Lincoln was a Liar, a Tyrant, and Corporate Tool....

Lincoln, O Captain! My Tyrant!

Here we are a year later. My original post here started some debate and dissent. Just thought I would bump it with an article I happened upon.
.
O Captain! My Tyrant!

February 13, 2012 by Sam Rolley

PHOTOS.COM​

When it comes to Honest Abe, Americans aren’t always honest with themselves.​

Sunday marked the 203^rd birthday of the 16^th President of the United States, The Great Emancipator: Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln Liked Racial Inequality
Lincoln is a President who many Americans hold in great esteem, and many take a peculiar notion from their earliest school lectures: Lincoln ended slavery and preserved the Union in doing so. This is false. Perhaps the end of slavery was a byproduct of the Civil War, but it is often duly noted that every other country that abolished slavery during the 19^th century did so peacefully by means of emancipation compensation or waiting until industrialization effectively eliminated the need for slave labor. Historians have never ceased to argue whether this would have happened in the United States had the Civil War not occurred because Southern States rejected the idea of compensated emancipation each time it was proposed.
But Lincoln did not free the slaves. In fact, it could be said that the President effectively enslaved the 11 States that seceded from the Union to the will of a Federal government that today has grown into a mammoth of stifling bureaucracy.
The idea that Lincoln had any interest in freeing slaves was heavily based in rumors spurred by his Democratic challenger, Stephen Douglas, during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates during a Senate race in 1858. Douglas focused much of his campaign on issues of race relations and accused Lincoln, and Republicans in general, of advocating the political and social equality of the white and black races, and of thereby promoting racial amalgamation. Lincoln flatly denied the charge, saying that he simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the Western territories and new States to reduce the proximity between whites and blacks, thereby reducing chances of race mixing. Douglas won the election, but the Lincoln-Douglas debates had raised Lincoln’s political profile.
On Aug. 21, 1858, before a crowd of 10,000 in Ottawa, Ill., Lincoln declared:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
​

When Lincoln became the Republican nominee for President in 1860, Southerners became very nervous. Though he and most Republicans contended that abolishing slavery was not an issue of central importance, Douglas’ accusations from 1858 stuck in the minds of many in the South. After the results of the election were known, South Carolina called for a State convention to vote on secession. Within 40 days of South Carolina’s secession, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed suit. The Confederate States of America was formed, and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi was inaugurated as its President — all before Lincoln took office.
Lincoln Opposed ‘The Consent Of The Governed’
In his inauguration speech on March 4, 1861, Lincoln again said that he had no ambition of freeing slaves, and he told his audience that no State had the right to withdraw itself from the Union:

I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.
​

Lincoln held no regard for the Jeffersonian principle of “consent of the governed.”
The war to preserve the Union and forever make each State in it subservient to the edict of the ruling class began on April 12, 1861, when Southern secessionists sought control of the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter, S.C., and so began Lincoln’s tyranny.
Violence in the United States gave Lincoln the opportunity to exercise practices expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
In 1861, in order to finance the Civil War, Lincoln signed the Revenue Act, imposing the first Federal income tax in U.S. history. The Revenue Act defined income as gain “derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere or from any source whatever.”
The President suspended Habeas Corpus in 1862 and, like a true despot, began to order the military arrest of thousands of critics in order to ensure that supreme power in the United States would forever be wielded from Washington, D.C., where the Federal income tax money was being sent. Federal bureaucrats have long thanked Lincoln for testing the waters of how far tyranny would be allowed to go in the United States, most recently paying tribute with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
When Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, issued an opinion in the case of Ex parte Merryman (May, 1861) that declared Lincoln’s actions unConstitutional, the embarrassed tyrant did what any other would do: He ordered Taney’s arrest.
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War probably best summarizes Lincoln’s assaults on the Constitution:

Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law; blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communication; nationalizing the railroads; creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for criticizing the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally; confiscating private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, among other things.
​

In observing today’s American political landscape, as lawmakers continue to do everything in their power to take away citizens’ rights, it is no surprise that people are still taught and still believe that Lincoln freed the slaves because he cared, saved the Union because the Constitution gave him the right and that the United State could not have survived — or would have been worse off in the long term –without him. Lincoln remains the most powerful propaganda tool the United States has ever seen for the advancement of Federal Tyrany.
------------------------------------------------------------------ end of article.
.
Obammy has proven that to date, in less than 37 months he could spend more tax dollars than all other presidents combined, (George Washington to George H.W. Bush), over 6 trillion dollars. He is doing even better than G.W.H. Bush on the tyrany thing also.

 

Lincoln and the Civil War


Back in 2002, a local writer wrote an article in a local newspaper lamenting the 8th grade history books used in schools today. A 13-year old girl responded with a lengthy (and nasty) letter. I responded to her letter with the article below. You might find it interesting.

"Clare Gets a History Lesson", by Michael Scalise

Clare Nowel’s vitriolic diatribe (New Times 8/29/02) against Patrick O’Hannigan’s commentary (“Don’t know much about history”, New Times 8/15/02) is a perfect example of the problem Mr. O’Hannigan was trying to convey.

Contrary to what Clare believes, it is hardly trivia about what the real cause of the Civil War was or how the war should be referred to.

Ms. Nowel claims that the “right” that the Confederacy was fighting to defend was the right to own other human beings. She is a victim of the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery. While slavery is reprehensible, Mr. O'Hannigan is correct that history books have misled Americans to believe the war was started to free slaves.

The Southern states had already won the slavery issue without firing a shot. The North had given the South every concession toward slavery. The infamous Supreme Court Dred Scott decision in 1857 had declared slaves as property. Lincoln and Congress had approved a constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever. Lincoln didn’t campaign on abolishing slavery in the south, but rather the opposite. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued 2 years into the war and was done to help keep Northern support behind the war because the North had been losing battle after battle. It also did not proclaim all slaves free, only the slaves in areas that the South controlled. Border states on the union side and parts of southern states that the union forces controlled were specifically excluded from the proclamation.

Secession is unquestionably the cause of the War Between the States. Slavery was not the reason the South seceded from the union. They seceded because of taxation, specifically, the Merrill Tariff of 1861. Unlike the slave issue, the tax issue was nonnegotiable on both sides. Just as with the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and many other conflicts and rebellions, oppressive taxation was the root cause of the War Between the States.

The North had 23 states with 22 million people and the South had 11 states with 5.5 million whites and 3.5 million slaves. In 1860, those 11 states paid almost 80% of the total federal revenues, which were largely spent in northern states.

The Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the “Tariff’s of Abominations,” were the precursor to the War Between the States and the first southern rebellion. South Carolina called a convention to nullify those federal laws. There were better political leaders in 1833 and lowering the tax averted that crisis with the great Compromise of 1833. By 1860, the South had abandoned nullification and leaders promoted secession as the preferred method to stop the tariff.

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was passed which effectively doubled the 1857 import taxes and were triple the rate of the 1828 tariff that caused the first southern rebellion. Tax rates were at an all time high. The doubling of the 1857 tariff was the cornerstone of the Republican platform on 1860. This was the payoff to wealthy Northern industrialists who supported Lincoln. The high tariff would mean that southern states would buy goods from northern states instead of the less expensive European goods, or pay a tax. Either way, the north benefited.
In Lincoln’s supposed conciliatory inaugural address, he promised there would be “no bloodshed or violence” and “no use of force” against the seceding states. Even the mail would be abandoned if not wanted. But taxes were another matter. Lincoln stated he would “collect the duties and imposts, but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no use of force against or among the people anywhere.” The South could secede as long as they paid the taxes to the North!

The South didn’t want to be vassals paying taxes for the Northern states. Lincoln didn’t fight to save union, but rather to save the tax base and financial interests for those who supported him. With the South seceding, the federal government would have lost 4/5 of their tax revenue. The free ports in the southern states would mean that northern states would lose at least half of their commerce. This would devastate the northern states economically. It was not a coincidence that the first shot in the war was at Fort Sumter, a customs house for collecting federal taxes. None of this was mentioned in Clare’s book.

Lincoln did campaign on opposing slavery in new territories, not for moral reasons but for economic and political reasons. He was appealing to white free laborers who didn’t want to compete against slave labor in new territories.

The American Civil War wasn’t a civil war at all. A civil war is competing political group fighting to take control of a government. Was George Washington fighting to take over London? Of course not! The Revolutionary War was a fight for independence. Was Confederate President Jefferson Davis trying to take over Washington D.C.? Of course not! The South was fighting for freedom from oppressive taxation. Did the South have the right to secede from the union? Well, just as much right as the original colonies had the right to secede from England in 1776. The Declaration of Independence states that the people retain the inalienable right to "alter or abolish" a government "destructive" to their liberties. Forty counties in Virginia peacefully seceded from Virginia in 1861 and formed West Virginia. Did they have that right? Did the southern states have a right to secede from the union? Did the 13 colonies have the right to secede from England?

While Mr. O’Hannigan states that it should called the War Between the States, the official name is the War of the Rebellion. The southern states called it the War for Southern Independence or the War of Northern Aggression. Had the South won their fight for independence, the war probably would be referred to as the Second American Revolution. Why is it referred to today with the completely erroneous name of the “Civil War” when it wasn’t a civil war? Why isn’t it at least referred with the official name of the War of the Rebellion?

Whoever wins the war, writes the history books. History books tend to portray Lincoln as a great president when he and the Republican Party pushed the South to secede with oppressive taxation. Then Lincoln is credited with “saving the union.” Lincoln was the most powerful and tyrannical president the nation has ever seen. He spawned a new era of uncontrolled despotic acts of a tyrannical central government. He was often brutal. He tried civilians in military court to deny them a jury trial. He locked up dissenters without a trial. He even tried a Democrat politician in a military court in Ohio who criticized the war effort. Can you imagine what would happen today if George Bush had Jesse Jackson arrested, tried, and found guilty in military court of “treasonable sentiments” because he criticized the war on terrorism? By destroying the states’ right to secession led to the unrestrained repressive federal government we have today. The myth of Lincoln promulgated in government-run schools and textbooks are one of gigantic proportion, on a par with one of the most dangerous myths of all, the myth that the U.S. is a democracy.

While Ms. Nowel states “history teachers should be commended for doing a great job,” she is hardly in the position to make that judgment. In fact, it is the height of arrogance to claim that she “learned a lot.” Based on the content of her letter, I’d say she learned less then she thinks, though I can’t blame her.

While Ms. Nowel’s claims she was encouraged to look at many points of view when studying history, she states that she only needs to listen to talk radio to get other viewpoints of history. This is another example that proves Mr. O’Hannigan's point. Why is the other view of history talked about on talk radio instead of the classroom where it belongs? Ms. Nowel would learn more history listening to radio talk show host Michael Medved (a Yale graduate in U.S. History) than she would by listening to most high school history teachers.

Ms. Nowel claims that teachers have to deal with “extreme parents who get upset if the books contain information they don’t like.” It appears to Clare that only “extreme parents” complain about book contents. As a former high school student and now a parent, I do have a problem with a history books that contain errors. The most glaring errors are often errors of omission, where the author conveniently leaves out important FACTS. Am I an “extreme parent” because I expect history books to be accurate and contain facts instead of the author’s politically correct version of reality? This year my son has the same history book that Clare had last year. While the book has two pages about the 1828 Tariff of Abomination, there is no mention whatsoever about the 1857 tariff or the Morrill Tariff of 1861. The four chapters covering that era talk almost exclusively about slavery. The book has a one sentence explanation of why the south seceded from the union, stating the South was appalled the nation elected an antislavery president. After the election, but before Lincoln took office, the House and Senate passed the Morrill Tariff act and then some states seceded, but no mention of this in the book at all. In 80 pages covering the war, there is only part of one sentence that mentions the south was unhappy about tariffs. The book even makes the absurd assertion that “war was inevitable.”

We all know the famous George Santayana’s quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Freedom and liberty are always one generation away from extinction. It is incumbent upon each generation to pass on to the next a good foundation of the country’s history of freedom and liberty. If not, this country will someday become history.

638,000 Americans lost their lives in a war for independence, in the most important historical event in the country’s history, and Clare doesn’t seems to have any idea what they were fighting for. That fact should scare everyone.

 

Well stated Sir! It's the winners who write the history books...

 

Agree!!!!! What bothers me is few people see him for he was.

 

Most people want to act as if he done the honorable thing and the South was evil. If you read some of the history that they don't want you to see the North did alot of horrible things that the South was blamed for. They also killed alot a ciivilians in the name of the Northeren cause that was supported by Mr. Lincoln and his Generals. Lincoln like other politicians found his a cause that the sheeple would stand behind and used it to mask his own aggenda. Then was painted as the white knight saving the world from the South. Southeren Pride runs deep in my heart and it pi$$e$ me off the way we were labled in the US history.

 

Great posts Tac and Sea.

Whenever I get into a conversation about unconstitutional acts by presidents I always let them know that the first real traitor that should have been tried for treason was Lincoln. They always don't understand why I said that and only know about the BS they were taught in school about freeing the slaves. After some explaining and references to web sites they get it.

Isn't if funny how Zero referenced himself to Lincoln during his campaign, how true that has become!!!

I copied both of your posts and sent them to everyone on my email list that "have a clue".

 

Lincoln was no liar; he was friend and willing accomplice of the money power

Lincoln and his Dick invented greenbacks like Saunders invented fried chicken

On December 26th 1839 H.A. Lincoln had already opened his vile face and with a forked tongue and crooked counsel of a politician parroted what he memorized from Whigs in opposition to the Independent Treasury, because, as Mr. Clay stated in 1841, the rubbish had to be cleared away before a grand central Fiscal Bank could be established.

Saturday, July 10, 1841, House of Representatives, Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter (D) of Virginia:--
"If I oppose this, or any other system, on account of its unequal operation — nay, sir, if I were to go even to the daring and presumptuous length of complaining that it was unjust in a sectional point of view, am I to receive the suggestions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sergeant] as a hint to submit without murmur, or else to prepare for the horrors of civil and of servile war"

1861 July 4th, Galusha A. Grow, speaker of the House:-- "No flag alien to the sources of the Mississippi river will ever float over its mouths till its waters are crimsoned with human gore; and not one foot of American soil can ever be wrenched from the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States until it is baptized in fire and blood."

Lincoln and his Whig crew carried out the plan that Clay & co. could not carry out in 1841, because President Tyler vetoed the Fiscal Bank of the United States.

The Plan:--

The National Banking Act put an end to State-chartered banks. These new banks did not get their charters from States, therefore were not beholden to the States, and there was no need for them to support State politicians. In the previous 60 years the debate and clash was between State-chartered banks and the federally chartered central bank. State banks supported senators and representatives who opposed and voted against the central bank in Congress. Secretary of the Treasury, Portland Chase, the "father" of this new national banking system, as a young lawyer, started his career in 1832 --right at the beginning of Andrew Jackson's battle with the Bank of the United States-- at the Bank of the United States. It was there that he learned about central banking and formed his ideas on national finances. Should it be a surprise that his solution to the question of financing the war and supplying the country with a currency, was the same as what Henry Clay and the Whigs failed to achieve in 1841 ? to neutralize the State banks, to establish a federally operating banking system, to institute a debt-based currency, issued by private banks ? Ten years earlier Mr. Hooper was instrumental in enacting the Free Banking law in Massachusetts, and introducing a public debt-based, private bank-currency there. The same system he is now implementing for the whole Union. The Free Banking concept originated in New York State, where present Secretary of State, William Seward, had been a great friend and promoter of the central bank idea since 1831.

The fathers of greenbacks were:
Erastus Corning --landgrabber and speculator
Samuel Hooper --rich merchant who had been practicing in the past 16 years
Gerry Spaulding --banker
Salmon Chase --attorney for the Bank of United States from 1832 till its demise
Bassett Alley --railway attorney
John Sherman --......

In 1862, among other bankers, Mr. Henry F. Vail the Cashier of the Bank of Commerce, the largest bank in the United States, travelled to Washington to appear before the Senate Committee on Finance to request that the proposed Treasury notes be made legal tender. Why would he do that, was he a closet Greenbacker ? Who was Mr. Vail? in his youth he was a clerk at the Bank of the United States.

tid-bit

Addresses in the Houses of Congress
History of Legal tender Paper Money, Act of february 25, 1862.

 

Tho only good thing about Lincoln is the fact that he is dead, hope that sop rots in hell

 

MM, I never considered that, but you are exactly RIGHT! So few these days actually read the early documents, including the Constitution. I read it years ago - need to reread it!