6 votes

Lincoln's Civil War

Was Lincoln a righteous man or a tyrant?

What were the original reasons for the US going into the Civil War?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lincoln's view of blacks

The best book I've read on how Lincoln felt about black people is FORCED INTO GLORY, by a black man named Lerone Bennett Jr., former editor of Ebony Magazine. The book is 635 pages long and was researched for 25 years. It's a long haul, but well worth your time. Meticulously sourced and footnoted, the book to my knowledge has never been debunked or refuted by anyone. Bennett says that establishment scholars and media deal with his book by ignoring it.

Key point - Lincoln favored the Fugitive Slave Act, which required citizens in all states, even northern states with no slavery, to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves to their owners. This upset northerners to no end, prompting some states to "nullify" the law as unconstitutional. So much for Lincoln being the "progressive" minded guy who showed everyone else the error of their ways regarding slavery.

Bennett also addresses fans of Lincoln who acknowledge the low opinion he had of blacks, but claim that Lincoln "redeemed" himself by making the war about freeing the slaves and giving them equal rights. Well, if your definition of giving them equal rights means shipping them to another country, then I guess he wanted to give them equal rights. Bennett writes about the legislative and political pressures put on Lincoln by the radical Republicans, who were frustrated with Lincoln's seeming indifference to the plight of slaves. Congress passed the 2nd Confiscation Act, which would have confiscated the property of "states in rebellion" including slaves, thereby freeing them. If I remember correctly, this act spurred Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, as a way of pre-empting Congress and diffusing the issue. Bennett writes that Lincoln would have committed political suicide had he not issued the Emancipation, hence the title of the book FORCED INTO GLORY.

Understanding Lincoln's view of blacks explains why he was against expanding slavery into the western territories, because he didn't want blacks there. After Lincoln's death, his Union officers - Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, and Grant (as president) set about "cleansing" the western territories of American Indians who were already living there. It was Sherman who used the word "extermination" regarding the Indians, and it was Sheridan who said to an Indian chief's face that the only good Indians he knew were dead.

This is where crony capitalism comes into the picture, because the government wanted to build subsidized railroads in the west free from interference of the indigenous peoples. My opinion is that the Union government didn't want any competition from Southern states with their lucrative cotton fields either. A great book to read about the crony capitalism aspect is THE MYTH OF THE ROBBER BARONS by Burton Folsom.

I hope this information is useful, as I'm still learning about this myself. Thanks for bringing up the topic.

Thank you

Thank you to all who helped clarify this topic.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Northern States were deep in debt.

Abolitionists wanted action. The State and Federal government's wanted loot.

However, the War against Southern Independence was expensive. $2.550 billion dollars plus the the productive capacity of the South was destroyed and the productive capacity of the North was wasted for half a decade. The productive labor force was reduced by the over $800,000 mortalities and millions of wounded.

No one accounts for the property hauled to Northern markets.

By 1872 a mere $100,000 million of the debt was repaid. The bankruptcy of 1872 brought in foreign investors that Andrew Jackson had paid back in 1835.

It took less than 40 years for the United States to beg foreign banks for a 20 year note. Twenty years later the note came due and a bank Panic followed. Another 20 year note was negotiated.

Fraud by the US Treasury and Banks brought on the Panic of 1907. Propaganda for a National Reserve system began as the expiration of another 20 year note loomed.

JPierpont Morgan died in March 1913 and by December the Federal Reserve Act was law. Morgan interests provided a counter-balance to the Rockefeller and Aldrich interests. The Aldrich Plan of 1912 was renamed, passed and signed.
http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

The rest tells one history of ever tightening regulation of non-member entities. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-3

By increasing the National Debt by 4000%, Lincoln killed the goose that laid golden eggs. Fifty years later the Federal Reserve Act was passed the US had only doubled the 1870 debt.

Priced in Gold governemnt has increased the Federal Debt by 4000%
http://pricedingold.com/charts/USFederalDebt-1900.pdf

Priced in $FRN the debt has increased 405,000% since 1913.

Now the Goose Lays golden eggs for foreign banking interest. All because Congress has no credit rating.

Without the 14th Amendment making citizens liable for the debt without question.

Without us Congress is not creditworthy.

Lincoln was just another dirty rotten politician.

Free includes debt-free!

Like all other people

Lincoln was a bit righteous, and a bit of a tyrant both. In my opinion he began as a righteous crusader, and ended up being a tyrant in the end in order to pursue his agenda. Was lincoln truely anti-slave...Yes, I believe so? Being an abolitionist, did Lincoln still believe the African American race to be inferior in a way that would classify him with the most virulaent skinhead type racists today...Yes. Did Lincoln crave power....I believe he absolutely did, as do generally all men who seek the presidency in a serious manner? Did Lincoln re-interpret the constitution on the fly, and stomp on civil rights in order to prosecute a war which he justified by saying that said war would "save" the union...Yes. Did he, in his zeal for union, destroy the very union he sought to protect and defend and thereby destroy the American experiment....yes. In short no one is all good or all bad, but we must all be very careful that our actions are corect lest we unwittingly destroy what we seek to protect by becomong ourselves the very things we seek to defend against.

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Honestly

How do you justify a War that killed 700,000+ of your own people?

Lincoln can be boxed and put away with Stalin as far as genocide.

Tyrant

And he was the start of the fall of the US. He had a great line of BS (like most lawyers) and used the excuse of keeping the union together to actually centralize the government. It went from being a republic to a government run dictatorship under his watch. That was his REAL agenda. He didn't give a hoot about slaves either. In fact he wanted to ship them all off to somewhere far away because he knew it was on it's way out and he didn't want all those slaves underfoot. Great guy huh? That's just the tip of the iceberg called Lincoln.

skippy

On the one hand he did give

On the one hand he did give the bankers the finger and started printing greenbacks, on the other hand the greenbacks were going towards funding an unjust war.

IMHO the southern states had every right under the constitution to secede. They were standing for the true spirit of america and states rights. Lincoln and most northern states wanted domination by the federal govt. in DC.

Oh, and btw the civil war had very little to do with slavery. It was a strategic move by Lincoln to hurt the economy of the south.

Not complicated

The Events that became known as The Civil War were simply crime.

The only reason why those events are supposedly complicated is falsehood, as the victims of those crimes are led to believe that those crimes are legitimate, moral, or in any way anything other than crimes.

In other words, if an observer can understand how crime is made legal then an observer can understand why the criminals have to destroy as much power as in necessary to keep the criminal power powerful.

What would government, which is called the law power, be if it was not criminal?

If the observer cannot even begin to answer the question just asked, then the observe cannot even begin to answer the questions asked as a discussion Topic.

1.
What would government, which is called the law power, be if it was not criminal?

2.
Was Lincoln a righteous man or a tyrant?

3.
What were the original reasons for the US going into the Civil War?

A non-criminal government allows volunteers to volunteer and a non-criminal government allows volunteers to stop being volunteers.

If you do not understand how that works, then you cannot answer the questions.

I can call upon two people to help explain how voluntary government works.

1. Patrick Henry
2. George Mason

Example 1:

"I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government—a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states—a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations."

Example 2:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

A Democratic Federated Government allows volunteers to join, and so does a Despotic (Criminal) Government.

What about getting out of the "Union" if the "Union" is despotic?

If the "Union" is despotic, it is criminal, and that was the warnings offered by those who saw behind the false front of The Constitution.

The victims are told that we are all one happy family of non-slaves, when the criminals take over, and that is as simple as any potential victim, ever, any human being ever alive at any time, seeing past an obvious, measurable, LIE.

I read someone respond in this thread claiming that Lincoln was the first "president" (Dictator) to draft military soldiers or some such wording. Is that true?

No.

The Dictator who seizes the power to kidnap and then force the victims to perpetrate violent acts upon the innocent is not called a "Draft", it is called crime, and it is crime made legal, and Lincoln was not the first Dictator in America to do that, since George Washington was the first Dictator in America and that is what George did when he managed to join forces with his fellow criminals - all nice and legal.

How about "in his own" words? How about in his own "official" words?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

___________________________________________________________
And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, when such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always, that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time;

And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- four, and of the independence of the United States of America the nineteenth.

G. WASHINGTON,
By the President, Edm. Randolph

Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794
___________________________________________________________

Further sources of information supporting the observable, and accurately measurable, reality of Crime having been made Legal in 1788:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Whiskey-Rebellion-Revolution-ebook...

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

In short, the voluntary nature (moral nature) of government was intolerable and incapable of empowering an involuntary (criminal) government POWER which must include a Legal Money Monopoly Power which is hidden behind false names such as National Debt.

Repeat:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

States that can volunteer to join the Union can also volunteer to pay Union Dues.

States that can leave a "Union" of criminals can un-volunteer their errant behinds and stop paying anything to those criminals as they alone see fit, without having to ask permission to leave the so called "Union".

OFFICIAL EVIDENCE:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The criminals gave themselves the license to commit crimes and make the victims pay for it, and that is a familiar story.

It is not complicated, it is as simple as any Theme in any Gangster Movie ever made, or any bully met by any child anywhere on the planet earth.

I remember an example in my own youth, riding my bicycle through a park in Newark New Jersey, at age 10 or so, having been stopped by a bully, and the bully had a few "Lieutenants" ready to stop me and take my bike. The bully tells me to give him my bike and there is an obvious "or else" consequence for failure to obey.

I rode away.

Had I transferred the bike, which was transferred to me from the store where my parents paid the store owner some number of Federal Reserve Notes, in exchange for the bike, had I done that, the Bully could then catch me anywhere I went from that moment on, in case I happened to be wearing his shirt too, or in case I happened to be breathing his air, or in case the blood in my body happened to be his too, and he wanted all that blood back too. The lieutenants may have also taken turns on their bike, running me down, as ordered too.

How about some help from Common Sense?

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." TP 1776

So Tom there can be forgiven for failing to see how government does not have to be an evil at all, as The Voluntary Union under The Articles of Confederation worked as a possible way to create, and maintain, a Free Market of Government Suppliers supplying government to the shoppers who demand voluntary government.

How can a simple minded former slave tell the difference between a Non Evil and an Evil government?

No one is listening?

Too stupefied by the tangled web of lies?

Again:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

What was that "confederation of the states"?

What is that "consolidated government"?

How about an official measure?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That is Hamilton's National Debt created by those Nationalists when they met in Philadelphia, shut the doors, enforced a Gag order on the secret proceedings, and made what became known as The Dirty Compromise, which ensured the events that became known as The Civil War.

The Monopoly North subjected the South to inequitable taxation and that was not a case of Federation, that was a case of Nationalization.

Federation is a Union of volunteer States that join, and pay Union dues at will, or secede from the voluntary Union, and of course not pay the Extortion Fees.

How does that work, by design?

The Federal (not the false federal which is national) Governors (governors are employees) have to supply what all the States (employers) demand or the Federal Employees start losing customers as States stop paying Union Dues as States choose to look for a better, higher quality, and lower cost, competitive Federal Government.

Were the Southern States truly Federated into one competitive Federal Government whereby any State in that voluntary union could secede or join at will, and pay, or not pay, Union dues at will?

Who knows, since that separate and sovereign confederation of States was invaded by an aggressive War POWER for PROFIT and those States were "volunteered" into the "voluntary" Union.

And the victims keep paying "Union" dues, or else.

Or else what?

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

That was not a civil war, it was legalized crime: war of aggression for profit, a familiar story.

Rewinding back the clock to 1794:

Generalissimo George Washington conscripted an army of "volunteers" taken from wherever George could nab them, kidnap them, within his Nation State, and then Georgie Boy invaded a Sovereign State called Pennsylvania, an aggressive war for profit, and what was the profit?

The tax on whiskey was a tax on a money competitor, as whiskey was not as good as gold, but it worked where gold was driven off (by Gresham's Law) by Hamilton's, and the Bankers Monopoly Money Pyramid Schemes. The invasion of the formerly sovereign State of Pennsylvania, by a Dictator in command of a slave army, was a war to enforce the profit of a Legal Monopoly Bank Power and the National Debt that is then made to flow into the hands of a few very POWERFUL criminals with badges that they give to themselves.

Complicated?

For dupes?

Joe

The Great Irony of Lincoln ...

... is that he is championed as the great defender of human rights, while the reality is that his actions showed that he didn't give a damn about human rights.

Also by 1860, every European country had already outlawed slavery (peacefully). There is no question the institution of slavery, which had existed for thousands of years, was already on its way out. There certainly was no need to fight a war over slavery, from Lincoln's perspective.

It was all about centralization of power, as his ideological hero was Henry Clay, and Clay's hero was Alexander Hamilton, the man at the Constitutional Convention who wanted a monarchy installed in the USA.

Lincoln's purpose for the Civil War: Preservation of the Union

You could almost say that freeing the slaves was an after-thought.

In the Process, he violated the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

He declared war as President (When that power was reserved to the Congress), set up a blockade of the South (again, without Congress), imposed martial law upon civilians and confiscated property. So I would argue for his being one of the all time worst presidents.

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

www.dailypaul.com/280083/jesus-christ-vic

ron paul has said

the entire war could have been avoided.

the best reading i've found is by tom delorenzo who has a number of articles at LRC and critiques of
the lincoln film as well as the PBS: civil war series by burns.

This is a pretty complicated

This is a pretty complicated issue.

The bottom line is that the slavery issue was more about political power than seeing blacks as equals. Lincoln said in the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858 he did not see blacks as equals, did not want them to hold office and did not want to to marry with whites, only 3 years before the war started. The North and the South were both looking to strengthen their power in Congress, and new states entering the Union would have tipped the scales for either side. That is really what this was about. Plus, the south produced the majority of goods in the country, and was paying the majority of the tariffs, while the industrialized north didn't export raw goods and therefore didn't have to pay the tariffs.

The term Civil War is quite the misnomer. A civil war by definition is about fighting for control over a current government. The south wanted to rescind their ratification of the Constitution, and establish a new government, free of tariffs. They simply did not feel they could get a fair shake any longer in Washington. This is why it should be called "The War Between the States".

If Constitutional government is good in your eyes, Lincoln cannot ever be considered one of the greatest presidents. Congress never declared war on the south. Lincoln locked up several newspaper editors and even, along with the "radical republicans" such as Thaddeus Stevens, bullied dissenting Congressman and Senators(most notably the Bayards of Delaware). Lincoln instituted the first draft(itself slavery), which led to draft riots, as shown in Scorsese's movie "Gangs of New York".

And onto slavery: As Ron Paul has said, we are the only country ever to get rid of slavery by murdering 1,000,000 of its' citizens. Could slavery have been ended a better way? Absolutely. Technology would have eventually ended it because it would have made it unnecessary. Slavery is not unique to black-Americans. It has existed since agriculture was invented, dating back before Moses lived, and it still exists today. If there was no slavery at the time, there would have been no other professions. Everyone would have had to farm their own food. But technology, such as the cotton gin and tractors, led to plantations not needing slaves. And I ask, how much faster would tractors and other tools been invented had the productive hands of the nation not been taken to make guns, cannons and bullets while the War between the States and Reconstruction raged on?

I have skipped many things, because this is a complicated issue. I skipped how Missouri's admission to Union was blocked (and destroyed the precedent of how states had always been admitted, by a Northern congressman), Lincoln's plan to re-colonize slaves to Africa, the real intent and effect of the Emancipation Proclamation, the total number of slaves in question in the new territories, Lincoln reinforcing Fort Sumter even though his Cabinet told him it would lead to war, and more. I would recommend you read and listen to everything you can find. LewRockwell.com is a great place to start. Also, most of his articles recommend good books. Thomas DiLorenzo, Clyde Wilson and Brion McClanahan are good authors to start.

Lincoln was more interested in preserving the Union at all costs, as it was, i.e. high tariffs on the South, with Congress controlled by the North. He didn't want to be the President remembered for destroying the United States. He wanted power, and he was bought and paid for by industrialists in the North, who all benefited greatly from protective tariffs forced upon the South. He deserves to be remembered as the President who truly destroyed our Republic, and laid the foundation for the leviathan we now have in Washington.

The nicest thing I can say about Lincoln is that...

...he is the TRUE father of our modern day United States of America.

Why do I say that? Because 1860 and before America is essentially different than post 1865 USA. From that point on, the constitution didn't matter and was used only when it was convenient, states were held involuntarily by force to be a "indivisble" nation, and all power was centralized.

The debate that had raged from before the Revolutionary war had been settled. We were going to have a strong centralized govt and not a weaker one....and we have been slipping down that slope at greater and greater speeds all the time.

King Lincoln Archive

Great resource on Lincoln here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html