Abraham Lincoln

I've just recently started reading Thomas DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln. It's really interesting the things text books have left out. I'm wondering what others think of this historical figure. Lincoln has been almost deified by statists so I think it's important, not only to know what you believe and why, but also what others believe and why it's wrong. So what do you think of "Honest Abe"?

Well, all I can say is be prepared to be called a racist for advancing the views of that book.

People don't like to hear things that are contrarian in nature to what they have been preached to about in school.......

Actually I've already talked to a few people about the contents of the book. With the exception of a couple of hard core Lincoln lovers who just outright refused to believe anything I said, everyone was pretty accepting including African-Americans I talked to.

Lincoln is almost the father of central power. That's a big reason why he has been deified. It's been slapped on that he wanted to free the slaves AND that there were no other options to consider; and those two together is the mythical story to support central power.

In reality, Lincoln was a giant corporatist (railroads) and there had been a political battle over tariffs for years. Lincoln was an outspoken racist and he supported a change in the constitution to enshrine slavery into it.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln clearly outlines that he's not interested in the slavery issue but that he is interested in tax collection, and if States keep paying their taxes, that there will be no invasion:

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.

[..]

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Naturally, they didn't print the first inaugural address in his temple, but his second.


And then there's the issue of all the unconstitutional and immoral things he and the North did during and after the war. This is not at all to say that the South didn't do bad things (starting with their support for slavery), but the deification of Lincoln, the North and central power is horrendous in the face of it.

For example:

General Sherman [who served as a General in the Union Army during the American Civil War (1861–65)] set out to eradicate every single Indian in a genocidal manner.

With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . ." (Marszalek, p. 379).

Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages" (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.

[..]

By 1890 Sherman’s "final solution" had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations "where they can be watched." In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html

Just absolutely horrendous stuff.

These are the kind of people who are praised in (public) schools. The American state, which is a global superpower in near-perpetual war, needs a mythology and this is the sort of thing you get.

What astounds me is that, even when conceded that the war between the states was not about slavery, statists still add, "But Lincoln did save the Union!" He completely changed the power structure of the "Union" and thus created his own. He did not save the union he destroyed it and replaced it with his own version. Futhermore I believe he destroyed any possibility that secession could eventually be used to achieve anarchy as I believe was envisioned by Spooner. (I know that last comment could also be made in another forum topic but here it is)

ThePsychoticnut wrote:What astounds me is that, even when conceded that the war between the states was not about slavery, statists still add, "But Lincoln did save the Union!" He completely changed the power structure of the "Union" and thus created his own. He did not save the union he destroyed it and replaced it with his own version. Futhermore I believe he destroyed any possibility that secession could eventually be used to achieve anarchy as I believe was envisioned by Spooner. (I know that last comment could also be made in another forum topic but here it is)

Right. As Stefan Molyneux likes to say: rape is not lovemaking. When the Southern states seceded it immediately ended the contract (which wasn't all that voluntary to begin with since the constitution was simply a round-table of the elite). So Lincoln and co simply invaded and conquered another nation. It's real doublespeak to call an invasion with a million deaths a union!

To say that it's good to "save the Union" is to say that a government is more important than the people it's made up of, which is sacrificial collectivist language.

Ayn Rand - Objectivism vs Altruism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s