President Lincoln Was A Terrorist, History Just Won’t Admit It

This article gives another perspective on liberals, libertarians and conservatives. The history both Lincoln and Sherman has been written by the victors and beyond reproach. Do we want to restore honor in this country? Can we restore honor by bringing up subjects over 100 years old? Comments are encouraged.

It’s harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative — given the former category’s increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter’s prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment — but it’s still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.

If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country’s Founding Fathers, what you’ve got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America’s last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.

But if — and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people — you’d like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.

Suppose a woman — with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated — desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he’d already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she’d complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn’t a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?

History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.

Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.

The fact is, Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over — income taxation and military conscription to which newly “freed” blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery — a dubious, “politically correct” assertion with no historical evidence to back it up — then clearly, slavery won.

Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight “knock on the door”, illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, “disappearing” thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression — in the south, it lasted half a century — he didn’t have to live through, himself.

In the end, Lincoln didn’t unite this country — that can’t be done by force — he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he’d have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.

If libertarians ran things, they’d melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they’d like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars — more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime — and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional “technicalities” like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world’s largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.

The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else’s, Abraham Lincoln’s career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents — rather than mere hundreds of thousands — to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America’s Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.

It is ironic that you think I “argue in favor of the southern rebel democrats.” I have not once taken their side in this thread. All I have stated was how Lincoln was NOT the hero that he is made out to be, and pointed out where his actions violated the Constitution, both de facto and de jure. You are welcome to disagree with me ON THAT POINT. Don’t put words in my mouth and then accuse me of hypocrisy. I know what Franklin believed—and that’s why I put it on there.

Also—agreed, no irony that Lincoln was a Republican. Plenty of Republicans want government control over everything...he was no “conservative”....is that better?

One other thing, does Godwin’s Law say anything about the KKK?

Wait a minute—I DID say the Virginia legislature had given themselves the right to secede in their ratification—I guess that is the “in favor of southern rebel democrats” you’re speaking of...Facts are facts. You’re welcome to your own opinions—but not your own facts. Stating that Virginia (as well as New York AND Rhode Island) had provisions in their ratifications for secession is not an argument in favor of southern rebel democrats—it is a fact.

So I guess that is why they formed terorist groups like the KKK?

The Corwin amendment:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"

Here is Lincoln responding to this proposed Amendment: "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Saint Lincoln:

“Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between anyother two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”

You will receive your lesson soon enough....

What I love about this article is that the author directly ties the Libertarian movement to the southern outlaws and rebels who fought against the Constitution during the Civil War.

Libertarians today continaully side with Marxists in opposing our National Security, opposing the rule of law made by the majority of states and it’s people, continually deny allowing equal representation for all, and seek to undermine the moral underpinnings of the People and the Republic.

The article even goes as far as saying that all libertarians should celebrate Lincoln’s assassin and praise the uprising against the United States.

In the sixties these same libertarians stood side by side with the counter-culture Marxists in treason against the United States. They have done the same today in the war against dictatorships and terrorism.

These same libertarians with their libertine attitude and outlaw mentality always seem to side with the Marxists as well in underming the traditional morality of the American people. They claim that sexual liberation is more important then the right of the people to defend their children from their sick perverse values. They defend the rights of drug lords and terrorists still today just as they defended slavery yesterday.

It is a total joke that these libertarians think that the Founders of this nation would of supported their causes at any time during their treasonous campaign.

Fair enough but it still was the Confederacy that formed the Klan and the Confederacy whereas it flourished at all. It also wa sthe continuation of the party of the Confederacy (the democrats) who continued to promote the Klan for a hundred years to come.

It still was the Confederact that defended slavery. It still was Lincoln who took a side that fought against it. Regardless of his shortcomings Lincoln was not in favor of the much more radical pro-slavery attitudes of the rebel south democrats.

And not for the stride of anti-Americanism to be broken the democrat party has never missed a beat. They were the party of the KKK during the Civil War and then they were the party of the KKK for years upon years after as well.

You haven’t given any lesson as of yet.

As I have said the democrats have a consistent streak of supporting the KKK from the southern rebel democrats to the progressive KKK democrats of later.

Lincoln may not have been perfect in every statement or act but he fought against the southern democrat KKK rebels in the long run and defended the Constitution for all.

All the southern democrat rebels wanted was their own rule over the rights of others.

Yet everyone does not agree as of yet that the southern rebels were bad.

That the Confederacy was bad!

Yet it was the southern rebel democrats who formed the KKK, fought to uphold slavery, and then continued that legacy for years upon years to come.

It is this thread even that started the hyberbole by calling President Lincoln a terrorist and praising the man who assinated him.

So it is those who support the premise of this thread that should stop the hyberbole already!!!! They still suffer from Lincoln Derangement Syndrome and still do not get it!

Yet also the southern rebels utilized an Outlaw mentality (or a libertarian mentality depending upon your point of view) to terrorize Union towns and murder their people because they felt it was there right to be against the Constitution.

The KKK was the logical next step of the southern rebel mentality and very shortly followed formed by southern rebels.

The article even goes as far as saying that all libertarians should celebrate Lincoln’s assassin and praise the uprising against the United States.

In the sixties these same libertarians stood side by side with the counter-culture Marxists in treason against the United States.

AAA bullshit rating....

Well, I've had enough of your dimwit historical misrepresentations. "uprising against the United States" There she is, the big lie. Your God, Lincoln, turned the agent against the people and their States. No more and certainly no less. What he did is criminal to put it lightly.

Furthermore; Marx was in Lincoln's corner, not ours. Every tyrant supports an all powerful central government. We had a verdict thanks to the Revolutionary War. That verdict was that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". Your hero took a flamethrower to that verdict and rewrote it. It now reads " Government is a right, you peasants better understand that we know best. Just pay your taxes, solute the idols we tell you to, and everything will be just fine."

We happy few will be here, as our heirs will be, telling you like it is and was. As one fine Texas Governor once said, "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." Just replace Texas with any Unreconstructed Southerner, and you’re learning a little more..

I have never claimed Lincoln to be a God. There is another example of the hyperbole of those who defend the premise of the thread.

It is though a fact that the southern rebels were rebelling against the Constitution and not for it. It is also a fact that they were democrats and that they formed the KKK and were at heart outlaws and terrorists and tyrannical believers in slavery. It is also a fact that the libertarian movement today aligns itself with Code Pink and the Marxists of the pogressive movement on issues such as National Security and forcing the people to have to accept things such as prostitution, homosexuality, and drug pushing. The libertarians and Marxists both always defend the outlaws and corrupt in society.

The libertarians continually show themselves to be against the very fabric of morality that this nation was built upon.

It is though a fact that the southern rebels were rebelling against the Constitution and not for it.

And then when they were finished spitting on it they created a virtual carbon copy - except that they made certain that their passion - enslaving human beings - was forever cherished and immortalized.

Don't it just make your heart swell with pride?

You still haven’t answered my question from before...

What have all of you mentally ill libertarians (suffering from Lincoln and now Bush Derangement Syndrome) done in order to secure your right to tell the United States to f-off and secceed from the Union?

You have done nothing. You are all a bunch of malcontents who want to undermine the conservative movement with your propaganda about how defending the Constitution and the American people from radical democrat rebels was a bad thing. You never do anything to actually prove your point and make an Amendment to the Constitution that you claim has you in chains.

You all just whine. Lincoln was a terrorist. Bush was a terrorist. Liberals and liberatarians both ... Shut up already!!!

The Union army didn’t only make the Confederate Army pay, they took it out on the women and children, too. They stole their food and livestock, tore up their fields, and burned their homes and left them to starve.

And I guess you think the Confederate army were perfect gentlemen. Adelia Craigmiles Knox of Lafayette, Georgia had this to say of the passage of Braxton Bragg's Confederate Army of Tennessee:

"When the army moved on there was not a growing thing left on the place."

Sounds like your precious Confederate army waged a little war on the women and children of Lafayette Georgia. They were no good at stopping Sherman's army but they sure could strip clean any Dixie farm unfortunate to be in their path. Gone with the wind! hahaha

“I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]...” -— Abraham Lincoln, 3/24/1862 letter to Horace Greely, New York Tribune editor

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -— Abraham Lincoln

“I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.” -— Abraham Lincoln, upon his replacement of General Burnside with General Hooker for command of the Army of the Potomac

Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been , in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Abe Lincoln

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.