37 votes

Abraham Lincoln Saved America from Central Banking Tyranny

There seems to be a group of people that view Lincoln as some kind of an anti-central-banker prophet for the cause of "debt-free" currency. This sentiment is one which is particularly confounding when one considers Lincoln's affiliations and agenda throughout his political career. Along with ending the concept of a federal government whose powers are justly derived from the consent of the states and their citizens, Lincoln also could be called the father of the modern monetary-dictatorship. He was a fierce defender of the Whig Party platform and advocate of an American central bank, he was also a mercantilist who continuously supported a more nationalist, centrally planned economic system.

Lincoln did all that he could to expand the federal government's role in economic planning. Passing the Legal Tender act in 1862, which forced the acceptance of the greenbacks that Lincoln had issued to pay for the war effort. He then signed the National Banking Act of 1863 which imposed a tax on currencies issued through the state banks. He also was in favor of grand government spending projects like the transcontinental railroad which he signed into law and over-saw the beginning of its construction. The transcontinental railroad ended up being a massive example of government waste and corruption, running many multiples over budget, and leading the United States into an era of rail subsidies which became the center of an economic crash in 1873.

To be sure, a currency which can be manipulated through central bank policy is always a bad idea as it will always lead to cyclical fluctuations and economic instability, and Lincoln's version of monetary policy was not different. The claim that the currency created under the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864 was debt free, meaning that the government did not have to go into debt to a bank to issue new currency, is not actually true. Though the federal government was the actual issuer of the national currency, it also issued treasury bonds to the banks to hold as reserve behind the cash it was handing out. It was actually far closer in execution to the system of currency creation which exists today than most would admit. And, more importantly, this means that the government actually did pay interest to the banks for doling out and accepting their currency.

Just the mere fact that Lincoln was in favor of a central bank further proves his vision of a subordinate position for the state governments, as well as it demonstrates his lack of concern for any real constitutional limitations on the federal government's ability to legislate. The national banking debate had been at the center of the divide in US politics from the very inception of the constitution. Those that did not acknowledge the danger to liberty brought about by a highly centralized national government took the stance, which was first used by Alexander Hamilton to institute the National Banking Act of 1791, that Article One Section Eight of the enumerated powers gave virtually unlimited power to the congress to pass legislation on anything which could be defined as being for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Hamilton argued that the term general welfare specifically included anything concerning the general interests of learning, agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.

Those that opposed this interpretation cited the fact that such a broad reading would essentially make the previous enumerated powers pointless and that to even argue such a position was absurd, as the language used in Article One Section Eight was also used in the Articles of Confederation and understood for years prior as nothing that could extend the powers of the national legislature beyond what had specifically been delegated to them. Nonetheless, it is this specific clause which has served the uses of the federal government to denigrate the states into the subordinate, province-like, position that they now hold. This was the position of Lincoln. He used it to crush the sovereignty of the state governments in the legislature just as he crushed their ability to resist his tyranny on the battlefield.

There are many brilliant pieces of writing about Lincoln's true stance on abolition and the real motives behind his invasion of the South. This post is simply to point out the fallacy of those who praise Lincoln as an endearing free-marketeer; as a man who bravely stood between the American economy and the tyranny of the international bankers and their evil debt-based money. This position is plainly untrue. Lincoln may not have contracted out the creation of American currency, but he did issue treasury bonds to the banks to hold as reserve in place of gold that he promised to pay, plus interest, in the future. The American tax payer DID pay interest to banks for dispensing currency. And the money supply WAS inflated and mismanaged to pay for an illegal and unjust war and many wasteful government spending programs. And finally, Lincoln also set in stone the broad interpretation of Article One Section Eight, which has been used to justify all of the encroachments committed by the American government against the liberties of the people, leading to the despotic consolidation under which we must endure today.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

yes

has been discussed before:
http://www.dailypaul.com/123387#comment-1582040

Lincoln and his dick invented greenbacks, like Col. Saunders invented fried chicken:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.0

chicken or egg?

The description above seems to paint the picture that Lincoln was in favor of government involvement in economic planning, and then it is presented as a consequence that he supported grand projects like the transcontinental railroad.

In point of fact, Lincoln was a surveyor, lawyer, and land speculator for the railroad companies in the Northwest long before his aspirations to grand projects and economic planning. The transcontinental railraod project was an exploitive government based endeavor from the get-go, and Lincoln, though a relatively minor player, was heavily influenced by his involvement in it. By the time he had political power, he was already very much committed to the Northern route---which was one of the main disputes leading to the late unpleasantness among the states---and to the harvesting of labor from the general population through taxation to fund it. These were (as far as I can tell) rather than consequences, actually the foundation of many of his consequent political positions and actions.

The transcontinental railraod and centrally planned transportation decisions (think the emergence of the automobile culture and the interstate highway system) are exceedingly interesting to study and much more influential in our current sorry state of affairs than is generally recognized.

People often ask anarchists, "Who will build the roads?" The real answer to that question is very surprising: No one would voluntarily create such ghastly unsustainable things.

after rereading and rethiking

this thread has provided an excellent opportunity to identify zionist propagandists in our midst. I now have a better grip on which accounts are liberty-lovers and which are shills.

thanks!

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Abraham Lincoln certainly

Abraham Lincoln certainly expanded the government's powers, in times of war...but after he the war, government shrank, taxes were ended, tariffs were ended, and executive power curtailed. It was another 50 years before governmental power really started to rise.

So how is it that Lincoln is blamed for the expansion of the government?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Federal spending as a

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP had dropped to only 1.75% in 1912, lower than it was under the Articles of Confederation.

1.75% of GDP today would be entire annual federal budget of only about $263 billion.

Lincoln was actually very modest in his expansion of powers compared to 1000 other wars of history.

The states who sold out in 1913 and amended the Constitution is the true cause of our problems today.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I would tend to agree. But

I would tend to agree. But Lincoln is an easy target for the many conservative Southerners still bitter about losing the Civil War.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

He's a target for many reasons

mostly because he is responsible for the murder of so many Americans and for having conscripted Irish immigrants to die for his goal to be attained.

He was dead

after the war....is that your point

My point is that if Lincoln

My point is that if Lincoln is the one responsible for an out-of-control federal government, why is it that, metrically, government post-Lincoln operated much the same it did pre-Lincoln for more than 40 years?

The only major thing that changed post-Lincoln was, well, slavery and how the South treated Blacks. Truly, Lincoln had a hand in preventing the states from dealing with those issues internally, but I don't consider that at all a bad thing.

Primarily, this disconnect has to do with how these issues affect you. I think part of the issue is that if you are a white male, you only see the downsides. Civil war or not, you'd still conceivably be a free person today. But if you are black, or a minority, or a woman, the benefits gained from Lincoln administration far outweighs any of the negatives. I think this is why people get offended when people like Judge Napolitano or Tom Woods kind of dismiss those other things out of hand...ie "yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves and started the wheels for equal protection under the law...but we have to pay more taxes thanks to him!" is somewhat silly to hear at times....

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Here is something i posted when the movie Lincoln came out

At the end there will be a link to a site comparing the U. S. Constitution vs the Confederate States Constitution. Once you are in tune with the concept of mercantilism the differences will be apparent.
The root cause of the Civil War was the mercantilist agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the U. S. Constitution. I understand that this will be uncomfortable at first, but please just open your mind up to the concepts and the pieces will fall into place and the picture will be clear.

Before you see the movie Lincoln

Lincoln’s economic legacy is the fraud, waste, abuse, economic inefficiency and corruption of mercantilism which Lincoln's idol Henry Clay referred the American System.

Like many prominent figures of his time, such as Robert E. Lee, who freed the slaves he had inherited-----Lincoln was bothered by slavery and wished that it would disappear from the face of the earth. But he admittedly viewed his own emancipation policy as a means to an end being to ‘save the union” or more precisely to establish federal supremacy over the states and the citizens in order in this struggle. Lincoln wrote in his famous August 22 1862 letter to Horace Greeley” is to save the union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without feeing the slaves I would do it.

Contrary to the impression one gets from reading popular historical accounts of Lincoln as a statesmen and constitutional philosopher he spent virtually his entire political career prior to 1860 engulfed in the dirty works of party politics. Lincoln was not a guileless naïve and unsophisticated backwoodsman and rail splitter. He was a shrewd cynical manipulative politician who was not above playing dirty trick such as writing anonymous letters to the editor of newspapers denouncing his political opponents.

From the moment Lincoln first entered political life as a candidate for the state legislature during the 1832 presidential election “writes historian Robert Johannes” he had demonstrated an unwavering fidelity to Henry Clay and “The American System”.
By 1838 Lincoln had worked his way up to the position of leader of the Illinois Whig party. Lincoln spent nearly three decades preceding his election as president working tirelessly in the trenches of the Whig and (after 1856 the Republican parties) to organize voters in Illinois and other states of the Whigs mercantilist agenda.

Mercantilism which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeen and eighteen centuries was a system which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of Imperial state power as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individual or group favored by the state.

This is what the Whigs stood for: the acquisition of political power through the dispensation of patronage. They had no grand philosophy or ideology; they wanted political power and private riches and had no qualms about using taxpayer’s money as the mechanism for acquiring these things.

Clay was the champion of that political system (the Whigs) which doles out favors to the strong in order to win and keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises. He was the beloved son (figuratively speaking) of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt and a tax to make certain corporation profitable when they cannot stand alone.

Lincoln understood that patronage was the route to political power and potentially to personal wealth. In 1859 Lincoln declared that he was always a Whig in his politics. And indeed he was. Both he and his wife were ardent admirers of Henry Clay the leader of the Whigs. In his 1852 eulogy to Clay, Lincoln declared Henry Clay as the undisputed leader of the Whigs and “The American System” and Lincoln professed Clay as his idol and role model.

The American Whig party was founded in 1832 as a reaction to President Andrew Jackson abolition in 1832 of the Second Bank of the United States. The name “Whigs” was chosen to imply that these men were opposed to despotism and centralized government tyranny as were the American Whigs of 1776 and earlier the British Whigs who advocated Classical Liberalism ( today refer as Libertarian).
But the vary name Whig was a cleverly contrived deception. The nineteenth century American Whigs were in face the champion of centralized consolidated government and all students of political philosophy understood at the time (Much better than they do today) that centralization of political power was destructive to liberty.
Mercantilism relies crucially on the spreading of economic fallacies. Lincoln also believed in a crude version of the Marxian labor theory of value. Announcing that “free trade perpetuated a system whereby some have labored and others have without labor enjoyed a larger portion of the fruits. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor or as nearly as possible is a most worthy object of any good government.”

Like all Whigs Lincoln was in favor of inflationary finance through the printing of paper money by a central bank or if need be by state government banks and was an ardent opponent of a monetary system based on gold or any other precious metal.

Lincoln was always a Whig and was almost single mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda of protectionism, central banking and corporate welfare for the railroads and shipping industries –euphemistically referred to as “Internal Improvements”, Lincoln was such a blind follower of the Whig party line that many of his economic policy speeches were embarrassingly illogical and sounded dumb and foolish.
He was influential in passing legislation with regard to the third major element of Whigs corporate welfare or internal improvements. At the time the use of federal funds for so called internal improvement, such as subsidies to the railroad industry were widely unconstitutional. But thanks to Lincoln’s political skills, Illinois was a leader in using state tax revenue for such purposes. The Illinois experience in government funded: internal Improvement, under Lincoln political leadership provided a case study of why such uses of tax dollars were viewed with great suspicion. The internal improvement system that was an adoption of which Lincoln had played such a prominent part had collapsed with the result that Illinois was left an enormous debt and an empty treasury.

The battle with Andrew Jackson over the recharting of the Second bank of the United States is what ignited the creation for the Whig party in the North. The Whig political strategy was as simple as it was corrupt; promise to plunder the taxpayers for the benefit of corporations and banks in return for the everlasting financial support ( and kickback) from those same entities all the while drowning the public in the false rhetoric opposing executive tyranny, championing the small family farm.

A central bank and high protectionist tariff were the key stones to the Whigs plan for political plunder for that’s how the massive internal improvements schemes were to be funded and monopolies created. Jackson was the mortal political enemy, for he regarded the bank as dangerous to liberty of the American People because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control. Jackson understood the implication of a politicized money supply as well as the Whigs did. The difference between them was that Jackson thought the results would be unequivocally bad for the country; the Whigs understood that a politicized money supply was a key to their personal advancement and wealth accumulation. Jackson condemned the bank as a vast electioneering engine which had the power control the government and change its character. That’s exactly what they wanted and have done……..they won the war.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Now you know what mercantilism looks like oyu can see the South was actually trying to right the wrongs of the U. S. Constitution.

Interesting comment Goldspan.

but it does nothing to restore the idea of this sites message, other than an effort to promote how government went bad here or there.

Have you ever thought about the fact that it is the ring of power that is the problem?

Hate comes when you want to transgress upon others. Simple as that.

Do you disagree?

What I hate is the way you phrased the question,

You phrased your statement as a positive then asked me a negative, so that if I disagree with you…..I am the one being combative……I bet you didn’t even know you did it. You could have phrase it in the positive……as in ………“Do you agree?”

Just for the record “hate “comes from ignorance and arrogance…..the inability of understanding, the lack of empathy….. a condescending superiority complex and the lack of seeing other peoples view of things. And just plain selfishness and egotism.

So yeah I disagree…… “Hate comes when you want to transgress upon others”….this is the context of a verb……..retaliatory hate come from being transgressed upon. Hate mostly come from the State commanding upon its citizens to inflict terror upon the citizens of another State for their own gain…..if this is what you are referring to as the “ring of power”…..you have a point…….if it is more conspiracy kook crap….then …no.

And if you think I have any way stated this position……

“but it does nothing to restore the idea of this sites message, other than an effort to promote how government went bad here or there”.

Then you obviously have not comprehended anything I have said……..in fact I have stated quite emphatically that is the position you are stating…….my position has been and will always be the “State” itself is the problem……not just a few bad apples…….So how do you like dem apples?

The powers that Lincoln assumed during the war were not

returned after it was over. It did not take 50 years for the power to rise again. Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson instituted the Jim Crow laws and essentially assumed dictatorial powers over the south to keep it from rising again. The government became increasingly involved in the economy over the years after Lincoln as well. This lead to a massive state of corruption which came to a head under Ulysses S. Grant known as Grantism.

Lincoln's legacy was really the precedent he set for states as subordinates to the federal government rather than equal parties in a federal compact. Secession was a last resort for the states to resist federal encroachments on their constitutional limitations and Lincoln made clear that secession was not going to be permitted; essentially leaving no options for states to resist future trespasses.

For example, his suspension

For example, his suspension of habeus corpus was ended.

Andrew Johnson did not institute Jim Crow. The Southern States passed racist Black Codes, and when the federal government moved to stop them, Johnson intervened. Trying to blame Jim Crow on the federal government is absolutely ridiculous.

"The government became increasingly involved in the economy over the years after Lincoln as well."

Specifics? Following the decades after Lincoln, government spending as a % of the economy was very similar to what it was before. Some major projects like the railroads are the function of the federal government due to the commerce clause.

"Lincoln's legacy was really the precedent he set for states as subordinates to the federal government rather than equal parties in a federal compact."

Lincoln's legacy is that he freed the slaves. If you want to know what broke federalism, it was the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 17th amendments(the last of which was passed LONG after Lincoln).

Let me ask you this: Would you have preferred that the South kept its independence and its slaves?

See, I take it from the perspective that on this issue of slavery, the States DESERVED to be subordinates to the federal government. The South was afraid that the federal government would prevent their ability to hold slaves...they were right to fear that, and the federal government was absolutely correct, moral, and just in its aim to rid the nation of slavery.

"Secession was a last resort for the states to resist federal encroachments on their constitutional limitations"

That is the party line (actually, it really isn't. Revisionists today use that as a party line; Confederates in the past were very open about how slavery was the #1 issue why they seceded). In reality, secession was the last resort for the states to keep their slaves.

"Lincoln made clear that secession was not going to be permitted; essentially leaving no options for states to resist future trespasses."

Right, because to seceded, you need permission.

FYI, the states FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS resisted future trespasses. They resisted integration, for example. They still resist Roe vs. Wade, Obamacare, etc. So this notion that Lincoln killed the South's ability to resist future trespasses is nonsense.

In reality, some states have throughout our history tried to resist federal encroachment, and they've simply lost that battle many times. They've also won that battle at times.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

It was not only the southern

It was not only the southern states that passed black codes, the north states ALSO passed such codes. Although the idea of slavery was unpopular in the north, racism was pretty universal throughout the states. Indeed many northern states had black codes dating back to the 1700's.

http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

And How could you possibly argue that Lincoln did not break

federalism? Is there really any denying that the union no longer derived its power from the consent of the states after Lincoln forced them to remain under his administration's authority? Combine this with your, and Lincoln's, interpretation of article one section eight and you have a government unchallenged in their authority, whose legislative powers are limited only by their imagination and beliefs as to what the term "general welfare" really means.

Slavery would have ended without the civil war

it was an inefficient economic institution. When one considers this argument all they think of is that slavery is free labor, but forced labor does not compete with market incentives as far as production and quality. Slavery was ended peacefully in every modern western nation of the world except the United States, the nation that most people consider to be the most liberal. Lincoln was hardly an abolitionist and if this were the main reason for the secession of the south, how do you explain the Horace Greeley letter? In which Lincoln admitted that if he could save the union without ending slavery he would have. Or that Lincoln signed the 1851 fugitive slave laws into continuation even though they had repeatedly been challenged as unconstitutional. Had the fugitive slave laws been softened or repealed it would have mad slavery extremely difficult to maintain in the South.

The Commerce Clause; Article 1 Section 8:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

This clause was clearly not written to give federal authority to initiate commerce in any particular state. Excuse me because I am at work and have little time, but I will find the explanation for the clause in the federalist papers and the defense of it as nothing that would make greater the powers of the legislature than that which was already defined in the enumerated powers when I have a minute. The idea of an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, like the one which you just defended, was a whig party platform plank, and one that Lincoln defended quite consistently; there are many examples of this in the Lincoln v Douglas debates and several other speeches. The rail road programs and the scandal with credit mobilier are perfect examples of massive government over-reach and would not have been possible without the national banking system. It was one of the main reasons for its existence going back to the first national banking act of 1792, but at least the first two national banks had charters that could expire. To say that the permanent institution of such a thing was not a great expansion of government power and did not obviously increase governments role, or ability to have a role, in the economy is a bit absurd.

Slavery was ended peacefully

Slavery was ended peacefully because those government simply said "slavery is now ended", and it ended. Ron Paul likes to say that the Federal government should have merely purchased the slaves from the slaveholders and then freed the. Except if the slaveholders didn't want that, why would they agree to it? Should the government have forcibly freed the slaves?

Ironically, the reason that slavery had to be ended via war in the US was because the government lacked the means to do it via legislation...in other countries, people were only familiar with authoritarian governments that would simply proclaim laws, and then they would follow it.

Economically speaking, the cost of production went way, way, way up from the end of the war until 1907. So I am not too sure if slavery was really that economically inefficient...after all, isn't paying people slave wages today a big reason for the purchasing power of the average American?

Lincoln was an abolitionist in principle, but not as a President. As he said consistently during his term, he believed that slavery was evil, but he also believed that the Constitution mandated him to protect the rights of Southern slaveholders. Which is WHY he signed the fugitive slave law...he believed it to be in line with the Constitution.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

So you believe that the entire country would have to be enslaved

to a dictatorship to bring about a peaceful end to the institution of slavery?? You are making an assumption of governments, like that of Great Britain and especially of The Dutch, at the time as being way more authoritarian than they actually were. Many states in the north had already ended slavery without a war, though not necessarily peacefully, before the civil war. They had fought and elected abolitionist politicians to end slavery there. Yes it would have been very difficult to do in the southern states, but I can guarantee that the price would have been much less than 800,000 American lives and the enormous amount of money spent.

The idea that Lincoln was not an abolitionist president throws a wrench in the idea that slavery was the main issue for secession as well. Lincoln was way too quick to go to war. Even if the south had been allowed to secede this would have made easier the northern movement to assist runaway slaves, making slavery increasingly difficult to maintain. The "authoritarian" governments which had ended slavery peacefully, including the British, Dutch, Spanish, French, Brazilian, Danes, and others, did so each in there own way and on different scales. Lincoln could have much more easily learned from their struggles in order to peacefully bring slavery to a close in the United States. But he was more interested in a war to consolidate the states under his authority.

What? Let me give you one

What? Let me give you one very telling tidbit and hopefully you can figure it out from here. Prior to Lincoln America was referred to as "these United State" and after it changed to "the United States". While it may seem so at first glance, that's not a subtle distinction.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I don't see your point. How

I don't see your point.

How does the change in how the US states were referred relate to how government grew? Or how powers Lincoln had used were made permanent?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Although it became known as

Although it became known as "The United States" after Lincoln, in fact it became The United State. All citizens, in time, became federal citizens of THE STATE, the United States. Prior to this you were a citizen of your state, and not subject to federal laws. You were under the jurisdiction of your state. Federal citizens are under the jurisdiction of the United STATE, the federal government. This was a 180 degrees in opposition to what was established in 1789, where the people were not subject to the federal government in any way.

BUT, it should be noted that it was the Radical Republicans, not Lincoln that enacted this. Lincoln was indeed a Republican, but not tied with the Radicals who in reality did not like Lincoln.

What the Radicals accomplished would not have been possible without Lincoln's war.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

that's 1871... after lincoln

THE UNITED STATES came into being in 1871... after Lincoln was dead.

and as that corporation is under the crown, the crown is under your masters.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Unfortunately Lincoln did

Unfortunately Lincoln did more to massively expand the central leviathan than any POTUS prior to him and. By destroying the power of individual states, he set the stage for the ultimate takeover of the central bankers. Lincoln is one of the worst presidents of them all. Sic semper tyrannis.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Lincoln was responsible for the unCivil War,

where over 600,000 Americans were killed, and maybe 1,200,000 injured. According to DiLorenzo, with today's population, these figures would mean 5,000,000 killed and possibly 10,000,000 injured; an incredible fact.
I think obama models himself after Lincoln, playing the same kind of politics, says one thing and doing another; acting conservative among conservatives and liberal among liberals, and has enormous disdain for the U.S. Constitution.

bigmikedude's picture

Oh c'mon now

You know none of this can be true about Lincoln because his head was carved on Mt. Rushmore and they told us a way more better story in high school and on MSNBC.

Don't mess with us educated voters.

perhaps the single best

perhaps the single best one-liner comment I've read on the DP. Well done.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

It is prudent for someone to

It is prudent for someone to not say a word about Lincoln until they have read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. I say this because there is not a soul here who at one time or another who hasn't been spoon fed the Lincoln-Messiah myth. Read the other side of the argument. You may not agree with DiLorenzo, but at least you will be well informed. If spending $11 for one of the best books you'll ever read is too much money, check out this LewRockwell.com article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/10/adam-young/the-real-abrah...

Link to The Real Lincoln
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761536418/lewrockwell/

While running for Congress in the early 1830's Lincoln said

"My policies are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a National Bank, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thankful; and if not, it will be all the same." source

He was a tool of the crony capitalists then and so he remained.
When he ran for Congress this time, it was around the time Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States, and Congress had passed the Tariff of Abominations that South Carolina refused to collect.

In exchange for the passage of the Kansas / Nebraska Act that gave the South an opportunity to retain control of the Senate, Congress passed a bill to fund the building a transcontinental railroad from Chicago to San Fransisco, CA.

In 1860, a new tariff was passed more than doubling the tax rate on imports which Lincoln threatened to use military force to collect from the seven seceding states. (see his first inaugural address)

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Outstanding point Weirami !!!!!!!!!!!!

"My policies are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a National Bank, I am in favor of the Internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thankful; and if not, it will be all the same."

Lincoln’s economic legacy is the fraud, waste, abuse, economic inefficiency and corruption of mercantilism which Lincoln's idol Henry Clay referred the American System.

National Bank
Internal improvement system
High protective tariff
and war

The corruption of mercantilism .....The American System, brought to this country by Alexander Hamilton…..study the roots of the U.S. Constituion….it will make you sick.