The Abe Lincoln Lie

Though Abraham Lincoln will forever be remembered for freeing the slaves, Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, says that was never one of his chief political aims. What was? According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln devoted

his entire political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized

(as the Founders intended) to a highly centralized, activist state. This was all achieved during his administration, and the Civil War -- which was not necessary to end slavery, DiLorenzo contends -- was the means by which

From The Real Lincoln:
"The average American -- who has not spent much time reading Lincoln's speeches but who has learned about him through the filter of the 'Lincoln scholars' -- will be surprised or even shocked by some of his words and actions. He stated over and over again that he was opposed to political or social equality of the races; he was not an abolitionist but denigrated them and distanced himself from them; and his primary means of dealing with racial problems was to attempt to colonize all American blacks in Africa,

In The Real Lincoln, Prof. DiLorenzo addresses questions and reveals facts that many readers may find surprising or even shocking, such as:

-- Voluminous evidence that Lincoln never believed in racial equality, and strongly opposed equal rights for blacks.

-- Lincoln's "spectacular lie:" How he invented the idea that the federal Union created the states -- which were therefore not sovereign -- and waged

-- How generations of historians helped perpetuate the notion that Lincoln was only "defending the Constitution" with his illegal and unconstitutional acts.

-- How Lincoln, far from "saving the Union," destroyed the Founders' vision of it as a voluntary confederation of states.

-- How Lincoln transformed America from a constitutional republic to a consolidated empire, more and more despotic at home and adventurous abroad.

"It sometimes takes a century or more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?'" -- Donald Livingston, Emory University

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War is already one of the most controversial books of 2002 and it is sure to be a Conservative Book Service best-seller.

I used to like Sobran, but in this and other matters he has gone off the deep end (as observed by others here). While its true Lincoln wasn't the one-dimensional saint as viewed by some, neither was his aim to destroy the constitution. I just finished reading the 6 volmue work by Carl Sandburg, and it rings totally true. In short, while Lincoln made many mistakes and financially was always off the mark, he deserves a place with the great leaders of America. Its a crying shame Sobran, and others, have jumped on the "destroy our herritage" bandwagon. To bring Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington "down" is an attack on our country as much as many other leftist-socialist ideas. I know even some here will prefer hating Lincoln to facts, but Sandburg was born only a few years after Lincolns death, researched hundreds of books and live witnesses and generally did a scholarly work. These 150 year after-the-fact attacks are easy, shallow, and clearly biased. Poor Sobran, he is clearly hates Lincoln for 'personal' reasons, having little to do with historical facts.

"This is our question; we want no Negro equality, no Negro citizenship; we want no mongrel race to degrade our own; and as one man they, would meet you In the border with the sword in one hand and torch in the other."

It's a far cry from another quote from a Southerner:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Senator Toombs's speech does not defend the South too well on this one. Sorry, but one does not allow a kidnapper or someone wrongfully holding another person to "depart in peace" as the Senator asked.

Lincoln might not have been an angel, but he was definitely the lesser of two evils in the 1861-1865 timeframe.

Not the EP, but more "truth":

One may get the idea, from what I have said, that there was bitter feeling toward the white people on the part of my race, because of the fact that most of the white population was away fighting in a war which would result in keeping the Negro in slavery if the South was successful. In the case of the slaves on our place this was not true, and it was not true of any large portion of the slave population in the South where the Negro was treated with anything like decency. During the Civil War one of my young masters was killed, and two were severely wounded. I recall the feeling of sorrow which existed among the slaves when they heard of the death of "Mars' Billy." It was no sham sorrow, but real. Some of the slaves had nursed "Mars' Billy"; others had played with him when he was a child. "Mars' Billy" had begged for mercy in the case of others when the overseer or master was thrashing them. The sorrow in the slave quarter was only second to that in the "big house." When the two young masters were brought home wounded the sympathy of the slaves was shown in many ways. They were just as anxious to assist in the nursing as the family relatives of the wounded. Some of the slaves would even beg for the privilege of sitting up at night to nurse their wounded masters. This tenderness and sympathy on the part of those held in bondage was a result of their kindly and generous nature. In order to defend and protect the women and children who were left on the plantations when the white males went to war, the slaves would have laid down their lives. The slave who was selected to sleep in the "big house" during the absence of the males was considered to have the place of honour. Any one attempting to harm "young Mistress" or "old Mistress" during the night would have had to cross the dead body of the slave to do so. I do not know how many have noticed it, but I think that it will be found to be true that there are few instances, either in slavery or freedom, in which a member of my race has been known to betray a specific trust.
As a rule, not only did the members of my race entertain no feelings of bitterness against the whites before and during the war, but there are many instances of Negroes tenderly caring for their former masters and mistresses who for some reason have become poor and dependent since the war. I know of instances where the former masters of slaves have for years been supplied with money by their former slaves to keep them from suffering. I have known of still other cases in which the former slaves have assisted in the education of the descendants of their former owners. I know of a case on a large plantation in the South in which a young white man, the son of the former owner of the estate, has become so reduced in purse and self-control by reason of drink that he is a pitiable creature; and yet, notwithstanding the poverty of the coloured people themselves on this plantation, they have for years supplied this young white man with the necessities of life. One sends him a little coffee or sugar, another a little meat, and so on. Nothing that the coloured people possess is too good for the son of "old Mars' Tom," who will perhaps never be permitted to suffer while any remain on the place who knew directly or indirectly of "old Mars' Tom."

Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery: An Autobiography, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, N.Y., 1901, pp12-14.

This selection is in regards to the EP,

I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government --- that nation --- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.
Abraham Lincoln, "To Albert G. Hodges", 4 Apr 1864, Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, Ed.), Vol VII, p. 281.

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.