Why Demote Lincoln?

[wkmac]

Why Demote Lincoln?
Posted by: wirkman

Abraham Lincoln is usually loved and adored, admired as the greatest of American presidents.
Some people disagree. I, for one, do not praise Lincoln; I even regard him as (in a few relevant senses) “evil.”
Such disagreement puzzles those who lionize the man who would not let the South secede:

I’m baffled by the rise of anti-Lincoln sentiment on some quarters of the Right. Freeing the slaves ought to count for something. Moreover, letting the South go and hoping for the best (voluntary manumission, perhaps?) seems like wishful thinking.
​

Well, yes, freeing the slaves does account for something. But setting Americans against each other in the country’s bloodiest war, recklessly disregarding a long Constitutional principle (the right of political secession), debasing the money supply, instituting the income tax and the first American draft, throwing dissenters into prison, stifling the press . . . these things somehow offset the balance.
If this had been the only way of ending slavery, I would go along. But it probably wasn’t. Of course, any alternative to what happened seems “like wishful thinking.” The past is now a fact, it is only the future that qualifies as an array of potentials. So the longer a mistake recedes into distant memory, the factual character obscures any options past actors had. That’s just simply the case. It’s basic philosophy. I am astounded that those who need heroes cannot understand such basic things.
In 1850, a more-or-less peaceful end to slavery was a possibility. After the bloody Civil War (or, War Against Southron Secession), it was not. Time changes things.
But objectivity does not demand that we cease keeping relevant contexts in mind.
And remember: Even Brazil abolished slavery peacefully. Could not the North American states have done the same?
There were many possibilities, short of a war of suppression. Even letting the South secede, and then starting a war of liberation would have been better . . . after some time for diplomacy, international forums, and the like.
Political Americans often define themselves by the wars they are most fascinated with, or most admire. Some of us still look at most wars as mistakes, even as crimes. The Revolutionary War, on the other hand, does not seem as bad as most. Thirteen American colonies decided to secede from an empire with a distant-but-meddling capital. They took control of the colonial governments (to the extent they could), declaring their independence. And the imperial power fought a war of suppression to prevent the secession. The imperial power lost.
In the Civil War, less than a century later, it was the imperial power (the new, once-”federalist” power) that won.
Is it really hard to understand why the man who wouldn’t let the South secede would be looked upon by at least some admirers of the American Revolution as a betrayer of that first cause?
It should not be. The truth is, I think most Americans are so repeatedly preached at about Lincoln’s greatness that views to the contrary just shock them. They have not thought it through. (I suspect it is hard to think against the grain of an age. Most people fail.)
Of course, most people, these days, do not give a fig for the political hopes of the Founding Fathers. Their fear of unlimited government — expressed both in the writing of the Constitution and the “anti-federalist” criticisms of that document — seems quaint, today, because unlimited government is what we have in fact. A vast bureaucracy fed by high taxes, divvying out power and privileges and chunks of wealth to various groups for various reasons . . . this is not what the original secessionists fought for. But it is what we are left with.
So it is understandable that those who defend our present Nation State will honor the man who brought an end to the Constitution as originally construed, who consolidated power in Washington, DC, who made a federal case out of everything. The Imperial Republic was born in Lincoln’s War. It has been mostly war and grandeur since.
I actually do not hate Lincoln as much as many of my friends do. I understand the burden that he placed on himself. We can look upon him as a tragic figure.
He was also one of the best writers to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.But I do not judge presidents by their prose styles.
As long as Americans honor Lincoln so highly, there is probably no hope for individual liberty in America. For, as Lincoln said as a young man, the man who freed the slaves would be tempted to enslave free men. And that is what Lincoln accomplished. America is not, now, divided between free and slave. It is divided among classes of the unfree. We are “slaves to each other,” at best. At worst, we are mere subjects to a behemoth state, with barely limited powers at its core. The two dominant political parties vie for each other to corrupt, further, the original understanding of limited government. (The parties are tolerable only when out of power.)
And the population is becoming increasingly dependent and servile. Thanks, Abe.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Here is a couple of quotes from Abe Lincoln.

" I have no purpose of introducing political and social equality between the white and black races... That I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negros, nor 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 two which, in my judgment will probably forever forbid there living together upon the footing of perfect inequality, and in as much as it bocomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."


"If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would."

Yeah....sounds like a man that should be considered a savior. NOT!

 

[diesel96]

Would you rather live in The Divided States of America?

This must be the year to throw Chicago politicians under the bus...lol
And it's even more hilarious coming from those quoting Reagan in their signatures...

 

[JimJimmyJames]

The truth about the founding father of big government in America

Being Honest about Abe

BY Jack Hunter

Originally celebrated as George Washington's birthday, the holiday morphed into Presidents' Day in the 1980s, in part to honor Abraham Lincoln. Today, our first president has taken a backseat to the 16th, and the election of Barack Obama has only further increased Lincoln's legend. Many are asking if Obama will govern like Lincoln. He will, just as each president who inherited an America of Lincoln's making has done.

With the recent observation of Lincoln's 200th birthday, it might be worth looking at what the last two centuries have wrought. Washington's vision of a humble constitutional republic, decentralized and debt free, has been replaced by an imperial superpower, where U.S. influence not only spans the globe, but the globe foots the bill, as presidents and Congress hastily pass "bailouts" and "stimulus packages" in the hopes that China and other foreign nations will keep America financially afloat. Washington's farewell address, in which he urged a young republic to avoid "foreign entanglements" has been rejected by an America forever searching for foreign nations to tangle with. With the nationalization of significant parts of our economy, the Founders' attempt at republican democracy further descends into empire. Perhaps it is time Americans were honest about their Caesar?

Saying Lincoln was a great president is like saying Ike Turner was a great husband. Many contend that Lincoln did what was necessary to save the marriage between North and South, and if he had to resort to immoral, illegal, and gruesome tactics, the ends justified the means. Like Ike to Tina, Lincoln beat a nation into submission.

Forget the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus or censorship of the northern press — consider the inhumanity of Lincoln's war strategy as explained by his favorite general, William Tecumseh Sherman: "There is a class of people (in the South) — men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

Today, we call this genocide. In his day, Lincoln called it "saving the union," a voluntary union he ultimately destroyed to make way for the centralized system we have today, in which big government colludes with big capital to maximize profits by minimizing liberty.

Leftist Kirkpatrick Sale recently pointed out that comparisons of Obama to Lincoln were accurate in ways most don't consider, noting that "Obama seems to promise: government subsidies for the larger corporations and banks (as Lincoln pushed in his day, especially for the railroads), refurbishing of the infrastructure (ditto), nationalization of the financial system and reckless printing of currency, increased centralization of the government and its hold on the economy, continuation and expansion of warfare and the war machine."

But didn't Lincoln abolish slavery? Lincoln made clear his loyalty was to his concept of the union, not abolition, writing in 1862, "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."

War is often couched in moralistic terms to obfuscate the non-benevolent, self-aggrandizing intentions of those who wage them. Few critics of George W. Bush believe the invasion of Iraq was due purely to the president's concern for democracy and human rights. When noting the many corporate and government interests who benefit from the Iraq occupation, Bush's critics are often shouted down as unpatriotic, as Saddam Hussein's genocide, rape rooms, and other ghastly examples are brought up to justify the invasion. To criticize Bush is to excuse Hussein, say many. To criticize Lincoln is to excuse slavery, say many.

Were Southerners who were disenfranchised or resistant during Reconstruction so different from the millions of disgruntled Iraqis today, who simply want occupying armies out of their country? Many Americans consider these Iraqis unappreciative cretins who simply don't know what's good for them. And too many Americans continue to view yesterday's Southerners in the same unsympathetic light.

America's bloodiest war gave birth to the modern state we live under today. From intrusive drug laws to Roe vs. Wade, the income tax to the Patriot Act, foreign intervention to market intervention — these and so many other aspects of American life exist due to the ever-increasing centralization of power kick-started by Lincoln.

It's safe to say Washington would not have included Lincoln amongst the "greatest" presidents for his accomplishments. And whether it's Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Bush, or Obama, it is a tragedy that being a "great" president has now come to mean betraying everything America's first president ever stood for.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:63490

 

[wkmac]

Ah the Southern Avenger!



D,

You're so right, we couldn't have a divided nation and thus under this pretext we moved forward and destroyed the once independent nations of the native americans.

I guess this also means for example you will sit there and justify the events of 12/29/1890' at Wounded Knee South Dakota as necessary in order to maintain an "undivided" nation? How dare we consider the 1973' events of Wounded Knee as a consequence of the 1890' events. That's 80 years ago, people need to stop thinking in the past for pete's sake. I hope for Pete's sake we never stop!

Tell you what, net search the following:

"People of the Six Nations"

Iroquios Democracy

Charles Thomson of Delaware and the events of June 11, 1776'

After you get done looking a bit, rethink how you go about defending the necessity of the great American empire!

BTW: If anyone has illusions that had the confederacy won, some southern utopia of freedom and greatness would be with us today? Think again. As a born and raised southerner with a long southern heritage going back to the late 1600's, I'm sad to say I'm not convinced of that at all!

Also D, Germany and the Nazi version you made reference too was very much brought about by American actions in WW1 and post WW1 events. Take out the empirical self interests of the allied powers with repsect to Versailles and most historians agree the growth medium for Hilter is not there to begin with. WW1 was IMO the results of dying empirical colonial powers in their death days trying desperately to maintain their own empires. American entry only stood to prop up the dying Anglo empire with fresh blood on the same order as Bush/Obama using taxpayer supplied capitial to prop up the economic bubble that burst to put us where we are. Like the colonial empires of old, so do we now find ourselves faced with that same reality of lost standing and dominance as our means to pay for it has crashed into the wall of economic reality.

Also take out the empirical self intersts of the allied powers and the growth medium for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

in the 1920's is not there and thus radical islamic ideals has no medium from which to build on. Also Iran is no problem because Persia and self rule would exist and therefore no need for radicalism especially towards America because the events to forment the hostility would most likely have never happened. It's also very easy to say Saddam Hussein would be an unknown history as Iraq would have never been either as without WW2 we would have no CIA to forment global meddling and various coup d'etat's making new enemies to funnel billions of taxpayer productivity from the wealth creation side of the economy into the corp. military industrial complex and the merchantile state creation side of the economiy. This in turn, creates wealth shortage amongst the people and forments a growing welfare class that in turn the State can use as a crisis to forment an ever growing state among us.

And yes, it may be equally safe to say without WW1 and WW2, the conflict between muslim and jew would not be happening as also the destruction of 6 million jews would have never happened either thus formenting fear and allowing zionist manipulation of that fear to drive jews from among European populations. It also didn't hurt that the state used religion (christianity) to also make jews at many turns a scape goat for what otherwise was caused by the state and in some cases, the state church as well.

One might also say as necessity being the mother of invention, that without WW1 and WW2, the landscape of dangerous weapons across the planet might look very different. WW1 brought the need for chemical weapons and led to research in biological agents and of course WW2 brought us the infamous nuclear bomb. We scream in fear about the muslim and his so-called appetite for dirty nukes or chemical or biological agents or in some case his outright desire for nuclear weapons. Who created these monsters to begin with? Using their context of necessity, what events brought these into being in the first place? And then what caused these "events" to come about making for such a necessity? Ironically, the Soviet Union and the rise of communism came as much about by the events of WW1 as by any other means sp again, WW1 lays another unintended consequence that over the next 6 or 7 decades has a tremendous effect on millions if not billions of lives across the planet. If we as individuals percieve the criminal element as an aggressive violent force and in a means to protect ourselves from them, we acquire the best in personal firearms to do this and we consider an affront if gov't dare try and impose to take our right from us to do this. Taking this to the level of nations, should we therefore insist this same right in face of realities of military might be stripped of other nations? If we argue for weapons control on the level of nations based on the fact we contend they will be misused against society, are we not accepting the argument of the anti-gun forces in American and therefore making their arguement for them? Ashame they aren't bright enough to take this point and turn it on the pro-war, pro-aggression anti gun control types and exposed them for their own hypocrisy!


The right of self defense is an unalienable right that spans across the human specie and not just the american version!

Looking at our own history of manifest destiny in relation to the native American, it doesn't take much imagination to transpose the middle east muslim into the place of the native american on the 20th century global scale and understand where the actions of the 19th century were the seedbed so to speak of a coming global manifest destiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre (FYI, article is in dispute) in truth turns out to be a harbinger of bad things to come if one can open their mind. And thus so was Lincoln!

The so-called Civil War, was not about slavery and in truth used slavery after the fact, and in a post war means to elevate the era into the mythical parthenon to justify the goodness if not the Godhead of statecraft. It's ironic that Lincoln's mythmakers glorify Lincoln's so'called freeing of the Slaves to then turn around and across society make them at best 2nd class citizens. Even during the days of segregation, I clearly remember the native american or even the Asian sitting in the downstairs of the movie theater while the African American was relegated to the upstairs balconey. As our founding fathers had their hypocrisy, so too does your "undivided" nation have as well. Sadly, what does this really say about us as we make up this nation to begin with? Don't you just hate it when I point out the obvious! I hate myself too sometimes.


The war was really about economics if truth be told and it rarely is. Just as Bush used lies to forment his own war of legacy, so too has Lincoln and the Court historicains who champion the supreme state. It's historically ironic for me that John Wilkes Booth presents a very troubling duality so to speak. On the one hand, Booth murdering Lincoln mostly assured the murderous and evil period of reconstruction on the south in the post war years that actually led to much of the anti-african american sentiment in the south. Even many southern anti Lincolnites would admit that reconstruction of the south was not what Lincoln ever had in mind at all and Booth's murderous act in Ford's theater set the table for it all.

On the other hand, had Booth been 4 years earlier so to speak and looking across the universe of time, how would our nation be different and for that fact our world be different today? History might suggest Booth was 4 years to late from a certain historical POV. The question is only one but with 1000's of potential answers but then I often ask myself the same thing in what if Kennedy's driver had pretended to be Jeff Gordon going through Dealy Plaza. We'll just never know!

At the same time, had the founding fathers lived up to the classical liberal ideals found in the declaration of independence and not been cowards regarding slavery and the native peoples when it came time to writting the Constitution, history might be vastly different even for our nation of people and the circumstances of the 1860's might have been avoided all together. Their own lack of action brought about the unintended consequences of Lincoln. As much as I admire many of the founders, they were not without their hypocrisy either but then, name one human who's walked the planet who hasn't battled this troubling part of our very nature?

To us, it may seem that not allowing a divided nation was a necessary evil if you will but using those actions in a context of setting up unintended consequences, the rest of the world may argue justly from their POV that a divided America would have been in the longterm interests and better historical outcome for the rest of the world!

It's all in perspective my friend, all in perspective!

 

[IWorkAsDirected]

I recently watched a documentary about Lincoln and apparantly he didn't care one way or the other about slavery. He actually stated that he could support either way as long as the nation was united.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

At the same time, had the founding fathers lived up to the classical liberal ideals found in the declaration of independence and not been cowards regarding slavery and the native peoples when it came time to writting the Constitution, history might be vastly different even for our nation of people and the circumstances of the 1860's might have been avoided all together. Their own lack of action brought about the unintended consequences of Lincoln. As much as I admire many of the founders, they were not without their hypocrisy either but then, name one human who's walked the planet who hasn't battled this troubling part of our very nature?

Thank you for putting into words this dichotomy that I have always had trouble with. You take nothing away from our Founding Father's greatness, but nonetheless show them to be human, all too human.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Would you rather live in The Divided States of America?

This must be the year to throw Chicago politicians under the bus...lol
And it's even more hilarious coming from those quoting Reagan in their signatures...

Mentioning Reagan in the same breath with Chicago politicians as if there is any comparison is also hilarious. And we do live in a "Divided States of America." B.E.T., Black Churches, Black Colleges, and programs like Affirmative Action make this ever more clear. Forget divide and conquer. It's divide and appease.

 

[wkmac]

Thank you for putting into words this dichotomy that I have always had trouble with. You take nothing away from our Founding Father's greatness, but nonetheless show them to be human, all too human.

Thank you for the kind words. We are all human and individually we make mistakes and make errors in judgement and in many cases there was never any evil intent to it. But these errors cause problems and have consequences and sometimes to those around us and to those we love and who love us.

We have this illusion sometimes especially when our own political views are reflected that when individuals are grouped under the title gov't that human error and mistakes somehow disappear. Perfection is now achieved! As individuals, we are prone to feeding our own self interests with results sometimes that negatively effect others in society that most likely we don't even know. But then when we enter a realm called gov't, this driving self interest of human nature is turned off like someone would turn off a light switch. No matter what the political idealism is, only a fool would believe in such fantasy.

Bush's bailout plan (along with his entire governing policy) served specific special interests at the misfortune of others and so too now is the Obama plan. If you will, Obama's majority of plunder beat out Bush's (in the form of McCain) plan of plunder and thus they rule the day. Being we live in an age of plunder via the rule of majority (democracy) I wonder what would happen if robbers and thieves actually formed a political party and got enough votes to themselves to become a majority power. Interesting concept when the rule of law demands all to rob and steal on a regular basis and gov't even builds a taxing structure around this new poltical economy to fund the State itself.

Funny, with republicans and democrats, I already see this in place anyway but the problem is, I just have this "Thou Shall not Steal" thing running around in my head (right next to "thou shalt not murder") that just won't let me get with the program. Someone recently made a huge mistake and asked me my thoughts on religion. Never ask a question in which you are not mentally and emotionally prepared to hear the answer! She and her husband and friends went on this marvelous rant at me about how I'm of the devil, am going to hell, etc. etc. (and I actually agreed with her much to fueling her already excited fury) but she then made an interesting observation. She told me I had the spirit of Satan. I have to admit I need to do much more study as I've yet to find where Satan uttered the words, "thou shall not steal" but then again I'm a true monotheist and not a dualist so there you go!

 

[wkmac]

Mentioning Reagan in the same breath with Chicago politicians as if there is any comparison is also hilarious.

Truth be told, I thought it was a pretty good observation myself. But considering D's idealism for plunder, it is a bit 2 faced!


You know, it's truly sad that the majority doesn't rule the day. When not being manipulated and spun up to think a certain way, this pretty much sez it all.

Few people want to rule the world, most people just want to live in it!

 

[wkmac]

Twenty States Are Talking About Secession


HOORAY!

Or should we resurrect the blood cuddling "Rebel Yell!"

 

[moreluck]

As long as we're talking secession, can we please divide CA. with a line (E to W) across the middle and calll them N. CA. and S. CA.???

 

[tieguy]

Didn't we finish this argument approximately 165 years ago?

Lincoln never had to inherit an economy in recession from his predecessor,

Nor deal with an army and intelligence agency weakened by his predecessor.

Nor did he have to deal with a terrorist attack on 9/11.

Never did he conquer a nation that most experts said could not be conquered and kept intact.

In fact lincoln almost lost a war in which he had manufactoring superiority to a bunch of southern hillbillies that were so poor they often fought in bare feet.

Nope Abe's greatest accomplishment was being assassinated. It tends to vault presidents to a stature well above their abilities and accomplishments.

Abe would have floundered here dealing with the current idiots in congress.

Abe was not strong enough to carry GW's jock strap.

But he did write pretty speechs.

 

[wkmac]

More cracks in the glass house known as Lincoln Mythology

[video=youtube;U1KBMnj4BJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY[/video]


and then from a completely different perspective but still shattering state mythology...

Garry Wills on Lincoln's Black History

 

[diesel96]

Speaking of Presidential folklore mythology....

What a grave solemn scenario Wirkman and the Southern Avenger portrayed the aftermath of "The Fuhrur", Lincoln's influence had on Unite-ing the States of America. If I came from another planet and read the works from Wirkman and The Southern Avenger, I would come away thinking what a dismal failure this United States should have become. Instead, surprisingly, It turns out, living in the United States didn't turn out that bad, except for a couple of hiccups down the road....like a couple of World Wars, a Great Depression, communism paranoia
.....until...until... the after math of the Reagan era....
I look at the house that Reagan built and that bronze statue recently dedicated for him and come away with the same conclusions as most of my Lincoln sour grape counterparts...........

 

[tieguy]

Also D, Germany and the Nazi version you made reference too was very much brought about by American actions in WW1 and post WW1 events. Take out the empirical self interests of the allied powers with repsect to Versailles and most historians agree the growth medium for Hilter is not there to begin with. WW1 was IMO the results of dying empirical colonial powers in their death days trying desperately to maintain their own empires. American entry only stood to prop up the dying Anglo empire with fresh blood on the same order as Bush/Obama using taxpayer supplied capitial to prop up the economic bubble that burst to put us where we are. Like the colonial empires of old, so do we now find ourselves faced with that same reality of lost standing and dominance as our means to pay for it has crashed into the wall of economic reality.

I have to say reading this was an interesting exercise in paranoia.Was this your opinion or charles's?
It would seem we took our sweet time jumping into WWI if we were really concerned about propping up the dying anglo empire. The wording is interesting. I'm sure there were many factors involved in our joining in to help our friends. The german submarine forces sinking our passenger liners and plotting against us with mexico via the zimmerman telegraph to name a few. Its clearly apparent that we did try to stay out of it and then for a number of reasons we did finally jump in. I do love the line about propping up our dying anglo empire line it has a deliciously sinister sound to it that must get every government hater aroused just reading it.