Abraham Lincoln

'The Weekly Standard' Feigns Objectivity
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In the December 29, 2003, issue of The Weekly Standard, senior editor Andrew Ferguson discusses the controversy surrounding the new Lincoln statue that was erected in Richmond, Virginia, last April. Ferguson makes a weak attempt to appear objective by mentioning a few of the reasons why there were objections to the statue; but upon close reading of his piece it is evident that he fails miserably in explaining to his readers why the Lincoln statue was so controversial.

Coming from the premier neocon magazine, it may seem shocking to some that Ferguson actually mentions a few of the well-documented criticisms of Lincoln: During his lifetime he was "one of the least popular presidents the country has ever known"; he was either an agnostic or, more likely, an atheist despite his prolific use of Scripture in his political speeches; and every minister in Springfield, Illinois, opposed his election.

I have received numerous emails expressing great surprise at such "objectivity" coming from the Standard. But in fact Ferguson’s "objectivity" is only a pretense. He claims to have spent months researching the article, and these three trivial facts are all that he could come up with in terms of criticisms of Lincoln. If he would have spent a little time surveying some of the mainstream history on Lincoln by David Donald, James G. Randall, and others, he would have come across the following well-documented facts about Lincoln:

He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.
He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words "superior and inferior" to describe the "appropriate" relation between the white and black races.
He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.
He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.
He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.
He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.
He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.
He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti – anywhere but the U.S.
He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.
He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that "free white people" would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.
He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state’s constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.
He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.
He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.
He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.
He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more.
He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to "justify" his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.
He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.
He provoked the upper South – Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee – to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.
He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.
He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.
He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.
Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.
Censored all telegraph communication.
Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.
Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.
Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
Destroyed the system of federalism and states’ rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.
Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.
Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.

- rest at web page

 

Hey, I like your viewpoints. Would you mind introducing yourself up in the "Welcome to Baptist Board.com" forum? It's always nice to have another ally in the quest to promote limited, constitutional government.

 

Hmmm...without the States of the former CSA involved in the voting, Al Gore would be president today. Which is the way that Mr. Lincoln won re-election. Abraham Lincoln and Albert Gore - they pretty much go together - both advocates of big, expanding government.

 

Anyone who has not been indoctrinated by Yankee propaganda knows that the War for Southern Independence had nothing to do with slavery as a primary cause. The primary cause was the same as the War for American Independence in 1776 - a desire to secede from the dictates of a hostile central government.

Slavery was a dying institution that would not have lasted much longer due to economics. Tariffs imposed by the central government paid a bigger role than slavery ever did in precipating the war.

Look beyond Yankee propaganda and search for the truth.

 

No, I am quite serious. Methinks you need to do some research and quit swallowing whatever the Establishment line is.

Think for yourself, man, research and think for yourself.

 

From a bumpersticker:

Yankees 1
Rebels 0
(Halftime)

 

The Yankees winning the war between the USA and the CSA.

 

An intriguing idea but with the use of South African time travelers I think I will pass on it.

More interesting would be what if Stonewall Jackson had survived and what if the CSA had won at Antietam causing the European powers to recognize the CSA and provide support.