Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 21st, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Lincoln

How They Lie About Lincoln

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

There would be very stiff competition indeed for the literary award of "Most Absurd Lies and Myths About Lincoln." In the running would be almost all of Harry Jaffaís writing, including the statement in his latest Lincoln book that "Lincoln opposed making voters or jurors of Negroes in the 1850s so that they could be voters and jurors today." Or Gabor Boritís statement that Lincolnís lifelong advocacy of "colonization," or deportation of black people from America, is an example of "how honest people lie."

But there is a new entry to the field: an article from the February 9, 2009 issue of Newsmax.com by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen entitled "What Would He Say to Us Today?" It seems as though every time Newt Gingrich, who never served in the military himself, begins making the case for sending other peoplesí children off to die in another unnecessary war, he starts quoting Lincoln. A couple of years ago Gingrich wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he advocated a military invasion and occupation of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. The title of the article was "Lincoln and Bush." President Bush should "be like Lincoln," he said, and initiate five more wars simultaneously. More recently, Gingrich has been calling for the nuking of North Korea, so it is not surprising to me that he is once again waxing eloquently about Dishonest Abe.

It is well known that the founding fathers feared democracy. Indeed, in Federalist #10 James Madison explained that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to create a constitutional republic that would hopefully "restrain the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy. Gingrich and Forstchen unwittingly admit that their hero literally destroyed the constitution of the founding fathers by describing the Lincoln Memorial as "his [Lincolnís] throne" that is "Modeled after Grecian temples" and is "our American temple to democracy . . ."

In reality, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple to the idea that government in America is not voluntary, and never will be as long as Lincoln is its primary symbol and as long as Lincoln mythology remains the stateís cornerstone ideology. Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for todayís population, Lincolnís killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans.

To Gingrich and Fortschen, this is how America became "united." To me, it sounds more like how Soviet Russia was "united" in its own "glorious union." Do these men really believe that Southerners in 1866 felt "united" with their fellow citizens in the North?

The two people who were closest to Lincoln were his longtime law partner, William Herndon (who he affectionately called "Billy") and his wife, Mary Todd. In a biography of Lincoln Herndon wrote of how Lincoln was either an atheist or an agnostic. As a young man, said Herndon, Lincoln even wrote a book that argued that the Bible was not the word of God and that Jesus was not the son of God. When he decided to get into politics, the book was burned.

When Herndon was preparing his biography he asked Mrs. Lincoln to comment on Abeís "religious" views, and she told him that he never became a Christian. "Mr. Lincoln," she said, "had no faith . . . . He never joined a church . . . he was never a technical Christian." (See Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, p. 150).

That Lincoln "had no faith" is no secret to the "Lincoln scholars." In her book Team of Rivals, the high priestess of the Lincoln Cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, acknowledges this fact but adds the usual spin: We should all feel even more sorry for poor, poor Abe, she says, since he suffered from not believing in an afterlife.

Gingrich and Fortschen simply lie about this by writing that Lincoln "was a man of deep and abiding faith." They apparently write this on the basis of the fact that Lincoln, like Bill Clinton, was fond of quoting Scripture in political speeches. (Recall how Clinton used to clutch that fifty-pound Bible in front of the television cameras every Sunday?) Indeed he was. In his second inaugural address he blamed the whole bloody mess of the war on God, absolving himself of all responsibility by saying the war just "came," as though he had nothing to do with it. He also claimed to be able to read the mind of God by asserting that the war was Godís punishment of all Americans, North and South, for slavery. He did not attempt to explain why God would not also punish the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedes, and others who were responsible for 96% of all the slaves that were kidnapped and brought to the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the Lincoln regime, these countries all ended slavery peacefully, as Jim Powell documents in his excellent book, Greatest Emancipations.

Lincoln is praised by "Lincoln scholars" for having been an obsessive micromanager of the war. He knew everything. He knew that Southern civilians were murdered and plundered from the very beginning, even before the Battle of First Manassas commenced. He authorized the bombing of Southern cities and he was also apparently obsessed with experimenting with larger and larger weapons of mass destruction Ė to be used on fellow Americans. He profusely thanked and rewarded officers like Sherman and Sheridan for waging war on civilians, as they did during Shermanís March, the burning of Atlanta and Colombia, South Carolina, and the burning of the Shenandoah Valley. General Sherman wrote that Lincoln "especially enjoyed" his stories of how Southern women, children and old men were terrorized by Shermanís "bummers," as his looting, pillaging, plundering, and raping "soldiers" were called.

But to Gingrich and Forstchen Lincoln had a "deep sense of love and compassion" for everyone. He even knelt and prayed with a wounded Confederate soldier in a hospital, they claim; his "eyes filled with pain over the suffering of others"; and "was known for extreme gentleness to an injured animal." They list no sources or references when they write this, only saying that they come from "stories." Such stories are completely contradicted by Lincolnís actual sociopathological behavior.

Perhaps the most outrageous piece of propaganda in the Gingrich/Forstchen article is their statement that "Lincoln was the first president to invite and socially greet a delegation of African-Americans into the White House." They say this to give their readers the impression that Lincoln was enlightened on the issue of race. He was not. He was as much a white supremacist as any man alive. Moreover, the purpose of the White House meeting with the delegation of African-Americans was not to meet and greet, but to urge these men to lead by example and self-deport themselves to Liberia in West Africa. It is all explained in Lincolnís Selected Writings and Speeches, in the entry for August 14, 1862.

At this meeting Lincoln told the delegation of free black men that "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both . . . and affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate." He then made his sales pitch for the men to deport themselves to Liberia, an offer that they wisely declined. One would never know about this by reading the Gingrich/Forstchen article. (Besides, Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard has told me that this was not even the first time a black person had entered the White House).

Neocons will apparently never stop lying about Lincoln, but we can all stop believing their lies.

July 21, 2009

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What Youíre Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamiltonís Curse: How Jeffersonís Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution Ė And What It Means for America Today.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #2
Jurgen Wind
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 133
Question

Wasn't true that Lincoln was part Nigger?
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #3
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
How They Lie About Lincoln

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

There would be very stiff competition indeed for the literary award of "Most Absurd Lies and Myths About Lincoln." In the running would be almost all of Harry Jaffaís writing, including the statement in his latest Lincoln book that "Lincoln opposed making voters or jurors of Negroes in the 1850s so that they could be voters and jurors today." Or Gabor Boritís statement that Lincolnís lifelong advocacy of "colonization," or deportation of black people from America, is an example of "how honest people lie."

But there is a new entry to the field: an article from the February 9, 2009 issue of Newsmax.com by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen entitled "What Would He Say to Us Today?" It seems as though every time Newt Gingrich, who never served in the military himself, begins making the case for sending other peoplesí children off to die in another unnecessary war, he starts quoting Lincoln. A couple of years ago Gingrich wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he advocated a military invasion and occupation of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. The title of the article was "Lincoln and Bush." President Bush should "be like Lincoln," he said, and initiate five more wars simultaneously. More recently, Gingrich has been calling for the nuking of North Korea, so it is not surprising to me that he is once again waxing eloquently about Dishonest Abe.

It is well known that the founding fathers feared democracy. Indeed, in Federalist #10 James Madison explained that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to create a constitutional republic that would hopefully "restrain the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy. Gingrich and Forstchen unwittingly admit that their hero literally destroyed the constitution of the founding fathers by describing the Lincoln Memorial as "his [Lincolnís] throne" that is "Modeled after Grecian temples" and is "our American temple to democracy . . ."

In reality, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple to the idea that government in America is not voluntary, and never will be as long as Lincoln is its primary symbol and as long as Lincoln mythology remains the stateís cornerstone ideology. Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for todayís population, Lincolnís killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans.

To Gingrich and Fortschen, this is how America became "united." To me, it sounds more like how Soviet Russia was "united" in its own "glorious union." Do these men really believe that Southerners in 1866 felt "united" with their fellow citizens in the North?

The two people who were closest to Lincoln were his longtime law partner, William Herndon (who he affectionately called "Billy") and his wife, Mary Todd. In a biography of Lincoln Herndon wrote of how Lincoln was either an atheist or an agnostic. As a young man, said Herndon, Lincoln even wrote a book that argued that the Bible was not the word of God and that Jesus was not the son of God. When he decided to get into politics, the book was burned.

When Herndon was preparing his biography he asked Mrs. Lincoln to comment on Abeís "religious" views, and she told him that he never became a Christian. "Mr. Lincoln," she said, "had no faith . . . . He never joined a church . . . he was never a technical Christian." (See Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, p. 150).

That Lincoln "had no faith" is no secret to the "Lincoln scholars." In her book Team of Rivals, the high priestess of the Lincoln Cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, acknowledges this fact but adds the usual spin: We should all feel even more sorry for poor, poor Abe, she says, since he suffered from not believing in an afterlife.

Gingrich and Fortschen simply lie about this by writing that Lincoln "was a man of deep and abiding faith." They apparently write this on the basis of the fact that Lincoln, like Bill Clinton, was fond of quoting Scripture in political speeches. (Recall how Clinton used to clutch that fifty-pound Bible in front of the television cameras every Sunday?) Indeed he was. In his second inaugural address he blamed the whole bloody mess of the war on God, absolving himself of all responsibility by saying the war just "came," as though he had nothing to do with it. He also claimed to be able to read the mind of God by asserting that the war was Godís punishment of all Americans, North and South, for slavery. He did not attempt to explain why God would not also punish the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedes, and others who were responsible for 96% of all the slaves that were kidnapped and brought to the Western Hemisphere. Unlike the Lincoln regime, these countries all ended slavery peacefully, as Jim Powell documents in his excellent book, Greatest Emancipations.

Lincoln is praised by "Lincoln scholars" for having been an obsessive micromanager of the war. He knew everything. He knew that Southern civilians were murdered and plundered from the very beginning, even before the Battle of First Manassas commenced. He authorized the bombing of Southern cities and he was also apparently obsessed with experimenting with larger and larger weapons of mass destruction Ė to be used on fellow Americans. He profusely thanked and rewarded officers like Sherman and Sheridan for waging war on civilians, as they did during Shermanís March, the burning of Atlanta and Colombia, South Carolina, and the burning of the Shenandoah Valley. General Sherman wrote that Lincoln "especially enjoyed" his stories of how Southern women, children and old men were terrorized by Shermanís "bummers," as his looting, pillaging, plundering, and raping "soldiers" were called.

But to Gingrich and Forstchen Lincoln had a "deep sense of love and compassion" for everyone. He even knelt and prayed with a wounded Confederate soldier in a hospital, they claim; his "eyes filled with pain over the suffering of others"; and "was known for extreme gentleness to an injured animal." They list no sources or references when they write this, only saying that they come from "stories." Such stories are completely contradicted by Lincolnís actual sociopathological behavior.

Perhaps the most outrageous piece of propaganda in the Gingrich/Forstchen article is their statement that "Lincoln was the first president to invite and socially greet a delegation of African-Americans into the White House." They say this to give their readers the impression that Lincoln was enlightened on the issue of race. He was not. He was as much a white supremacist as any man alive. Moreover, the purpose of the White House meeting with the delegation of African-Americans was not to meet and greet, but to urge these men to lead by example and self-deport themselves to Liberia in West Africa. It is all explained in Lincolnís Selected Writings and Speeches, in the entry for August 14, 1862.

At this meeting Lincoln told the delegation of free black men that "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both . . . and affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate." He then made his sales pitch for the men to deport themselves to Liberia, an offer that they wisely declined. One would never know about this by reading the Gingrich/Forstchen article. (Besides, Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard has told me that this was not even the first time a black person had entered the White House).

Neocons will apparently never stop lying about Lincoln, but we can all stop believing their lies.

July 21, 2009

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What Youíre Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamiltonís Curse: How Jeffersonís Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution Ė And What It Means for America Today.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html
Thank you for posting this Mr. Linder. I have always disliked having to read the required texts [for classes on American History] when it came to Lincoln. I could never believe that he was a great man, the usual books seemed so false to me. Always attesting that one should revere and honour Lincoln, though it was not necessary that one understood why Lincoln behaved as he did. I got into quite a lot of trouble when I questioned Lincoln's motives for the near utter destruction of the South as well as other aspects about Lincoln. Basically I was told to shut up, that Lincoln was great simply because he was, and that he was an entirely enigmatic man who apparently could never be understood by the average person. For some odd reason, I was also taught that he suffered from bouts of depression and even that he was something of a mystic.

The description of Lincoln as taught to me seemed a close description of what a jewish president might behave as - and, ultimately I dismissed all study of him as a jewish fantasy. Simplistic as that dismissal may be, I could not suspend my intellect in order to believe what I was expected to accept.

No one should ever take at face value what one is taught regarding the American Civil War since that war in particular had such impact on future America and thus the world in general.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
Thank you for posting this Mr. Linder. I have always disliked having to read the required texts [for classes on American History] when it came to Lincoln. I could never believe that he was a great man, the usual books seemed so false to me. Always attesting that one should revere and honour Lincoln, though it was not necessary that one understood why Lincoln behaved as he did. I got into quite a lot of trouble when I questioned Lincoln's motives for the near utter destruction of the South as well as other aspects about Lincoln. Basically I was told to shut up, that Lincoln was great simply because he was, and that he was an entirely enigmatic man who apparently could never be understood by the average person. For some odd reason, I was also taught that he suffered from bouts of depression and even that he was something of a mystic.

The description of Lincoln as taught to me seemed a close description of what a jewish president might behave as - and, ultimately I dismissed all study of him as a jewish fantasy. Simplistic as that dismissal may be, I could not suspend my intellect in order to believe what I was expected to accept.

No one should ever take at face value what one is taught regarding the American Civil War since that war in particular had such impact on future America and thus the world in general.
Lincoln was certainly an impressive individual. He was much stronger physically and mentally than the average person, as well as being a top orator and exceptionally cunning. Nevertheless, he used his abilities to destroy the country, and for that he can't be forgiven.

I enjoy DiLorenzo twitting the neocons with the facts about Lincoln on race. Where DiLorenzo breaks down is in explaining why Lincoln's racial views were wrong. DiLorenzo, like all libertarians, pretends race doesn't matter. Everything is a matter of individual rights. So it's fun to (email him) twit him with the fact that black individuals commit tens of thousands of rapes, annually, against white women. It would be a good idea if everytime he wrote one of these articles 100 WN emailed him making these points. "In light of the destruction of Detroit and every other black-majority city, what makes you so sure that racist Lincoln was wrong and you libertarians who pretend race doesn't exist are right?" Something along those lines.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The question as to whether Lincoln was an atheist is irrelevant, as most or a great many of the churchmen of the north, the 'sanctimonious madman' abolitionists, had exactly the same ideas about trashing the Constitution, doing whatever it took, to destroy the hated South. Actually, Lincoln was better than these with regard to race because, as DiLorenzo points out, he wanted to send blacks back to Africa. That was the correct thing to do, and who knows what Lincoln might have done had he not been assassinated. Nothing, of course, will make up for Lincoln's destruction of federalism. Take all power away from the state and stick it in Washington leads directly to where we are now. Decentralization and small states is the best way to go, and that is what our coming White nation will feature. Centralized power is beloved by two groups of people: natural-born dictators, and little men who hope the state will be used to crush their enemies and to get them through coercion what they can't earn on their own. Centralized power is for tyrants and losers.
 
Old July 21st, 2009 #6
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"like all libertarians, pretends race doesn't matter"

Hans Hoppe sez-

"What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.

More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias."
 
Old September 17th, 2009 #7
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurgen Wind View Post
Wasn't true that Lincoln was part Nigger?
He was an Ashkenazim Jew and a commie rat.
 
Old September 17th, 2009 #8
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Centralized power is for tyrants and losers.
Unless, of course, one is attempting to build an interste freeway system in a modern world or to feed the nation's hungry white people or to provide for national defense with something more powerful than a flintlock rifle.

Yeah, by crackie, what we need is some of that ol' time tiny government, back before anyone had refrigerators or toilet paper.

Last edited by richyrichard; September 17th, 2009 at 10:55 PM.
 
Old September 17th, 2009 #9
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

You did good by posting Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He wrote two great books on the infamous Abram Springstein Lincoln. It is good to give DiLorenzo's books exposure.
 
Old September 22nd, 2009 #10
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Linder knows what a scumbag Lincoln was. A cunning and talented scumbag, but a scumbag. What I can't figure out is why so many WNs, including Linder, completely ignore the historical record as well as the track record of politicians like Lincoln in their quest to portray him as some sort of WN, or that his take on race was anything but universalist and egalitarian. I've thought about making a project out of posting the texts of his speeches and writing, which show him to be an aracial demagogue.

Before I begin posting Lincoln's material, here is a piece by Arthur Kemp, in his "March Of The Titans":

"Of Welsh and Scottish forebears, Jefferson [Davis -ed.] was a believer in slavery as a means of helping to uplift Negroes before they eventually became equal citizens - in strong contrast to his Northern opponent, Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send the Negroes back to Africa." ~ p. 412

One problem with this statement is that Davis never said or wrote or in any way advocated such a thing. What he did say was that he thought the negroes' experience in America would make them eventually capable of governing themselves. This implies that he looked forward to the day when racial separation would occur.

The other problem with the statement is that the overwhelming evidence shows two things: that Lincoln said different things to different audiences and that Lincoln's objection to slavery had more to do with his belief that it was morally wrong than with any desire for separatism for the racial health of Whites. Foremost in his mind, of course, was how he could say one thing and do another, politically.

On page 401 of his book, Kemp shows a drawing of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, captioned as: "It was during these debates that Lincoln made public his support for a law that made marriage between Black and White a criminal offense."

Kemp is from South Africa and is apparently ignorant of the methods of American politicians during elections. Why would a Senatorial candidate in Illinois need to come out in favor of something as sensible as this? Well, first of all it made for votes. Second, it must have been a method of reassuring voters of his good sense, since Douglas had long since endorsed such a law. If not for men like Lincoln, Illinois would have already had such a law. All of the Southern states certainly did. Clearly, Lincoln felt the need to reassure voters about his racial views. Ask yourself why.

The following is from "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln", edited by Roy P. Baler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, Vol. V, pgs. 371-375 (quoted in MOTT, Kemp, pg. 402). It was a speech delivered to the "Deputation of Free Negroes" in 1862, who had gone to Washington to plead for full emancipation.

"You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be right or wrong, I need not discuss; but the physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is submitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

"Your race are suffering, in my judgement, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on equality with the White race. On this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I cannot alter it if I would.

"I need not comment to you on the effects upon White men, growing out of the institution of slavery. See our present condition - the country engaged in war! - our White men cutting ones another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."


It made for a great little speech. But if you think he was speaking to the black audience, you don't know Lincoln. It was 1862 and the Confederates were still winning. He was reassuring his troops! By 1863, when the Union took the upper hand, what did he do? Issue a Separation Proclamation? No, he proclaimed the negroes free and equal to the Whites.

Perhaps some more on this before I begin posting from Lincoln's letters and speeches. But later.
 
Old September 22nd, 2009 #11
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Here's one of the more popular blatherings of Lincoln:

"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Aside from the humanist character of the statement, it is a nefarious lie. The Confederacy WAS the government of the people, by the people, and for the people of the South. THAT was their choice! And Lincoln caused it to perish from the earth. If Lincoln had genuinely believed in self-determination, he would have never invaded Virginia.
 
Old September 25th, 2009 #12
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...lincoln1%3A472

Quote:
To Solomon Lincoln [1]

Mr. Solomon Lincoln Washington,
Dear Sir: March 24- 1848

Yours of the 21st. is received. I shall not be able to answer your interrogatories very fully; I will, however, do the best I can. I have mentioned that my grandfather's name was Abraham. He had, as I think I have heard, four brothers, Isaac, Jacob, Thomas, and John. He had three sons, Mordecai, Josiah, and Thomas, the last, my father. My uncle Mordecai, had three sons, Abraham, James, and Mordecai. Uncle Josiah had several daughters, and an only son, Thomas. My father has an only child, myself, of course.

This is all I know certainly on the subject of names; it is, however, my father's understanding that, Abraham [,] Mordecai, and Thomas are old family names of ours. The reason I did not mention Thomas as a family name in my other letter was because it is so very common a name, as to prove but little, if any thing, in the way of identification.

Since I wrote you, it occurred to me to enquire of Gov. McDowell, [2] who represents the district in Virginia, including Rockingham, whether he knew persons of our name there. He informs he does; though none very intimately except one, an old man by the christian name of David. That he is of our family I have no doubt. I now address him a letter, making such enquiries as suggest themselves; and, when I shall receive an answer, I will communicate to you, any thing that may seem pertinent to your object. Very truly yours

A. LINCOLN
Annotation

[1] ALS, The Rosenbach Company, Philadelphia and New York.

[2] James McDowell.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #13
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default If you know anything about Stevens....

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...e=lincoln2%3A1


Quote:
To Thaddeus Stevens [1]
Hon: Thaddeus Stevens Washington,
Dear Sir: Sept. 3. 1848

You may possibly remember seeing me at the Philadelphia Convention---introduced to you as the lone whig star of Illinois. Since the adjournment, I have remained here, so long, in the Whig document room. I am now about to start for home; and I desire the undisguised opinion of some experienced and sagacious Pennsylvania politician, as to how the vote of that state, for governor, and president, is likely to go. In casting about for such a man, I have settled upon you; and I shall be much obliged if you will write me at Springfield, Illinois.

The news we are receiving here now, by letters from all quarters is steadily on the rise; we have none lately of a discouraging character. This is the sum, without giving particulars. Yours truly

A Lincoln
Annotation

[1] ALS, DLC. Stevens was elected to the Thirty-first Congress on the Whig ticket in 1848.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #14
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default Abe the Abolitionist (in 1848!)

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...e=lincoln2%3A5

Quote:
Speech at Taunton, Massachusetts [1]
September [21?] 1848

The Taylor men were well entertained Wednesday evening, the 20th inst., [2] at Union Hall, by an address from the Hon. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois. The address as well as the speaker was such as to give unlimited satisfaction to the disheartened Taylorites. Such a treat it is indeed seldom their good luck to get, and they were in ecstacies. At former meetings their spirits were too low for a good hearty cheer, but on this occasion ``the steam was up.'' It was reviving to hear a man speak as if he believed what he was saying and had a grain or two of feeling mixed up with it; one who could not only speak highly of Taylor, but could occasionally swell with indignation or burst in hatred on the Free Soilers. When political spite runs high nothing can be too pungent or severe, and the speaker is appreciated in proportion as his statements are rash and unscrupulous. So it was no this occasion. The speaker was far inferiorPage 7 as a reasoner to others who hold the same views, but then he was more unscrupulous, more facetious and with his sneers he mixed up a good deal of humor. His awkward gesticulations, the ludicrous management of his voice and the comical expression of his countenance, all conspired to make his hearers laugh at the mere anticipation of the joke before it appeared. But enough concerning the speaker; let us examine his arguments.

General Taylor, he argued, has principles, though he has not given expression to them on the Tariff, Bank and other questions of policy. This, however, is in direct contradiction of Taylor, himself, who in his letter to Delany writes, ``As regards the second and third inquiries (about a bank and tariff), I am not prepared to answer them. I could only do so after investigating them. I am no politician; near forty years of my life have been passed on the Western frontier and in the Indian count[r]y.'' The speaker next discussed the veto question and said that Taylor was the first Whig candidate that had come fully up to the Whig platform in this point, because unlike all other candidates before him he had not even claimed the right to advise Congress on matters of policy. The proper limitation of the veto, he contended, was the Whig platform itself, and General Taylor by his equivocal silence had come up to it better than the great parent of Whig principles---Henry Clay. He did not know that General Taylor had professed that he would not veto the Wilmot proviso, but believed that he would not, because General Taylor had promised not to veto any measure unless it was unconstitutional or passed in haste and acknowledged that to be constitutional which had been established by long usage and acquiesced in by the people. As the constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso he said ``had never been disputed.'' it was therefore acquiesced in by the people and consequently Taylor was bound not to veto it.

He subsequently admitted in speaking of Cass, that in the Nicholson letter the constitutional power of Congress to exclude slavery from any territory in the Union was denied. Yet he seemed to forget this when he said that the constitutionality of the Proviso had never been disputed. He seemed to be entirely ignorant that every propagandist of slavery in existence, with John C. Calhoun at their head, claimed the right, under the Constitution, and independent of Congress, to carry their ``property'' into any part of the United States territory and there to hold it.

Calhoun said in the Senate that when the South consented to the Missouri Compromise the rights of the South granted by the Constitution were given up but belonged to the South the same asPage 8 if no compromise had been made. Thomas Corwin said in his speech on the Compromise Bill introduced in the Senate last session of Congress that the constitutionality of any measure excluding slavery from the territories could not with safety be left to the decision of the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives had the same views and rejected the bill. None of these facts did the speaker allude to, but instead uttered the stupendous falsehood that the ``constitutionality of the Proviso'' had never been disputed. Without this ``whopper,'' however, the argument would have been defective. There would have been a gap in it, so the lie was made big enough to fill the gap that the argument might thereby be made sound and conclusive.

He related a conversation which he overheard at the dinner table of a house in Lowell between two Free Soilers. One of them remarked that the reasoning of the Taylor men was not logical, for it certainly was illogical to say, ``General Taylor is a slaveholder, therefore we go for him to prevent the extension of slavery.'' He thought this was an unfair statement of the case and gave what he deemed the correct one in the form of a syllogism as follows: ``General Taylor is a slaveholder, but he will do more to prevent the extension of slavery than any other man whom it is possible to elect, therefore we go for Taylor.''

It needs no argument to prove that the major proposition does not include the minor o[n]e and has nothing to do with it. But let that pass. The minor proposition asserts that General Taylor will do ``more'' to prevent the extension of slavery than any other man it is possible to elect, and this assertion is made before the logician has even attempted to prove that General Taylor was opposed to the extension of slavery at all! The attempt is made to prove that he will do more than any other man before it is proved that he will do the first thing. But taking for granted that General Taylor will not veto the Proviso (a position founded on a lie) is that a proof that he will do anything to prevent the extension of slavery? He may never have a chance to veto the Proviso even if elected in November. The slave states are equal with the free states in the Senate and before the Proviso can pass that body one or two of the Southern Senators must yield.

Under such circumstances, is it likely that any Senator from the South will be influenced to vote for the Proviso by the executive patronage of the unrepentant slaveholder, Zachary Taylor? Is it not more probable that it would be brought to bear on some Northern doughface? It would be quite safe for Taylor to make an equivocal promise not to veto the Proviso, but he has not even done soPage 9 much as that. The speaker contended that Van Buren had approved the policy of the Mexican War and the annexation of new territory. This he did not prove from Van Buren's letter written in 1844. If he had read that letter to his hearers they would have found that Van Buren wrote against annexation, partly because it would produce war. The proof he gave was the fact that some of the same individuals who supported Van Buren in 1844 had since voted both for Texas and war.

He said in another part of his speech that the Northern Democrats were opposed to the annexation of Texas in 1844. Yet he undertook to prove that Van Buren was in favor of annexation and war from the fact that these men once supported him and that at the very time they themselves were opposed to annexation. But why should Van Buren be held responsible for all his friends? Where is the proof that he ever favored the extension of slavery in all his life? Is General Taylor responsible for all who now support him? Are the sins of Berrien Mangum and other propagandists of slavery to be laid to his charge? He has enough to answer for his own account if we acquit him of all guilt connected with the Native Church burning of Philadelphia.

To show the recklessness and audacity of the honorable gentleman and the low estimate he had formed of his hearers, it will suffice to give but one specimen. Speaking of Van Buren, he said, ``he (Van Buren) won't have an electoral vote in the nation nor as many as all others in any county in the nation.'' The reasoning adopted by the Whig Free Soilers he gave in the form of a syllogism as follows: ``We can't go for General Taylor because he is not a Whig. Van Buren is not a Whig; therefore, we go for him.'' This dishonest statement of the case elicited warm applause from his truth-loving hearers. The syllogism should have stood thus: We can't vote for a man without principles. General Taylor has got none, and Van Buren has, at least, got one good Whig principle; therefore, we go for Van Buren against Taylor.

For the benefit of those who are like the speaker, always misrepresenting the Free Soil Party, I will define our position in a prosyllogism. The abolition of slavery in the territory of the United States can never be accomplished unless the North is united. But the North cannot be united until old party lines are broken down. But these lines cannot be broken down unless every man is willing to sacrifice his attachment to minor questions and make opposition to slavery the leading idea; therefore, we have come out of the old pro-slavery parties and formed the United Party of the North.


Annotation

[1] National Magazine, Vol. XXXI, No. 5, pp. 523-25, account taken from Bristol County Democrat, September 29, 1848. Although politically unsympathetic, this is the most extensive account of Lincoln's speech available.

[2] Since Lincoln spoke in Cambridge on Wednesday evening, September 20, this date is in error. The Taunton Daily Gazette, September 23, 1848, mentions the speech in Taunton and assigns September 21 as the date.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard View Post
He was an Ashkenazim Jew and a commie rat.
There you go, your congenital CI say-anything stupidity has given me reason to Tard you. Thanks! You can say anything when it comes to your tard religion, but you can't here at VNNF. Enjoy the hopper!
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard View Post
Unless, of course, one is attempting to build an interste freeway system in a modern world or to feed the nation's hungry white people or to provide for national defense with something more powerful than a flintlock rifle.

Yeah, by crackie, what we need is some of that ol' time tiny government, back before anyone had refrigerators or toilet paper.
We don't need white people too incompetent to feed themselves.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,373
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Ohgolly:

Your quotations are indirect and not very meaningful in light of Lincoln's behavior. Any objective observer would give the weight to the quotations I have used.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #18
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

An early example of the alleged opposition he held to the barnburner-abolition-free-negro element of his party. The difference, at least in 1848, was over strategy rather than over principle.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A10

Quote:
Speech at Lacon, Illinois [1]
November 1, 1848

Mr. Lincoln followed him, [2] with one of his most brilliant efforts. His main purpose was to show that the peace and prosperity of the country, and the limitation of slavery depended upon the election of a Whig Congress and Gen. Taylor; that the Old Hero, whose fidelity to whig principles none should now doubt, had pledged himself to carry out the will of the people, through their representatives, without interposing the veto power. He declared that the contest was between Taylor and Cass---that he doubted that Van Buren would get even one State, except perhaps the little state of Wisconsin; and admonished all ``Liberty'' or Van Buren men, by the history of Texan Annexation to cast their votes for Gen. Taylor, and not indirectly for Gen. Cass, who has avowed his favor of the unlimited exercise of the veto power, and as a probable consequence if elected, to the unbounded extension of slavery, &c. He scored with the most scathing language, that ``consistency'' of the Abolitionists, which, while they professed great horror at the proposed extension of slave territory, they aided in the election of Mr. Polk; for which, and its disastrous consequences, they were responsible, as they held the balance of power.
Annotation

[1] Illinois Gazette (Lacon), November 4, 1848.

[2] Dr. Anson G. Henry preceded Lincoln on the platform.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #19
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Ohgolly:

Your quotations are indirect and not very meaningful in light of Lincoln's behavior. Any objective observer would give the weight to the quotations I have used.
I'll get to his recorded speeches and letters in a bit. I intend to begin as early in his career as possible and, unfortunately, the only record of such was newspaper accounts. My main objective is to demonstrate how the quotations you have used have been taken out of context for so long, by so many factions. Not by you, originally. You just inherited a distorted context, so to speak.

If you're referring to the WN-sounding quote I posted from Kemp's book, I ask you to examine my explanation of it again. It clearly demonstrates that the things he said that you like so much were only words and did not ever match his actions.

Let's just say that I'm confident that, once I establish a good overview of Lincoln's career, and his true character, you'll agree with me that Abraham Lincoln never did anything but harm to the White race.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #20
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...=lincoln2%3A21

Quote:
Remarks and Resolution
Introduced in United States House of Representatives Concerning Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia [1]
January 10, 1849

Mr. LINCOLN appealed to his colleague [Mr. WENTWORTH] [2] to withdraw his motion, to enable him to read a proposition which he intended to submit, if the vote should be reconsidered.

Mr. WENTWORTH again withdrew his motion for that purpose.

Mr. LINCOLN said, that by the courtesy of his colleague, he would say, that if the vote on the resolution was reconsidered, he should make an effort to introduce an amendment, which he should now read.

And Mr. L. read as follows:

Strike out all before and after the word ``Resolved'' and insert the following, towit: That the Committee on the District of Columbia be instructed to report a bill in substance as follows, towit: [3]

Section 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: That no person not now within the District of Columbia, nor now owned by any person or persons now resident within it, nor hereafter born within it, shall ever be held in slavery within said District.

Section 2. That no person now within said District, or now owned by any person, or persons now resident within the same, or hereafter born within it, shall ever be held in slavery without the limits of said District: Provided, that officers of the government of the United States, being citizens of the slave-holding states, coming into said District on public business, and remaining only so long as may be reasonably necessary for that object, may be attended into, and out of, said District, and while there, by the necessary servants of themselves and their families, without their right to hold such servants in service, being thereby impaired.

Page 21Section 3. That all children born of slave mothers within said District on, or after the first day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and fifty shall be free; but shall be reasonably supported and educated, by the respective owners of their mothers or by their heirs or representatives, and shall owe reasonable service, as apprentices, to such owners, heirs and representatives until they respectively arrive at the age of --- years when they shall be entirely free; and the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to make all suitable and necessary provisions for enforcing obedience to this section, on the part of both masters and apprentices.

Section 4. That all persons now within said District lawfully held as slaves, or now owned by any person or persons now resident within said District, shall remain such, at the will of their respective owners, their heirs and legal representatives: Provided that any such owner, or his legal representative, may at any time receive from the treasury of the United States the full value of his or her slave, of the class in this section mentioned, upon which such slave shall be forthwith and forever free: and provided further that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be a board for determining the value of such slaves as their owners may desire to emancipate under this section; and whose duty it shall be to hold a session for the purpose, on the first monday of each calendar month; to receive all applications; and, on satisfactory evidence in each case, that the person presented for valuation, is a slave, and of the class in this section mentioned, and is owned by the applicant, shall value such slave at his or her full cash value, and give to the applicant an order on the treasury for the amount; and also to such slave a certificate of freedom.

Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

Section 6 That the election officers within said District of Columbia, are hereby empowered and required to open polls at all the usual places of holding elections, on the first monday of April next, and receive the vote of every free white male citizen above the age of twentyone years, having resided within said District for the period of one year or more next preceding the time of such voting, for, or against this act; to proceed, in taking said votes,Page 22 in all respects not herein specified, as at elections under the municipal laws; and, with as little delay as possible, to transmit correct statements of the votes so cast to the President of the United States. And it shall be the duty of the President to canvass said votes immediately, and, if a majority of them be found to be for this act, to forthwith issue his proclamation giving notice of the fact; and this act shall only be in full force and effect on, and after the day of such proclamation.

Section 7. That involuntary servitude for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall in no wise be prohibited by this act.

Section 8. That for all the purposes of this act the jurisdictional limits of Washington are extended to all parts of the District of Columbia not now included within the present limits of Georgetown.

Mr. LINCOLN then said, that he was authorized to say, that of about fifteen of the leading citizens of the District of Columbia to whom this proposition had been submitted, there was not one but who approved of the adoption of such a proposition. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not know whether or not they would vote for this bill on the first Monday of April; but he repeated, that out of fifteen persons to whom it had been submitted, he had authority to say that every one of them desired that some proposition like this should pass. [4]


Annotation

[1] Congressional Globe, Thirtieth Congress, Second Session, p. 212. Also ADf, DLC-RTL. The remarks are taken from the Congressional Globe, but the proposed bill has been corrected additionally from the autograph draft in the Lincoln Papers.

[2] John Wentworth of Illinois, who had moved to table a motion to reconsider the resolution, adopted on December 21, 1848, on motion of Daniel Gott of New York, instructing the committee for the District of Columbia to report a bill prohibiting slavery in the District.

[3] In the autograph draft the bill carries the following title: ``A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners.''

[4] Three days later, on January 13, Lincoln gave notice of his intention to introduce the bill himself, his earlier effort having come to nothing. He never followed the announcement, however, and the document in the Lincoln Papers is doubtless the actual copy made for that purpose. Years later, in 1861, Lincoln explained that upon ``finding that I was abandoned by my former backers and having little personal influence, I dropped the matter knowing that it was useless to prosecute the business at that time.'' (James Quay Howard's Notes on Lincoln, DLC-RTL).
As of 1849, it appears that Lincoln's objective was setting the negroes free amongst the White population. Does it not? Nothing said about deporting them, in a piece of actual legislation being introduced.

Notice also Lincoln's claim of solid support for his amendment, and what actually transpired regarding that support (annotation #4).
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.
Page generated in 0.24873 seconds.