39 votes

5 Myths About Abraham Lincoln

"Abraham Lincoln is one of the most revered presidents in eyes of many Americans. From lip-syncing in awful car commercials to being portrayed by elite actors in award-winning Hollywood productions, few historical figures - especially presidents - can match the level of popularity and respect of Honest Abe.

The problem is that the Abraham Lincoln known by most is a complete myth. Without a doubt, Lincoln caused more damage to individual rights and had less respect for the founding principles of our country than any other president before or since. In short, Lincoln was a tyrant. Here are five of the most common myths about Lincoln dispelled..."

Read the rest at:
http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com/2013/02/5-myth...

Comments appreciated!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thank You

I will be taking this to a parent teacher conference in the very near future.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

The all important MORAL high-ground....

Lincoln took that "moral high-ground" of slavery, and won the war. One can say that “Human freedom” won over the cause of “State Freedom”, or you can say that “Human Rights to Liberty” won over the cause of “State Rights to Liberty”.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Start Here!

Once again the Mises Institute comes through with everything that you need to start educating yourself, this time about Lincoln.

https://mises.org/media/search/1?q=lincoln

robot999's picture

Another Black Mark for Abe:

First "Republican" president!

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

Ok there was one good quality...

He understood the evils of private central banking. He introduced the greenback which wasn't perfect but it was a good start.

Ron Paul 2012

Well I guess I'm half wrong...

.... I just read that it wasn't that simple and that he was in favor of central banking,... I'm confused now as I've read two contradicting histories on this subject... Anyone ready to educate me? I am now confused?

Ron Paul 2012

Lincoln's reasoning for

Lincoln's reasoning for booting out the Rothschilds was the same as Napoleon's. It wasn't because he was against central banking, but because he wanted the power for himself/his party.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Really two histories of the US...through 1860 and 1860 to now.

Lincoln is the true father of our nation...we are a product of his accomplishments of compulsory union, centralized power and govt, and the idea of destroying the constitution in order to save it.

id have to agree... I used to

id have to agree... I used to say 1913 when the FED was created and the early progressive era. Now, I say the southern war for Independence

Great article

This is the reason why I would not (and still wont) bother to see the latest Lincoln biopic.

I have no doubt it's mainly based on fantasy and revisionist history.

I'm still not sure which is

I'm still not sure which is more factual... the Lincoln movie with Daniel Day Lewis or the vampire hunter one.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I'm black-indian-irish -- I'm freer on all counts NOW then were

my ancestors in 1860.

Most whites could not vote in 1790.

All women could not vote. 1920ish

Most all blacks could not vote 'till 1920ish.

Indians could not vote 'till 1920ish.

Blacks could not arm themselves 'till 1920ish -- in a militia sense.
---1000 or so hung per year for 40 years, un-abated.

Every president (including Washington) circumvented the Constitution.

So you think, given all that, that Lincoln (by himself) killed 600K people? He's the worse?

Hahahaha -- NO SENSE OF LIBERTY

You need to READ the arguments the Wealthy South made about going to war -- in every case (every state) sign-up for the CSA Constitution (which declared that slave expansion into western states and within their own states was ADMISSIBLE and IRREVOCABLE.

The Upper 6% took "us" to War then and they take us to War now -- there's no "special" bad politicians -- they all circumvented the Constitution.

Lincoln however made rape-sodomy-selling off-forced abortions illegal by ending slavery -- the WEALTHY Upper 6% of the South could have found another way to earn a living; that debate was 100 years old. Poor whites in the south suffered under the decision tree of the wealthy whites -- as has been the case for all euro-american history (predominately the case -- there are all types of wealthy people today but still the Upper 6% is 98% white).

"So you think, given all that, that Lincoln (by himself) killed

"So you think, given all that, that Lincoln (by himself) killed 600K people? He's the worse?"

Where does the OP make this claim?

Can you refute any of the claims that the OP actually does make or are you just interested in strawman arguments?

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

For the record...

I also have a mix of Irish, Indian, Black, and even some German (I'm also a woman) in my ancestry. My dads side of the family claimed to be "black dutch" until about 40-50 years ago to try to avoid being treated as a lower class... it's an interesting part of my history but I don't let it make me bitter.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

If "Honest Abe" were alive today would you buy him a beer?

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois

September 18, 1858

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.]

While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it.

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, [applause] - 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.]

My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.]

I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]

I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature - not in the Congress of the United States - and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

I haven't seen the Hollywood production yet, is this the part where Daniel Day Lewis gets the Oscar?

Oh great here we go... paying

Oh great here we go... paying for the imperfection of men. We get to pay for something that they compromised on. Something that has effected every culture, race, and religion in history; slavery that is. We get to pay for thousands of years of property rights that had been pasted down even in religious form. What rubbish. Until you think of all people as individuals, libertarianism or liberty in general is far from your grasp.

You Need To Read

"The REAL Lincoln". It didn't go down the way you think just because they taught it to you in public schools. Lincoln wanted to send all black people out of the country to get rid of them but then saw the opportunity to use the slave issue to his political advantage. Slavery had already been abolished in most other countries (peacefully) and Lincoln knew it was soon to happen in the US as well so he jumped on the chance to use it against the south. Besides that, you are NOT freer now. If you work then you are a wage slave, you are told how to live what to buy and what to eat. If you drive you are a slave to the oil companies. If you don't work you are still a slave to the stores AND THE GOVERNMENT. Lincoln started the end of the Republic and the beginning of the tyranny we call government now. It's sad when even people on DP still buy into the propaganda!

skippy

I read the "REAL" Lincoln and have "rebuked" it many times on DP

for the moronic premise (just one of them) that is EASY to disprove.

That premise being that the South (poor white men and wealthy white men "united") DID NOT want slavery to expand and that the CIVIL war was NOT FOUGHT over slavery.

NOW -- You go read the CSA Constitution, Declaration of Causes (each state argued), speeches by Fire Eaters and Secession Commissioners.

That should get you started toward "the causes" of the Civil War.

There are many other false premises in DiLorenzo's work -- very easy to disprove "thanks google."

If you support Ron Paul

then you believe that voting and lobbying MUST lead toward liberty -- if you voted and lobbied for him.

In 1860 ('till 1920ish) "my people" could not vote.

If your family is of poor whites going back to 1790 then most of them probably couldn't vote either -- in some states catholics couldn't vote and there were also asset restrictions on voting (in most states back then).

If you think voting and lobbying is the pathway to consumer-sovereignty then you CAN'T think "my people" (and probably most of yours -- all your women anyway) were FREER back then.

If you think that LIBERTY means the right to bare arms, purchase whatever you wanted, and own assets (pass inheritance etc) then how could you think prior to Lincoln "my people" (or yours -- all your women for sure) was a freer period.

According to Mises consumer-sovereignty is the basis of liberty (free-markets) -- could blacks buy what they wanted, Indians, come and go as they chose?

Was all of slavery built off of debt -- yes it was -- so wealthy whites (in the south -- who wanted to expand slavery), not paying for the full-cost of slavery (it was gov't backed and subsidized), and owing to Factorage (or is Fractorage) were BY YOUR DEFINITION "slaves" as well -- SO NO ONE WAS FREE.

You cannot have a partial consumer-sovereignty -- either all consumers (people) are free to consume as they wish or they are not.

Could blacks and Indians own and carry guns freely -- can we now?

We are differently enslaved now -- yes -- but rape-sodomy and the selling off of ones children is far far far far far worse then what we have today. Women are freer today so are Indians.

I'm not saying I like it -- I have family in Cuba -- let them tell you who is freer Americans or Cubans.

I'm just thankful all those people fought for my freedom -- wish it could have gone differently; but the Upper 6% of the South wanted slavery and their debt-dependent profits to expand westward and wanted rape-sodomy-etc (slavery) to be UN-ABOLISH-ABLE (according to the CSA Constitution) and that's not Liberty (in Ron Paul terms).

Until you understand that

Until you understand that even early United States was not perfect. Including, the alien and sedition acts that silenced free speech only years after the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written. Libertarianism is an ideal and early America was the closest. In fact, I think the articles of confederation actually was superior... we had just fought off the largest empire to exist until, the US. No shit people didnt wanna pay more taxes... they had just given everything

I'm sorry I do not understand how I got ONE single down vote

Everything I said is true.

Blacks, Women, and Indians are freer today then in 1860.

And ALL white men (mostly referring to non-WASP and non-landowning) are freer today then in 1790.

IF -- IF you believe that voting and lobbying is a pathway to liberty.

If you are like me and do not believe that you can abdicate consumer sovereignty nor bribe your way into liberty then in "some" regards white men are not freer (the non-WASPS and non-landowning from 1790) as compared to today.

But ALL blacks, Indians, and women are freer today then in 1790, 1860, and 1920.

If you understand the NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty then you MUST agree with the above.

During the Black Codes and much of Jim Crow a black man could be imprisoned for simply being un-employed -- Chain Gang Work (remember).

Are we ALL "free" (in Mises terms) today -- no, of course not.

My argument is we need to stop "harking" back to "freer" times when those times get progressively worse the further you go back.

If you term things in literal tax dollars thefted, sure we are less free. But Blacks - Women - Indians could not own the true value of their labor, they had little to no rights, and they could not vote -- let's ignore land-theft, broken treaties, slavery, and what happened to widowed or divorced women.

Just to clear up..

If you drive you are a slave to the oil company?? Everyone is a slave to 'oil' unless they live completely off the grid, at which point, they are still connected to oil in some fashion.

Everything you consume is related to oil. It is produced somewhere and the electricity was likely partially supplied by natural gas. It was then shipped across the country (or likely, the world) using large amounts of oil. Not to mention it is in a plastic container or is entirely made up of plastic. I am so damn tired about people saying they are slaves to the oil companies. Your support of the industry is what keeps the machine going. Isnt that capitalism?? OPEN YOUR EYES.

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

Abe Lincoln

was a pig, and that is my only comment. I like your blog:)

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Well that's an incredibly

Well that's an incredibly nice compliment. Considering a lot of the responses I get elsewhere are people threatening me with castration or hoping for my death via radiation poisoning, it's refreshing to know that someone likes what I'm doing.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Wow!

You know you're doing good when people hate you I guess? Lol!
I have actually stumbled across your blog before and read a lot. It's a great tool. Keep up the good work!

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Great article and great blog.

Great article and great blog. This is inspiring. I am thinking about starting a blog for libertarian analyses of local and state politics. Just haven't sat down and done it yet.

Thank you so much! You should

Thank you so much!

You should definitely start up your own site. The internet is the greatest tool in our educational war against big government and corruption. All it takes is exactly as you said: just sitting down and doing it.

Once you do get it going, let me know at simplefacts.plainarguments@gmail.com. I'll put a link to your site on mine.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

burmp

.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com