# Think Tank > History >  Was Lincoln a Marxist?

## Brian4Liberty

Was Lincoln a Marxist?

Now, let me start this out by saying that re-visiting Lincoln and the Civil War is a losing political strategy. For that reason, I have never looked very deeply into the questions of Lincoln. I have not read any of DiLorenzo's books, although I catch the occasional short Youtube speech by him. My preference has been to see the issue as a battle of big government (Taxes and Lincoln maintaining the Union), vs. the South wanting to be free from the central Federal government. The end of slavery was a positive result, but was probably not the actual cause of the Civil War. Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and setting a precedent for ignoring the Constitution was a negative side-effect. No doubt many who believe in "the ends justify the means" philosophy embrace both of those side effects, i.e. the rule of law had to be sacrificed for the goal of eliminating slavery.

It must be clear, this is all a losing and divisive issue in politics, and should take a back seat to current political debate. And there is no doubt in the world that the end of slavery was an extremely positive step in the evolution of society.

But then they had to continue the push of Lincoln. Movies, articles, etc. And at the same time, they demonize Jefferson. Obviously they want to bring this battle to the forefront, as it applies today to big government vs. small government. Was Obamacare Constitutional? Did it pass through the Congress in the appropriate way? Did the Supreme Court make the correct ruling? They want to say it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. Obamacare is good, and nothing should stand in the way of a "benevolent" big brother, even if the Constitution and the rule of law must be ignored.

The issue is being forced, so some outstanding questions needed to be answered: 

- Why do so many pundits, politicians and media go apoplectic when there is any criticism of Lincoln? Does it just spoil their agenda of an all powerful big government? Or are they just as ignorant as most of us, and associate Lincoln with nothing more and nothing less than slavery?
- What is the origin of subtle hints in the media and movies that Lincoln is somehow a hero of communists?
- Neo-conservatives and leftists both have in common this hysteria about Lincoln. They also share a Marxist philosophical heritage. Coincidence?

Thus, the question is posed: was Lincoln a Marxist? The answer is quite surprising.

Let's start with a quick timeline of Lincoln and Marx. Americans are so ignorant of history that they often do not realize that Marx and Lincoln were contemporaries.

- Lincoln born: February 12, 1809
- Marx born: May 5, 1818
- Marx publishes a book about Emancipation: 1843
- Marx expelled from France as a radical: 1845
- Lincoln elected to US House: 1846
- Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto: February 1848
- Marx is a contributor to the New York Tribune (Lincoln's favorite newspaper), 1851-1861
- Lincoln runs for U.S. Senate vs. Douglas, famous Lincoln-Douglas debates occur: 1858
- Lincoln becomes US President: 1860
- Civil War Starts: 1861
- Emancipation Proclamation: January 1, 1863


A quick Google search of Lincoln and Marx points to a relevant article. Who better to describe the connections of Lincoln and Marx than the International Socialist?




> Unless, of course, we bother to examine the tattered copies of the *American outlet for Marx’s revolutionary preachments* during the period when Lincoln was preparing to leave the political wilderness and make his march to the presidency. That journal, the *New York Tribune*, was the most consistently influential of nineteenth-century American newspapers. Indeed, this was the newspaper that engineered the unexpected and in many ways counterintuitive delivery of the Republican nomination for president, in that most critical year of 1860, to an Illinoisan who just two years earlier had lost the competition for a home-state U.S. Senate seat...
> ...
> Lincoln’s involvement was not just with Greeley but with his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier- and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.
> ...
> Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities...
> ...
> Within a decade, Korner would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.
> ...
> The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and *Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates* and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich. 
> ...


So it seems that there is a connection between Lincoln and Marx, albeit with a single degree of separation, where Lincoln and Marx were not personal friends, but shared some acquaintances. The ideas and philosophies of Marx and his associates was no doubt well known to Lincoln, as Lincoln was an avid reader of everything, including newspapers which supported him such as the New York Tribune. It seems that Lincoln was as attached to the New York Tribune as John McCain is today attached to the Weekly Standard. 

In all fairness to Lincoln, this was a new philosophy, with the good intention of helping the common man. Hindsight is 20/20, and Lincoln did not live to see the road to hell that eventually resulted, best represented by Lenin and Stalin. In Lincoln's time, the philosophy was about good intentions. That being said, we can never lose sight of the fact that the Civil War was the result of many converging and diverging agendas, not just one or another.

Now back to the original questions:

- Why do so many pundits, politicians and media go apoplectic when there is any criticism of Lincoln? Does it just spoil their agenda of an all powerful big government? Or are they just as ignorant as most of us, and associate Lincoln with nothing more and nothing less than slavery?

Probably all of the above. They believe in a big, activist government, and they also believe that the ends justify the means. All good intentions, never any thought about slippery slopes or the road to hell that often results. For those who are completely in the know, the venom is probably a way to divert from the Marxist roots. Any question of Lincoln is blasphemy. They want to leverage that into attacking any questioning of an enormous and all-powerful, central, activist government. They want to equate it with Lincoln, and therefore stifle any criticism.

- What is the origin of subtle hints in the media and movies that Lincoln is somehow a hero of communists?

Solved. They were contemporaries, and had shared associations. Those in the know will hint at it just for fun (or bragging as the International Socialist might do).

- Neo-conservatives and leftists both have in common this hysteria about Lincoln. They also share a Marxist philosophical heritage. Coincidence?

Once again, keeping a lid on the Marxist connections is probably a shared motive for those who truly know the history. For others, who just have a surface knowledge, they have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to recoil in horror at any criticism or "non-approved" discussion of Lincoln.

- Thus, the question is posed: was Lincoln a Marxist?

How could Lincoln be a Marxist if the label of "Marxism" was probably not in common usage yet? They were contemporaries who could influence each other, with shared connections. Hindsight is 20/20, and the dangers that evolved from Marxism later had not even occurred yet. It was a time of evolving philosophy. Are there knowledgeable socialists and Marxists (or those who have roots in those philosophies) today that know the connection, and relish it? Probably a few.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Has anyone read any of the DiLorenzo books on Lincoln? Is the Lincoln connection to Marx discussed?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I wish I had something to contribute to the thread, but thanks for writing.  It was interesting.

----------


## erowe1

Some of his cohorts were.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republican...dp/0595446981/

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I wish I had something to contribute to the thread, but thanks for writing.  It was interesting.


Thanks. I wouldn't have had anything to contribute to this thread a week ago.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Gary North thinks so:
 http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/212a_47e.htm

----------


## KCIndy

There's an interesting fictional work titled _How Few Remain_ by Alternate History novelist Harry Turtledove.  In _How Few Remain_, Turtledove writes an alternate history in which the South wins the Civil War.  Lincoln is not assassinated, and instead goes on to become a leader in a growing Marxist movement in the northern states.

The first time I read it, years ago, my reaction was very skeptical.  But now, after a lot more reading on Lincoln, it seems like a pretty convincing storyline.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Some of his cohorts were.
> http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republican...dp/0595446981/


Thanks, that book certainly examines the topic!




> Book Description
> 
> Publication Date: August 17, 2007
> 
> Was Abraham Lincoln influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence? It’s shocking to think so.
> 
> But that’s precisely what Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists. The pair completely reassess this tumultuous time in American history, exposing the “politically correct” view of the War for Southern Independence as nothing less than the same observation announced by Marx himself. During the American Civil War, Marx wrote about his support of the Union Army, the Republican Party, and Lincoln himself. In fact, he named the president as “the single-minded son of the working class.” In addition to shedding light on this little-known part of our history, Kennedy and Benson also ask pertinent questions about the validity of today’s federal government and why its role seems so much larger than the liberty found in the states it represents.
> 
> Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists is a bold undertaking, but it’s one that needs our immediate and absolute attention.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Certainly he engaged in much of the mental gymnastics that Marxists must do.

Bottom line, he was an authoritarian and anti-individualist.

His goal was to save the *government*.

And if *everybody*, save one lone man to boss around and lord over, had to die to do that, by God, he was going to do so.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Certainly he engaged in much of the mental gymnastics that Marxists must do.
> 
> Bottom line, he was an *authoritarian* and anti-individualist.


The slippery slope that led to Stalin.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Some of his cohorts were.
> http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republican...dp/0595446981/


Some interesting reviews for that book:




> ...In 1848 there were 18 socialist/communist uprisings throughout Europe, uprisings that had the sympathy of a *young lawyer in Illinois*. These revolutions all failed, so their leaders fled Europe for the refuge of the United States, settling primarily in the northeast and Midwest, taking occupations in journalism, education and politics - the same professions still dominated by leftwing radicals today. Google the names Friedrich Anneke, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel or Joseph Weydemeyer, and see what information you get.
> 
> These socialists/communists had no love for the U.S. Constitution and only venomous loathing for the Holy Bible, but they made this country their home and the new Republican Party their party. Many of these "Forty-Eighters" were protégés of Fredrick Engels and *Karl Marx himself, who wrote at least two letters to Comrade Lincoln* and even wrote a eulogy for him upon his assassination.
> ...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

From another review:




> As an author, it is refreshing to come across a book that addresses the topic of socialist involved in the War Between the States. In researching for my other books, I had often come across mentions of Union Generals and staff that had socialists connections. This book sheds light on those connections and elaborates on how influential those socialist leaders were. Many Americans are unaware of how the events of 1848 Europe have impacted their nation.


And another:




> Most of us, when confronted with the idea of communism or marxism or socialism in the United States automatically think of the Cold War or Joseph McCarthy or the 1960s. Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War is a book that shows how these flawed philosophies began to infect America a hundred years (or more) before the Cold War.
> 
> Diligent research by the authors shows the spotlight not only on the marxist/socialists who entered the United States after the failed Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, but also digs up evidence of home-grown experiments in American socialism in the early 1800s.
> 
> Readers may be surprised to find out that just how many connections existed between the Republican Party of the Civil War era and the failed revolutionaries (the "48ers") who came to the United States either by choice or by exile. And while the authors do not label Lincoln himself as an avowed marxist, he certainly enjoyed the support of the vast majority of socialist exiles, both politically and militarily.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Has anyone read any of the DiLorenzo books on Lincoln? Is the Lincoln connection to Marx discussed?


Bump for question for any DiLorenzo readers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bump for question for any DiLorenzo readers.


I am love DiLorenzo.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I am love DiLorenzo.


Found an article by DiLorenzo on the subject of Marx and Lincoln. Interesting stuff.




> ...
> "Under the spurious slogan of Union," wrote Meyer, Lincoln "moved at every point . . . to consolidate central power and render nugatory the autonomy of the states. . . . It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed." "We all know his gentle words, with malice toward none, with charity toward all," Meyer said, "but his actions belie this rhetoric." Here Meyer referred to Lincoln's win-at-any-cost strategy, his refusal to consider a negotiated peace, his imposition of a "repressive dictatorship" in the North and the "brigand campaigns waged against civilians by Sherman" in the South.
> 
> "Were it not for the wounds that Lincoln inflicted upon the Constitution, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Franklin Roosevelt to carry through his revolution [and] for the coercive welfare state to come into being . . . . Lincoln, I would maintain, undermined the constitutional safeguards of freedom as he opened the way to centralized government with all its attendant political evils."
> 
> This of course is precisely why totalitarians of all stripes have always lionized Lincoln. In Mein Kampf (1996 Houghton-Mifflin edition, p. 566) Adolf Hitler paraphrased the (false) theory that Lincoln introduced in his first inaugural address that no such thing as states' rights ever existed in America to make his case for the abolition of states' rights in Germany.
> 
> When some 3,000 Americans, most of whom were members of the Communist Party U.S.A., went to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War on the side of communists, they thought it quite natural to call themselves the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade." *Indeed, in his book Lincoln Reconsidered, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald wrote that the Communist Party U.S.A. adorned its office walls with huge portraits of Abe, and held annual "Lincoln-Lenin Day" parades in New York City.*
> 
> ...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

May Day bump.

----------


## oyarde

> Certainly he engaged in much of the mental gymnastics that Marxists must do.
> 
> Bottom line, he was an authoritarian and anti-individualist.
> 
> His goal was to save the *government*.
> 
> And if *everybody*, save one lone man to boss around and lord over, had to die to do that, by God, he was going to do so.


Well , he was a lawyer .....

----------


## RonZeplin

*REPUBLICAN              PARTY, RED FROM THE START* 
            by Alan Stang
            February 1, 2008
            NewsWithViews.com 

Many              patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has "lost its              way" and "gone wrong." It has "diverged" from the fiscally responsible,              small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft              whom Eisenhower's handlers finagled out of the nomination for President              in 1952. We are told that is why today's Republican Establishment              hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because,              like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that              are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates              Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican,              that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party              didn't "go wrong," didn't "go left."  

It              has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From              the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for              bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars,              for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party              has been Red.  

Why?              In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a              document prepared for the purpose, entitled _Manifesto of the Communist              Party_. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom              a small gang of wealthy Communists "the League of Just Men" hired              for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims              what the Communists would do.  

But              the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead              of the police. And they went, of course, to the united States. In              1856, the Republican Party ran its first candidate for President.              By that time, these Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated              this country, especially the North. Many became high ranking officers              in the Union Army and top government officials.  

Down              through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality              in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero              forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson              stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when              Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick,              Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero              commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, 'Who touches a hair              of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! "March on" he said.'
 
But              the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and              destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women              were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week              without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee              slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children              were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn't you learn that in school?               

Sherman's              scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could              not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There              can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the              North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least              one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought              they introduced to gain propaganda traction.  

In              retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened              here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting.              Had this really been a "Civil" War, rather than a secession, they              would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged              our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead              they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would              leave them alone. Lee did come to understand -- too late. He said after              the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found              out, he would have fought to the last man.  

What              was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nationï¿½s first              big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central government              and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in              a duel. The problem was that Burr didnï¿½t kill him soon enough. Henry              Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton's ideas in something called the "American System," which advocated big government subsidies for favored              industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today call "socialism              for the rich." Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer Abraham              Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of 1848              and became our first Communist President.  

All              of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of _Red              Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln's Marxists_ (Universe,              Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy              and Al Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably              nails down everything I have said above and then some. Let's browse              through Red Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason              most Americans have never heard of all this is that the winner writes              the history.  

For              instance, August Willich was a member of the London Communist League              with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Needless to say, Willich became              a major general in the Union Army. Robert Rosa belonged to the New              York Communist Club and was a major in the 45th New York Infantry.              Brigadier general Louis Blenker of New York was a "convinced Marxist."              His 10,000 man division looted people in Virginia, inspiring the term "Blenkered." Many of his men were fresh from European prisons. Our              first Communist President knew this, but turned them loose on the              people of the South.  

In              _Red Republicans_ we learn of nine European revolutionaries convicted              of treason and banished to Australia. They escaped to the united States              and Canada. Three or four of them, with no military experience, became              Union generals, joining at least three other Marx confidants who already              held that rank. "Every man of the nine became a member of the Canadian              Parliament, a governor of a territory or state in the Union, party              leader, prime minister or attorney general."

Many              of these men, not all, were Germans, some four thousand of whom escaped              to this country. Known as Forty-Eighters, they quickly added violent              abolitionism and feminism to their Communist beliefs. In Missouri,              Forty-Eighter Franz Sigel became a Union general and had uniforms              made for his Third Infantry Regiment that closely resembled the uniforms              worn by socialist revolutionaries in Germany in 1849.  

Forty-Eighters              who became high ranking Union commanders included Colonel Friedrich              Salomon, Ninth Wisconsin, Colonel Fritz Anneke, Thirty Fourth Wisconsin              and Colonel Konrad Krez, Twenty Seventh Wisconsin. Communist journalist              Karl Heinzen wrote: "If you have to blow up half a continent and cause              a bloodbath to destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no              scruples of conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his              life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is              not a true republican." Heinzen came to this country and supported              Lincoln.  

Joseph              Weydemeyer had to flee Germany when the Communist Revolution failed.              In London he belonged to the Communist League and was a close friend              of Marx and Engels. He came to this country in 1851, supported Lincoln,              maintained his close friendship with Marx and became a Brigadier General              in the Union Army.  

Dedicated              socialist Richard Hinton had to leave England. In this country he              became a Union colonel, a Radical Republican and an associate of maniac              John Brown's. So was Allan Pinkerton, who financed him. At one meeting              with Brown, Pinkerton told his son: "Look well upon that man. He is              greater than Napoleon and just as great as George Washington." Yes,              Pinkerton was the great detective who founded the agency that bears              his name. Why didn't you know that? In Kansas, mass murderer Brown              enjoyed the support of wealthy Yankees (the Secret Six). August Bondi              and Charles Kaiser, who worked with Brown there, were Forty Eighters.               

What              about Marx himself? Marx fled to England, where he is buried. He became              the European correspondent for socialist Horace Greeley's _New York              Tribune_, whose Managing Editor, Charles Dana, was a Communist.              Dana hired Marx as a foreign correspondent. Marx wrote often of his              kinship with the new Republican Party. Dana's generosity to Marx kept              that scumbag alive.  

Remember              that Marx never worked a day to support his family, but did find time              to impregnate their maid. Dana later became Assistant Secretary of              War. All these people were in place when our first Communist President              was elected on the Republican ticket in 1860 and provoked Lincolnï¿½s              Communist War to Destroy the Union. 

The              GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of              German Communism. Many such Reds were delegates, including Johann              Bernhard Stallo and Frederick Hassaurek from Ohio and Heinrich Bornstein              from Missouri, a friend of Marx. Socialist Carl Schurz was a delegate              from Wisconsin. To guarantee German support in Illinois, Lincoln secretly              bought the _Illinois Staats Anzieger_. After the election he              awarded the editor a consular post.  

Socialist              Friedrich Kapp was editor of the New Yorker-Abendzeitung. He wrote              propaganda for the new Republican Party and helped mightily to deliver              the German-American vote to Lincoln. With other Forty-Eighters, he              was an elector for Lincoln in 1860. Remember, these are just a few              examples. You really need to read the book. Call, toll-free 1 (800)              288-4677 to order.  

Remember              that slavery, for these Communists, was just an afterthought, a tool.              Before the War for Independence, it was the Southern colonies that              petitioned the King to stop importing slaves into the South. Did you              know that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration of Independence              a complaint against the King because his government had forbidden              the colonies to end the slave trade? Jefferson's language was deleted              to avoid giving offense to New England, which was making buckets of              money trading slaves.  

Indeed,              did you also know that if slavery was what the South fought to defend,              all it had to do was stay in the Union? Lincoln made clear that he              would defend slavery and would not free slaves owned by a man in a              state within the Union: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,              to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it              exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination              to do so."

Remember              that the Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war. It was              a propaganda stunt that freed only the slaves in areas controlled              by the Confederacy; in other words, none. Meanwhile, prominent abolitionist              Robert E. Lee, the first man Lincoln offered command of the Union              Army, had freed his family's slaves long before the war. So, what              were the Communists who came here after?  

Republican              Senator John Sherman, brother of the monster who Marched to the Sea,              advised his fellow senators to "nationalize as much as possible [making]              men love their country before their states. All private interests,              all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals,              everything, should be subordinate now to the interests of the Government."

Germany              was a decentralized collection of independent states. The goal of              the Forty Eighters there was a "united, indivisible republic," in which              those states would be dissolved. Land and private industry would be              confiscated. The government would be transformed into a Socialist              dictatorship. These are the ideas the Forty Eighters came to implement              here. By the way, that is what Hitler did in the 1930s. That is what              the fleeing Communists found so attractive in Lincoln.

So,              again, the Republican Party did not "go wrong." It was rotten from              the start. It has never been anything else but red. The characterization              of Republican states as ï¿½red statesï¿½ is quite appropriate. What do              these revelations mean to us? Again, Dr. Paul is an aberration. He              is not a "traditional Republican." A "traditional Republican" stands              for high taxes, imperial government and perpetual war.  

Dr.              Paul is much more a traditional Democrat. I refer of course to the              Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the              election of Woodrow Federal Reserve-Income Tax-World War I Wilson              and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor              and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am talking about the              Democrat Party of Thomas Jefferson.
So              of course the Republican Party will do everything it can to sandbag              Dr. Paul. Expect that. It rightly considers him an interloper who              doesn't belong there. Yes, because of decades of perversion of popular              opinion about the Republican Party, he must run as a Republican. But              no patriot loyalty, and certainly no trust, should be forthcoming,              because the Party is a sidewinder that will betray him in a Ghouliani              minute.  

Dr.              No is on one side. The Republicrat Party is on the other.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm

----------


## timosman

Well, at least we won the cold war.

----------


## 1stvermont

> Was Lincoln a Marxist?
> 
> Now, let me start this out by saying that re-visiting Lincoln and the Civil War is a losing political strategy. For that reason, I have never looked very deeply into the questions of Lincoln. I have not read any of DiLorenzo's books, although I catch the occasional short Youtube speech by him. My preference has been to see the issue as a battle of big government (Taxes and Lincoln maintaining the Union), vs. the South wanting to be free from the central Federal government. The end of slavery was a positive result, but was probably not the actual cause of the Civil War. Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and setting a precedent for ignoring the Constitution was a negative side-effect. No doubt many who believe in "the ends justify the means" philosophy embrace both of those side effects, i.e. the rule of law had to be sacrificed for the goal of eliminating slavery.
> 
> It must be clear, this is all a losing and divisive issue in politics, and should take a back seat to current political debate. And there is no doubt in the world that the end of slavery was an extremely positive step in the evolution of society.
> 
> But then they had to continue the push of Lincoln. Movies, articles, etc. And at the same time, they demonize Jefferson. Obviously they want to bring this battle to the forefront, as it applies today to big government vs. small government. Was Obamacare Constitutional? Did it pass through the Congress in the appropriate way? Did the Supreme Court make the correct ruling? They want to say it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. Obamacare is good, and nothing should stand in the way of a "benevolent" big brother, even if the Constitution and the rule of law must be ignored.
> 
> The issue is being forced, so some outstanding questions needed to be answered: 
> ...



Lincoln was not Marxists but many republicans [usually recent immigrants from germany] were.

*Lincoln's Marxists*https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Marx.../dp/158980905X

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bump

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bump

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bump

----------


## Brian4Liberty

In Lincoln’s defense, Marxism was untested, and filled with good intentions (that paved the road to hell). It wasn't as obvious that it would all be a failure and a con (like the conman-clown Bernie Sanders is selling).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In Lincoln’s defense, Marxism was untested, and filled with good intentions (that paved the road to hell). It wasn't as obvious that it would all be a failure and a con (like the conman-clown Bernie Sanders is selling).


Always give the devil his due.

----------


## Ender

> In Lincoln’s defense, Marxism was untested, and filled with good intentions (that paved the road to hell). It wasn't as obvious that it would all be a failure and a con (like the conman-clown Bernie Sanders is selling).


Sorta like "democracy" today.

----------


## kona

DiLorenzo is dynamite with a capital D. The man is fearless. Can't believe he still has a job given his work.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Indeed he was.  He also freed the slaves but then proceeded to enslave them and everyone else to the government.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sorta like "democracy" today.


"Democracy" was an integral part of Marxism. The Soviets had some problems running their army via democracy though, so they had to return to more traditional military hierarchies.

----------


## Treebeard

> Was Lincoln a Marxist?
> 
> Now, let me start this out by saying that re-visiting Lincoln and the Civil War is a losing political strategy. For that reason, I have never looked very deeply into the questions of Lincoln. I have not read any of DiLorenzo's books, although I catch the occasional short Youtube speech by him. My preference has been to see the issue as a battle of big government (Taxes and Lincoln maintaining the Union), vs. the South wanting to be free from the central Federal government. The end of slavery was a positive result, but was probably not the actual cause of the Civil War. Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and setting a precedent for ignoring the Constitution was a negative side-effect. No doubt many who believe in "the ends justify the means" philosophy embrace both of those side effects, i.e. the rule of law had to be sacrificed for the goal of eliminating slavery.
> 
> It must be clear, this is all a losing and divisive issue in politics, and should take a back seat to current political debate. And there is no doubt in the world that the end of slavery was an extremely positive step in the evolution of society.
> 
> But then they had to continue the push of Lincoln. Movies, articles, etc. And at the same time, they demonize Jefferson. Obviously they want to bring this battle to the forefront, as it applies today to big government vs. small government. Was Obamacare Constitutional? Did it pass through the Congress in the appropriate way? Did the Supreme Court make the correct ruling? They want to say it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. Obamacare is good, and nothing should stand in the way of a "benevolent" big brother, even if the Constitution and the rule of law must be ignored.
> 
> The issue is being forced, so some outstanding questions needed to be answered: 
> ...



Yes and no.

Lincoln's Marxists: Benson Jr., Al, Kennedy, Walter: 9781589809055: Amazon.com: Books

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Rep. Matt Gaetz
> 
> Newsflash for @Liz_Cheney:
> 
> Colluding with the Lincoln Project doesn’t make you Abraham Lincoln.

----------

