Heros and Villains

Posted on 20. Jan, 2010 by Dream in Independent Thinking, Reviews

I propose the following idea: that certain historical “heroes”, are not heroes at all, and that certain historical “villains” are not villains at all.

Of particular interest are Genghis Khan and Abraham Lincoln (often referred to as one of our “greatest presidents”).

Simply put, I believe the history and legacies of these two men have been severely distorted.

This is probably why I vividly remember my 10^th grade “world history” teacher (Mrs. Copeland) defining “history” as a well agreed upon pack of lies.

So much so in fact, that the conventional views of these two men, are the inverses of what common sense would reveal upon further investigation.

Let’s start with Genghis Khan.

The first time I heard anything about or relating to Genghis Khan was on TV in an episode of South Park, when one of the characters said “God damn Mongolians”.

That was then followed by a mounted horde of “Mongolians” trampling over a hill. I’ll never forget it.

More recently, I saw Genghis Khan directly mentioned in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and on the old Tucker Max discussion board. From what I could tell in Uncharted 2, Genghis Khan was vilified (however briefly).

The Tucker Max discussion board however offered a different perspective though (before it closed down in the fall of 2009). #1 N.Y. Times best-selling author Tucker Max, said that Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World was one of the most personally influential books he had ever read.

I’ve met Tucker, and despite the bad press he gets at times, he’s a stand up dude.  Naturally, when I read his endorsement of the book, I was intrigued, and eventually purchased the book on Amazon.

The book is phenomenal, and I could see why he was so supportive of the book long before finishing it.

I’ll share a few of my favorite quotes from the book and allow you guys to make your own brief conclusions if this information is new to you, before I share my own. Also, if you want the short version, read what I have bolded. Any paragraph beginning with * denotes a new and separate quote from the book.

*In twenty-five years, the Mongol army subjugated more land and people than the Romans had conquered in four hundred years. Genghis Khan together with his sons and grandsons conquered the most densely populated civilization of the thirteenth century. Whether measured by the total number of people defeated, the sum of the countries annexed, or by the total area occupied, Genghis Khan conquered more than twice as much as any other man in history. The hooves of the Mongol warriors’ horses splashed in the waters of every river and lake from the Pacific Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. At its Zenith, the empire covered between 11 and 12 million contiguous square miles, an area about the size of the African continent and considerably larger than North America, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean combined. It stretched from the snowy tundra of Siberia to the hot plains of India, from the rice paddies of Vietnam to the wheat fields of Hungary, and from Korea to the Balkans. The majority of people today live in countries conquered by the Mongols; on the modern map, Genghis Kahn’s conquests include thirty countries with well over 3 billion people. The most astonishing aspect of this achievement is that the entire Mongol tribe under him numbered around a million, smaller than the workforce of some modern corporations. From this million, he recruited his army, which was comprised of no more than one hundred thousand warriors – a group that could comfortably fit into the larger sports stadiums of the modern era.

In American terms, the accomplishment of Genghis Khan might be understood if the United States, instead of being created by a group of educated merchants or wealthy planters, had been founded by one of its illiterate slaves, who, by the sheer force of personality, charisma, and determination, liberated America from foreign rule, united the people, created an alphabet, wrote the constitution, established universal religious freedom, invented a new system of warfare, marched an army from Canada to Brazil, and opened roads of commerce in a free-trade zone that stretched across the continents. On every level and from any perspective, the scale and scope of Genghis Khan’s accomplishments challenge the limits of imagination and tax the resources of scholarly explanation.

* As he smashed the feudal system of aristocratic privilege and birth, he built a new unique system based on individual merit, loyalty, and achievement. He took the disjointed and languorous trading towns along the Silk Route and organized them into history’s largest free-trade zone. He lowered taxes for everyone, and abolished them altogether for doctors, teachers, priests, and educational institutions. He established a regular census and created the first international postal system. His was not an empire that hoarded wealth and treasure; instead, he widely distributed the goods acquired in combat so that they could make their way back into commercial circulation. He created an international law and recognized the ultimate supreme law of the Eternal Blue Sky over all people. At a time when most rulers considered themselves to be above the law, Genghis Khan insisted on laws holding rulers as equally accountable as the lowest herder. He granted religious freedom within his realms, though he demanded total loyalty from conquered subjects of all religions. He insisted on the rule of law and abolished torture, but he mounted major campaigns to seek out and kill raiding bandits and terrorist assassins. He refused to hold hostages, and, instead, instituted the novel practice of granting diplomatic immunity for all ambassadors and envoys, including those from hostile nations with whom he was at war.

*History has condemned most conquerors to miserable, untimely deaths. At age thirty-three, Alexander the Great died under mysterious circumstances in Babylon, while his followers killed off his family and carved up his lands. Julius Caesar’s fellow aristocrats and former allies stabbed him to death in the chamber of the Roman Senate. After enduring the destruction and reversal all his conquests, a lonely and embittered Napoleon faced death as a solitary prisoner on one of the most remote and inaccessible islands on the planet. The nearly seventy-year old Genghis Khan, however, passed away in his camp bed, surrounded by a loving family, faithful friends, and loyal soldiers ready to risk their life at his command.

*The letter informed that khan that God had delegated all earthly power to the pop in Rome, who was the only person authorized by God to speak for Him.

…but in a letter of November 1246 that still survives, Guyuk asked (Pope) Innocent IV the obvious questions: How do you know whom God absolves and to whom He shows mercy? How do you know that God sanctions the words you speak?

…

He then advised the pope to come to Karakorum with all of his princes in order to pay homage to the Mongol Khan.

*Guyuk was a not so distant decedent of Genghis Khan. While this quote did not pertain to Genghis Khan directly, I believe it shows some of the legacy left behind, as Guyuk essentially told the pope to shove it up his ass.

My conclusion of the fabled, blood thirsty, barbaric, evil, Genghis Khan and the history surrounding him?

One of the greatest men to have ever lived.

History and conventional wisdom have pissed all over this guy on all but the rarest occasions. This guy was so revolutionary, so beyond his time, it’s difficult to comprehend. He is the epitome of one man making a lasting difference in the world, and one of the people I look to for inspiration when I question whether or not I am capable of achieving something, or have the ability to create some thing that will stand the test of time.

…

In a rather abrupt change of topic, let’s discuss …

Abraham Lincoln: America’s Joe Stalin

It’s truly fascinating to unravel the “truth” about Genghis Khan and have it reveal one of the greatest leaders in history. The paradox alone is astonishing.

However, it’s equally infuriating to unravel the propaganda surrounding one of “America’s greatest presidents” and the American Civil War.

Let’s start by detailing the “widely accepted” views of Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War.

As Wikipedia confirms, “Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest of all U.S. Presidents.”

Indeed, I would bet every dollar I have on the majority of modern American’s stating (when asked), that Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents, right alongside George Washington.

And why would they say anything else? Every public school textbook I have ever laid eyes on confirms and supports this notion – it’s all we’ve come to know.

But, this is only the tip of the iceberg, everyone “knowing” “honest Abe” was one of our “greatest presidents”.

What of the American Civil War and the CSA (Confederate States of America)?

The American Civil War, of course, was fought over slavery, right?

And the Confederate States of America…yikes!

All they were interested in was continuing the enslavement of African Americans, those racist, immoral, “nigger hating” bastards!*

*As depicted in movies such as Wild Wild West, although surprisingly, the remake of Planet of the Apes with Mark Wahlberg hints at the reality of Lincoln and the American Civil War if you pay close attention.

Of course, anyone flying this flag currently is also, as a byproduct, a “racist, redneck, hick, nigger hater”. Nothing else is even possible … right?

Wrong.

This is so “wrong”, it’s horrifying, and difficult to identify a starting point for discussion.

It’s been said I am  “strong” writer, so I’ll go along with that and start “strong”, by proposing that not only is Abraham Lincoln not one of America’s “greatest presidents”, but indeed, one of, if not the worst.

And that’s assuming you can call him a United States President. I say that because no tyrant deserves that title, despite playing the role of and being elected President.

But wait a second, isn’t Lincoln the “great emancipator”? And didn’t he “save” the Union?

Not quite, and hell no.

Lincoln was documented saying some of the most racist things one can imagine, things that most supporters would find shocking.  The thought that he was some sort of abolitionist pitted against the evils of slavery is beyond nonsense.

For example, in his promise to support the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Lincoln stated “when they remind us of their constitutional rights* [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives.”

*Lincoln also claimed in his inaugural address that the federal government had no constitutional right to meddle with slavery. Apparently both comments went to the wayside when he began wiping his ass with the constitution and interpreting it to serve his own purposes.

Lincoln’s great plan for blacks?

Back to Africa.

Export them to anywhere in the world: Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, anywhere but the United States of America.

Now there’s a true supporter of freedom and equality – just ship em off. Who cares if they were born here?

But wait, it gets better.

Lincoln can also be quoted opposing slavery, once calling it a “monstrous injustice”.

There are quite a few contradictory quotes that can be found from “honest Abe” actually. Interestingly enough, this practice of saying one thing and doing another can be seen to this day in American government: it’s called lying.

Tell people what they want to hear, and do as you wish. Real men don’t live by their word, of course; only old fashioned hoots do such a thing, now and then.

…

One more quote, relating to slavery, from Abraham Lincoln

“Anything that argues me into this [Senator Douglas’s] idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse.”

…

What of the “emancipation proclamation” you ask?

A political gimmick that achieved nothing. It quite literally freed not a single slave.

It was issued at a time when the war was growing desperate for the North, and was little more than an attempt to insight revolt among slaves in the South, still controlled by the Confederate States of America, and seal off any lingering wisps of help for the CSA from foreign powers (virtually all of which had abolished slavery, peacefully).

In the South that was controlled by the Union, it did not free a single slave. In the North, it freed not a single slave.

Re-read that for a second. The Emancipation Proclamation, quite literally, allowed the continued enslavement of an entire race of people, in the United States of America, and in the territory controlled by the United States of America that had at that point, been invaded by federal troops, and forced to remain in the Union at gunpoint (some “union” huh?).

Since the CSA viewed themselves as a separate state that Lincoln had no authority over (indeed he didn’t except in the parts he had unconstitutionally invaded and conquered), it did nothing.

Lincoln only “freed” the slaves where he had no ability to do so. In essence, it was the biggest pile of horse $#!+ imaginable.

A quote from page 37 of The Real Lincoln provides insight from Abe himself

*Lincoln maintained that the Proclamation was merely a war measure, not an attempt at genuine emancipation. In a letter to his Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, he admitted that the original proclamation had no legal justification, except as a military measure [cited in book as 14]. He apparently knew that it was unconstitutional as well, for he insisted on calling it a “war measure”. In reality, the president at the time had no power to dictate such a thing to a state government. Today, of course, presidents routinely dictate thousands of laws and regulations and executive orders that state and local governments must comply with. It was Lincoln who let the genie out of the bottle with regard to the transformation of the states into mere subsidiaries of the federal government.

“War Measure” of course can be translated as war power, imaginary powers we are frequently told the President has, to this day. He of course, does not, and never has. Only congress has the ability to declare war, but apparently the constitution didn’t matter then, and doesn’t matter now …

…

What about the abolition movement?

Northern support for “abolition” was relatively small. To think that hundreds of thousands of people would fight for such a cause is easy to rationalize now, but completely disregards the racism that was the norm in the 1800’s. Many people may not have “liked” slavery, but VERY FEW were willing to go out, kill other American’s, and possibly die for it in the process.

Even in the South, few (if any) were directly willing to fight to continue slavery. Not many people even owned slaves, let alone the dozens that we see depicted picking cotton under one master.

To go out and die for an institution you had no part in? Highly unlikely.

This includes Generals for the Confederate States of America Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, some of the best military leaders in history.

To quote from Campaign for Liberty

*Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant’s excuse for not freeing his slaves was that “good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” He also said “the best men in the South” opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see “the shackles struck from every slave.”

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent–and that they were already working to dismantle–is the height of absurdity.

So if the war wasn’t about slavery … then what was it about?

Coming full circle, the war was about “saving the Union”. Only the Union wasn’t “saved”, it was destroyed.

Believe it or not, United States is actually two separate words, not one as we’ve been lead to believe growing up in America*.

*I for one grew up under the impression that state governments were merely how “government” was organized. The idea that the states came together and delegated powers to a federal government they created may have been mentioned at some point, but never emphasized. “State sovereignty” was a totally foreign concept growing up, reminiscent of a negative view of the term “secession” and an evil Confederacy dedicated to enslaving the black race.

This is perhaps the most disgusting result of the American Civil War, the idea that the United States (on a federal level) is monolithic and all powerful, which of course, it is not. At the present, the United States is still simply that, united, states. At any time, any one of the 50 states has the ability to secede from the union, either through the consent of the states*, or through force of arms (revolution).

*Notice the word “states”, not federal government, is mentioned..

Soak that in for a moment. It’s 2010. Secession from the United States is totally legal, and while unlikely, quite possible.

Taking a step back to the destroyed comment, a “union” ceases to be a “union” when you are forced to stay in it at gun point. This is self-evident (not to mention, common sense), but when you equate “union” with “constitution”, anything goes, as in the case of Abraham Lincoln and the offenses he committed against the constitution and the American people.

The most glaring example being the use of the military to force states to remain in the union.*

*If not self-evident, this is thoroughly explained in The Real Lincoln. The author also cites how all of the founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, abhor the idea of the federal government using military force in the case of a state seceding, or in the case of Alexander (the founding father who proposed a “permanent president” for the United States) “impossible”.

Think about that in modern terms to get an idea of how horrendous an idea this is. Texas attempts to secede from the Union. The majority of the states say “no” for one reason or another. Texas decides they will secede anyway (and will do so peacefully, including the payment of all debts to the federal government, and payment for any property of the federal government in the state of Texas).

King Obama decides he won’t allow this, at all costs (because of course, he has to “save the union” once again), and sends in federal troops to remove the members of the Texas state government who are leading this movement.

Think about how disastrous this would turn out. Assuming the National Guard of Texas remained loyal to the state government, and commanders in the US Army actually obeyed the tyrannical orders, you would have young men deciding whether or not to SHOOT AND KILL OTHER AMERICANS.

Sound far-fetched?

Guess what, this happened in the mid 1800’s, right here in the United States of America.

Some 620,000 Americans died. Adjust that number for the population difference between then and now, and that’s the modern equivalent of over 5 million deaths.

This was by far our bloodiest and most costly war in history, an outright disaster. The only “good thing” to come of this war, was the end of slavery in America, which was quite literally, an unintended by product. Only when it became beneficial during the war, for the Union, was slavery even mentioned. At no point was it a legitimate reason for the war.

That one good thing (that had been done by dozens of other nations around the world, at a similar time, peacefully, including Britain, France, and Spain), is heavily outweighed by the death toll, let alone the countless other injustices and atrocities committed during the war, and the precedents it set for future presidents and even dictators worldwide.

Let’s start by taking yet another quote from The Real Lincoln (the bolded parts outline what I have not already said previously in my own words)

Northern Response To the Proclamation

Most Northerners in 1863 were shocked and surprised by the Emancipation Proclamation because they had not been told by their government that they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands for the well-being of black strangers in faraway states where most Northerners had never been. Hostile white immigrant mobs had assaulted blacks in Northern cities for decades, and in July 1863 there were race riots in New York City as whites protested the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1863) and Lincoln’s new conscription law (March 1863) by randomly assaulting (and sometimes killing) any and all black people unlucky enough to cross their path. The conscription law applied only to whites, and those with sufficient money could buy their way out of the draft for $300. Those without sufficient funds were outraged and made up the rioting mobs. Lincoln ordered five regiments of troops from the recently concluded Battle of Gettysburg to New York City to quell the riots; the troops achieved this goal by shooting between 300 and 1,000 citizens (there are no hard on the number of deaths). [citation 24]

Conscription (a draft) for one, is 100% unconstitutional. The “state” does not own you, never has, and never will. The idea that they can legally force you to go to some far away land, for whatever reason they choose, and get your head blown off, is preposterous.

Then again, the idea that the state also owns your money, and decides how much you get to keep, is equally ridiculous. Few seem to be willing to do something about it however, unlike the men who fought in the revolutionary war against such blatant bull $hit from a foreign power.

Secondly, killing citizens, that are protesting against something illegal (forced upon them), is mind boggling.

Imagine today King Obama tries to implement a draft for the “War on Terror”. People decide to riot, because they want nothing to do with such non sense that includes getting your head blown off in some far off land.

Rather than repeal an unconstitutional draft that is causing violent civil unrest, or allow local and state authorities to deal with the issue, King Obama decides to send in armed federal troops that end up killing a few hundred people.

This is the height of tyrannical insanity that would have our founding fathers rolling over in their graves, and indeed I’m sure it did when it actually happened.

But it gets better.

Another quote from The Real Lincoln

All of these events illustrate the devotion that the founding generation had to constitutional liberty, even when facing the very real threat of disunion. Not so with Abraham Lincoln. Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in a  right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South* without consulting congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law [unconstitutional]; blockading the Southern ports[note: only allowed by the constitution during war with a foreign power, of which, Lincoln considered the Union to be neither at “war” or the CSA a “foreign power”], suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communication; nationalizing the railroads; creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally; confiscating private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the constitution, among other things.

*By Lincoln’s own logic, “the South” were simply states in “rebellion”. At no point did he recognize the Confederate States of America as a separate nation or independent authority. Technically, by this logic, all members of the CSA military and all civilians of the South were US citizens, at all times. An “invasion” then, meant the killing of hundreds of thousands of US citizens (millions as a modern equivalent).

Out of that laundry list of treasonous offenses, I find the following the most compelling.

1. The invasion of the South (an act of war) without so much as a nod to congress, let alone approval (which the constitution demands).
2. Suspending Habeas Corpus (as a result, tens of thousands of arbitrary arrests, were the norm)
3. Imprisoning thousands of average citizens who denounced the War (including those supportive of peaceful secession for various reasons, including abolitionists who did not want to be associated with slave states)
4. Imprisoning/shutting down major newspapers who were critical of him, his policies, or the war

We need to halt on this one so it doesn’t get glossed over.

“President” Abraham Lincoln IMPRISONED newspaper workers that criticized him (or in some cases just shut down the newspaper entirely).

In other cases, he prohibited specific newspapers from being distributed via US Mail. When newspapers hired private delivery boys, he shut down the press all together.

Of specific interest (another quote from The Real Lincoln)

*One victim of Lincoln’s suppression of Northern newspapers was Francis Key Howard of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key. Howard was imprisoned in Fort McHenry, the very spot where his grandfather composed “The Star Spangled Banner,” after the newspaper he edited criticized Lincoln’s decision to invade the South without the consent of Congress and his suppression of civil liberties in Maryland. After spending nearly two years in a military prison without being charged and without a trial of any kind, Howard wrote a book about his experiences titled The American Bastille.

I hate to keep picking on King Obama (as far as I’m concerned he’s the equivalent of Ron Paul in the face of Lincoln), but imagine this happening, today.

Absurd right? Our president imprisoning US citizens, without charges, and without trial, for years! And for what? Disagreeing with his policies? I’m not even sure how to describe such a notion, but indeed, this is what went on.

5. Ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters

Here’s another move only a true dictator could make (perhaps only topped by the formation of a “secret police” under Secretary of State William Seward, which some Lincoln “historians” have argued “wasn’t as bad” as the secret police forces we are slightly more familiar with from 20^th century dictators), meddling with elections.

To quote once again (check the bolded text for the highlights)

The normal legislative elections were scheduled to occur in November 1861, and they were similarly suppressed. General Banks was ordered to send his troops to voting places to “protect Union voters” and to “arrest and hold in confinement till after the election all disunionists” [citation 23]. Election judges were instructed to disallow any votes for candidates who opposed Lincoln’s war. In western Maryland at least one candidate for public office was imprisoned along with dozens of other citizens in order to put an end to their electioneering.

The Federal government placed posters at the polling booths instructing everyone to point out any “peace activists” to soldiers so that they could be arrested and prohibited from voting.

…

The ballots were made of different colors so that the soldiers could throw out the Peace Party votes. “Many who attempted to vote the Peace ticket in Baltimore were arrested for carrying a ballot of the wrong color. The charge against these men was simply ‘polluting the ballot box’.”[citation 25]

How anyone could call this man a “real” United States President after learning of this (among other things) is beyond my comprehension.

The fun doesn’t end though, as Lincoln was responsible for the largest mass execution in American history. Lincoln shaved a list of three hundred and three (that’s 303) Sioux Indians down to 39, so as to not anger any European powers (that were on edge to supporting the CSA). Of course, 303 Sioux were still killed in Minnesota, 39 just looks betters on paper.

Not to mention, Lincoln promised Minnesota that he would exterminate all Indians on their land with the Federal army, and sent $2 million to the Minnesota treasury (not promised, did).

…

Before summarizing and discussing common rationalizations for Lincoln’s treason, there is one final act of Lincoln I’d like to discuss specifically – waging war on civilians.

There is actually an entire chapter dedicated to this topic in The Real Lincoln (which is certainly not the first book of its kind), and I don’t hope to do it justice, simply inform.

“Total War” is well documented in the South during the American Civil War, that is, the killing of women, children, and men too old to contribute to the confederate army.

The immediate question is – would American soldiers really do such a thing?

Most, then and now, I assume, would never even entertain such an idea, but not all. Some would do whatever there commander demands they do, including (final) top Generals in the Union army under Lincoln.

What’s more, many Union soldiers were recent immigrants from Europe. Various promises were made to them, for fighting in the Union army. Their concepts of the US constitution, “the north”, “the south”, and so on, were at best, weak. They were in a new land, and did what they were told.

To go even further, many of these immigrants were prisoners released from Europe, Castro style.

The next question one would ask – would Lincoln and his Generals really do such a thing?

If it’s not apparent by now, Lincoln was a maniacal dictator that wrote the constitution as he went along, and generally did whatever he wanted without much regard for anyone, or anything.

He viewed himself as above the law, and was determined to “save” the constitution at all costs. He accomplished this by equating the “union” with “the constitution”, and created whatever rationalizations were required (dictators never view themselves as “the bad guy”, not even Hitler)

In essence, he destroyed the constitution, to save it.

Makes perfect sense to a nut job.

In addition, he was acutely aware, and constantly micro-managing the war with the Confederate States of America. No one seems to refute this fact, not Wikipedia (it’s on his page), and not Lincoln “historians”.

Interestingly enough, the one detail supporters claim that he missed throughout the entire war, was that the Union army was waging total war with no regard for civilians. They destroyed everything in their path, intentionally, to hurt the South in any way possible (especially over the final 2 years of the war).

They destroyed entire towns, killed innocent women and children, stole livestock (and often killed the rest), and so on.

There are hundreds and hundreds of letters sitting in museums right now, detailing all of this.

There are even writings describing how slaves fought against the Union army because they were killing everything in sight in some cases, including slaves.

In some cases of course, slaves “joined” the Union army, and were then “forced” to do the lowliest of jobs. Sounds like freedom to me.

Of course, official military orders did not state to kill civilians, force them to “loyalty oaths” (or face imprisonment, and sometimes immediate execution), or wage total war – quite the contrary actually.

But is this really surprising?

No, why would it be? Lincoln wasn’t stupid. Insane, yes, but not stupid, and neither were his Generals.

To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy.

-General William T. Sherman, January 31^st 1864

Waging “total war” on the South would violate international “law” at the time (later codified in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland). Doing so could have incited European intervention in the war between the states, and not the kind that Napoleon III offered (to mediate peace between the two governments, an offer Lincoln blatantly ignored).

In any case, this part of The Real Lincoln is particularly disturbing, and I suggest reading it closely for a glimpse into the horror that was the American Civil War. What I’ve written above hardly scratches the surface.

…

Rebuttal Thoughts

The copy of The Real Lincoln I read also includes an afterword that discusses various criticisms and reviews of the book after its initial release (more than a handful of which I read before finishing the book).

This is where things get really, really, messed up.

No reviews refute the actions of Lincoln listed in The Real Lincoln, even the most critical. The author made a few mistakes and misquotes, yes, but virtually the entire book stands as factually correct.

What “negative” reviews argue is that these actions were somehow justified.

That “it was a different time in America”.

That he “saved the Union”.

That he “freed the slaves”.

Of course, all of this is non-sense.

Lincoln did not “free the slaves”. This was done via the 13th amendment (which presidents can not ratify or veto), an outcome Lincoln hadn’t even fathomed at the beginning of the American Civil War.

He only “saved the Union” geographically. In reality, he destroyed it.

The states of the CSA had every right to secede from the “union”, it was not “treasonous” and not “un American” (hell, a few decades earlier the right of secession was NEVER brought into question when a state was interested in doing so). In fact, secession is uniquely American and has always been a right by any of the 50 states to this day, through consent of the States, or by force of arms.

Ideally, neither should be necessary, but history panned out the way it did and here we are.

…

Regarding the “different time in America” comment … complete and utter horse $hit.

Before even getting into it though, notice how the same people proposing such non sense, won’t apply the same logic to the demonized Genghis Khan.

Apparently that logic doesn’t apply when the time gap is over 700 YEARS. It only applies to our own country, and about 150 years. Don’t ask me how that logic works, because it’s simply beyond me.

…

When it comes down to it, the federal government of the US is here to protect the rights of individuals. It does not create, or grant them.

The right to defend one’s self and speak freely (among other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights) … are basic human rights.

Censoring free speech to “save” the Union and the constitution is as utterly ridiculous now, as it was then. Confiscating weapons? Meddling with elections?

Waging war on civilians?!

These things haven’t changed since the war between the states by any significant degree. They are as deplorable, irrational, and tyrannical now, as they were then.

Using this piss poor logic to rationalize away the despicable actions and preserve the image of one of “America’s greatest presidents” is, in my humble opinion, un American.

Saying that it was all worth it to (unintentionally) end slavery? (including the modern equivalent of 5 million American deaths)

Bull (and for the record, the foreword to The Real Lincoln is written by a black man).

Trading one evil for countless others is a lose/lose that has prevailed until this very day, with the ever stronger war against individual liberty.

The far reaching costs of Lincoln’s actions are incalculable and almost unthinkable.

But if the “union” had split into two nations, wouldn’t European powers have attempted to invade?

This is the final argument I’ll discuss before closing the post.

In short, probably not.

In reality, there is no way to know what would have happened had there not been a war to begin with (as it was undeniably unnecessary), had Lincoln agreed to Napoleon mediating peace, or had the South won.

The Union could have re-united someday, or it could have remained split permanently. World War 1 may have played out differently, and World War 2, not at all.

Who knows? Who’s to say?

But in the immediate term following the war, the idea that a foreign power would have been able to successfully invade and conquer both independent and sovereign nations is highly unlikely. General Jackson and Lee were some of the best military commanders in history, and together, as one British commander said at the time, the best in history.

And this is assuming the CSA and USA wouldn’t unite during a foreign invasion of either nation (let alone, both).

In Summary…

Abraham Lincoln violated the US constitution more than any other person to play the role of president, in American history. He waged the bloodiest war in American history, costing some 600,000 lives (the modern equivalent of over 5 MILLION people).

And this is only a fraction of the “cost” of this war, that he started, by provoking the CSA to fire first at Fort Sumter, in a successful effort to gain public support in the North, and end other current secession movements in the United States.

Countless scores of men were maimed for life – the entire “South”, utterly destroyed, and in ruins.

He claimed to “save” the constitution, and “the union”, when in fact he did more to destroy both than any other man in American history.

This should not be surprising, as extremes become their inverses, irregardless of the field or subject.

Moreover, Lincoln sent the American government in a nearly permanent spiral of ever more centralized power, of which, we are still feeling the effects today with our leviathan, grossly ineffective, highly bureaucratic and lethargic, federal government.

Excluding the occasional hic cup of common sense and limited government, Lincoln set the precedent for presidents and other world leaders to act on for decades to come. Both in the United States and abroad – even Hitler praised Lincoln and the Union for squashing “state sovereignty” in Mein Kampf.

Enter Abraham Lincoln: American’s Joe Stalin, the most tyrannical “president” to ever hold office in the United States of America, who went down in history as one of the greatest men to have ever lived.

The fact that this maniac has as statue in our nation’s capital is absolutely astonishing; although I think his place on the penny is fitting (our lowest value form of currency, currently teetering on worthless).

It’s been said (then and now), that had the South won the war, they would have justified in executing Lincoln for crimes against humanity. I agree, and would add that the execution should have been done on the White House lawn for all to see.

In the end, he got what all dictators with a lust for power do, only with the unintended consequence of martyrdom via propaganda.

And by the way, the picture at the beginning of this post is embedded from Wikipedia. It is a painting of Abraham Lincoln being greeted by Washington in “heaven”. It dates all the way back to the 1860’s.

Comment Policy

All opinions and comments are welcome- encouraged actually- however, please keep it cool (stay objective), and use a real e-mail address (it get's marked as spam by Akismet if it's fake). Also, comments are moderated- unless you have been approved of a comment before- then, you're free to go! =)