# Think Tank > History >  The Real Lincoln on Slavery, Race, and The American System

## Travlyr

In order to refute Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his book, "The Real Lincoln" on his mischaracterization of Abraham Lincoln, I will share some facts I know about Lincoln to give people a better picture of who Lincoln actually was prior to being elected president. I do not agree with everything Lincoln did by any means, especially his actions during the war, but I can not let DiLorenzo trash Lincoln's reputation with lies about him.

Lincoln was a racist. Virtually everyone in America was at the time, yet Lincoln abhorred slavery and he let that be known all his life. He considered himself a slave of sorts when he was young because all the money he earned from labor prior to the age of 21 he had to give to his father. That was the custom of the day and it still is the custom in some communities. 

Abe's father, Thomas Lincoln, was also a 'victim' of tradition because when Lincoln's grandfather, a fairly wealthy Kentucky settler, was killed by an Indian, Thomas was the third son. The oldest son, Mordecai, inherited all the land so Thomas was left to fend for himself at an early age. Thomas was an honest man but he was never a rich man and so Abraham grew up in virtual poverty in the woods.

Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809. When he was 7 years old, his parents, Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, were members of “The Little Mount Separate Baptist Church” in Hardin County, Kentucky. It was an anti-slavery church in the slave state of Kentucky. Shortly after that Thomas and Nancy moved their family to the free state of Indiana (1816). Abe Lincoln grew up on an 80 acre farm near Pigeon Creek, IN which was a sparsely populated area and inhabited by wild animals of bear, coons, deer, fox, beavers, turkeys, and more. Abe was provided with an axe, and other tools, to help clear the trees and farm the soil to provide for the family. He was a hard worker even though he much preferred to read. Thomas Lincoln helped build the neighborhood church and he became an important member of the church. Abe’s mother Nancy died when Abe was 10. Abe’s father, Thomas, remarried the following year to Sarah Bush Johnson who cared for Abe and his sister Sarah by provided a loving family home for them and Sarah Bush Johnson's three children as well. The Lincoln family owned a Bible and it was likely one of the only books they owned. Abe, who had an incessant thirst for knowledge, read the Bible regularly, and that is why he could quote from it at will throughout his life. Abe borrowed books from neighbors when he could and read everything he could get his hands on. He learned about the American government by reading William Grimshaw's History of the United States, and Mason Weems' Life of Washington as well as Indiana laws when he could.

One day, as a boy, young Abe shot and killed a wild turkey from his log cabin in Indiana. That act of killing an animal so incensed him that he only killed for food when he had to. He was not a hunter or a killer and he let Dennis Hanks or his father do the hunting when he could. 

Experiences with slavery,



> "When he was nineteen, still residing in Indiana, he made his first trip upon a flat-boat to New-Orleans. He was hired hand merely; and he and a son of the owner, without other assistance, made the trip. The nature of part of the cargo-load, as it was called — made it necessary for them to linger and trade along the Sugar coast — and one night they were attacked by seven negroes with intent to kill and rob them. They were hurt in the melee, but succeeded in driving the negroes from the boat, and then 'cut cable' 'weighed anchor' and left."


The Lincoln family moved from Indiana to Illinois in 1830. Abraham was 21. They settled on a farm in Macon County, IL near the Sangamon River. The following winter (1830-31) was unbearable. The snows started around Christmas and continued until March. The temperatures were 10 -> 20 degrees below zero. The snow drifts were 5 foot high in places. It was nearly impossible to find food or go anywhere or even to stay warm. When the snow finally melted in the spring of 1831 the water flooded the flat-land and saturated the soil. There were few roads so travel was virtually impossible until the muddy soil dried out. The Sangamon River was blocked by fallen trees so travel by river was a chore in itself, yet that did not stop the river trade. Abraham Lincoln went to work for Denton Offut carrying a load of provisions to New Orleans. Abraham Lincoln witnessed slave auctions and whipping posts in the South on that trip. That is primarily why Lincoln wanted government to help with 'internal improvements.' Muddy roads and river travel was hard enough to navigate let alone having to clear trees from the river as well. 

War broke out when Black Hawk and his tribe of Indians were trying to re-inhabit Illinois; Abe became Captain of his platoon. They didn't see battle. However, one day, one member of Black Hawk's tribe did wander into Lincoln's camp and his platoon wanted to hang the Indian as a spy. Lincoln, stepped forward, freed the man, and let him on his way.

Abe started his political career and his study of law in 1832. He ran for the State of Illinois Legislature and lost. It was at that time that he began to promote the policies of Henry Clay of Kentucky. 

Henry Clay had made a convincing three day speech in Congress on protective tariffs, road, river, and harbor building improvements promoting the “American System” with good reason and logic. When President Jackson destroyed the Second National bank it set off a depression in the States that lasted for years. That is why Lincoln believed that National Banks were good. Many “roads” were still mud paths in the spring and impassible in the winter snows and river navigation was a primitive chore at the time, and that is why Lincoln believed in “internal improvements.”  The protective tariffs of 1824 had proved to be a boon for the economy when they were enacted, and that is why Lincoln favored protective tariffs. For better or worse, it is easy to see why Lincoln favored Henry Clay’s “American System.”

Lincoln ran again for Illinois State Legislature in 1834 and won.

While Lincoln did favor a national bank, he favored honest banking. DiLorenzo misrepresents Lincoln again by stating, “Lincoln repeatedly opposed proposals by Democratic legislators to audit the Illinois state bank.” Upon further investigation it is learned that, Lincoln opposed the Democrats because they were making false claims and Lincoln didn’t believe it was necessary to spend state money investigating false claims. 

Lincoln was in favor of auditing the bank proved by the fact that he proposed an audit the bank amendment in 1835.
Amendment to an Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the State of Illinois [December 22, 1835]

Shortly after that, in 1837, he documented his displeasure of slavery, and the abolition movement, in the permanent record of the Legislature of Illinois which was a very bold and a politically unpopular position at the time:



> Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery
> 
> March 3, 1837
> The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:
> 
> Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
> They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
> 
> The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.''
> ...


Lincoln thought the Abolition Movement was too violent to be helpful.

Nonetheless, Lincoln was fearful of slavery spreading throughout the Union even in the free states.



> Mr. Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery were closely connected to his ideas about work, wealth and justice. Friend and political colleague Joseph Gillespie wrote: "Mr. Lincolns sense of justice was intensely strong. It was to this mainly that his hatred of slavery may be attributed. He abhorred the institution. It was about the only public question on which he would become excited. I recollect meeting with him once at Shelbyville when he remarked that something must be done or slavery would overrun the whole country. He said there were about 600,000 non slave holding whites in Kentucky to about 33,000 slave holders. That in the convention then recently held it was expected that the delegates would represent these classes about in proportion to their respective numbers but when the convention assembled there was not a single representative of the non slaveholding class. Every one was in the interest of the slaveholders and said he this thing is spreading like wild fire over the Country. In a few years we will be ready to accept the institution in Illinois and the whole country will adopt it. I asked him to what he attributed the change that was going on in public opinion. He said he had put that question to a Kentuckian shortly before who answered by saying — you might have any amount of land, money in your pocket or bank stock and while travelling around no body would be any the wiser but if you had a darkey trudging at your heels every body would see him & know that you owned slaves — It is the most glittering ostentatious & displaying property in the world and now says he if a young man goes courting the only inquiry is how many negroes he or she owns and not what other property they may have. The love for Slavery property was swallowing up every other mercenary passion. Its ownership betokened not only the possession of wealth but indicated the gentleman of leisure who as was above and scorned labour. These things Mr. Lincoln regarded as highly seductive to the thoughtless and giddy headed young men who looked upon work as vulgar and ungentlemanly. Mr Lincoln was really excited and said with great earnestness that this spirit ought to be met and if possible checked. That slavery was a great & crying injustice an enormous national crime and that we could not expect to escape punishment for it.





> In a Speech in U. S. House of Representatives on the Presidential Question*
> July 27, 1848
> 
> Lincoln declared, “I am a Northern man, or rather, a Western free state man, with a constituency I believe to be, and with personal feelings I know to be, against the extension of slavery.”


Later in his speech he talks about his views of the Mexican War,



> THE WHIGS AND THE WAR
> 
> But, as Gen: Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican war; and, as you democrats say we whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awk[w]ard and embarrassing for us to go for Gen: Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war, is true or false, accordingly as one may understand the term ``opposing the war.'' If to say ``the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President'' be opposing the war, then the whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them. The marching [of] an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops, and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political bretheren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy, and the mature man---the humble and the distinguished, you have had them.





> The “House Divided” Speech, ca. 1857–1858 by Abraham Lincoln
> 
>  Why, Kansas is neither the whole, nor a tithe of the real question.
> 
> “A house divided against itself can not stand”
> 
> I believe this government can not endure permanently, half slave, and half free. I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent developments have but confirmed me.
> 
> I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and put it in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawfull in all the states, old, as well as new. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see, how little, even now, remains to be done.
> ...





> Excerpt from Speech at New Haven
> March 6, 1860
> “We think Slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the Territories, where our votes will reach it. We think that a respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men -- in short, we think Slavery a great moral, social and political evil, tolerable only because, and so far as its actual existence makes it necessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that, it ought to be treated as a wrong.” - Abraham Lincoln


Speech in front of Independence Hall in 1861 on his way to Washington D.C. just 10 days before his inauguration for President and just 17 days before the Confederacy was created. Clearly Lincoln did not want war. 




> Mr. Cuyler:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here in the place where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. (Great cheering.) I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and adopted that Declaration of Independence--I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army, who achieved that Independence. (Applause.) I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. (Great applause.) It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. (Cheers.) This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can’t be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle--I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. (Applause.)
> 
> Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. (Prolonged applause and cries of "That’s the proper sentiment.")
> 
> My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here--I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, (cries of "no, no"), but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.


Lincoln's First Inaugural Address



> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
> 
> ...
> 
> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
> 
> I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.





> Executive Mansion,
> Washington, April 4, 1864.
> A.G. Hodges, Esq
> Frankfort, Ky.
> 
> My dear Sir:
> You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:
> 
> "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” - Abraham Lincoln


DiLorenzo asks the question, "Why couldn't Lincoln have freed the slaves peacefully?" He tried. The DC Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, passed by the Congress and signed by President Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in Washington, DC, freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. He freed the slaves in Washington D.C. just like he said he thought was possible in 1837. And he tried compensated emancipation in Delaware too with the hope of eventually trying it everywhere but that was too politically unpopular.

DiLorenzo tries to make the claim that Lincoln was a 28 year career politician, but Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois Legislature and retired from politics in 1842. In 1846 he got back in and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, served one term, and retired in 1848. Opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act brought Lincoln back to a more active role in politics again because he did not like what was going on with the slavery issue. In 1854, he ran for the state legislature, not because he wanted to but because he was popular and was needed to help lead the ticket. He served one more term for a total of 12 years in political office before being elected president. 

DiLorenzo hammers home Lincoln's support of the "The American Colonization Society" as if to make Lincoln look like a horrible white supremacist racist, when in fact, DiLorenzo conveniently leaves out the fact that it was a voluntary program and Thomas Jefferson, and many others, supported it as well.

So here is great evidence in Lincoln's own words and from people who knew him that Lincoln abhorred slavery yet he was a peaceful man with principled convictions who believed in States Rights and took his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend his sworn duty seriously.

----------


## Acala

Yup, racism was pretty common in those days.  I don't disparage him for that.  And he probably thought slavery was a scourge.  So did Robert E. Lee.

I disparage him for starting one of the most horrible wars ever fought, in violation of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, and at least in part to usher in crony-capitalism at the Federal level.  He did more to destroy the balance between Federal and State power in the US than any other man.  He almost single-handedly put peaceful secession off limts to us as a means for controlling government power.  If the Federal government ever again comes to crush an independence movement, it will be under the banner of Lincoln.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yup, racism was pretty common in those days.  I don't disparage him for that.  And he probably thought slavery was a scourge.  So did Robert E. Lee.
> 
> I disparage him for starting one of the most horrible wars ever fought, in violation of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, and at least in part to usher in crony-capitalism at the Federal level.  He did more to destroy the balance between Federal and State power in the US than any other man.  He almost single-handedly put peaceful secession off limts to us as a means for controlling government power.  If the Federal government ever again comes to crush an independence movement, it will be under the banner of Lincoln.


 +rep

----------


## Travlyr

> Yup, racism was pretty common in those days.  I don't disparage him for that.  And he probably thought slavery was a scourge.  So did Robert E. Lee.


Robert E. Lee was a slave master,



> It has frequently been represented by the friends and admirers of Robert E. Lee, late an officer in the rebel army, that, although a slaveholder, his treatment of his chattels was invariably kind and humane. The subjoined statement, taken from the lips of one of his former slaves, indicates the real character of the man: 
> 
> My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lees agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.





> I disparage him for starting one of the most horrible wars ever fought, in violation of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, and at least in part to usher in crony-capitalism at the Federal level.  He did more to destroy the balance between Federal and State power in the US than any other man.  He almost single-handedly put peaceful secession off limts to us as a means for controlling government power.  If the Federal government ever again comes to crush an independence movement, it will be under the banner of Lincoln.


How did Lincoln start the war? The South fired upon an unarmed ship during President Buchanan's term, they proudly fired the second shots at Fort Sumter, and they fired the third shot and killed one of Lincoln's close friends. The south wanted the war. Lincoln clearly did not want war.

----------


## itshappening

Dilorenzo correctly points out that Lincoln's invasion of the South meets the very definition of TREASON in the Constitution.  That's why the war was fought.  The North thought the war would last a matter of months. He blockaded the South and wanted to impose a high tariff.  Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis spoke of the potential for war in dueling speeches over the high tariffs the North were imposing on the South.  SC was blockaded when they refused to collect the taxes at Charleston Harbor.

----------


## itshappening

I thought you might like this Trav.... 

Dilorenzo is his book 'The real Lincoln' makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:

    1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.

    2. Opposing racial equality.

    3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.

    4. Being a racist.

    5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.

    6. Supporting Clay?s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.

    7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.

    8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.

    9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.

    10. Never defending a runaway slave.

    11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.

    12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.?

    13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.

    14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that "free white people" can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.

    15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.

    16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere--Lincoln's war was the only "war of emancipation" in the 19th century.

    17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

    18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.

    19. Supporting a conscription law.

    20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

    21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.

    22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.

    23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.

    24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.

    25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.

    26. Lying about re-supplying the fed?s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.

    27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.

    28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.

    29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.

    30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.

    31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

    32. Illegally declaring martial law.

    33. Illegally blockading ports.

    34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

    35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

    36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

    37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

    38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

    39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

    40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

    42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

    43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

    44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

    45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

    46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

    47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

    48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

    49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the "indestructible" state of Virginia.

    50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.

    51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.

    52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

    53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

    54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

    55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

    56. reating an enormous political patronage system.

    57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

    58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

    59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.

    60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.

    61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.

    62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

    63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.

    64. Using civilians as hostages.

    65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.

    66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln?s allies.

    67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.

    68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.

    69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.

    70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.

    71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.

----------


## Crackerjaxon

When did he meet the vampire?  That's what I want to know.

----------


## belian78

> When did he meet the vampire?  That's what I want to know.


That movie was absolute garbage, and that is just from the camp/thriller viewpoint, the political bent of the film is something else entirely.

----------


## Travlyr

> I thought you might like this Trav.... 
> 
> Dilorenzo is his book 'The real Lincoln' makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:
> 
>     1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.
> 
>     2. Opposing racial equality.
> 
>     3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.
> ...


Many of these false claims are easily disputable. I am not going to bother with it for you because I proved above that DiLorenzo is lying about Lincoln in order to promote an agenda. To the scholars and historians of the world, DiLorenzo sounds pretty ignorant of the facts. If the Mises Institute and the Liberty Movement want to move forward sounding stupid, then so be it.

I asked you the other day something you never answered, so I'll ask again. If you were in Lincoln's shoes on March 4, 1861, what would you have done? Surrender or Defend?

----------


## cbrons

> Robert E. Lee was a slave master,
> 
> 
> 
> How did Lincoln start the war? The South fired upon an unarmed ship during President Buchanan's term, they proudly fired the second shots at Fort Sumter, and they fired the third shot and killed one of Lincoln's close friends. The south wanted the war. Lincoln clearly did not want war.


The south fired on the fort because the scum fedcoats were trying to resupply it long after South Carolina had seceded and given them ample time to get out. No one was killed save for a fedcoat in an artillary accident. Captain Anderson was allowed to leave and the southern troops soluted him, because they respected his bravery. Lincoln tried resupplying Sumter specifically to insight this reaction. Lincoln was a dictator, a trial lawyer lobbyist who used his office to enrich himself and his cronies. The fact that you dont even have the narrative down for the opening "battle" of the war makes me exceedingly suspicious of your ability to "easily dismiss" DiLorenzo's wirk.

----------


## cbrons

> I asked you the other day something you never answered, so I'll ask again. If you were in Lincoln's shoes on March 4, 1861, what would you have done? Surrender or Defend?


Or just leave, since thats what the south wanted. They seceded peacefully and were more than bending over backwards to facilitate exit of the federal troops.

----------


## TheTexan

> How did Lincoln start the war? The South fired upon an unarmed ship during President Buchanan's term, they proudly fired the second shots at Fort Sumter, and they fired the third shot and killed one of Lincoln's close friends. The south wanted the war. Lincoln clearly did not want war.


Your understanding of how the civil war started is perversely inaccurate.  Lincoln wanted war from the very beginning.  He made it perfectly clear.

As for Fort Sumter...




> The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with the Confederate agents because he did not consider the Confederacy a legitimate nation and making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.


Does that sound like a reasonable man trying to avoid a war, or does that sound like a childish tyrant trying to keep the South from taking their ball and leaving?

Lincoln wouldn't even _talk_ to the South.  The South wanted peace.  Lincoln wanted war.

----------


## Travlyr

> Or just leave, since thats what the south wanted. They seceded peacefully and were more than bending over backwards to facilitate exit of the federal troops.





> Your understanding of how the civil war started is perversely inaccurate.  Lincoln wanted war from the very beginning.  He made it perfectly clear.
> 
> As for Fort Sumter...
> 
> 
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable man trying to avoid a war, or does that sound like a childish tyrant trying to keep the South from taking their ball and leaving?
> 
> Lincoln wouldn't even _talk_ to the South.  The South wanted peace.  Lincoln wanted war.


The South fired upon the Star of the West in January 1860 less than three weeks after South Carolina seceded. The Star of the West was bringing provisions to Major Anderson and was unarmed. Who is the aggressor? Shooting an unarmed man is an aggressive act, right? Just because they did not sink the ship does not mean that they did not intend to. 

Edmund Ruffin who had been advocating for secession for several years had the 'honor' of firing the first shot. Just a month after Lincoln said, 


> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. *You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.* You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


They knew Lincoln would not go after them if they remained peaceful. Lincoln was duty bound to defend the Union fort and supply them with food. If he had walked away from his sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend his country, then he would have been impeached and somebody else would be your whipping boy today. 

The fact that the Southern Confederacy sent delegations to Washington to buy Union property proves that they acknowledged Fort Sumter was Union property. If Lincoln had recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, then the Confederacy would have had nation status, support from foreign governments, and the Western territories would have been the battle ground, between two or more nations, with slavery expanded rather than curtailed. The abolitionists, the Republicans, and major supporters in the North were against the expansion of slavery.

It is almost comical that people who claim to be advocates for 'liberty' and 'non-aggression' are the strongest advocates for 'enslavement of negros' and 'shooting at unarmed men.' I'm guessing you are both white guys.

----------


## truelies

> ..................................................  ........
> So here is great evidence in Lincoln's own words and from people who knew him that Lincoln abhorred slavery yet he was a peaceful man with principled convictions who believed in States Rights and took his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend his sworn duty seriously.


Yeah, ya forgot to mention Lincoln's intent to deport all Negroes from the USA to Africa, Haiti and Central America. Oh and you also miseds the roll of the North's use of the tariff to loot enoromous wealth from the South for the benefit of Northern industrialists. Certainly lets not forget that Lincoln in his Day committed every war crime we self-righteous had saddam H.hung for except use of poison gas and missed that only because the invention was 50 years in the future.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, ya forgot to mention Lincoln's intent to deport all Negroes from the USA to Africa, Haiti and Central America.


You mean the voluntary program "The American Colonization Society" promoted supported by Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and thousands of other people and funded by many State legislatures at the time. 




> Oh and you also miseds the roll of the North's use of the tariff to loot enoromous wealth from the South for the benefit of Northern industrialists.


If tariffs were really the issue, then the Southern slave states would have written that for a reason for secession. They seceded to "protect the blessings of African slavery." 

The Civil War was about slavery.

Secession was specifically about slavery. The seceding states declare their intentions in their seceding documents.

*South* *Carolina*,



> [A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad].


*Mississippi*,



> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery  the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


*Alabama*,



> . . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . .


*Georgia*,



> A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery].


*Louisiana*,



> Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern Confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery. . . . Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws, and institutions. . . . and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas either did not secede or, having seceded, should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy.


*Texas*,



> [Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery  the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas]  a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time.


*Virginia*,



> On April 17, 1861, Virginia became the eighth state to secede. It, too, acknowledged that the oppression of the southern slave-holding states (among which it numbered itself) had motivated its decision.


*Arkansas,*



> No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres [exists], because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property  that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest [e.g., New Mexico, Arizona, etc.], and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states. . . . For that Party to make these concessions would simply be to commit suicide and therefore it is idle to expect from the North  so long as it [the Republican Party] rules there  a single concession of any value.


*North Carolina and Tennessee*,



> North Carolina and Tennessee became the tenth and eleventh states to secede, thus finishing the formation of the new nation that titled itself the Slave-Holding Confederate States of America. Southern secession documents indisputably affirm that the Souths desire to preserve slavery was the driving force in its secession and thus a primary cause of the Civil War.





> Certainly lets not forget that Lincoln in his Day committed every war crime we self-righteous had saddam H.hung for except use of poison gas and missed that only because the invention was 50 years in the future.


Just like the Southern Confederacy. War is hell. The slaves states should have remained peaceful and not fired upon the Union. Lincoln was willing to let them keep their slaves as long as they were not trying to force slavery on free states or expand it in Western territories.

----------


## LibertyEagle

The various states in the South had every right to secede.  Fort Sumter was in the South.  The North was asked to evacuate.  The South even offered to buy the damn thing.  The North refused and when they tried bringing in more arms, the South stopped them.

Anyone who disagreed with Lincoln, he threatened to jail.  That included Supreme Court Justices.

How is this not treasonous, in anyone's book?

----------


## Travlyr

> The various states in the South had every right to secede.  Fort Sumter was in the South.  The North was asked to evacuate.  The South even offered to buy the damn thing.  The North refused and when they tried bringing in more arms, the South stopped them.
> 
> Anyone who disagreed with Lincoln, he threatened to jail.  That included Supreme Court Justices.
> 
> How is this not treasonous, in anyone's book?


Yeah they did. Because white men enslaving the black race is a natural right handed down from God.




> *Preamble*
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order *to form a permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity *invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
> 
> *Article I*
> 
> Section I. All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
> 
> Sec. 2. (I) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.
> ...

----------


## truelies

> You mean the voluntary program "The American Colonization Society" promoted supported by Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and thousands of other people and funded by many State legislatures at the time. 
> 
> ..................................................  ..........


No, I mean the mass deportation of negroes to Africa, Haiti, Central American which Lincoln consistently endorsed.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, I mean the mass deportation of negroes to Africa, Haiti, Central American which Lincoln consistently endorsed.


That was the "American Colonization Society" mission 150 years ago. The world was quite different then than is is now.  

So you agree with Robert E. Lee? A negro enslaved in America is better off than being free in Africa.




> It has frequently been represented by the friends and admirers of Robert E. Lee, late an officer in the rebel army, that, although a slaveholder, his treatment of his chattels was invariably kind and humane. The subjoined statement, taken from the lips of one of his former slaves, indicates the real character of the man: 
> 
> My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

----------


## truelies

> Yeah they did. Because white men enslaving the black race is a natural right handed down from God.




hmmmmm, if one is simply concerned about the well being of the lower half Soutern slaves were at least as well off as Nortern industrial wage-slaves. Heck the plantation hands even had longer life expectancies than did New England industrial labourers.

Bottomline Lincoln waged war against the Sovereign States for exercising their Rights. That makes him a Traitor. Its only too band that Booth ended up doing personally that which should have been done Publically and with a rope. Lincoln being a cur unworthy of a dignified death.

----------


## Travlyr

> hmmmmm, if one is simply concerned about the well being of the lower half Soutern slaves were at least as well off as Nortern industrial wage-slaves. Heck the plantation hands even had longer life expectancies than did New England industrial labourers.
> 
> Bottomline Licoln waged war against the Sovereign States for exercising their Rights. That makes him a Traitor. Its only too bad that Booth ended up doing personally that which should have been done Publically and with a rope. Lincoln being a cur unworthy of a dignified death.


So you do believe that the black slave was better off being enslaved than being free. I'm guessing you are not black. Edmund Ruffin thought that too until his slaves were freed. Then he learned that they wanted to live a free life, just like the white man, so they refused to work for him. He killed himself in disgrace.

----------


## truelies

> ...............................................
> So you agree with Robert E. Lee? A negro enslaved in America is better off than being free in Africa.


Yes, I do. However-

The Negro gains by being brought into the presence of White Civilisation even as a bondsman. White Civilisation as a whole however pays a high price for the cheap labour enjoyed by the few. The People of the North were Fools to not let the South go its own way and hence be heir to the entire burden of the Negro Problem. Had the North displayed the least wit the South would have went peacefully and slavery would have ended by around 1890 and the Negro would have been removed to Liberia/Haiti/Central America perhaps with those areas as Confederate colonies as the Cofederate States industrialised.

----------


## truelies

> So you do believe that the black slave was better off being enslaved than being free.......................


Negro life NOT in the presence of a White majority looks like Haiti or Liberia. That is Reality. That said I have no wish to be burdened by providing for the welfare of these people.

----------


## itshappening

Ask the people of Zimbabwe if they prefer white rule under Ian Smith or the rule of Robert Mugabe.  I'm sure the vast majority would take Smith's white minority government back.

----------


## demolama

> hmmmmm, if one is simply concerned about the well being of the lower half Soutern slaves were at least as well off as Nortern industrial wage-slaves. Heck the plantation hands even had longer life expectancies than did New England industrial labourers.


Okay, now this myth has got to stop.  Slaves were not well off being slaves compared to Irish in the North.  

As a historian myself I can appreciate what Travlyr is trying to do.  The fact remains Lincoln's legacy is a wartime president who did some unthinkable acts against people he considered his own people, which often gets overlooked in favor of the myth of Father Abraham "savoir of the black race." 

Lincoln viewed the Constitution and the Union very differently.  Lincoln believed the union was a consolidated union starting in 1774 with the Articles of Association, even though no colony was forced to obey the Congress's edicts. The Articles of Confederation put down in plain English that the Union was perpetual, and Lincoln saw the Constitution as a continuation of the Articles desire "to make a perfect union" more perfect.   

Lincoln talking to Confederate envoys would have only legitimized the Confederacy. He was under no obligation to talk to them.  

Now, South Carolina firing on reinforcement ships as an act of aggression?  The South believed all federal territory given to them by the state should be return to South Carolina.  Reinforcing with supplies and troops is an act of aggression to their eyes.   

You have to look at the Civil War from both sides.   Neither side saw the situation the same way, and they acted on impulse based upon those notions.

----------


## Ivash

As for For Sumter, the leader of the Confederates there wanted a fight- even if his political leaders did not, if I recall correctly. The American Civil War never interested me as much as other conflicts in the period (the concurrent Taiping Rebellion in particular), though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

So, Travlyr, you think that it was ok for Lincoln to stomp all over the Constitution to war against and flat out murder other Americans to further his own dictatorial agenda?  Is that it?  

The North had slaves too, Travlyr.  Did that fact escape you?  I'm sure some people thought they were fighting to free the slaves, but that was not the prime reason for the war.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, Travlyr, you think that it was ok for Lincoln to stomp all over the Constitution to war against and flat out murder other Americans to further his own dictatorial agenda?  Is that it?


Did you read the OP? Second sentence, "_I do not agree with everything Lincoln did by any means, especially his actions during the war_," 

So, LibertyEagle, you think that it was ok for Davis to war against the Union and flat out murder other Americans to further his own dictatorial agenda? Suspend habeas corpus, institute martial law, allow unthinkable treatment of prisoners at POW Camp Sumter, Andersonville? In order to nationalize and expand African enslavement?




> The North had slaves too, Travlyr.  Did that fact escape you?


No that does not escape me. The Union allowed for States to choose for themselves whether to be a free state or a slave state. 




> I'm sure some people thought they were fighting to free the slaves, but that was not the prime reason for the war.


The South was fighting the war to nationalize slavery. The North was fighting the war to preserve the Union.

----------


## BAllen

> Negro life NOT in the presence of a White majority looks like Haiti or Liberia. That is Reality. That said I have no wish to be burdened by providing for the welfare of these people.


 That is truth. Include Detroit or D.C. in that, as well. Simple facts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The South was fighting the war to nationalize slavery. The North was fighting the war to preserve the Union.


LOLZ.  One of my favorite Orwellian State Historian/Lincoln Cult memes.

----------


## jmdrake

I pray that in 2013 we quit re-fighting the civil war on these boards.  It's got be like the most unproductive thing we do.  Not wasting my time reading this thread.  Each side is convinced they're right and the other side "just doesn't know history".  Carry on.

----------


## itshappening

I have to admit Trav is a superb and persistent troll. I admire his efforts since I have taken the bait on several occasions but all he seems to do is paste the constitutions of the time over and over. I'm tired of it too!

----------


## Travlyr

> I pray that in 2013 we quit re-fighting the civil war on these boards.  It's got be like the most unproductive thing we do.  Not wasting my time reading this thread.  Each side is convinced their right and the other side "just doesn't know history".  Carry on.


It is not unproductive. The most popular theme on this board is Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist. The fact that there is not all that much difference between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists goes completely over almost everybody's head. That argument was for the founders. Our 21st century enemy is the "Babylonian System" ... "The Federal Reserve System" of counterfeit money and debasement of currency.  

Since we have the truth machine at our fingertips, it is time to share the truth.

My point is that Lincoln was no more of an evil person than Davis. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union as designed by the founders, and Davis wanted to preserve the thousands of years old institution of slavery.

----------


## truelies

> ...............Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union as designed by the founders, .................



ah, I see. He HAD TO DESTROY the Constitution to 'save' it , eh.

----------


## Travlyr

> ah, I see. He HAD TO DESTROY the Constitution to 'save' it , eh.


Like Jefferson Davis?

----------


## Travlyr

It does not require a whole lot of intelligence to understand why Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and instituted martial law in times of civil war. You people who claim that it should not have been done in times of war are sounding pretty stupid on the facts of life. It would be better if you would learn history before you promote your ignorance. Is that the intelligence level of the liberty movement? Are you people really too dumb to understand why they had to do what they had to do to win the war?

----------


## itshappening

The difference is Jefferson Davis isn't worshipped like our stupid "historians" worship Lincoln and make factually wrong movies about him and that is the reason Lincoln's appalling behavior is highlighted: to counter the mass of 'Father Abraham' propaganda.

----------


## Travlyr

> The difference is Jefferson Davis isn't worshipped like our stupid "historians" worship Lincoln and make factually wrong movies about him and that is the reason Lincoln's appalling behavior is highlighted: to counter the mass of 'Father Abraham' propaganda.


Of course Jefferson Davis is not worshipped. He was the president of a want-a-be nation to nationalize and perpetuate slavery. In 1860, it made perfect sense to a lot of people. In 2012, people should be intelligent enough to understand that the institution of slavery is not liberty oriented. 

The problem is the ignorance of people. Instead of being able to read and understand words people today fight over concepts they can not comprehend. A study of Lincoln proves that he grew up in virtual anarchy. Lincoln worked his entire life for liberty and he was killed before he was able to finish his mission of liberty. 




> The South was fighting the war to nationalize slavery. The North was fighting the war to preserve the Union.





> LOLZ.  One of my favorite Orwellian State Historian/Lincoln Cult memes.


There is nothing "_Orwellian State Historian/Lincoln Cult_" like about it. People today are simply too dumbed down to be able to read and understand. It does not take a whole lot of intelligence to understand that the South was fighting to defend their Constitution and the North was fighting to defend theirs. The Confederate Constitution nationalized slavery and the U.S. Constitution defended the right of the States to determine the slavery issue.

----------


## itshappening

Lincoln did not work for liberty, he worked for tyranny.  For example he got Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio deported, he ordered the Chief Justice to be arrested, he imprisoned thousands of opponents, shut down opposition newspapers etc etc,  but you seem blind to this.

What you also don't understand is that the states seceeded peacefully and that at the time it was widely understood to be a voluntary Union and even Linoln himself said in 1848 that people have the right to institute a new government if they so wish and Jefferson also said separation was acceptable. 

Lincoln and the North wanted to plunder the South through high tariffs at their ports.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln did not work for liberty, he worked for tyranny.  For example he got Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio deported, he ordered the Chief Justice to be arrested, he imprisoned thousands of opponents, shut down opposition newspapers etc etc,  but you seem blind to this.
> 
> What you also don't understand is that the states seceeded peacefully and that at the time it was widely understood to be a voluntary Union and even Linoln himself said in 1848 that people have the right to institute a new government if they so wish and Jefferson also said separation was acceptable. 
> 
> Lincoln and the North wanted to plunder the South through high tariffs at their ports.


Where, prior to the Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter, is it written or documented that Lincoln intended to plunder the South? 
What violation of the Constitution did Lincoln commit prior to the Confederacy firing upon Fort Sumter? 

If the Southern Confederacy seceded because of the tariff issue, then why didn't they even mention it in their secession statements? 
If the Confederates were so big on voluntary union and the right to secede, then why does the Confederate Constitution not allow secession?

----------


## Travlyr

> I pray that in 2013 we quit re-fighting the civil war on these boards.  It's got be like the most unproductive thing we do.  Not wasting my time reading this thread.  Each side is convinced their right and the other side "just doesn't know history".  Carry on.


This thread is not about the Civil War. It is about Abraham Lincoln prior to the Civil War. 

The intent of the thread is to share who Lincoln was, in Lincoln's own words, and the words of people who knew him, prior to the Civil War.

----------


## tony m

Is there any strategy involved concerning this thread, where Lincoln should be used as an example of progressive hypocrisy by bringing out the fact that, Lincoln was a racist?  Should we be bringing his quotes out in the public?  Should we be playing a race card?

If a white guy, today, talked like Lincoln then, how would he be treated by the media?

----------


## Deborah K

> Is there any strategy involved concerning this thread, where Lincoln should be used as an example of progressive hypocrisy by bringing out the fact that, Lincoln was a racist?  Should we be bringing his quotes out in the public?  Should we be playing a race card?
> 
> If a white guy, today, talked like Lincoln then, how would he be treated by the media?


That would be anachronistic.  Taking today's mores and applying them to the words of people who lived in another time never constitutes an accurate accounting of anything.

----------


## cbrons

My interview w/ Dr. Tom DiLorenzo, author of Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz_ohGV_71s

Was 2 weeks or so ago.

----------


## Travlyr

> My interview w/ Dr. Tom DiLorenzo, author of Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz_ohGV_71s
> 
> Was 2 weeks or so ago.


Next time you visit with Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo ask him a few questions for me. 
What is his opinion of that white supremacist Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens?If the seceding States had the right to secede from the Union, then why did the Confederate Constitution not allow secession?If slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, then why did all the seceding States make that claim in their secession statements and Vice President Stephens say it was in his Cornerstone speech?The Confederacy was looking to become the "controlling power on this continent", so how is a strong central government, which does not allow for secession, yet guarantees forever the right of white men to own negro slaves as chattel property, more liberty oriented than the Union formed by the founders?How is nationalizing slavery a liberty oriented concept, at all? Why is he defending it?



> *Cornerstone Speech*
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens 
> March 21, 1861
> Savannah, Georgia
> When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or anything very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.
> 
> I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.
> 
> ...

----------


## tony m

>How is nationalizing slavery a liberty oriented concept, at all?

Negroes were considered inferior through the colonist/Lincoln era even though the word Liberty was used.

It is still modernity vs tribalism.  Modernity considers tribal, to be inferior.  Negroes were considered tribal, weren't they?  
Same holds presently in the Middle East. Nowadays, it's not the word Liberty but democracy.  Not much has changed, only the location.  It is still persecution going on.

----------


## Travlyr

> >How is nationalizing slavery a liberty oriented concept, at all?
> 
> Negroes were considered inferior through the colonist/Lincoln era even though the word Liberty was used.
> 
> It is still modernity vs tribalism.  Modernity considers tribal, to be inferior.  Negroes were considered tribal, weren't they?  
> Same holds presently in the Middle East. Nowadays, it's not the word Liberty but democracy.


Not everyone thought so. A lot of slaves were trying to win their freedom at the time and a lot of people were helping them win their freedom.

----------


## familydog

Did DiLorenzo lie about the tens-of-thousands of non-combatant Southerners who were assaulted, raped and murdered by order of Lincoln and his evil henchmen?

----------


## Travlyr

> Did DiLorenzo lie about the tens-of-thousands of non-combatant Southerners who were assaulted, raped and murdered by order of Lincoln and his evil henchmen?


Is Lincoln responsible for this?
POW camp Sumter, Andersonville

----------


## familydog

> Is Lincoln responsible for this?
> POW camp Sumter, Andersonville


Don't worry, Travlyr, my question isn't rhetorical or a trick. Fortunately, our research has been done for us independent of Thomas DiLorenzo. Author Walter Cisco explains, in his book War Crimes Against Southern Civilians.

----------


## Travlyr

> Don't worry, Travlyr, my question isn't rhetorical or a trick. Fortunately, our research has been done for us independent of Thomas DiLorenzo. Author Walter Cisco explains, in his book War Crimes Against Southern Civilians.


The Confederacy apologists have their work cut out to make themselves look innocent. It must have been tough to give up the right to use a slave, who had no protection under the law, at will, for any purpose a man desired, at anytime, day or night. Both sides were brutal.




> "We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent." - Alexander H. Stephens VP Confederate States


I'm glad the Union won. I just wish Lincoln hadn't been killed because the South would have been welcomed back into the Union in a much more humanitarian way by him. 




> "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." - A. Lincoln

----------


## itshappening

Why do you think he was killed Trav?

A man who is loved by many (as his wife proclaims in the bogus film)  would surely not be assassinated

----------


## Travlyr

> Why do you think he was killed Trav?
> 
> A man who is loved by many (as his wife proclaims in the bogus film)  would surely not be assassinated


Just like all assassinations, the powers-that-be were done with him. He had served his purpose and they were not interested in humanitarian reform.

----------


## familydog

> The Confederacy apologists have their work cut out to make themselves look innocent. It must have been tough to give up the right to use a slave, who had no protection under the law, at will, for any purpose a man desired, at anytime, day or night. Both sides were brutal.
> 
> I'm glad the Union won. I just wish Lincoln hadn't been killed because the South would have been welcomed back into the Union in a much more humanitarian way by him.


Lol.

Your complete avoidance of my question is telling. I'm simply a dude looking for answers. That's all.

----------


## itshappening

> Just like all assassinations, the powers-that-be were done with him. He had served his purpose and they were not interested in humanitarian reform.


The powers that be - in the north that is - were far from done with Lincoln, they were very happy with him.

----------


## talkingpointes

> The powers that be - in the north that is - were far from done with Lincoln, they were very happy with him.


I'm pretty sure he's referring to reptilians tptb.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lol.
> 
> Your complete avoidance of my question is telling. I'm simply a dude looking for answers. That's all.


I did not intend to dodge your question. I assumed that you understood that, yes, DiLorenzo is lying about Lincoln being responsible for the deaths to which you refer. Lincoln had no choice because he was a man of principle. When he swore his oath on the Bible to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States of America he actually meant it. Unlike the modern leaders of today.

When the Southern Confederacy started shooting at Union troops and Union property they declared war on the Union. Lincoln was duty bound to defend his country. That is what principled people do. They honor their word and abide by their sworn oath. 




> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." - A. Lincoln - March 4, 1861


The Southern leaders thought they were big badass warriors who intended to "become the controlling power on this continent." What they found out was that Lincoln said what he meant and meant what he said. If the Southerners did not have the presence of mind to understand that starting a war will kill lots of people and subject their cities and farms to ruin, then they underestimated their actions. They were told to remain peaceful and "the Government will not assail you." They chose war.

----------


## Aratus

John Wilkes Booth went insane... enuff said.
could have been a raging V.D. infection that
got to his brain. he was an egotistical actor.
poor Honest Abe was a fan of his, ironically.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Civil war was over slavery? The civil war was about money as far as I can tell.

----------


## Travlyr

> John Wilkes Booth went insane... enuff said.
> could have been a raging V.D. infection that
> got to his brain. he was an egotistical actor.
> poor Honest Abe was a fan of his, ironically.


Some people claim that John Wilkes Booth had connections to Thomas William House. Are you familiar with any connection along those lines?

----------


## Travlyr

> Civil war was over slavery? The civil war was about money as far as I can tell.


I agree it was about money. Even the Southern secession documents point to the fact that ending slavery would ruin the commerce of the South. Plus, the Northern Industrialists profited from the war economy. Lincoln was not in it for the money. He believe that the U.S. Constitution was the document that finally freed the common white man who had been oppressed for centuries. He also believed that the Declaration of Independence applied to all men and women.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

I'm ashamed to see a majority of posters here taking sides when it is clear that neither player involved in the war (both north and south) cared about preserving liberty.

----------


## familydog

> I did not intend to dodge your question. I assumed that you understood that, yes, DiLorenzo is lying about Lincoln being responsible for the deaths to which you refer. Lincoln had no choice because he was a man of principle. When he swore his oath on the Bible to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States of America he actually meant it. Unlike the modern leaders of today.


This confuses me. You state DiLorenzo (and ostensibly Cisco) are lying, but then go on to state he had no choice. I'm not sure what you are conveying. 

In any case, if they are indeed liars, I'd like to know. So can you provide me with a critique of their research which shows this mass murder?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm ashamed to see a majority of posters here taking sides when it is clear that neither player involved in the war (both north and south) cared about preserving liberty.


Really? You actually believe that? I find that Lincoln did want to preserve liberty. That is why I started this thread. Lincoln is so misunderstood that both sides misunderstand him. Some people think he was a "Father Abraham Saint" and others think he was a vicious tyrant. In fact he was a man who grew up in anarchy and rejected it. Lincoln understood the Constitution better than virtually anyone today except perhaps Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. He became a lawyer in order to promote liberty. Lincoln was as honest as the day is long. He was more honest than anyone one of us today. He understood that he was a mortal man who made mistakes. People like to pounce on those mistakes to prove him as evil. He was not evil. He was so principled that he could not even inject his personal opinion into law. Unfortunately, Lincoln was elected as president of the Union when the great question of slavery vs. the abolition movement was at its height. Lincoln was a product of his time.

----------


## Travlyr

> This confuses me. You state DiLorenzo (and ostensibly Cisco) are lying, but then go on to state he had no choice. I'm not sure what you are conveying. 
> 
> In any case, if they are indeed liars, I'd like to know. So *can you provide me* with a critique of their research which shows this mass murder?


No. I have no interest in reading any more bull$#@!. Defending the Confederacy means defending the thousands of year old institution of slavery. While I would not mind having my own slave to take care of me ... I believe it to be immoral and do not support it. Do your own research.

----------


## itshappening

Lincoln understand's the constitution except for the bit where "Making war on *them* [the States] is TREASON. 

Yes, that's in the constitution Trav.  

Lincoln was therefore guilty of treason.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln understand's the constitution except for the bit where "Making war on *them* [the States] is TREASON. 
> 
> Yes, that's in the constitution Trav.  
> 
> Lincoln was therefore guilty of treason.


The South fired on Union soldiers and Union property to start the war. Do you really think that there are "rules" of war? If the Union had not won the war, then negro chattel slavery would have been enshrined in Confederate Constitutional law. Is that what you call... "Liberty!"?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Really? You actually believe that? I find that Lincoln did want to preserve liberty. That is why I started this thread. Lincoln is so misunderstood that both sides misunderstand him. Some people think he was a "Father Abraham Saint" and others think he was a vicious tyrant. In fact he was a man who grew up in anarchy and rejected it. Lincoln understood the Constitution better than virtually anyone today except perhaps Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. He became a lawyer in order to promote liberty. Lincoln was as honest as the day is long. He was more honest than anyone one of us today. He understood that he was a mortal man who made mistakes. People like to pounce on those mistakes to prove him as evil. He was not evil. He was so principled that he could not even inject his personal opinion into law. Unfortunately, Lincoln was elected as president of the Union when the great question of slavery vs. the abolition movement was at its height. Lincoln was a product of his time.


Yes I actually believe that.  Committing to a war that resulted in over half a million deaths, the suspension of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, not to mention the installation of military conscription does not make Lincoln some misunderstood hero.  It makes him a politician.  Individuals like John Brown, Nat Turner, Lysander Spooner, and even William Lloyd Garrison to an extent  should be the Civil War-era figures that should be praised amongst a group of people who claim to support individual sovereignty.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes I actually believe that.  Committing to a war that resulted in over half a million deaths, the suspension of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, not to mention the installation of military conscription does not make Lincoln some misunderstood hero.  It makes him a politician.  Individuals like John Brown, Nat Turner, Lysander Spooner, and even William Lloyd Garrison to an extent  should be the Civil War-era figures that should be praised amongst a group of people who claim to support individual sovereignty.


You do realize that John Brown actually personally killed a lot of innocent people don't you? You call him a hero. I call him a violent killer.

----------


## familydog

> No. I have no interest in reading any more bull$#@!. Defending the Confederacy means defending the thousands of year old institution of slavery. While I would not mind having my own slave to take care of me ... I believe it to be immoral and do not support it. Do your own research.


What a convincing argument. You surely showed me.

----------


## Travlyr

> What a convincing argument. You surely showed me.


That response was not for you. That response was for the readers of this thread. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> You do realize that John Brown actually personally killed a lot of innocent people don't you? You call him a hero. I call him a violent killer.


Innocent?  They were slave hunters.

----------


## truelies

> Innocent?  They were slave hunters.


10 year old kids were slave hunters, eh.

----------


## truelies

> Like Jefferson Davis?


Nah, Davis merely took part in exercising the Constitutional Right of a portion of the Several States to dissolve a bond which was no longer in their Interest.

----------


## Aratus

> Some people claim that John Wilkes Booth had connections to Thomas William House. Are you familiar with any connection along those lines?


Wilson's advisor, Colonel House is as well known as William McKinley's campaign manager, Mark Hanna.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> 10 year old kids were slave hunters, eh.


Which of his targets were 10?  The youngest Doyle son was 16 and he was spared.

----------


## RickyJ

> Robert E. Lee was a slave master,
> 
> 
> 
> How did Lincoln start the war? The South fired upon an unarmed ship during President Buchanan's term, they proudly fired the second shots at Fort Sumter, and they fired the third shot and killed one of Lincoln's close friends. The south wanted the war. Lincoln clearly did not want war.


That is my belief as well. None of us can know the exact truth because all we can know is what was written of that time, and we know that can be biased and outright lies.

----------


## Fredom101

I read the Real Lincoln a few years ago. It was not filled with opinions but rather actual quotes from Lincoln himself. DiLorenzo did a great job of letting the reader decide about Lincoln's character. But that actual quotes are pretty damning.

----------


## Aratus

i grandly admit to this when weighing in the balance his being an apt editor, upon knowing 
how much worse the politically correct crowd was to get, i feel Monsieur DiLorenzo gleefully
indulged in one damnedly clever job of editting given that his very topical book is predestined 
to make poor old Honest Abe out to be a worse and worse bigot over time! most unavoidedly!

----------


## talkingpointes

> I read the Real Lincoln a few years ago. It was not filled with opinions but rather actual quotes from Lincoln himself. DiLorenzo did a great job of letting the reader decide about Lincoln's character. But that actual quotes are pretty damning.


Trav says just forget about it, he was a good president and if you can't figure it out you're stupid. The End. PS. Facts are like $#@!s everyone has one - Trav

----------


## talkingpointes

> That response was not for you. That response was for the readers of this thread. I'm not going to do your homework for you.


You haven't made any arguements. You have just copy and pasted opinions of others. You lack any credential what-so-ever and choose to just tell others if they can't figure it out then it's becuase of their supposed lack of intelligence.

----------


## Aratus

this thread has been quite a debate, and like the other Lincoln threads, we actually 
are 100% debating Abe Lincoln's + Bill McKinley's + Mitt Romney's political legacy to 
us as we debate running Senator Rand Paul in either 2016 or 2020 or 2024 inside the 
upcoming GOP primaries and caucuses. Even Strom Thurmond softened his stances 
on Honest Abe during the last three decades of his long life, he was one of the major 
segregationists of his generation. We can look at Ken Burns's film often and wonder.

----------


## truelies

> Innocent?  They were slave hunters.


A legal occupation at the time. Brown & his minions were terrorists.

----------


## Emerick

Trav's arguments are just nonsensical. Let's see his main thesis.

1) Trav argues that Lincoln was a very nice guy, a true constitutionalist, not a tyrant. If you EXCLUDE the period of time when he was president, you won't find him defending anything that was against the Constitution.

OK, nice. Isn't that true of almost any president? For instance, find a quote of George W. Bush in which he says civil liberties should be evaporated. I guess you problably won't find any such quote. So, if we EXCLUDE the precise moment in which Bush fought strongly against civil liberties, if we exclude his presidency, I guess we should have to conclude that Bush was a strict defender of the Constitution.

This is Trav's argument: if you exclude all violations of the Constitution that Lincoln promoted, than we must conclude that he was a true defender of the Constitution!

2) Lincoln couldn't negotiate with the confederates, because, ABOVE ALL, he was a constitutionalist and was securing the deeds of the Founding Fathers -- says Trav. On the other hand, when questioned about Lincoln's actions during the war, he said all he did is understandable -- although he says he doesn't agree with everything Lincoln did -- in light of the circumstances.

Agains, this argument is just LOGICAL BS. If Lincoln was a principled man, that put his oath to the Constitution ABOVE ANYTHING -- and Trav has said this explicitly --, than he could not violate the Constitution EVEN during wartime. On the other hand, if he could put his principles aside during war, WHY couldn't he do the SAME THING before, AVOIDING the war?

In other words, it's simply not true that Lincoln was forced to don't negotiate because he was all about principles. The war proves this is false. On the other hand, it's clear that, if this was the case, then he would have put his principles aside to commit evil, but wouldn't do the same to avoid the greatest war of all time until then!

3) Anytime Trav reads an objection to which he has no answer, he comes with this response: "well, you must love slavery".

This is just ad hominem. No, Trav, if you don't support Lincoln's dictatorship, it doesn't mean you are for slavery. A lot of people in America seems blind to this, but slavery ended all over the world without war. In my country, Brazil, for instance, we had a process of ending slavery since 1850 until it finally was abolished peacefully in 1888. And, note this, slavery was an institution more important in Brazil than in America. First, there were many more slaves here than there -- the proportion of blacks in Brazilian population in much greater than in America. Second, almost all economic activities in Brazil used slaves. And, third, contrary to what happens in US, here in Brazil we really don't have a tradition of upholding liberty.

To state it in another way, if we managed to abolish slavery peacefully here in Brazil, in a much worse circumstance, there's no reason at all to think that slavery would be prolonged for much longer. And, as a result, we don't have much of an interracial problem here in Brazil. In fact, black racism is growing right now, because Brazilian blacks are trying to copy America's way of fighting racism.

----------


## Aratus

was John Hancock a more able president than George Washington???  This is a basic question!!!
Abe Lincoln did not go beyond the scope of the authority George Washington asked for in 1789.
Jefferson Davis's Constitution tends to mirror our own.  Travlyr was not advocating anarchism,
and was bringing into this John Locke's social contract theory when talking Civil War politics. The
South ended up with a president who was more autocratic than John Hancock. Same applies to
the North. GOTO the Federalist Papers and the stances of the Antifederalists. These core issues!

----------


## Aratus

Emerick... curiously enough, in 1864 over that long bloody summer, we see that Abe Lincoln almost ended up negotiating a seperate peace
with Jefferson Davis's government and then decided to dump a perfectly respectable and honest guy named Hannibal Hamlin from Maine in
favor of a Tennessee tailor, only to see the ticket win him an election! The fall of Atlanta in addition to the GOP win in 1864 on an Unionist
platform changed history. Brazil and the U.K clearly went about abolishing slavery much better than we did. Things were not cut and dried.
An insider's glimpse into the inner workings of the Civil War White House might have brought home to Andrew Johnson how close the South
was to a total political legitimacy & success. The quarrels of Reconstruction are the fizzures inside Lincoln's high powered cabinet writ large.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> A legal occupation at the time. Brown & his minions were terrorists.


So just because a government said it was legal to track and hunt down human beings, that means it was justified?  Should abolitionists have been punished for attempting to nullify fugitive slave laws?

----------


## truelies

> ........................ Should abolitionists have been punished for attempting to nullify fugitive slave laws?


John Brown was guilty of murder and treason for which he was deservedly hanged.

----------


## Aratus

nearly all the better Quakers and Abolitionists in the 1850s thought that very "for instance" legitimized nullification
ever so much more than John C. Calhoun ever had in his long lifetime! they wanted to nullify the fugitive slave laws.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> John Brown was guilty of murder and treason for which he was deservedly hanged.


So Brown was "deservedly hanged" because he challenged a system that forcefully contradicted the concept of freedom that you claim to support?

----------

