The Republican Party Has Got To Go (and be replaced)

 

I am one of those who identify closely with the Confederacy and the South when it comes to the "Civil War," or as we prefer to call it, the War for Southern Independence.

So which party do we support?  Not the modern Democrats, who stand for everything we despise.  So the great majority of us vote Republican, the party of the tyrant who invaded us and conquered us so many decades ago.  We don't like Abraham Lincoln but for the sake of party unity we generally keep quiet when other Republicans mouth off about the glories of Lincoln and the Grand Old Party and all its mythical values.  It's depressing to see so many people so ignorant of history, as they praise a monster who ran a reign of terror and replaced our voluntary union with an involuntary one.

However, I think that is coming to an end.  More and more conservatives are seeing the Republican Party for the big government cheerleader it really is, and so many Republicans whose only loyalty is to their seat in Congress and all the perks that go with it.  There is more talk of replacing the Republican Party with something better.  I would love a new conservative party that is not tainted with the stink of Abraham Lincoln.

The Terrible Truth About Lincoln and the Confederate War

By Michael Hutcheson
Originally published in Snap Out of It America

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts. 

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.” 

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer. 

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror. 

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he 

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial---which he did.
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government. 

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics. The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians---this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children---civilians---white and black, slave and free alike---were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661). 

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states---where he could not reach them---and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states---where he could have freed them at once. 

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed. 

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny. 

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War

One of the best, and yet most succinct essays on Abraham Lincoln's tyranny, is this:  The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War.  It was written by Michael Hutcheson at his blog, Snap Out of It America.  Michael has not updated his blog in well over a year, and I fear that his excellent essay will be lost or forgotten.  So I am reblogging it here in its entirety.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics.

The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians—this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children—civilians—white and black, slave and free alike—were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states—where he could not reach them—and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states—where he could have freed them at once.

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

The Civil War Absolutely Was Not About Slavery: Must-Read Book Tells Why

I am currently rereading Gene Kizer Jr's book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States -- the Irrefutable Argument.

Kizer's book is very convincing in its argument that economics was the overriding factor for both South and North.  If the South seceded, it rid itself of the huge tax burden  foisted on it by the North.  Its ports would attract shipping and imports, drawing substantial business and tax revenues away from the North.  The North, on the other hand, would face economic devastation, so dependent was it on the South for its jobs, manufactures and tax revenues.  In fact, immediately after the first seven states seceded, a depression began in the North and there was a growing financial panic.

These facts are not just Kizer's theories or interpretations.  His conclusions are drawn from documents from the time period, including speeches, quotes from famous people, newspaper accounts, editorials, and the writings of economists.  There is enough material there to give Northern apologists nightmares.

Another part of the book is a reprint of Charles Ramsdell's famous treatise on "Lincoln and Fort Sumter."  This essay describes in detail, minute by minute in some cases, the Fort Sumter controversy, who did what and when.

The crux of the Fort Sumter problem was this:  South Carolina had seceded from the Union, and wanted control over the fort that was located within its own borders.  Lincoln was faced with a dilemma:  if he gave up the fort, he admitted to the legality of secession, and opened Charleston Harbor to tariff-free imports from Europe.  He had to start the war, but knew he must not be seen as the aggressor.  What to do?  Ramsdell does not draw any conclusions for you, but the facts point irrefutably to Lincoln's plan to start the Civil War by forcing the South to fire the first shot.

Lincoln was a tyrant, but a crafty one.

The Confederate Flag is the Banner of Liberty and Resistance to Tyranny

This from the Patriot Newswire:  Has the Confederate Flag Become a Symbol of Liberty?

Well no, it has always been a symbol of liberty -- and self rule, self-determination -- and that has been recognized in all parts of the globe.

Nevertheless, the above linked article is well worth the read.  Some great quotes:

Megyn Kelly, Fox News Anchor writes: People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union.

The author, Eric Retzlaff, adds these comments:

The idea that the states are sovereign nations that freely created, for their common good, a national government with limited delegated powers and that the states could resist and nullify unconstitutional federal actions or even secede, as the colonies broke from Great Britain–this was lost when the South was crushed. These United States became the United States, which has grown into an increasingly liberal, immoral and tyrannical monster.

Against this un-American impulse, the Rev. Dr. James David Manning of the Christian ATLAH Worldwide Ministries, a black minister, recently predicted (prophesied?), with his powerful preaching skills, the South as the salvation of the Union from liberal dictatorship. If this is the new South, then where is the South, only below the Mason-Dixon line? No, it’s everywhere.

Now wouldn’t it be ironic if the Confederate flag became the symbol of freedom and rebellion against tyranny?

Get a flag and fly it.

Confederate Quote of the Day: H.L. Mencken on The Gettysburg Address

H.L. Mencken
1880 - 1956

H.L. Mencken, the famous muckraker and journalist, discussed the Lincoln myth and the Gettysburg Address back in 1922, in an essay called “Five Men at Random,” Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.

The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. 

 I love H.L. Mencken.  The man had guts, and was irreverent enough to tell the unvarnished truth.

Some Unpleasant Facts About Abraham Lincoln (YouTube Video)

Abraham Lincoln is today the center of a personality cult. He is revered as an almost god-like figure, the hero who saved the Union and freed the slaves. However, there is an alternative view that we believe is far closer to the historical truths:

1. That Lincoln detested the black race;
2. That Lincoln's overriding political goal was to increase federal power over every county, territory, region and state, i.e., to replace local governmental controls with the iron grip of a strong central government.
3. That Lincoln's administration was the most lawless and most unconstitutional in American history. His presidency was little more than a reign of terror.

Here is some video evidence to support these charges.



 Don't blame us for Lincoln's views on race. We report, you decide.

The Myth of Abraham Lincoln (Photoshop)

Major Robert Anderson, Inside Fort Sumter, Credits Lincoln With Starting the Civil War

I don't know why Yankees (like Donald Douglas) insist on arguing every little point.  It is so important to them to believe that Lincoln was not the war-monger he was, but a gentle lamb on which the Civil War was forced, all the while he was dreaming of peace and daffodils and racial harmony.

Actually, who fired the first shot is not important.  What is important is who made that first shot necessary -- and that was Abraham Lincoln.  Determined to hold all forts in Southern territory, he made the war inevitable.

However, Lincoln did indeed diabolically plot to force the South to fire the first shot.  He knew it would have tremendous propaganda value -- indeed, the propaganda is still working, 150 years later.  Ask Donald Douglas.

Here are some more actual, historical facts that prove it.

On April 7, 1861 Confederate authorities intercepted mail from Union  Major Robert Anderson, who was commanding Union troops in Fort Sumter.  In that letter, Anderson expressed shock to hear that an expedition to the fort was now en route.  (Any attempt to resupply the fort was an act of war and would commence hostilities.)  Anderson wrote:  "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war which I see is to be thus commenced."

Bombardment of Fort Sumter began five days later, on April 12, 1861.

In that statement, Major Anderson acknowledged the truth, that Lincoln had determined to begin hostilities in the Civil War. Lincoln was the aggressor and the author of the carnage that followed. And, on Lincoln's soul, is the blood of perhaps as many as 850,000 men, women and children.  I'd hate to go to God with that record.  What a hero!

Source:  The Union is Dissolved!: Charleston and Fort Sumter in the Civil War, By Douglas W. Bostick

More Butt-Hurt for Donald Douglas: The Top Six Racist Quotes of Abraham Lincoln

Some more butt hurt for Donald Douglas, who is currently experiencing a nervous breakdown over the demise of his biased Yankee views of history:

By today's standards, Abraham Lincoln was a virulent white supremacist and racist.  The racial hysteria now pervading the nation, demands that his image should be banned from all public buildings and property, and his face removed at once from the five dollar bill.  Consider the following quotes.

1. On Why He Wanted to Keep Blacks Out of the Territories:
Lincoln said:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

2. On deportation of blacks and replacing them with white laborers:
Lincoln said:

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."

3. On outlawing slavery in the South (after secession):

Lincoln said, in his first inaugural address:

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.

4. On racial equality:

Lincoln said:

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.

5. On why blacks must be separated from whites:

Lincoln said:

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

6.  On why the blacks should accept colonization out of the United States:

Lincoln addressed free black clergymen at a meeting in the White House, August 14, 1862.  He said:

Why should they [blacks] leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

Via Top 5 Racist Quotes of Abraham Lincoln -- edited and amended

"Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States -- the Irrefutable Argument"

Gene Kizer, Jr. has written a must-read book for anyone concerned with the Confederate flag debate.  It is titled "Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States -- the Irrefutable Argument."

Here's what the back cover says about this book:

*****

This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery.

The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth:  cotton.  The North's economy was based mostly on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton around the world.  Cotton alone was 60% of U.S. exports in 1860.  When the South seceded, the Northern economy began a dramatic collapse, and by war time, there were hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed Northerners in the street -- and the "tocsin of war" sounded.

Economically ignorant Northern leaders  then passed the astronomical Morrill Tariff that threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry by rerouting trade away from the high-tariff North and into the low-tariff South.  The Morrill Tariff was like pumping gasoline into an already raging fire.

Abraham Lincoln was the first sectional president in American history.  He was president of the North, and the North was clamoring for war.  He saw an opportunity to start it without appearing to be the aggressor, so he took it.  Thus, he started a war that killed 800,000 men and wounded a million.

The idea that the good North was so outraged over slavery that they marched armies into the South to free the slaves is an absurdity of biblical proportions and this book proves it.

****

Gene Kizer, Jr. graduated magna cum laude in 2000 from the College of Charleston with History Department Honors and the highest award for the History Department, the Outstanding Student Award.  He won the Rebecca Motte American History Award the year before.

Order a copy of this book at Amazon here.

Abraham Lincoln's War Crimes

The current issue of Confederate Veteran magazine has an article "Lincoln's War on Southern Civilians," by Walter Brian Cisco.  Intrigued, I opted to buy the longer version in his book "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians."  It is really an eye-opener.

It is impossible to read of the widespread tyranny, barbarism and mass murder of civilians that the glorious North perpetrated on the South in the War for Southern Independence.  To read the record of Northern atrocities, is to be filled with hatred and disgust for the culprits, the chief of whom was Abraham Lincoln, an odious, evil man.

Here are some extracts from Cisco's book:

To those readers who still think Lincoln a great man, I would only say this: if you knew what we know about the North's barbarous invasion of the Southern states in 1861 to 1865, you too would be Confederates.

Abraham Lincoln Statue in Washington, D.C. (Photoshop)

For those who think I was a bit hard on Old Abe yesterday, I am now posting this famous marble statue of the man.  Enjoy it!

I changed the inscription to more accurately reflect the statue's purpose.  Hope you don't mind.

Highly Historical Film About Abraham Lincoln Passed Over for Academy Award

I of course, refer to the film, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter."  No, it's not really historically accurate, but not much less so than Spielberg's "Lincoln."

As a great and glorious example of moral rectitude, Lincoln was a fraud.  When I have time, I will tell you all facts about the Emancipation Proclamation that most of you never learned in school...like the fact that it didn't free a single slave -- nor was it intended to.  Perhaps our Second Coming of Lincoln will issue a Confiscation Proclamation, ending gun ownership.  But that would be unconstitutional, just like the first proclamation.  However, that is discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, when you go to the movies, pass up "Lincoln."  It is total B.S.  Believing in myths and feel-good but false history does no one any good.

In fact, "feel-good" history is often a ruse by which to justify modern politics in the here and now.  Carl Sandburg's  biography of Lincoln, written in the 1930's, was a disguised justification for FDR's New Deal.  Spielberg's "Lincoln" is presented for the same purpose, to justify Obama's overreach and suspension of the Constitution.  The more you buy into Hollywood's phony Lincoln, the less willing you will become to oppose Obama, whose policies are probably less extreme than those of Old Abe.

So you think Old Abe was a hero, even though he started a war without the approval of Congress, arrested and imprisoned thousands of US citizens without charges or trial, illegally suspended Habeas Corpus, ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for ruling it unconstitutional, shut down hundreds of newspapers who disagreed with his policies, acquiesced in the illegal and unconstitutional deportation of an Ohio congressman (for opposing him), and issued a sweeping proclamation without the participation or agreement of Congress.

Further, he ordered Union troops to burn Southern universities, private homes and farms, to destroy livestock and confiscate medicines, and to use captured Confederate officers as human shields against artillery.  His glorious Yankees raped Southern black women, used Southern black men for target practice, and kidnapped others to be pressed into labor for the Union Army.  Other Northern troops stole private property from private homes, carrying off the silverware and candlesticks.  Think of that the next time you hear "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Lincoln was a dictator; there is absolutely nothing about the man that can be called "American."  He operated completely outside of the law and the Constitution and managed to kill more Americans than any foreign despot ever could.  His time in office was a reign of terror, not enlightenment, not justice, not heroism and certainly not morality.

As for the weepy and wimpy Lincoln of Spielberg's propaganda, he did not exist.  Lincoln despised black people, considered them to be an inferior race that should be deported to Africa or Central America.  His opposition to slavery in the territories was for economic and racial reasons, not equality.

Lincoln's war on the South was all about preventing secession, not about emancipation.  The Northern army was called "the Union Army," not "the Abolition Army," for a reason.  This fact becomes more pertinent and important every day, now that tens of thousands of Americans in every state in the Union have petitioned Obama for the right to peacefully secede from the socialist tyranny now under construction.  When states actually do begin to secede once again, Obama will undoubtedly try to stop them by brute force...just as Lincoln did.  And if you buy into the Lincoln myth, how could you possibly oppose him?

Aha, now you see the reason for this propaganda.  You are being trained to embrace tyranny as great patriotism, and Obama as the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln Was An Ass

In celebration of the birthday of the worst U.S. president in history, I am reprinting this essay by Ron Holland.  Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and not the great shining hero the public believes in.  Lincoln the Man has long been replaced by Lincoln the Myth.

Whereas I do not agree with Holland that America today has any kind of empire, I do agree with him about the grossly unconstitutional war and the crimes against humanity created by this ridiculous oaf.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AMERICA’S GREATEST WAR CRIMINAL

By Ron Holland

from Southern Caucus http://www.southerncaucus.org

Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

Because of Lincoln, the former American constitutional republic fell from a dream of liberty and limited government into the nightmare big government we have today without the earlier checks and balances of state sovereignty. After Lincoln, In foreign policy, the US forgot George Washington’s warning about neutrality and we became an aggressive military abroad until today we have troops defending the Washington Empire in over 144 nations around the world.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connections as possible. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.—George Washington

Lincoln shares his war criminal actions with other well know tyrants that waged war on their own people. History shows us that politicians make war against their own citizens even more than against foreign nations. The reasons are often to establish and preserve their power base, as was the case in the Russian Revolution and the Mao Revolution. For others, like Hitler, it was misguided super patriotism and racism that brought death to tens of millions. Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency. Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln was an honorable statesman who let election year politics and the special interests supporting his presidential campaign corrupt a once great man. He knew what he was doing was wrong and unconstitutional but succumbed, as in the case of many modern day politicians, to the allure of money, power and ego.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. -- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

This quote above shows Lincoln as a statesman 12 years before he plunged the United States into its most disastrous war. Suffering a death toll so high in death rates as a percentage of total population, his act of carnage ranks with the political genocides of Stalin, Lenin and Mao during their communist revolutions. A death toll so great that it dwarfs the American deaths in all of our many declared and undeclared wars before and since this American holocaust of death and destruction.

From the following quote you can see that later Lincoln radically adjusted his rhetoric to meet the needs and demands of his business establishment supporters and financial supporters.

No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. --Abraham Lincoln

Why the complete change in rhetoric and actions? Simple, to preserve high tariffs and corporate profits for the Northeastern business establishment. Lincoln who earlier in his career had obviously favored the right of peaceful secession, provoked a war that killed 600,000 Americans, as a pay back to the eastern manufacturing establishment that bankrolled his presidential campaign. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. Thus the real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth and hide the ultimate costs of Lincoln’s American holocaust. While Lincoln’s death toll is small in comparison to total deaths by Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, there are many similarities between these men. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.

Still the US constitutional republic, as established by our founding fathers, was in effect destroyed by Lincoln’s unconstitutional war just as surely as Mao and Lenin over threw the existing Chinese and Russian governments. The multitude of Lincoln apologists would say that this is just another Confederate argument certainly not accepted by most historians. I might counter that the opinions and books of these "so called" establishment historians who live off my tax dollars through government funding at liberal controlled universities and think tanks are prejudiced towards Lincoln and Washington DC. They are no different from the official government historians in China, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.

History shows us that a fair and honest discussion of Lincoln’s wartime actions will not be possible as long as the Washington political establishment remains in power. Since Lincoln, the Washington Empire has reigned supreme and omnipotent and for this reason, establishment historians have never honestly debated the Lincoln war crimes.

Consider this. Was a fair and honest account of Lenin or Stalin written and published during the Soviet Communist regime? Of course not. Could a less than worshipful history of Hitler’s Third Reich have been published until after 1945? No! Even today, with only nominal communist control of China, an honest appraisal of Mao’s revolution and crimes against the Chinese people still is not possible. It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Just as Lenin’s statue could not be toppled in Red Square until after the fall of the Soviet Communist government, or the truth about Hitler couldn’t be told until after defeat of Nazi Germany, it is the same here in the United States. It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged. The Lincoln Memorial should be remodeled to show the horrors of "Lincoln the War Criminal" with the opportunity for all to visit Washington and learn how war crimes, genocide and holocaust are not just crimes that foreign politicians commit. Government and political tyranny can and has happened here just like in Germany, China and the Soviet Union and that through education and honest history, it will never happen here again.

In the future, may we have the opportunity to learn about the Nazi holocaust at the United States National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and then have the chance to visit the Lincoln War Crimes and American Holocaust Museum a few blocks away. One will state for all the world that NEVER AGAIN will a tyrant or government be allowed to target, exterminate and destroy an ethnic, racial or religious minority. The other will pledge NEVER AGAIN in America will we allow a president or government to make unconstitutional war against Sovereign states or their citizens and then cover up the truth up for over 145 years.

We should start today with an honest appraisal of what Lincoln really did to Dixie, how our black and white innocent noncombatants suffered under his total war policy against civilians. Finally we should address the cost in lives, lost liberty and federal taxes the citizens of the US have had to endure because our limited constitutional republic was destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a smart politician and he could have been an excellent president, had he considered the short-term costs of his high tariff and the long time price every American had to pay for his war of invasion. It is time to stop worshipping Lincoln and educate the public about the war crimes he committed against the citizens of the Southern States so this WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN

Are the Libertarians Right About Abraham Lincoln?

Lincoln Prepares for Office

Libertarians like Ron Paul believe that Abraham Lincoln (believed by many to be our greatest president) was actually our most despotic, our greatest shredder of the Constitution.  A few days ago, one of the writers at Powerline asked, somewhat humorously, if Ron Paul thought Lincoln was such a Constitution shredder, why did Paul belong to the party of Lincoln?

Powerline's question was stupid and it irked me.  Paul is a Republican because it is the lesser of two evils.  No doubt Paul feels he can find more allies for common cause in the Republican Party than he ever could in the Democratic.  What other choice does he have?  I assume Powerline is aware that the current Republican Party is not invading sovereign states, shutting down newspapers, arresting entire state legislatures, deporting federal congressmen who disagree, suspending habeas corpus, imprisoning thousands without charges or trial, and attempting to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for ruling against them.  

Of course, if any president were doing this today he would be run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered and speedily impeached.  However, when you are a martyr from assassination and live safely in the distant past, one is more likely to discount your crimes and even celebrate them and hold them up as an example of heroic behavior.  

Most people are just unaware of Lincoln's actual legacy.  He has been beatified, apotheosized, his face made into an icon and submerged into our consciences from kindergarten on.  His stern visage is displayed along side that of Washington, is carved on Mt. Rushmore and printed on the five dollar bill.  His mythology has been made into an unquestioned article of faith, and anyone who questions it guilty of apostasy.  He was the Great Emancipator, the rail-splitter, the young man who studied law by his fireplace in a log cabin, using charcoal sticks to write his lessons on the back of a shovel.  A shovel, it seems, is exactly what is needed to shed a more accurate light on this man's career and character.

In any case, I responded to Powerline's really dumb question by informing them that Lincoln's crimes against the Constitution were well known and easily listed, and I listed some of them as proof.  This brought some angry responses from some of the Powerline readers, one of whom was really vicious.  People who revere Abraham Lincoln do not like having holes poked in their fantasies, and it showed.  I am neither a libertarian nor a supporter of Ron Paul (I have attacked him far more in this blog than I have supported him, and you can look it up).  However, I am a Confederate descendant, and when it was your ancestors that bore the brunt of this president's total war against states and civilians, you tend not to be so mesmerized by the man's shining myth.

I started looking for material on Lincoln, and found a similar thread at Free Republic, where the pro-Lincoln commenters were even more vicious than those at Powerline.  (I was banned from Free Republic several years ago for defending the South.)

Well my search for material on Lincoln's crimes yielded fruit, and at some time in the future I will list those crimes and why they are important to acknowledge in the here and now.  In short, Lincoln assumed the role of a dictator during the Civil War and swept away all Constitutional safeguards in pursuit of empire.  He did not save the Union, he destroyed it, replacing it with something else, a consolidated republic wherein the individual (and formerly sovereign) states are little more than postal zones.

I don't agree with the libertarians much at all when it comes to foreign policy, but when it comes to Abraham Lincoln, they got it right.  The man was a disaster.

Here is one of my resources; an online book you can read for free.  It's called "America's Caesar," by Greg Loren Durand.  Read it at this link.

Mark Levin is a Flaming Ignoramus on the Civil War

Mark Levin is an excellent writer and has given a lot to the conservative movement.  However, his increasingly asinine remarks on the radio about the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America compel me to finally call him out.

Yesterday the Irate One stated that the Confederacy represented an "illegitimate form of government" based on "dangerous rebellion."  What a load of happy horse sh*t.  If that is true of the Confederacy, it is also true of the United States, who came into being in the same way:  through secession and a declaration of independence.  Furthermore, the Confederate States were not in "rebellion" to the Constitution or anything else.  They were merely exercising their right to self-government under the very American concept of "the consent of the governed."  They were merely following the legal means of seceding as outlined in textbooks at West Point, as commonly understood since the beginning of the American republic:  sovereign bodies that accede to a union of political states may also secede from the same union when it suits their needs and purposes to do so.  Abraham Lincoln himself stated as much in a speech to Congress while he himself was but a congressman:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 

Any government that forces a population into its fold through force is tyranny.  The Northern states were on the side of tyranny during the Civil War.  They did not fight to "free the slaves" as is commonly and erroneously taught to every third-grader; they fought to force the South back into a union it no longer wanted; the slaves were totally negotiable.  The Civil War was like most wars, fought over territorial control, the right to govern and the right to tax.  Similar situations today:  China's invasion of Tibet and its desire to annex Taiwan; Russia's desire to annex Georgia and its former colonies.

Abraham Lincoln was a flaming disaster to the United States, clearly the worst president in our history.  He started a war of tyranny and subjugation and killed 630,000 people in the process.  Yet, Lincoln is Mark Levin's hero.  It figures.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT, MARK.

Rush Limbaugh is Wrong about Abraham Lincoln

As a Confederate descendant, I am not a fan of Abraham Lincoln. I know a lot of Americans and fellow Republicans and fellow conservatives greatly admire the man, so I generally keep quiet about him. No point in offending political comrades over events that happened 145 years ago. We have modern battles to fight, after all.

It’s not always easy to do, however. On Rush Limbaugh’s site today, he prints a conversation he had with a caller whom he calls “Confederate Kook” from Louisiana. Rush lost the debate with this guy, but is too damned ignorant to know it. His fill in today, Roger Hedgecock or Hedgehog or whatever, was equally ignorant and intellectually dishonest, likening the modern Democrats to the “peace” Democrats of 1861-1865. They have tried to take the past and project it onto the present, using ancient history to prove modern political points. It is a dubious enterprise and it has been tried before. Carl Sandburg used Lincoln to justify the New Deal during the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His four tomed volume on Lincoln: the War Years had a modern political agenda. He misused history just as some Republicans are misusing history today for their political ends, namely , Rush Limbaugh, Roger Hedgecock and even Powerline Blog. The situation in the 1860's is not analogous to the situation today in Iraq, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest and poor history.

I detest the modern Democratic Party, but trying to compare it to the 1860’s Democrats is farfetched in the extreme. During the 1860’s, Americans were fighting other Americans, not some barbaric savagery that is intent on killing us. The South is not comparable to Iraq. The South simply wanted to secede in peace, form their own country, and be left alone. They did not want to conquer the North. They were not a threat to the North, except economically. With the South gone, Southern ports would become free trade zones not subject to the high Northern tariff on imported goods, and economic activity would shift from Northern ports to Southern ones. Tax revenues to Washington would be dramatically slashed, since most of those revenues came from the South, and most of that was spent in the North.

Abraham Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but was willing to accept it to save the Union. The South, on the other hand, was willing to give it up if they could secede and be left alone. The reason North and South could not compromise was that neither was willing to change their position on the issue of secession.

Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Sun and stated unequivocally that if he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do it; if he could save the Union by not freeing the slaves he would do it; and if he could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone, he would also do that. Whatever he did with regards to the slaves he would do only if it helped him achieve his major goal, to save the Union. Saving the Union by making it mandatory, of course, was not in keeping with one of our founding principles, the “consent of the governed,” but that’s another issue.

Lincoln hated slavery, but did not believe in the equality of man, as the wishful thinkers at Powerline would have you believe. He publicly stated that he would not be in favor of intermarriage with them, nor would he support making voters or jurors of them. In the early days of the war, he had a plan to deport all black people to South America or Liberia. In 1861 he told a group of free black men visiting the White House that both races suffered greatly in the other’s presence, and that “not a single man of your race is equal to a single man of ours.” He was not the enlightened crusader for justice that many modern school children have been led to believe.

Of course, Lincoln was a slick politician. He said different things to different audiences, based on the sentiments of his listeners. Powerline has found one speech that makes Lincoln sound like a flaming abolitionist and have used it until it’s worn out, while ignoring all of his other speeches that undermine their chosen beliefs about the man.

I will tell you what I believe, however, and you can ignore it as much as you like: I don’t mind. I believe that Lincoln was a tyrant; that his years in office were a reign of terror; and that he is the biggest fraud in American history.

You don’t have to agree, and we’ll still be friends.