…

    …THEN I might start listening to them. Until then, they’re on the wrong side of most issues. It’s very much like the Democrats chose the side of the issue that seemed right…and the Republicans decided to choose whatever position the Democrats didn’t take, with no regard whatsoever as to whether they were on the right side of the issue or not!

    Global warming’s a wonderful example! The Dems brought it up in the mid-90’s, and the Republicans automatically took the opposite side. Now that climate change is truly affecting us worldwide and very nearly all scientists agree on the cause, the Republicans STILL don’t want to admit they were wrong!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    On #3 –

    Did Washington ever state that it was somehow to be accepted that England would somehow just let them go, no problem, c’est la vie?

    No. He knew the Redcoats would be coming…and Jefferson Davis surely knew the same. But the South did NOT secede ‘peacefully’. Do you not remember Fort Sumter? Come on, Kenn! You know better than that! Unless, of course, you’re going to claim that the attack on Fort Sumter was an earlier version of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident….

    And slavery was not “one reason”, as you say, but was the PRIMARY reason as anyone who reads the declarations of secession can see. No amount of spin can prove otherwise.

  • Baronius

    “In other words, all Lincoln cared about was keeping the country together under his leadership as president. As a moral concern, he didn’t care at all about freeing the slaves.”

    That’s wrong, Kenn. Some of Lincoln’s views may have been racist according to the modern definition, but he was unambiguously opposed to slavery. As president, his greatest duty was the preservation of the Union. He rightly put that before anything else. But you can’t say that he didn’t care at all about the slaves. That’s like saying that General Eisenhower didn’t care at all about the advancing Soviet Army. He cared, but his priority was victory over Germany.

    “In fact, his Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves located in states actively in rebellion against the United States.”

    This has got to be the most well-known fact in American history. You’re treating it like a revelation.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Baronius,

    To many Americans what I stated about the Emancipation Proclamation is a new revelation. Lincoln is known as the “Great Emancipator”. This is a lot of misinformation generated by statists in general in the media, government, public schools, etc… Like Glenn, it supports their pro-state position. Anyone who disagrees must be a right-winger or racist because the Civil War was “primarily about slavery”. That is non-sense. The War was about states’ rights and the place of the federal government. Unfortunately, and conveniently for statists slavery was one of the states’ rights folks grievances. I believe the South had a right to secede based on the the natural law espoused by the Founders and made explicit in the Dec. of Ind. and Constitution. I further believe that slavery would have been eventually abolished in the South anyway, peacefully, like it was in England, Brazil. Lincoln’s actions were tyranical, and anti-Enlightenment and on top of that he wasn’t kiling fellow Americans for a just cause – he wasn’t interested in the plight of the slaves. He and the Whigs wanted a corporate welfare state complete with protective tariffs, central banking and subsidies. These are another big reason the South wanted out. They were right to pursue that course peacefully until the North violated their border.

  • Cannonshop

    #8 Kenn, to many Americans (USians? United-States-ians?) it’s a revelation that you can’t drive on the interstate to Hawaii, or that you have to leave the borders of the U.S. to drive to Alaska-common misconceptions about HISTORY doesn’t make repeating the facts any more revelatory.

    Second: the seceding states STARTED THE WAR-they did so by attacking. Now, strategically, through the magick of hindsight, one could argue that they chose to start shooting at the wrong time-the Confederacy had little industrial or non-agricultural development, and in spite of frequent contacts in Europe, no grasp of how European priorities had changed to make “King Cotton” an ineffective lever on the arms (and armies) of either France, or Great Britain…

    but they started the war nonetheless. See, the problem is, the same constitution you’re making note of, gave the ports to the Federal Government-that means that Sumter (among other locations) was, even AFTER secession, LEGALLY the property of the United States-so even if the secession was legal, the attack and seizure of the fort was NOT-it was, per fact, an act of war. To retain legitimacy, the United States was OBLIGATED to defend the site, and to go to war in the event that it was attacked.

    the Confederates did NOT pursue legitimate diplomatic means in dealing with a foreign power prior to launching the attack-hell, they didn’t even wait for Lincoln to be sworn in before putting the site under siege, (for that matter, Southerners in the Federal Government under Buchanan also transferred much of the contents of the Springfield and Harper’s FErry arsenals south in preparation for this war…)

    At no point was this secession peaceful, it was planned and assumed from well before the election of 1860, prepared for, plotted out, and…Lost.

    it was not about states rights, it was about supremacy-look ye to the previous fifty years and especially the prior twenty years of ratcheting violence and political chicanery. The Confederate Leadership WANTED a war, Planned their war, and LOST their war.

  • Baronius

    I have mixed feelings about secession. If a state really wanted to secede, had a statewide vote or two in favor of it, wrote something into its Constitution, and laid out an equitable proposal to the US federal government involving assets and liabilities, citizenship, et cetera, and did all this over two years, then I’d be hard pressed to say that they can’t be allowed to leave. The South didn’t take a meausured approach; they had a tantrum over an election.

    I read a book a while back about the causes of the Civil War called “The Causes of the Civil War”. It laid out each of the proposed causes, with arguments from historians and plenty of primary material. The second-strongest argument is the one Kenn is making. But you just can’t tell the story without reference to slavery. Yes, the war was about secession – over slavery. The war was caused by political blunders – over slavery. The North and South had both become thirsty for a war – over slavery. You can’t get to Antietam without passing through Bloody Kansas.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Baronies,

    Seeds for the Civil War were sown at the Constitutional Convention. It was band aided several times over the next 75 years and in 1860 the South saw the writing on the wall with Lincoln’s program coming to power.

    The states voluntarily joined the Union and reserved the right under the Dec of Ind and Constitution to secede. States ratified the Constitution not the American people because the states were independent entities. It is hard for us to imagine today because of all the socialization we have
    received over the years that the Union is indivisible.

    I suppose the point that has been missed about the article is that to Lincoln slavery was not the issue – preserving the Union at all cost was. Yet he gets credit for being the great democrat who freed the slaves. He was not great democrat because he didn’t allow the South to pursue it’s self-determination and the slaves were only freed because 500,000 Americans died keeping the South in the Union.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    President Lincoln’s views may have been despicable as Mr. Jacobine observes, but at least Mr. Lincoln seems to have articulated those views rather plainly and contemporaneously; there is ample information in the article so suggesting and very little there suggesting otherwise.

    There has probably been “fraud,” but it seems that it has occurred in the popular teaching of history over the past century or more. It is a stretch to hold Mr. Lincoln accountable for that by claiming that he committed it. “Fraud” customarily involves some elements of concealment or other deception. Should A attempt to sell B a bridge in which A has no ownership or other transferable interest, plainly state that he has none and B nevertheless pays A money for it, it would be strange to accuse A of fraud.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    to many Americans (USians? United-States-ians?) it’s a revelation that you can’t drive on the interstate to Hawaii,

    My wife and I were visiting a friend of mine and his wife. We were discussing my upcoming transfer to Pearl Harbor, and we told them how it would be nice if they could visit. His wife – a very sweet girl from rural Missouri – asked “how long does it take to drive there?” The rest of us laughed, but then we felt bad because she simply did not know.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    I suppose the point that has been missed about the article is that to Lincoln slavery was not the issue – preserving the Union at all cost was.

    Yes, preserving the union WAS the issue! That, Kenn, is the first and foremost duty of ANY national leader.

    BUT to the South, as I showed you earlier in THEIR OWN WORDS, the preservation of the institution of slavery was the primary issue…and their argument about “state’s rights” was their EXCUSE to keep said institution.

    Do you still not grok this?

  • Cannonshop

    #13 What’s even funnier, is that Hawaii has an insterstate highway.

    one marvels at the congressional logic behind THAT.

    #14 Perhaps this is just going past one another-Kenn argues that Lincoln was a Tyrannical Man, you (rightly, imho) point out that the Confederacy was using “States Rights” to preserve a tyrannical Institution.

    Men get old, change their minds, and/or die, Institutions must be dismantled, and that process is usually more traumatic for more people than the death of a single man.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Kenn,

    Why don’t you write a real; revelatory article – why we should be overjoyed that an Arab terrorist slaughered five people in their sleep at midnight Friday/Saturday in Itamar (including an in infant), a few miles from where I live.

    This crap about Lincoln is a waste of time. An article revealing to us the righteousness of these Arab animals would be a true revelation!

  • LibrarianDespot

    So, like, I stumble on this blog and a rather ominous, yet rather nostalgic feeling takes over me; Learned at my Daddy’s knee: The Civil War wasn’t about slavery but about “state’s rights”.

    So, no revelation here.

    (And I’m rather long in the tooth, if you know what I mean)

    “BUT to the South, as I showed you earlier in THEIR OWN WORDS, the preservation of the institution of slavery was the primary issue…and their argument about “state’s rights” was their EXCUSE to keep said institution.”

    Smack down!

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Dan,

    I never said Lincoln perpetrated the fraud. I said it was done by the statists of our time – media, public schools, politicians, etc…

    “This shallow revisionist history of Lincoln’s motives and actions has been effective in convincing most Americans that the poor rail splitter from Illinois should be revered and worshiped.”

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn,

    In your own words, “…preserving the union WAS the issue! That, Kenn, is the first and foremost duty of ANY national leader.”

    Does this mean you support Qadaffi, the Kings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Mugabe, et al…?

  • El Bicho

    “I never said Lincoln perpetrated the fraud.”

    Double check the article title.

  • zingzing

    not trying to sound like an asshole here, but the idea of ex-slaves getting the fuck away from the country (let’s just call it the u.s.a.,) that enslaved them wasn’t just on the mind of lincoln, it was on the mind of ex-slaves and african-americans for many, many generations. there were many movements in such directions, some which had legs and some which didn’t.

    not that i’m saying they should have gotten out of here or any such thing, but goddamn if i wouldn’t have, had i been an ex-slave and had the money. “fuck this place,” i would have said, had they done that to me… and yes, i acknowledge that i say that as a white man, and maybe i am ashamed of our terrible history, so just get over that part of this thing… and i would have gone away, had i the money. but god knows, they didn’t have no money. slavery don’t pay.

    but that’s the bullshit ex-slaves get. and then to not get their mule and their tract of land? that’s just bunk. what can you do with that? you’re sharecroppers to the white man again.

    then what? oh, jim crow. good god. now you can’t piss where you want to.

    you know what? maybe had been better off getting the fuck out of this goddamn country for the next hundred years. shit is awful racist.

    now, everybody has a right to be where they are. but damn if we white fucks didn’t spend a century (after “freeing” them,) trying to dissuade the black folk that they deserved simple human decency.

    it’s 4:28 on a saturday night, and daylight savings time starts tonight and i don’t know if that means back or forward. i’m going to bed. damn it.

  • zingzing

    wow. saturday night.

  • zingzing

    anyway, they did move. the great migration to the north, with millions of african-americans moving to the cities towards chicago and the northeast is proof that you can only take a sucker so long.

    …jesus, i’m going to bed. thank you. *waves to the crowd*

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Come on Glenn, cat got your tongue? I am curious, per your remark in #14 – –

    Does this mean you support Qadaffi, the Kings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Mugabe, et al…?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    In your own words, “…preserving the union WAS the issue! That, Kenn, is the first and foremost duty of ANY national leader.” Does this mean you support Qadaffi, the Kings in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Mugabe, et al…?

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I supported them. I SAID that the preservation of the union is the FIRST and FOREMOST duty of ANY national leader. Gadaffi sees it as his duty, tyrant and despot though he surely is. Same for Hitler. Same for Stalin. Same for Ronald Reagan. Same for George Washington.

    Same for ANY national leader, Kenn. Some are right and some are wrong…but they ALL see it as their duty to preserve their nations…though some, sadly, see preservation of their personal power as the best way to do that….

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn,

    You are changing your tune now. Under Enlightenment thinking which is what our whole system of governance is based on, political entities have the right, the duty, to break away from another which binds it against it’s wishes. So, the South had the right to secede just like the libyans, Barainians, Egyptians, and others as far as our values are concerned. Under your thinking if the slaves revolted against the South and decided to form a new country made up of the southern states, you would give Lincoln the right to squash that as well.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    Under your thinking if the slaves revolted against the South and decided to form a new country made up of the southern states, you would give Lincoln the right to squash that as well.

    If the southern states had not seceded, then that would have been Lincoln’s DUTY as president.

    Kenn, you are absolutely RIGHT that the original intent of the Founding Fathers allowed for states to go their own way. That was why we were initially governed under the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by the states in 1781.

    There’s one section on the site called “America under the articles” which nicely summarizes how weak and ineffectual our government – and therefore our nation – was under the Articles. Read on:

    By 1787 Congress was unable to protect manufacturing and shipping. State legislatures were unable or unwilling to resist attacks upon private contracts and public credit. Land speculators expected no rise in values when the government could not defend its borders nor protect its frontier population.

    The idea of a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation grew in favor. Alexander Hamilton realized while serving as Washington’s top aide that a strong central government was necessary to avoid foreign intervention and allay the frustrations due to an ineffectual Congress. Hamilton led a group of like-minded nationalists, won Washington’s endorsement, and convened the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention to meet in Philadelphia to remedy the long-term crisis

    In 1789 the Constitution under which we are now governed was ratified…and this Constitution in no way, shape, or form allows for secession of any state or territory or possession of the United States – unless Congress and the President agree, of course. The Philippines is a good example, since it was a possession of ours after the Spanish-American War. Under the United States Constitution, there is no right to secede.

    IN OTHER WORDS, Kenn, you took a sentence from the Declaration of Independence and IGNORED what happened in the years that followed. Okay? As long as you keep on this “secession is a right” schtick, you will rightly be seen in the same extremist light as the Minutemen on the right, and the Earth Liberation Front on the left.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    The New York Times has been chronicling Lincoln in its OPINIONATOR | DISUNION section for months, now. Let me recommend it to you.

    While our opinion is interesting, a little more reading might mature it. You seem to know little, for example, about the importance of a single Federal currency to the Lincoln administration, for example. The slavery issue is something that energizes passions today that only those calling themselves “abolitionists” cared about at the time.

    As to the sesession issue, you might want to brush up on your Henry Clay.

    Tommy

  • pescador

    Slavery had been in existence for thousands of years and was legal in most countries during Lincoln’s time. Freeing the slaves, while important, was not as easy as it sounds, as most were not able to fend for themselves without help from the whites. Most important was maintaining the union. It cost the union 1 white life for every 6 slaves set free. Lincoln was a great president, there was no perfect solution.

  • Joseph
  • http://zenith.blogtownhall.com/ Patrick

    Apparently the Abraham Lincoln haters of the following web site (and similar sites) don’t like opposing and challenging points of view, so I must take their article and my response elsewhere to their shame. It really is an eye opener, as it reveals that those who hate always do a couple of basic things: They distort facts, or skew them; and they censure comments to their liking.

    Abraham Licoln

    My response to that article which was censured out: Jackson once lifted his glass in the midst of antagonists and proclaimed, “The Union! It must be preserved!” and then he walked out. I lift my glass to Abraham Lincoln and say, “To his beloved memory, it must be preserved by all Americans!”

    ***

    Addressing itemized Lincoln criticisms

    Abraham Lincoln in Perspective

  • http://johnnyb93.blogspot.com/ johnnyb93

    “And yet again: There are in the United States and Territories, including the District of Columbia, 433,643 free blacks. At five hundred dollars per head they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. How comes this vast amount of property to be running about without owners? We do not see free horses or free cattle running at large. How is this? All these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves; and they would be slaves now but for something which has operated on their white owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifice to liberate them. What is that something? Is there any mistaking it? In all these cases it is your sense of justice and human sympathy continually telling you that the poor negro has some natural right to himself–that those who deny it and make mere merchandise of him deserve kickings, contempt, and death.”- A. Lincoln, Lincoln/Douglas debates 1854
    Lincoln truly despised slavery historical revisionism in this disingenuous article to the contrary. Lincoln can speak for himself. As far as the quote to his cabinet Let us also remember that Lincoln issued American money (greenbacks) directly, avoiding the banks who probably killed him for it. The Jesuits hated Lincoln and the Vatican harbored one of the conspirators in the plot to assassinate him. The quote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union…” was made to an unruly and disloyal cabinet in anger to convince them that he meant what he said. It was understood by all that slavery would not survive after the war if the north prevailed. That was the whole point.

  • Kenn kenef from conneticut

    Funny thing is that even though slavery has been gone for several generations , its still not ok for a white man to be proud of being white. Yet we all clap when a black man stands up and says iam black and iam proud… iam still looking in the history books for anything that disproves that the white people arent the single greatest race in all history so far…

    • Fred hgggg

      because its this tribalistic drivel is what causes these problems to begin with. The “white race”? we are all one race buddy and thats the human race.

  • Igor

    Well, Kenn, we white people have certainly been a noisy bunch, that’s for sure.