Comments on: Lincoln Lied, People Died

By: Mark Carlton

Mark Carlton — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:30:05 +0000

The only thing needed to confirm Ilana’s thesis is to ask this question: How would Abraham Lincoln be viewed if the North had lost the war?

The North could not have lost the war on the battlefield, but they could have lost it at the ballot box had George McClellan been elected president in 1864. There is little question that he would have negotiated a peace treaty with the South that would probably have granted the Confederacy its independence.

This scenario is not as improbable as it may seem. In fact has certain fortuitous — such as the fall of Atlanta –- it may well have happened. History would have been kind to Lincoln had this happened.

It is also interesting to speculate as to how history would have judged him had he not been assassinated. It was this event that turned him into a martyr and a legend. But how would his reputation have fared had he had to preside over the first four years of reconstruction?

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:25:40 +0000

1: Some Southern states wanted to stop being part of the United States and wanted to form their own country called the Confederate States. Did they have a legal right to leave the US and did Lincoln force a war against another legally constituted country or not is the question, nothing else? Some of his lies-
1: Lincoln said he just wanted to keep the union together peacefully he lied because he refused to negotiate. The South appointed a five member commission to discuss a peaceful reconsideration for the CS to return to the Union. Lincoln refused to talk to them, even through a Representative, despite their remaining in the North throughout the war. 2: Lincoln promised to remove the tariff collecting troops in Ft. Sumner; instead he tried to reinforce the troops, thereby causing the South to remove them physically. 3: Lincoln sent letters commending Union Generals for committing atrocities against the Southern Civilian Population. Examples- General Sherman for destroying the Shenandoah Valley and the general occupying New Orleans for telling the women of New Orleans that they would be hospitable to US Army officers or he would label them ‘whores’ and turn the enlisted men on them.

By: Elm

Elm — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 03:29:31 +0000

Whereas under Lincoln’s Presidency it is true Lincoln implemented the first income tax, however, it would be unfair to ignore the fact, at the insistence of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, the south passed two laws which had far greater impact upon the future liberties & rights of Americans than the war time income tax which did remain temporary at that juncture of American history.

In April 1862, The Confederate Congress met & passed two laws, one extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, the other required all able bodied white men between the ages of 18 & 35 to serve for 3 years. It was the first national draft in American history.

“The Conscription act in one fell swoop struck down the sovereignty of the states, and trampled upon the constitutional rights & personal liberties of the citizens & arms the President with Imperial powers.” [Governor Joseph E. Brown of the Confederate State of Georgia]

By: lonegranger

lonegranger — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:36:04 +0000

Lincoln Shmincoln! What you’ve demonstrated is, that, when push comes to shove, the law has no more value than a sack o’ equine residue. A law is only a suggestion regarding acceptable behavior in particular situations. As a human I may choose to obey or disregard the law depending on circumstances, expediency, or just plain orneriness!

I offer this opinion: that almost all human intercourse is carried out in an anarchic environment and success is dependent on the chemical empathy present in human life forms. When agreement fails, winning, in the short term, is usually achieved by the greater sociopath.

The trouble with “leaders” (who are likely all psychopathic) is that most people are followers and will relinquish their morals to a leaders authority. You might reference and extrapolate from the (in)famous Stanley Milgram experiment.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:35:55 +0000

My father was an archivist and part of what he did was oral history interviews. Back about 1972 he came home from an interview with an elderly man named Eddy. He told me that When Eddy was a boy, about the year 1900, he lived in a small town in northern Wisconsin named King. Eddy’s father helped to run the “Old Soldiers Home” in King. It was full of Union veterans of the Civil War. These aging soldiers used to sit Eddy down and tell him stories about the war. Eddy told my dad the following: “They all had one thing in common. They all hated Abraham Lincoln.” It was known then, but it just didn’t make it into the history books. I was about 15 or so at the time. It made me wonder for the first time if there were things in books that weren’t true and perhaps things that should have been in books but weren’t. You are doing what my dad would have thought to be vital for the truth to be known. Thank you.

By: Fred & Deb

Fred & Deb — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:49:09 +0000

Everything you say about Abraham Lincoln is true, and unfortunately also applies to every other U.S. president. But it wasn’t really Lincoln who was responsible for the loss of so many lives and so much of our economy, any more than any other president who’s held office. Lincoln was just a puppet, as have been all of our presidents.

We need to stop going after our presidents and expose the true elitist rulers who control our government leaders. We’ll be doing the country a huge favor. People are so dumbed-down anymore that they believe everything the liars tell them. They desperately need to hear the truth. Lincoln wasn’t the great man we’ve been led to believe, but he was also not responsible for the civil war. He just did as he was told, and for that he got a bullet in the head. Perhaps he was feeling remorse and had a bit of a guilty conscience, as no doubt did Richard Nixon when the elitists forced him to resign.

Nixon did nothing that was any worse than any other president has done, but he lost favor with the powerful who really control our country, and for that he paid a huge price. Lincoln paid an even bigger price, with his life. Someone once said that you don’t compromise your scruples to enter politics, YOU SELL YOUR SOUL. I believe both Lincoln and Nixon tried to buy back their souls, but it was too late. WAY too late.

By: irongalt

irongalt — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 02:20:16 +0000

Lincoln was a bastard. Thanks Ilana for exposing him.

Any time the schools, media, and various oink institutions glorify an individual (like Lincoln, Arafat, Mandela, “Mother” Theresa, mlk, etc.) you know that they’re moral reprobates – even without finding out the details.

@ By Tom Waldron on 02.11.11 8:23 am – “malice towards none”??? the income tax was malice towards all. Expanding the federal government, an already intolerable beast, was hardly a “temporary expedient” that “vanished”. If the states had been allowed to break off from the union, we wouldn’t have this hellish nightmare we have today.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:53:54 +0000

As the many comments here show, the reasons for the Civil War are many and complex. The outcome was the entrenchment of the Leviathan state and predictable loss of individual liberty.

However, if you look at the Civil War through the lens of the Federalist Papers, it is clear that many of arguments Madison, Jay, and Hamilton gave in support of a stronger central government are still relevant (or even more relevant) and provide(d) a strong impetus to preserve the Union. No matter your opinion on Lincoln, it’s an interesting angle by which to approach it.

Now, I am in no way lauding Lincoln. I personally think he, of all past presidents, has done the most to severely injure the Founder’s original intent. And it galls me that the average United States citizen is too stupid or lazy to look critically at the impacts of Lincoln’s actions.

Oh well, I’ll just keep speaking heresy from the pews in the cathedral. 🙂

By: Joe B. Gustafson

Joe B. Gustafson — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:55:11 +0000

The reason someone who’s actions caused the deaths of over 600,000 Americans is considered a hero is because the winners write the history books. Lincoln was an egotistical butcher.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:00:40 +0000

The lower South succumbed to the “fire eaters” and seceded over the issue of slavery.

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

The upper South and Northern anti-abolitionists tried for forge compromises to avert a military invasion (coercion) of the South:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1861

Like much historical revision, the South currently justifies the Civil War and the slaughter of 600,000 on tariff and libertarian grounds, denying the slavery impetus of 1860-1861 while the Lincoln Worshippers currently justify the War on “liberating slaves” when it was done to centralize power and the Republican party agenda. Lincoln’s behavior during the Secession Crisis was a bit like Dubya’s smirkiness on Iraq:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/what-the-north-got-wrong/?src=fbcivilwar

While Unionists like Robert E. Lee supported Compromise, Lincoln “savior of the Union??!!!” hypocritically sunk it:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/how-lincoln-undid-the-union/?src=fbcivilwar

And blacks distrusted “Dishonest Abe”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/fear-and-doubt-in-cleveland/?src=fbcivilwar

The irony is that if the Lower South had not been invaded, slavery MIGHT have been killed slowly by a combination of economic forces combined with Northern states no longer even attempting to obey the Fugitive Slave Act – but I guess we don’t get to “REWIND” history and dial a different outcome.

Like some chemical equilibrium, 12.5% of the population got considerably more freedom and 87.5% lost freedom. Additional price: lives, limbs, and prosperity.