ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA'S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

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! --Ron Holland.

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the South versus the North (I come from a state with connections to both), the basic truth is that civil wars are the GREATEST arenas for war crimes, atrocities, disregard of civilian rights, and just plan mass killing. This applies to the American Civil War, as well as more recent civil wars in Mexico, Russia, Spain, China, etc. etc. And it also applies to the civil wars in 1990s Yugoslavia.

This, however, does not give some outside "humanitarian warrors" the right to intervene in civil wars, take steps to exacerbate them, to demonze one side or the other, and to occupy parts of the country that had the civiil war on some "peacekeeping mission." The "West", as well as the international islamic jihad, did all these things in Yugoslavia, and are still doing them.

Anyone who supports "humanitarian intervention" should ask themselves what would have happened if the 19th century "Concert of Europe", led by Great Britain and France, had intervened in the US Civil War, in order to "stop atrocities", "restrain war criminals", "protect trade interests", or any other number of reasons. Would there be a United States (or for that matter, a Confederacy) today? Would European powers still occupy parts of the US, Mexico, and/or Canada? Would Russia (whether Czarist, communist/socialist,or otherwise) still be in Alaska? How might Europe itself be different?

They should also ask themselves how the United States, which went through a great civil war itself, could possibly morally justify intervening in Yugoslavia, for any of the reasons given above. How could we expect a good outcome from such an intervention?

First, most of the attacks against Mr. Holland and the ideas he espoused have been baseless namecalling. A few people have actually tried to rebut him. It is to those to whom I adress this reply. One person complained about the comparison of Lincoln to Mao, Lenin, and Hitler because Lincoln was duly elected. In response to that, I say, so was Hitler. Whether or not a person enjoys popular support doesnt determine whether his actions were right or wrong, even though it might determine if his actions are presented as right or wrong in the history books. Most of the other people posting have focussed on slavery in the South as justification for the war. To them my response is two fold. First, the war was not about slavery. At the outset of the war, there were more slave States in the union than in the Confederacy. Slave States remained in the union throughout the war. Lincoln and Grant both stated that the war was not to end slavery. In fact, Grant kept his slaves until after the passage of the 13th ammendment, citing as his reason, "Its so hard to find good help these days." The war was about economics. The main issue on this front was the protective tariff advocated by the republican party. South Carolina had threatened to secede about a dozen years earlier over what came to be called, 'the tariff of abomination.' The republicans had as their stated aim to bring back a high protectionist tariff for the benefit of the mercantilist north against the agrarian South. At the time of the outbreak of the war, the South with about 30% of the population paid over 70% of the federal taxes. This was before the higher tariff was implemented. Furthermore, this money was largely spent in the north for the benefits of their industry. Certainly the threat of taking the slaves from their owners without compensation was an economic threat as well. More importantly, the so called 'abolitionist'(read radical unitarians, humanists, and atheists) wanted to destroy slavery in the South and foment the slaves to massacre the whites in the land much the way Dessalines had done in Haiti. Men like John Brown were in closer to fitting the definition of terrorist than those we supposedly fight today. Second, slavery is not in and of itself wrong. While this is undoubtedly an enraging statement to most of you, it is true. In fact, the U.S. Constitution still does not outlaw slavery, though it does outlaw slavery as practiced in the antebellum South, chattel slavery. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Some cited that the secession of the South was not legitimate because all people were not allowed to vote. All people are not meant to be allowed to vote in a republic. In both the north and the South at that time, women were not allowed to vote. Most States required property ownership for suffrage. The secession of the South was still a move for self determination of government, the same principle as the American Revolution was fought over. Someone else stated that slaves in the South had no civil rights. This statement is patently untrue and shows the effectiveness of the brainwashing campaign of government schools in the past 130 years. Many slaves were paid. Quiet a few bought their freedom with money they saved from their pay. The Georgia Constitution of 1861, the secession constitution, contains what to my knowledge is the first statement of equal protection under the law for blacks.

Sir,

With all due respect for your attempt at civility, I am compelled to broaden your view of the War by a few facts to which you are apparently oblivious.

First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. To drink the Kool-Aid of the liberal media that these 94% would risk life and limb to defend the sins of the wealthy is to demonstrate extreme illogic and gullibility. This is excusable when you are in elementary school and have no experience with the deception of the media. To fail to acquire intellectual curiosity about such illogic is deplorable in an adult.

Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery if he could preserve the union (read: Empire). He announced that the abolition or preservation of slavery had no influence on his pursuit of the war. He announced at his first inauguration that he had no intent to interfere with it.

Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. It specifically exempted the northern states and the portions of the South that were under military control of Federal forces. Lincoln himself remarked that it had absolutely no legal validity.

Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri, declared all slaves in the district to be free only to have Lincoln castigate him for his pronouncement and force him to rescind his announcement. Lincoln repeated this action in the case of virtually every other Federal general who freed slaves, and he actually relieved at least one of command.

Fifth, the Federal government continued to employ slaves to build the Capitol and White House during the War. Does this seem a contradiction? Those slaves were not freed until years AFTER the War.

Sixth, General Grant allowed his wife to bring her slave into the Army camp during the War. Moreover, he is quoted as saying, "If I had any inkling that this war was being fought over slavery, I would throw down my sword and join the other side." He is also reported to have regretted the abolition of slavery and to have explained his opposition to this act with the words, "Good help is hard to find."

Seventh, (and I will stop here) when Lincoln was asked by his cabinet officers, "Why not simply let the South secede in peace?" Lincoln answered, "Where would I get the money to run the country?" You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.

The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.

One's life does not have to be boring or unrewarding to resent an injustice that took place to one's people. If you are not aware of this, simply speak to a descendant of a Holocaust victim. That hurt will probably be remembered at least as long as the Holocaust that Sherman visited upon the defenseless citizenry of the South. It is easy to sit back and mock those whose hurts have not healed, but I wonder where you have trashed your humanity.

Although the article faults Lincoln for his actions in destroying the US Constitution by invalidating the sovereignty of the states, it is not "Anti-Lincoln." We do not want to fight the War Between the States again; we have learned that going up against the American Empire is a losing proposition. However, in the same way that Holocaust victims and their descendants will continue to broadcast the sins of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, Southerners will continue to point out the ACTIONS of Lincoln which were contrary to the US Constitution and the Bible upon which this country was founded.

Neo-Nazis are rising again and preaching their anti-Semitism. Anti-Southernism is state policy promulgated by deceptive history books. It is sad to see conservatives so rigid in their defense of the destroyers of the US Constitution.

PG wrote:

Sir,
With all due respect for your attempt at civility...

You may have the wrong person. I'm not ordained by the British Crown (I'd have accepted, but the Constitution prohibits it...), and I am rarely civil.

Just in case you really meant me, here's mine, per yours, no. 94:

First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. : For all the joy expressed in the neo-con fantasy about the souther common man's will for the South, despite, regardless, irrespective, etc. of slavery, your argument is turned inside out with a simple Gallup poll of northerners c. April, 1861. "Get 'em," quoth 94% of the northern population (Baltimore, Maryland, excepted...)

Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery... Fool me once, shame on me, fool you twice, shame on you. Lincoln said a lot of things. What he did is very clear. Shall we argue ghosts or shadows?

Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. The E.P. was a wholly constitutional act that freed the slaves in rebellion states. The 13th amendment freed the rest. Constitutional literalists find this fact inconvenient. I hate to btich at Walter Williams, but he's stupid wrong on this one.

Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri... and so on to your fifth and sixth on the same topic... See no. three.

Fremont had no such authority. He liberated California from the Mexicans, though. That's worth something, even a run at the White House...

Seventh, ... You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.

I just PUKED.

If the South paid 85% of the tariffs collected I'm moving to 'Bama, 1857. Must have been heaven, with so much money about. Aside from the lie, laws of economics make it an impossibility. The North, larger in population, industry, and consumption paid only 15% import duties? Danmed yankee smugglers.

If this were the case, secession was not the answer: cotton mills were. Go NC! (which generally didn't want to secede, including its Governor).

The argument is so specious not even anti-tariff southern Democrats in the post-war period brought it up.

As for control of the Government, please re-read the constitution. The South controlled the Senate. And the Democratic party (aka the South) ran the Government in the 1850s. They pushed through a free trade deal with Canada (did you know that?). They lowered duties generally. They ran the Supreme Court which ruled friendly to slave owners. They controlled the growth of the nation via congressional control over the territories and their brokered admittance to the Union.

Gee, what went wrong in 1861? Maybe a self-destruction of unparalled stupidity? I cry for my southern ancestors who fought so bravely, so magnificiently for the wrong reasons. I laud my northern ancestors who fought with equal honor the winning cause. I have medals earned for bravery on both sides.

The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.

Actually, Prof. William admitted one thing on this subject: to the victors history.

Duh.

x, Huck, WhiskeyPapa, I really wanted to do this, but now I'm just bored.

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.