Like Our Facebook Page

Friday, February 11, 2011

The Evil Lincoln

This article was originally published at on February 15, 2009

With Abraham Lincoln’s birthday just passed on February 12th the media was replete with praise for him. Unfortunately, this whitewashed view of him is misguided. Rather than being the honest and resolute knight in shining armor that he is made out to be, on closer inspection he turns out to be one of the worst politicians Illinois has produced.

Lincoln the Racist

On this subject his own words condemn him. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottowa, Illinois on August 21, 1858 he said:

I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position;

He repeated the same idea at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858:

I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.

His idea of what to do with freed blacks was to have them leave the US. He stated so very plainly on August 14, 1862 in "Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, Washington, D.C."

He was obviously no friend of the black race.

Lincoln the Corporatist

Much is made of a false quote, which I will not repeat here, in which Lincoln warns of the dangers corporations pose to the country. Our friends at Snopes debunk it.

Lincoln was the Illinois Central Railroad Company’s lawyer right up to his taking office as president. His whole career in politics revolved around serving the northern industrialists' and bankers’ interests. From the beginning of his time in the Illinois legislature he lined the railroad companies pockets with taxpayer money. The details can be read here and here.

Lincoln the Mass Murderer

The question then comes up of why did Lincoln wage the Civil War? It wasn’t to end slavery, he said so himself, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...". So, he wanted to preserve the Union. To many that may seem a lofty goal, but is it?

A clause allowing the use of force against states by the federal government was deliberately left out of the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention James Madison opposed it:

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Since the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from seceding and it also doesn’t empower the federal government to stop them from doing so, it would seem that given the 10th Amendment states can secede.

Secession was not unheard of in Lincoln’s time. There had already been secessionist movements in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. They considered that they had such a right. So why not the South?

Ultimately, Lincoln waged the Civil War to keep the South as a captive market and as taxpayers to loot. The North’s intentions were obvious starting with the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations". That and Lincoln’s history of subsidizing his corporate buddies with taxpayer money gave the South every reason to fear being ravaged by the new Republican administration.

Slavery was an issue too, of course. While Lincoln was no abolitionist, the South no doubt saw a threat to that horrible institution in the stronger federal government that the Republicans promised. So while ending slavery was a great thing the loss of one million lives to do so was unnecessary. Slavery was everywhere in retreat, and with few exceptions peacefully so. All of the Northern states had abolished slavery by 1858. Most other countries ended the practice peacefully. There is every reason to think that slavery could have been completely ended here peacefully too.

That is why the title of this section is Lincoln the Mass Murderer. He got all those people killed to stop the South from doing what they had a right to do, secede from the Union. He was not interested in ending slavery as the mythology about him says.

It is important to understand the true meaning of Lincoln’s presidency. He marked the end of the republic of the Founders. After the Civil War no longer was "the consent of the governed", to quote the Declaration of Independence, necessary. As the abolitionist Lysander Spooner put it in 1867 in No Treason:

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Let’s remember Lincoln for what he really did, destroy the republic and one million lives in the process.


  1. What an interesting and enlightening article. Thank you so much.

  2. Good article. Nice quote by Lysander Spooner. IF slavery is based on taxation, I'm a 65% slave.Luckily the can only enslave the body. the mind is about the last place you can be truly free... as long as you don't speak.

  3. IrishCeltia,

    You need a better accountant to find you more deductions! ;-)

    Your words remind me of the old German song "Die Gedanken sind frei"

    Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
    They flee by like nocturnal shadows.
    No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them,
    with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

    I think what I want, and what delights me,
    still always reticent, and as it is suitable.
    My wish and desire, no one can deny me
    and so it will always be: Thoughts are free!

    And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,
    all this would be futile work,
    because my thoughts tear all gates
    and walls apart: Thoughts are free!

    So I will renounce my sorrows forever,
    and never again will torture myself with some fancy ideas.
    In one's heart, one can always laugh and joke
    and think at the same time: Thoughts are free!

    I love wine, and my girl even more,
    Only I like her best of all.
    I'm not alone with my glass of wine,
    my girl is with me: Thoughts are free!


    Thanks for the comment.

  4. Interesting read, but a little slanted perhaps. Links leading only one way with no balancing or counter argument. Pretty usual I suppose.:)

  5. Anonymous,

    I leave it to those who disagree to post the counter arguments.

    Thanks for the comment.

  6. On April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech advocating voting rights for Black soldiers and in his words the very intelligent. But of course u delusional, hate-filled piece of shit doesn't mention that in the article. Slavery was not going to end peacefully. Cotton exports were at their highest as was the price of cotton. Lincoln, during the war, presented a proposal to Kentucky for compensated emancipation, and they rejected it. Kentucky was a loyal border state and slavery did not play much of a part in its economy. Are u so stupid as to think that the South, which viewed slavery as a moral good for the slaves, was going to end peacefully anytime soon?

    1. Thank you Anonymous for the ignorant attempt at a rebuttal. Slavery ended peacefully in the north (Did you know that?) & everywhere else but Haiti. Why couldn't it have ended peacefully in the south?

      I notice that you have to ignore almost everything I wrote in the article to make your point. Are you going to deny that Lincoln was a racist & corporatist?

  7. Lincoln and Hitler were the worst of mankind. The civil war was about money not slavery how people not see this is the most disturbing thing about our society.

  8. I suppose that is why we are so provoked to kill the unborn through abortion Lincoln would be proud of the nation we have become. The blood of millions is on our hands. Lincoln killed for money and we today do the same the cycle never ends.