# Think Tank > History >  The Ghost of Abraham Lincoln Cartoon

## Joey Fuller

YouTube - The Real Lincoln

http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2010/11/real-lincoln.html

----------


## dannno

huh..

----------


## Travlyr

All this newfound hate on Lincoln is interesting to me. I'm convinced that "Honest Abe" deserves much of it. President Lincoln is responsible for some serious violations of liberty and atrocious crimes, imo. However, this new fad, with everybody jumping on the bandwagon, of blaming Lincoln for all that was wrong about the Civil War is shallow in critical thought. A much deeper reading of history is in order. The jury is still out on much of what happened in the 1860's and who, behind the scenes, made it happen. I have lost quite a bit of respect for Thomas DiLorenzo's research capabilities and writing. While it is only speculation, it could be that Abe Lincoln took a bullet from the international bankers; we may someday learn the truth about that. Like I said, the jury is still out and I look forward to authors who are more principled in their research and reporting.

----------


## low preference guy

> Like I said, the jury is still out and I look forward to authors who are more principled in their research and reporting.


I disagree. He destroyed states rights while enslaving innocents to fight a war. That's enough to make it the worst President in our history. If he took a bullet from whomever, he'd still be the worst.

----------


## Travlyr

> I disagree. He destroyed states rights while enslaving innocents to fight a war. That's enough to make it the worst President in our history. If he took a bullet from whomever, he'd still be the worst.


I'm just sayin that I don't think he acted alone in the atrocities. America continued its horrific brutality and increased corruption for several years after his assassination. I believe there is more to it than the shallow research of Thomas DiLorenzo. We'll soon see.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

625,000 dead Americans... how in the hell can you say justify that in any part of history?

General Sherman conducted War Crimes just as bad as any other Military General in history. Many of those generals were hanged for exactly the same crimes... yet the victors rewrite history to what is popular for the future, themselves, and the historical archives.

----------


## Travlyr

> 625,000 dead Americans... how in the hell can you say justify that in any part of history.
> 
> General Sherman conducted War Crimes just as bad as any other Military General in history. Many of those generals were hanged for exactly the same crime... yet the victors rewrite history to what is popular for the future and themselves.


I did not mean to justify Lincoln's actions. I find the War Between the States to be a time when America went from being a great place for liberty to the birth of an empire. All I am saying is that the 1860's were pivotal, and Abe did not act alone. President Lincoln may have been a much better president if allowed to finish his second term. Nobody knows.  History shows that America treated the South and the Black folks very badly after the war. Lincoln had no part of that because he was dead.

----------


## low preference guy

> President Lincoln may have been a much better president if allowed to finish his second term.


What could he do in his second term to improve his presidency? Resuscitate all the innocent people he had killed? Affirm states rights and say that the South can secede now that the blacks were free? If he couldn't do that, I think it's impossible for him to have a different impact.

----------


## Travlyr

> What could he do in his second term to improve his presidency? Resuscitate all the innocent people he had killed? Affirm states rights and say that the South can secede, because the war was a mistake and he just figured it out? If he couldn't do that, I think it's impossible for him to have a different impact.


I just think it is shallow thought. Who could possibly know what Lincoln would have done once the war was over? Didn't the war start a month into his presidency? I find it odd that a president could organize and promote a war in four weeks time. War was going to breakout no matter who became president. Lincoln did not act alone, imo. There were warmongers behind the scenes.

We know for a fact that the hate, pillaging and plundering continued after he was dead. And we know for a fact that brutality of the native tribes increased after he was gone. And we know for a fact that the industrial boom was heavily funded by international bankers ... railroads, steel, and other industry. Just sayin that DiLorenzo gives Lincoln powers beyond ability, imo.

----------


## low preference guy

> War was going to breakout no matter who became president. Lincoln did not act alone, imo. There were warmongers behind the scenes.


My argument is just that he is the worst President in U.S. history. If there were other people who helped Lincoln, they weren't other presidents, so it doesn't change anything.

And Lincoln was the Commander In Chief. That makes him the person most responsible for the war. No historical revelation can change that.

----------


## Travlyr

> My argument is just that he is the worst President in U.S. history. If there were other people who helped Lincoln, they weren't other presidents, so it doesn't change anything.
> 
> And Lincoln was the Commander In Chief. That makes him the person most responsible for the war. No historical revelation can change that.


I put Wilson and FDR right up there with Lincoln as the worst presidents. But the true enemy is still hiding behind the curtain.

----------


## BamaAla

"Newfound hate on Lincoln." I've rarely met a southerner that holds Lincoln or Sherman in any esteem higher than a barn animal. 

Lincoln may not have been the only one, but he is most certainly one none-the-less. Add to that fact he is elevated as a national hero and you have a volatile situation.

----------


## low preference guy

> I put Wilson and FDR right up there with Lincoln as the worst presidents. *But the true enemy is still hiding behind the curtain.*


I disagree. The Commander in Chief has the power to refuse to do the criminal actions they committed. No one is more responsible than them.

----------


## Travlyr

> I disagree. The Commander in Chief has the power to refuse to do the criminal actions they committed. No one is more responsible than them.


I'm pretty sure JFK learned his lesson in Dallas on that one.

----------


## low preference guy

> I'm pretty sure JFK learned his lesson in Dallas on that one.


Bull$#@!. If Lincoln was going to be threatened, he would've known, since he took the criminal actions just after assuming office. If he was indeed threatened to take his criminal actions, he shouldn't have accepted the Presidency or even run. He is still responsible for running and putting himself in a position where he would be forced to do criminal actions. And that's assuming that your wild conspiracy without any evidence is true.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm pretty sure JFK learned his lesson in Dallas on that one.


And what pray tell do you think JFK refused to do or did that taught him a lesson in Dallas?

----------


## Travlyr

All I am saying is that there is more to the story than what you have being told.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> I did not mean to justify Lincoln's actions. I find the War Between the States to be a time when America went from being a great place for liberty to the birth of an empire. All I am saying is that the 1860's were pivotal, and Abe did not act alone. President Lincoln may have been a much better president if allowed to finish his second term. Nobody knows.  History shows that America treated the South and the Black folks very badly after the war. Lincoln had no part of that because he was dead.


Checkout this bull$#@! Lincoln site: http://mrcapwebpage.com/VCSUSHISTORY...ppomottox.html

Download the Sherman video... Terrorism has been changed to "Business" by these experts.

March to the Sea  led by William T. Sherman 
              "scorched   earth policy" (Total War) 
*Watch 32min Sherman's March to the Sea video*


*Harvest  of the Civil   War*
*

1.  Union preserved*
*2.  slavery was   abolished*
*3.  Union emerged stronger than   ever*
*4.  U.S. recognized as   strongest, most democratic  and greatest nation in the   world*

----------


## Travlyr

> Checkout this bull$#@! Lincoln site: http://mrcapwebpage.com/VCSUSHISTORY...ppomottox.html
> 
> Download the Sherman video... Terrorism has been changed to "Business" by these experts.
> 
> March to the Sea  led by William T. Sherman 
>               "scorched   earth policy" (Total War) 
> *Watch 32min Sherman's March to the Sea video*
> 
> 
> ...


I'll check it out. Thanks for the links.

----------


## sratiug

Slavery existed in several Union states when the Union invaded the South.  So any excuses for Lincoln are complete and utter bull$#@! based on that single widely known and irrefutable fact.  

If the South had not resisted slavery might still be with us today with such racists in charge.  Lincoln was forced to issue the emancipation proclamation as a last ditch effort to save the union.  Isn't it interesting that he didn't seem to think he had the power to free the slaves in the Union (or he was afraid the Union slave states would turn on him), but assumed he had the power to kill southerners at will.  He was bat$#@! crazy.

I notice no one is actually saying the video is in any way false.

----------


## Thomas

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13379 The Libertarian Presidential Rankings: Rated on Peace and Civil and Economic Liberty

http://www.xaviercromartie.com/2009/...ed-states.html A Libertarian Ranking of the United States Presidents

----------


## pcosmar

Couldn't really watch it, (or listen to it) really annoying.
What is with all these animated videos that sound like some Non-English speaker run through some really $#@!ty translation software?

or are they Non-English and run through really $#@!ty translation.

----------


## low preference guy

> Couldn't really watch it, (or listen to it) really annoying.
> What is with all these animated videos that sound like some Non-English speaker run through some really $#@!ty translation software?
> 
> or are they Non-English and run through really $#@!ty translation.


they are funny like once. now they're like one of those hitler getting upset videos. not funny anymore.

----------


## fisharmor

> President Lincoln may have been a much better president if allowed to finish his second term. Nobody knows.


Wha...
Dude, the fact that he was the first president in history not to finish a term for the reason of having a sane yet Biblically pissed off citizen plug him in the back of a skull in a freaking theater in front of hundreds of people pretty much nullifies your "he could have gotten better" argument.

He single-handedly managed to get himself dropped like a freaking mafia don by a joe six-pack.  Don't know how you bounce back from that in the polls.

----------


## Travlyr

> Wha...
> Dude, the fact that he was the first president in history not to finish a term for the reason of having a sane yet Biblically pissed off citizen plug him in the back of a skull in a freaking theater in front of hundreds of people pretty much nullifies your "he could have gotten better" argument.
> 
> He single-handedly managed to get himself dropped like a freaking mafia don by a joe six-pack.  Don't know how you bounce back from that in the polls.


Maybe instead of taking what I said out of context you could be genuine enough to quote my entire post. I did not defend President Lincoln's actions. And do you know for a fact that John Wilkes Booth was not a hired gun? Some people claim he had ties to European bankers. Are you positive that he acted alone?



> I did not mean to justify Lincoln's actions. I find the War Between the States to be a time when America went from being a great place for liberty to the birth of an empire. All I am saying is that the 1860's were pivotal, and Abe did not act alone. President Lincoln may have been a much better president if allowed to finish his second term. Nobody knows.  History shows that America treated the South and the Black folks very badly after the war. Lincoln had no part of that because he was dead.


I simply am pointing out that there is a bigger picture. After the war, America was a much different country. Lincoln did not participate in the reformation, reconstruction, genocide of natives, or the industrial age, but it happened nonetheless. Was that Lincoln's fault too? After his death, the _"powers that be"_ marched forward without missing a step and an empire was born. A deeper study of civil war history is in order, imo.

----------


## bwlibertyman

Travlyr, I understand what you're saying.  I do think that Lincoln started a lot of the centralization that turned this country into what it is today.  I think Lincoln showed people how  politicians can use events like war to take power and do whatever you want with it.

I really don't think there is an argument that the civil war was a good thing.  If the argument is "should we have a war to keep the union together".  My answer is the states entered the union voluntarily so they have the ability to voluntarily leave.  

If the argument is to free the slaves then my answer is that we can change society through laws not through violence.  There was no need to lose over 600,000 lives during the war.  There are much better ways to go about it.  I know slavery is an invasion of private property rights but I don't think the government should have the authority to kill people who are abusing other peoples' private property.

The point is that Lincoln started the civil war.  South Carolina seceded and Lincoln refused to bring his troops home.  This was an invasion of state sovereignty.  I can see that as an act of war.  Lincoln wanted this war and he got it.  Lincoln has been quoted in saying that he was fighting the war because he needed someone to pay taxes.  This doesn't mean that the north didn't pay taxes but it shows that the south carried a big load of the tax burden.  

The civil war is a very interesting time period.  Just because bad things happened after Lincoln died does not give credence to say that Lincoln was no responsible.  To me it was a bit of a reaction to what LIncoln did.

----------


## Joey Fuller

Lincoln was hated by the North and the South... Northerners spoke out against his war crimes and were thrown in Concentration Camps along with the Southern Resistors..
80 Acres of Hell-
http://military.history.com/global/l...&page=listings

----------


## Joey Fuller

Thanks to everyone for checking out my video.. It is now in the top ranked Youtube Film and Animation #96!!!

If you like it, please take time to hit the thumbs up green LIKE button!

----------


## pcosmar

> Thanks to everyone for checking out my video.. It is now in the top ranked Youtube Film and Animation #96!!!
> 
> If you like it, please take time to hit the thumbs up green LIKE button!


Would it be possible to have the voice redone with something more,,Human ?
Possibly an English speaker,

----------


## Aratus

> YouTube - The Real Lincoln
> 
> http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2010/11/real-lincoln.html


a.lincoln handed a.johnson one big problem equal to the social paradox
of the "new" nixon and the "old" nixon being in and of the same body...?

technically its andrew johnson who liberates ALL the slaves most totally
in 1865 and not honest abe his predecessor. when we fail to seperate
out the stances of the radical republicans from the GOP moderates, we
do andrew johnson a huge dis~service, given that he was almost as big
an abolitionist as was mr. brownlow. frederick douglass knew that the
better efforts of the presidential Reconstruction were due to the dignified
effort by a most humble man to explain to the oligarchy of the south why
things had to change. andrew johnson could not ban wage slavery or
unjust sharecropper contracts, he could root out slavery in the name of
our revolution. it takes courage to talk the talk and walk the walk in full.
he ended up falling into the widening political gap between the noble and
VERY radical republicans, an' all true dixicrats & cowardly an' sanctimonious
copperheads in that volatile epoch and tyme! actually, the unionist stance
by andrew johnson is not identical to the pro-slavery stance of jeff davis.
if anything, andy johnson the former slave-owner who decries slavery in 1864
is a more ethically honest man than either jeff davis or honest abe in 1861!


has our politics totally evolved past the regionalism of our civil war???
when ron paul asked us to abandon andy jackson's jack@$$ braying often
party for the big~oil slicked down corridors of power the GOP is infamous for,
he knew what he was asking of us. i am drawn back to this old thread, indeedy
as we see two sets of fatcats trying to outspend each other and i know full
well one of the 2 guys these fatcats are purring around was our governor
for a sweet span of time. the years from 1860 to 1865 were abysmal...

----------


## Aratus

andrew johnson was not so upset when scalawags dumped on jeff davis
when he curtailed the very civil liberties we all now take for granted. he 
seems to have tolerated honest abe's attempts at winning the war and
when grant met lee at that virginia courthouse, andrew johnson sensed
that we soon could return to a peace time union government in full without
the heavy handed institutions of the war existing beyond the armies great.

----------


## moostraks

> Maybe instead of taking what I said out of context you could be genuine enough to quote my entire post. I did not defend President Lincoln's actions. And do you know for a fact that John Wilkes Booth was not a hired gun? Some people claim he had ties to European bankers. Are you positive that he acted alone?
> 
> I simply am pointing out that there is a bigger picture. After the war, America was a much different country. Lincoln did not participate in the reformation, reconstruction, genocide of natives, or the industrial age, but it happened nonetheless. Was that Lincoln's fault too? After his death, the _"powers that be"_ marched forward without missing a step and an empire was born. A deeper study of civil war history is in order, imo.



Let's discuss Lincoln's attitude towards the natives. "Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303  Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

And after the civil war?"Lincoln's armies, after decimating and destroying the South in the War for Southern Independence, turned its war criminals loose on the Indians of the Great Plains and the Southwest. The tactics of murder, rape and pillaging, perfected in such places as Atlanta, the March to the Sea and the Shenandoah Valley, were repeated in places with names like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.

Small wonder one of Lincoln's favorite Generals was William T. Sherman, who wrote to his wife in 1862 that his goal was the "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people of the South." He said while campaigning against the Indians: "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead," and lamented to his son shortly before his death that he had been unable to kill all of the "Red Sob's."

Abraham Lincoln's "American System," adopted from Henry Clay, brought about the necessity for the removal of the Indians from the west. This concept of government had been vetoed as unconstitutional by virtually every president, beginning with James Madison.

The system called for the subsidizing of the railroads with stolen taxpayer money. Lincoln had long been the primary attorney representing the railroads before being elected President. For the railroads to complete their lines into the west, the Indian had to be either "neutralized" or eliminated. Thus, Lincoln left his fingerprints on the campaign against the Indian well into the 19th century.

Lincoln's policies of taxpayer-supported railroads would lead, not only to the attempted annihilation of the Indian, but to tremendous scandals in the administration of another of Lincoln's war criminals, Ulysses S. Grant. Grant, like Lincoln, handed out his "political plum" appointments of Indian Agent to cronies who proceeded to gain tremendous wealth by selling supplies and stealing money that should have gone to the Indians."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/issues/lincoln.html

As for your crappy comment about new found hatred, you apparently don't know any Southerners. No name is probably said with as much contempt as Lincoln, excepting maybe Sherman. The contempt is alive because we never forgot. They can rewrite history all they like but the truth turns up like a bad penny when you least expect it.

----------


## Travlyr

Excellent post. Lincoln is the symbol of tyrants in America ... and he earned it.

It is just difficult for me to imagine a farm boy from Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois wanted to become President of the United States in order to kill 650,000, or more, of his brothers and sisters. The hatred of the time, and for the next few decades, is so hard for me to wrap my head around. How can one individual have so much influence, power and authority to change the attitude of a nation from daily struggles to death and destruction which lasted a generation after his death?

----------


## Aratus

potus james buchanan made some lousy judgement calls.
we then had the war happen. when abe lincoln travels
to d.c the crisis widens. could jefferson davis have been 
talked out of going 'secess' in full if senator john c. calhoun
held back from treason in full? what went wrong in 1860/61?
is it foolish to blame either abe lincoln or jeff davis in full for
everyone else's total madness as a jingoism grips the nation?

----------


## sratiug

> potus james buchanan made some lousy judgement calls.
> we then had the war happen. when abe lincoln travels
> to d.c the crisis widens. could jefferson davis have been 
> talked out of going 'secess' in full if senator john c. calhoun
> held back from treason in full? what went wrong in 1860/61?
> is it foolish to blame either abe lincoln or jeff davis in full for
> everyone else's total madness as a jingoism grips the nation?


Jefferson Davis opposed secession because he thought it would mean war.  He also adopted a black child and favored gradual emancipation and educated his own slaves.  He was obviously nowhere near the racist that Lincoln was.

----------


## sratiug

> Excellent post. Lincoln is the symbol of tyrants in America ... and he earned it.
> 
> It is just difficult for me to imagine a farm boy from Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois wanted to become President of the United States in order to kill 650,000, or more, of his brothers and sisters. The hatred of the time, and for the next few decades, is so hard for me to wrap my head around. How can one individual have so much influence, power and authority to change the attitude of a nation from daily struggles to death and destruction which lasted a generation after his death?


He was the president.  If he had not invaded the South, there would have been no war.  He alone was responsible.  Was there a war declaration by Congress?  No.  Was there any imminent threat of invasion from the South?  No.  Was there any reason at all for the war?  No.  It was his baby.  He couldn't live without the money from the South and the power it gave him as president.  

Saying Lincoln wasn't responsible is like saying Bush wasn't responsible for Iraq.  Lincoln called up troops, Lincoln invaded, Lincoln deserved to be shot.  

Can you say that Bush is not responsible for what happened in Iraq since we invaded with mixed Sunni/Shia families turning from peaceful coexistence and inter-marrying to slaughtering each other by the hundreds and thousands?

----------


## johnny.rebel

> Saying Lincoln wasn't responsible is like saying Bush wasn't responsible for Iraq.  Lincoln called up troops, Lincoln invaded, Lincoln deserved to be shot.  
> 
> Can you say that Bush is not responsible for what happened in Iraq since we invaded with mixed Sunni/Shia families turning from peaceful coexistence and inter-marrying to slaughtering each other by the hundreds and thousands?


lincoln and bush are both responsible for wars and so is everyone else who causes and profits from them. nobody starts a war alone.

----------


## oyarde

> Excellent post. Lincoln is the symbol of tyrants in America ... and he earned it.
> 
> It is just difficult for me to imagine a farm boy from Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois wanted to become President of the United States in order to kill 650,000, or more, of his brothers and sisters. The hatred of the time, and for the next few decades, is so hard for me to wrap my head around. How can one individual have so much influence, power and authority to change the attitude of a nation from daily struggles to death and destruction which lasted a generation after his death?


Yeah , I know , but remember , he was a lawyer .

----------


## oyarde

> Let's discuss Lincoln's attitude towards the natives. "Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303  Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.
> 
> So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."
> 
> http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html
> 
> And after the civil war?"Lincoln's armies, after decimating and destroying the South in the War for Southern Independence, turned its war criminals loose on the Indians of the Great Plains and the Southwest. The tactics of murder, rape and pillaging, perfected in such places as Atlanta, the March to the Sea and the Shenandoah Valley, were repeated in places with names like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.
> 
> Small wonder one of Lincoln's favorite Generals was William T. Sherman, who wrote to his wife in 1862 that his goal was the "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people of the South." He said while campaigning against the Indians: "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead," and lamented to his son shortly before his death that he had been unable to kill all of the "Red Sob's."
> ...


Probably good that you listed the Minnesota Sioux . I doubt many are aware of everything that went on there .

----------


## oyarde

> I disagree. The Commander in Chief has the power to refuse to do the criminal actions they committed. No one is more responsible than them.


Not only that , but I believe Wilson to be aware and relish his evil .

----------


## BuddyRey

Awesome video!  Rated, favorited, and Tweeted!

----------


## oyarde

///

----------


## Aratus

> a.lincoln handed a.johnson one big problem equal to the social paradox
> of the "new" nixon and the "old" nixon being in and of the same body...?
> 
> technically its andrew johnson who liberates ALL the slaves most totally
> in 1865 and not honest abe his predecessor. when we fail to seperate
> out the stances of the radical republicans from the GOP moderates, we
> do andrew johnson a huge dis~service, given that he was almost as big
> an abolitionist as was mr. brownlow. frederick douglass knew that the
> better efforts of the presidential Reconstruction were due to the dignified
> ...


here is a link to a  neat & tidy bit of tennessee history 
http://m.metropulse.com/news/2011/ap...rson-brownlow/

----------


## Aratus

> All this newfound hate on Lincoln is interesting to me. I'm convinced that "Honest Abe" deserves much of it. President Lincoln is responsible for some serious violations of liberty and atrocious crimes, imo. However, this new fad, with everybody jumping on the bandwagon, of blaming Lincoln for all that was wrong about the Civil War is shallow in critical thought. A much deeper reading of history is in order. The jury is still out on much of what happened in the 1860's and who, behind the scenes, made it happen. I have lost quite a bit of respect for Thomas DiLorenzo's research capabilities and writing. While it is only speculation, it could be that Abe Lincoln took a bullet from the international bankers; we may someday learn the truth about that. Like I said, the jury is still out and I look forward to authors who are more principled in their research and reporting.


it was not a disgruntle lone gunman who did the foul deed, unlike garfield's and mckinley's assassins...

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

A buddy of mine is a direct descendant of Lincoln. If you take a picture of Lincoln and put it next to his face there is a striking resemblance. (We've done it.)
He even has a beard and everything.

----------


## AGRP

Why exactly are presidents (such as Lincoln) worshiped?

----------

