Abraham Lincoln: Racist, Tyranical Bastard

With all due respect to the Repunklican, Abraham Lincoln was NOT a great president and not someone you should tell your kids to look up to or admire.

Why would I say that? Here are a few reasons:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation: According to Lincoln apologists, it was his greatest achievement because it ended slavery. Actually, it was a joke and a total farce. Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Henry Seward referred to the document as hollow and meaningless and showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

2. He was a racist: In the Lincoln-Douglas debates he said:

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or
political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been
in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference
between the white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living
together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior
and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white
man."

It's like he was channeling Robert Byrd or David Duke or something. He was a obviously a very, very enlightened man.
3. He was a protectionist pig and his policies led to the Civil War. The standard line for the sheep in America is that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but that just isn't the case.

From Mises.org
http://bit.ly/cB06in

"The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent.."

"So, Lincoln...was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected."

"At the time, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent
of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being
spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted
no more of it. The along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "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 force against, or among the people anywhere"

"He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers...and was
willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000
Americans to prove his point. Lincoln's economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite
prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff."
So much for "no taxation without representation", by the 1860's that was such an old fashioned notion. If Lincoln and the North were so opposed to slavery, the easiest way to show their displeasure would have been to cease trading with the South. Easy to do. No bloodsheed. Like the world did to South Africa, which brought an end to Apartheid. The Norths' economy was an industrial one, albeit a mercantilist or coporatist one. It was bigger, stronger and more powerful than the agrarian, slave based economy of the South. Even without considering the inherent evil of Slavery, it was also a very inefficient economic system, as it lacks the proper incentives. A slave will work just hard enough not to get punished. There's no upside or profit to working harder, faster or more efficiently for the man on the horse with the whip. In a purely economic war of competing ideologies, the North would have crushed the South. There was no need for War, bloodshed and 600,000+ to die.

Not only that, but the Union/Lincoln might have been able to persuade the European countries to cease trade with the South as well. The British Parliament abolished slavery in 1834 and the French were much earlier, abolishing it in 1794, so one would think Lincoln wouldn't have had to press them to hard to join the party. Obviously, I don't know if they would have been successful or not. I'm not Nostradamus, but I would wager that a pure economic war, whereby the North as well as any other participating countries ceased all trade with the South, would have ended Slavery a lot sooner than the Civil War did. As soon as the Southern farmers inventories started piling up, with no buyers in sight, they would have had no other option than to push their state governments to outlaw slavery, if only to resume trade and not due to a sudden realization that slavery was wrong or evil. As soon as one state abolished slavery and resumed trade, the other states would have had to get in line in order to keep up.
4. He was a dissent crushing, freedom revoking dictator:

From Mises.org
http://bit.ly/bSYqnb
"In reality, Abraham Lincoln, the president who began the trend of more federal
power and diminished states' rights, set a precedent of dictatorial actions that
is still being looked to today as an excuse for more federal power. During his
reign as president during the Civil War, Lincoln mad the unprecedented move of
suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the
protection against unlawful imprisonment."
"Also during this time, Lincoln had an estimated 13,535 people detained for
merely expressing opposition to the war itself. None of these people ever even
heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial. In
possibly his most noticed act of despotism, Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for "disloyal sentiments and speeches."

"When the public finally rose up against this action, Lincoln released Vallandigham from prison and had him banished from the country. Even in death, Lincoln's repressive spirit lived on, as anybody who was even remotely connected with John Wilkes Booth's attempted escape after assassinating the president was hung in public or sentenced to life in prison."
And lets not forget the Draft and the $300 commutation which allowed rich people to buy their way out of service. That was a real egalitarian, "man of the people" type policy, making people slaves unless they can pay you a certain fee.

Basically Abraham Lincoln was a racist, a tyrant, a freedom crushing bastard who went to war to prevent the Southern states from seceding from the North/Federal Government. The repunklican got that part right, it was a war to "preserve the Union." ie to prevent secession.

Which begs the question: Why shouldn't states be allowed to withdraw from the Union? There has been chatter for years about different States seceding; Texas, Vermont, blue states from the red states and vice versa. Shouldn't a state or states have the ability to withdraw from Big Brothers' "protection"? As a believer in Freedom, I say, unequivocally, YES! Big Brother and his sheep, say NO. Whose side are you on?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

October retail sales come in strong, especially auto sales

Tea Party Buffalo Pictures

How to spot a fake Tea Partier