Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Southern Caucus ^ | ? | Ron Holland

Posted on 11/19/2001 6:28:43 AM PST by tberry


By Ron Holland

from Southern Caucus

Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

Because of Lincoln, the former American constitutional republic fell from a dream of liberty and limited government into the nightmare big government we have today without the earlier checks and balances of state sovereignty. After Lincoln, In foreign policy, the US forgot George Washington’s warning about neutrality and we became an aggressive military abroad until today we have troops defending the Washington Empire in over 144 nations around the world.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connections as possible. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.—George Washington

Lincoln shares his war criminal actions with other well know tyrants that waged war on their own people. History shows us that politicians make war against their own citizens even more than against foreign nations. The reasons are often to establish and preserve their power base, as was the case in the Russian Revolution and the Mao Revolution. For others, like Hitler, it was misguided super patriotism and racism that brought death to tens of millions. Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency. Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln was an honorable statesman who let election year politics and the special interests supporting his presidential campaign corrupt a once great man. He knew what he was doing was wrong and unconstitutional but succumbed, as in the case of many modern day politicians, to the allure of money, power and ego.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. -- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

This quote above shows Lincoln as a statesman 12 years before he plunged the United States into its most disastrous war. Suffering a death toll so high in death rates as a percentage of total population, his act of carnage ranks with the political genocides of Stalin, Lenin and Mao during their communist revolutions. A death toll so great that it dwarfs the American deaths in all of our many declared and undeclared wars before and since this American holocaust of death and destruction.

From the following quote you can see that later Lincoln radically adjusted his rhetoric to meet the needs and demands of his business establishment supporters and financial supporters.

No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. --Abraham Lincoln

Why the complete change in rhetoric and actions? Simple, to preserve high tariffs and corporate profits for the Northeastern business establishment. Lincoln who earlier in his career had obviously favored the right of peaceful secession, provoked a war that killed 600,000 Americans, as a pay back to the eastern manufacturing establishment that bankrolled his presidential campaign. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. Thus the real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth and hide the ultimate costs of Lincoln’s American holocaust. While Lincoln’s death toll is small in comparison to total deaths by Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, there are many similarities between these men. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.

Still the US constitutional republic, as established by our founding fathers, was in effect destroyed by Lincoln’s unconstitutional war just as surely as Mao and Lenin over threw the existing Chinese and Russian governments. The multitude of Lincoln apologists would say that this is just another Confederate argument certainly not accepted by most historians. I might counter that the opinions and books of these "so called" establishment historians who live off my tax dollars through government funding at liberal controlled universities and think tanks are prejudiced towards Lincoln and Washington DC. They are no different from the official government historians in China, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.

History shows us that a fair and honest discussion of Lincoln’s wartime actions will not be possible as long as the Washington political establishment remains in power. Since Lincoln, the Washington Empire has reigned supreme and omnipotent and for this reason, establishment historians have never honestly debated the Lincoln war crimes.

Consider this. Was a fair and honest account of Lenin or Stalin written and published during the Soviet Communist regime? Of course not. Could a less than worshipful history of Hitler’s Third Reich have been published until after 1945? No! Even today, with only nominal communist control of China, an honest appraisal of Mao’s revolution and crimes against the Chinese people still is not possible. It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Just as Lenin’s statue could not be toppled in Red Square until after the fall of the Soviet Communist government, or the truth about Hitler couldn’t be told until after defeat of Nazi Germany, it is the same here in the United States. It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged. The Lincoln Memorial should be remodeled to show the horrors of "Lincoln the War Criminal" with the opportunity for all to visit Washington and learn how war crimes, genocide and holocaust are not just crimes that foreign politicians commit. Government and political tyranny can and has happened here just like in Germany, China and the Soviet Union and that through education and honest history, it will never happen here again.

In the future, may we have the opportunity to learn about the Nazi holocaust at the United States National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and then have the chance to visit the Lincoln War Crimes and American Holocaust Museum a few blocks away. One will state for all the world that NEVER AGAIN will a tyrant or government be allowed to target, exterminate and destroy an ethnic, racial or religious minority. The other will pledge NEVER AGAIN in America will we allow a president or government to make unconstitutional war against Sovereign states or their citizens and then cover up the truth up for over 145 years.

We should start today with an honest appraisal of what Lincoln really did to Dixie, how our black and white innocent noncombatants suffered under his total war policy against civilians. Finally we should address the cost in lives, lost liberty and federal taxes the citizens of the US have had to endure because our limited constitutional republic was destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a smart politician and he could have been an excellent president, had he considered the short-term costs of his high tariff and the long time price every American had to pay for his war of invasion. It is time to stop worshipping Lincoln and educate the public about the war crimes he committed against the citizens of the Southern States so this WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; dixie; dixielist; goebbels; mediawingofthednc; presidents; prozacchewables; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-468 last
To: tberry
Can anyone provide a bibliography of books by historians that speak to Lincoln actions against the US Constitution?
461 posted on 12/05/2001 9:06:52 AM PST by tberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tberry
Yeah, try the redneck review I'm sure you will find something to ya'all lik'en.
462 posted on 02/09/2002 2:03:40 AM PST by the_rightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: tberry

Sounds like a disciple of the Alex Jones Church of Looney Tunes.

463 posted on 06/29/2008 12:09:31 AM PDT by bigdcaldavis ("Screw Kahlifornia. Gimme Kolinahr." - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tberry

After we figure out where Obama was born, then we can deal with this nonsense.

I will note the obvious: firing on Fort Sumter was a very bad idea. Maybe even stupider than the Pearl Harbor attack!

464 posted on 06/29/2008 12:49:09 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tberry

Hi Ron,
I was searching on the internet about Lincoln books and caught your site about Lincoln. You gave me a lot to think about.
First I want to say that I believe Lincoln to be one of if not the greatest Presidents that this nation has ever had. I am from New York and thus maybe have somewhat of a Northern biased view towards Lincoln (maybe you have a southern biased view), but I am also a strong Conservative Republican. I believe in limited local government, free enterprise economy, a strong military presence in the world, and strong family values. I wish to preserve life (prevent abortion) and to protect marriage. I want to make this very clear that I am not responding to you to argue, but to better understand your views on Lincoln, and express some of my own views on Lincoln.
I have received my bachelor’s degree in history from SUNY Cortland in New York, so I do have more than a passing knowledge of history and the American presidents. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not worship Lincoln. I do think that he is a great man and one of the best American Presidents but I do not worship him. Just as Washington, Jefferson, and the Roosevelt’s were men so too is Lincoln. I will share with you some of the reasons why I believe Lincoln to be such a great president. It was unclear prior to Lincoln if the US was a loose collection of states or a strong powerful country. Prior to Lincoln New Yorkers felt like they were New Yorkers, and North Carolinians felt like they were North Carolinians. I think to a certain extent Lincoln brought the idea of America into being. He made Americans feel like they were part of the greater America. I do realize that Lincoln does have some contradictions and hypocrisies but who doesn’t. In a biography of James Polk (much underrated president) Lincoln was criticizing Polk’s seizing of power as president. He even said something to the fact that Polk did not have the constitutional right to have that much power. Yet in Lincoln’s case when he became president he needed to be that strong to bring the nation through its most deadly conflict, the Civil War. Lincoln could not have allowed southern states to nullify federal laws that would cause a major catastrophe. If South Carolina could nullify a law. Then so too could New York, or Virginia, or Connecticut and then there would be no America. When Fort Sumter was bombed he needed to show force. He could not have said let the fort fall. He needed to be swift and forceful. I agree that the south was fighting for sates rights, and as stated before I am a Republican through and through so I can sympathize with that, yet federal law must take precedence over individual states wishes, or there is no country.
I think for more than any other reason Lincoln should be regarded as a great president for the freeing of the African-American slaves. The southern rigid acceptance and forceful push to maintain one of the most horrible and inhumane institutions of slavery cannot be forgotten when we discuss the Civil War. I fully understand that not all southerners agreed with slavery. I also know that many northerners were and still are racists. As stated earlier I can sympathize with the southern states right viewpoint, yet I cannot sympathize with the maintaining of the immoral institution of slavery. Lee was by far the greatest General of that war (Grant won because he had more advantages and was one of the few Northern generals to take advantage of them). Lee is made into the marble man. Lee is worshipped just as Lincoln is. Yet if Lee wanted to maintain slavery whether it is because he agreed with slavery (which I believe he did not) or because he wanted the south to make its own laws, he is still guilty either way. He is allowing the immoral institution to continue. I have heard many accounts from different historians and some professors that I have had that slavery was dying out in the south anyway, so why fight so hard to keep it? I do realize also that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the Slave States that did not rebel against the federal government. This is an example of Lincoln’s true political savvy. If he free slaves in the slave states that remained loyal to the union they may turn against the union. In this way Lincoln was able to free only slaves in the rebelling states, and keep border slave states loyal to the union. Lincoln hoped that when the war was won if it was won that then he could free all the slaves. That is what Lincoln eventually did.
You mention the 600,000 deaths that occurred during the war. I think it is unfair to attribute all those deaths to resident Lincoln. First of all the south rebelled against the union. I do agree that both the north and south had some cause in the war. I do not blindly believe that the south was entirely at fault, that being said I do not truly believe that this was “Lincoln’s War.” The major death toll was caused by the fact that the cannons and rifles were much more accurate at longer ranges, yet that were used were still “old-fashioned.” The Napoleonic frontal assaults were successful in the day and were still used in the Civil War. The weapons were far advanced for the tactics. Lincoln had no way of knowing that there would be this many casualties. He may have known more than others however that this was going to be a long conflict. Many others on both sides were predicting a four month war. I guess four long bloody years would have been more accurate.
The south was defeated by the principles that they sought. I do think it is honorable that they did fight for their principles yet it was ultimately their downfall. General Lee could only say, “If at all practicable can you take that hill” (or something along those lines). What he needed to say was, “take that damn hill men!” Yet by the confederate code he was not allowed to show or express complete centralized authority. Jefferson Davis too had his hands tied. He is a much more capable leader than people give him credit for. I do not believe he was the caliber of a Lincoln but he still was a great leader (even if he was a blatant racist). He saw the writing on the wall so to speak. He said I cannot win this war because I am not given complete control or authority over this government. Lincoln could act swiftly because he had majority control over the government. Jefferson Davis could not act if a Governor of a state or a Senator of a state did not agree. I believe was it the Governor of Georgia who failed to follow a law set down by Jefferson Davis? How can a government like that possibly succeed and expect to win a war of “rebellion” or “freedom” when the governors do not even follow the president’s orders? The Southern Confederacy definitely lived by their principles; unfortunately they also died by their principles.
I do understand that Lincoln is not perfect. He suspended Habeas Corpus which is difficult for me, but he needed to do it to win the war. He won the presidency on the premise of preserving the union. He did not free the slaves until later and it was not the first major aim of the war. He also said all laws must be followed no matter how unjust they were. So if the south had slavery it was the law and it must be obeyed. Yet he also realized that the United States could not remain divided it need to be all free or not. He believed in freedom of opportunity, but he did believe in the superiority of the white race. So he would say blacks should be free and have the same opportunity as whites, yet they will naturally achieve less because they are inferior to whites. The greatest northern general of the war was a true believer in equality for all. He believed that blacks were truly equal to whites. Grant is by far one f the most underrated Americans. He helped to win the civil war on the battle field, and then he became a two-term president who fought for African-American civil rights. Even with all things being set Grant was not capable of freeing the slaves, and Lincoln was. So it is a major irony in history. Lincoln should be given credit for the freeing of the slaves even if he still believed in white superiority. Lincoln’s assassination presents a what-if in history. Lincoln wanted to heal the nation after the war. He wanted to forgive the south and rebuild the south after the war. The radical Republicans wanted to make the south pay. So the vengeful southern politicians took it out on the blacks and instituted brutal segregationist’s white supremacy control. If Lincoln had lived would things have been different???
I think that there are two liberal Democrat president’s that have more to blame for the US and the world being the way it is today than Lincoln. The first is Woodrow Wilson, and the second is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. First of all the large amounts of taxes we pay can somewhat be attributed to Woodrow Wilson wasn’t the Federal Income tax passed into law under his presidency. He was also a flip-flopper on World War I. He won reelection on keeping us out of the war and then took us into World War I. He was a brutal dictatorial type president. Many prominent people were removed from their positions for having German last names. Freedom of speech was almost all but eradicated during Wilson’s residency. The Versailles treaty was a mess as well. He believed that all people had a right to self determination. That is an awesome idea! But look at Eastern Europe. It is very tough to put that into practice. The US did not join the League of Nations and the treaty failed and partially lead to WWII. FDR makes Lincoln look like a conservative. We have more government than ever before because of FDR. The great depression is what FDR used as an excuse to create the most expansive government ever in American history. We have FDR to thank for high taxes, and wasteful government spending. Well he is a New Yorker; us New Yorkers I am ashamed to admit know how to waste lots of money!!! Than FDR took us into WWII and lead us to defeat Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. Next Truman, than 1950s in steps Eisenhower, booming economy great stuff right?!!!!??!!? Well after FDR taxes go up spending goes up, and up and up. Today even the Republicans aren’t afraid to spend money. Reagan who supported FDR (and who didn’t support FDR during the depression, he gave people hope) said it best. Once you create a bureaucracy you can’t get rid of it. He believes that FDR intended dismantling some of the expansive government after the war. Reagan wanted to cut taxes and reduce spending. He did cut taxes and reduce some spending, yet he inflated the military budget and thus the debt. So even the greatest 20th century Republican president next to Theodore Roosevelt could not escape the spending frenzy. I don’t know if you read John Stossel or not. He was a reporter for 20/20, and one of the few conservatives in the media. He has statistics that show the expansion of government in the 1930-40s, it is startling. He says that government used to cost Americans only a few dollars a year in taxes and now our government per person costs thousands and thousands of dollars and it keeps increasing. He says it is due in large part to the expansion of government spending under FDR. There is some evidence to support that FDR did not accept Jews into the US that were seeking refuge from Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he did sign into law a system of concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during the war. Yet he is often credited with being the savior of democracy go figure. At least Lincoln freed slaves. The United Nations does not respect the interests of America today. The United Nations is a more modern version of the League of Nations. Maybe congress was right back then; maybe the US shouldn’t have joined it.
I am not sure if you dislike Lincoln because you are a southerner. Maybe you do not sympathize with the plight of African-Americans. Maybe you feel Lincoln was a dictator. Lincoln freed a people. He successfully won the worst war in American history, and provided America with a new birth of freedom and a solidified concept of what it means to be an American. If Woodrow Wilson, and FDR are looked at as dictatorial presidents taking from Lincoln’s lead than maybe Lincoln took from Polk’s lead or from some other earlier presidents. Did Polk truly have constitutional grounds to conquer the Mexican territories the way he did? Obviously not! Yet he is often ranked 9th in the presidential rankings even today. I guess because I am a New Yorker I do not know what it feels like to lose the Civil War. However didn’t the winners lose as well? Some much loss of life property, and so much devastation and destruction. Did anyone really win that war anyway?
I hope that I have given you things to think about. I hope I did not just regurgitate all those glowing Lincoln biographies that are out there today. I also hope that I have not seemed too argumentative. I felt that I had to respond to some of the things that you had mentioned. I also question your comparing of Lincoln to Mao, Stalin, and Hitler and the like. Lincoln made have wielded much power but in no way shape or form does he measure up to the likes of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler. Lincoln freed a race of people, these other men tortured and murdered people. I am sorry for the long diatribe, but I had to get my ideas out. There must be something to this guy. We all talk about him. They say that there are more books and articles written about Lincoln in the English language next too only Shakespeare and Christ. I can certainly see why he is an interesting and complex figure.

Kevin Burke

465 posted on 11/21/2008 1:27:05 PM PST by kevinburke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

I understand that he did not intially free anyone. Of course he could not free slaves in the slave states l;oyal to the Union because he would risk losing them to the confederacy. He could not risk having the border slave states rebelling against the Union.

466 posted on 11/22/2008 12:07:28 AM PST by kevinburke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: imperator2

Thank Lincoln, for what?!? For destroying States Rights and holding 13 States in the Union at gunpoint? We call someone who holds others hostage at gunpoint a Hostage Taker and usually the police shoot such individuals. Abraham Lincoln is a traitor to the Constitution and should have been publically executed for his crimes and unlawful war. Rather than support his orders of war against States wishing to no longer be part of the Union, General Grant should have refused to obey and should have instead arrested and executed Lincoln per his oath which he took to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic (Lincoln being a domestic enemy). Slavery would have gone away on it’s own and we would not have had the racial strife in this country were it not for the Traitor-in-Chief Lincoln’s actions. Where in the Constitution was Lincoln’s justification for dragging 13 Sovereign States back into the Union at gunpoint? No where, I’ll save you the time of finding something that doesn’t exist. John Wilkes Booth was a Hero and should have been given the Medal of Honor for his putting an end to Lincoln’s Tyranny. Too bad Lee hadn’t been bolder and marched into Washington, D.C. to put an end to Emperor Lincoln’s reign of terror. I’m sure Lincoln is keeping a spot warm in hell for Osama Bin Laden with his good buddy’s Stalin, Mao and Hitler. People need to open their eyes and stop worshipping Lincoln as if he were a saint..he wasn’t, he was a tyrant.

467 posted on 05/14/2010 6:50:03 AM PDT by RangerOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade

Lincoln had a soul? His actions were the sort of thing a person who had no soul would do. He destroyed the Republic our founding fathers gave us and replaced it with an iron-fisted empire where the States and it’s peoples are mere slaves to the Federal Government. Too bad we can’t go back in time to tell the founding fathers what would become of their grand experiment (it ultimately failed), maybe they would have concluded remaining loyal to the King in England would have been the lesser of two evils.

468 posted on 05/14/2010 6:50:03 AM PDT by RangerOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-468 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson