The Lincoln controversy…

the_changing_face_of_abraham_lincoln

The150th anniversary of the death of Abraham Lincoln and the end of hostilities in the American Civil War, has seen a new focus on the continuing – if marginalised – controversy over what they both represent. Was the Civil War a heroic intervention to end oppression and slavery, or the first modern US war of imperialism masquerading as ethics? Was Lincoln a hero, an emancipator, or a racist hypocrite? Did he save the union? or force it upon a people who had chose secession?

We can’t can’t claim to have any final answers, but the debate itself – and even more so the fact of its almost total suppression in the mainstream – is important for what it can tell us about our own present day and the formulation of memes, myths and received truths. The rawness and brutality of what was done to the South in the name of justice an unity still lives in the the collective unconscious of the Southern people – and perhaps also in the North – with an intensity few openly acknowledge. In these senses the debate is not historical at all. It’s entirely about the now. We’ll probably be coming back to it few time, but for now here is Southern gentleman Paul Craig Roberts’ view the on the truth behind the Lincoln legacy. Is he biased? Perhaps. But so are all of us in our own ways, and it’s our own officially sanctioned societal prejudices that we are always least aware of, and which always need to be most rigorously challenged.


The Power of Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

It is one of history’s ironies that the Lincoln Memorial is a sacred space for the Civil Rights Movement and the site of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites. Lincoln’s plan was to send the blacks in America back to Africa, and if he had not been assassinated, returning blacks to Africa would likely have been his post-war policy.

As Thomas DiLorenzo and a number of non-court historians have conclusively established, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863 when opposition in the North to the war was rising despite Lincoln’s police state measures to silence opponents and newspapers. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln’s war powers. The proclamation provided for the emancipated slaves to be enrolled in the Union army replenishing its losses. It was also hoped that the proclamation would spread slave revolts in the South while southern white men were away at war and draw soldiers away from the fronts in order to protect their women and children. The intent was to hasten the defeat of the South before political opposition to Lincoln in the North grew stronger.

The Lincoln Memorial was built not because Lincoln “freed the slaves,” but because Lincoln saved the empire. As the Savior of the Empire, had Lincoln not been assassinated, he could have become emperor for life.

As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes: “Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the ‘one-percenters’ of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all.”

Lincoln was a man of empire. As soon as the South was conquered, ravaged, and looted, his collection of war criminal generals, such as Sherman and Sheridan, set about exterminating the Plains Indians in one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. Even today Israeli Zionists point to Washington’s extermination of the Plains Indians as the model for Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs and northern economic imperialism. The North was protectionist. The South was free trade. The North wanted to finance its economic development by forcing the South to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. The North passed the Morrill Tariff which more than doubled the tariff rate to 32.6% and provided for a further hike to 47%. The tariff diverted the South’s profits on its agricultural exports to the coffers of Northern industrialists and manufacturers. The tariff was designed to redirect the South’s expenditures on manufactured goods from England to the higher cost goods produced in the North.

This is why the South left the union, a right of self-determination under the Constitution.

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “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 right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

DiLorenzo explains what the deal was that Lincoln offered to the South. However, just as empire was more important to the North than slavery, for the South avoiding large taxes on manufactured goods, in effect a tax on Southern agricultural profits, was more important than northern guarantees for slavery.

If you want to dislodge your brainwashing about the War of Northern Aggression, read DiLorenzo’s books, The Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The so-called Civil War was not a civil war. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of the government. The South was not fighting for control of the federal government. The South seceded and the North refused to let the South go.

The reason I am writing about this is to illustrate how history is falsified in behalf of agendas. I am all for civil rights and participated in the movement while a college student. What makes me uncomfortable is the transformation of Lincoln, a tyrant who was an agent for the One Percent and was willing to destroy any and every thing in behalf of empire, into a civil rights hero. Who will be next? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? George W. Bush? Obama? John Yoo? If Lincoln can be a civil rights hero, so can be torturers. Those who murder in Washington’s wars women and children can be turned into defenders of women’s rights and child advocates. And probably they will be.

This is the twisted perverted world in which we live. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is confronted with Washington’s overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine, a Russian ally and for centuries a part of Russia itself, while Putin is falsely accused of invading Ukraine. China is accused by Washington as a violator of human rights while Washington murders more civilians in the 21st century than every other country combined.

Everywhere in the West monstrous lies stand unchallenged. The lies are institutionalized in history books, course curriculums, policy statements, movements and causes, and in historical memory.

America will be hard pressed to survive the lies that it lives.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gerryhiles
Reader

Reblogged this on gerryhiles.

gerryhiles
Reader

And as regards the Empire and when it began see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kcPyqMWems

Thomas
Reader
Thomas

Slavery in the U.S. Constitution: http://ashbrook.org/publications/respub-v6n1-boyd/ “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that the capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be… Read more »

Alex
Reader
Alex

Another good book to read about Lincoln is “The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln” by Larry Tagg.

Adam E.
Reader
Adam E.

The father of slavery in USA was a black man, who won the first court case to allow him to own a slave for life. Search that Internet and see.

William Rothschild
Reader
William Rothschild

Slavery is bad enough in itself, but the sheeple fail to look into the whole scheme. To start with, it was the slaves own tribes that sold them into slavery to begin with, so they’re just as complicit as those who bought them. Also, nothing gets mentioned about the thousands of white slaves, mostly from Ireland and Scotland that were sold for much less than black slaves and treated worse than black slaves. People choose to remain slaves, even today, if they refuse to delve into the truth of our past.

Eileen Kuch
Reader

Absolutely. You’re so right about African slaves having been sold into slavery by their own tribes as a start. Yes, those tribes who did this were just as complicit as those who bought them. Your mentioning the fact that’s never mentioned about the thousands of white slaves, mostly from Ireland and Scotland who were sold for much less than black slaves and treated worse, is a pure gem, William. No liberal media source or textbook has ever included this fact; and, if mentioned at all, it’s just as indentured servants (with indentured servitude for a certain length of time). You… Read more »

gerryhiles
Reader

Interestingly a main reason for colonizing Australia was the loss of the penal colonies in N America after 1776,
Many of the convicts were from Scotland and Ireland and were used as virtual slaves.
I seem to recall that in the former colonies the white slaves were called “indentured servants” as a cover-up, but I might be wrong on this.

A Voice in the Wilderness
Reader
A Voice in the Wilderness

I think we can all agree that organized slavery in America would have eventually ended as it had in all other developed countries….without any kind of war. Even some of the powerful slave owners wanted it to end, they just didn’t know what to do with all the slaves once they were freed.

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

Without trying to sound crass the truth is slavery was an economic system. Slaves were a capital investment to the slave owners. The question wasn’t what were they going to do with the slaves when they were freed but how were the slave owners going to replace their capital losses. In 1808 the British nation freed all slaves within its empire but they also paid the owners for their capital losses. This is why slave holding citizens of the empire accepted it. The problem in the United States was there was no money to pay for an emancipation. Slavery in… Read more »

trackback

[…] The Lincoln controversy… | OffGuardian. […]

Terry
Reader
Terry

The Luciferian Rothschilds know full well how to get brother to kill brother! Or Kingdom to fight Kingdom! Or nation to fight nation! The justifications for war are devised to sway each particular group. Just so long as one Rothschild finances one side and another finances the other side, they always win! Judah Benjamin was the Rothschild agent and huge plantationer Jefferson Davis partnered with. When Davis honorably surrendered, Judah snaked his way thru Florida to slither on a British warship headed to England. There he became the Queen’s personal attorney. Do you think he reported to the Rothschild’s City… Read more »

Terry
Reader
Terry

The South was trading and banking with Rothschild’s England and the North wanted money kept in America! Slavery had ended in other countrys and the cotton gin and other mechanical harvesters was ending the need for slavery. Now the Rothschild’s NWO is trying to shame white people to aid blacks in a devisive way as retribution for the denied 40 acres and a mule. But nothing new, the WW1 vets didn’t get their bonuses promised either – just lead spilling blood on the streets of Washington, DC..

Link Abecolon
Reader
Link Abecolon

“The South” lost. Get over it. If you want to hang your “pride” on a bunch of treasonous failures, go nuts but don’t wave your fail banner in my face, as I’m an American.

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

I’d also like to note that you sound like the typical Rustbelt American. Waving your American flag up there in decaying cities with closed factories and cold winters. Stay up there in Yankee land. You deserve it.

al
Reader
al

The brave soldiers who fought for the south were not treasonous, they were patriots, and deserve the same respect as the brave patriots who fought for this country’s independence from England.

Kalaxan Harleqane
Reader

LostLink: You’re a brainwashed excuse for something called an American!

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

Well spoken Sir

Herbert Dorsey
Reader

This article overlooked the real cause of the Civil War. As Anthony Sutton points out in “America’s Secret Establishment”, Patriarchs of Skull and Bones were heading the secessionist movements . Other researchers like Samuel Morse point out the role the Vatican played in trying to destroy the Union. “The Secret History of the New World Order” demonstrates that Skull and Bones was created by the Jesuits. To be sure, there were differences between the Northern and Southern States. However it was the Vatican that played on these differences in a bid to destroy the Union. After the Union victory, the… Read more »

Pharmer
Reader
Pharmer

There is an “evil entity” that controls our planet, and plays all sides against each other, similar to the “hunger games” books (the first two are the best). Water, food, and other natural resources are being used as the catalyst to start wars between us, when we all have the same common enemy! We need to think like George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, and all at once stop supporting the NWO, which is a pyramid of pyramids. The NWO will collapse like a house of cards once we stop supporting it by not using their fake money, buying their toxic products,… Read more »

Tempus Fugit
Reader

…the same misconception of Abraham Lincoln can also be applied to John F. Kennedy! This great “intellectual” was a big friend of Josip Broz Tito of Jugoslavia, who siphoned millions of American government $$$ to finance his communist regime, as he threatened Jack with siding again with the Soviet Union, if he didn’t help prop up Tito’s regime! By donating this kind of foreign aid, Kennedy helped opprese the captive nations of Jugoslavia, especially the Croatians and Kosovars! Jack was very reluctant to sign any civil rights bill at the time, and LBJ did the rest in 1965! If you… Read more »

Tom
Reader
Tom

Before time flies too far, I believe you have to get on the stick and read two or three hundred books on these subjects before commenting again. No offense meant, I think you are probably still pretty young. There is some easy stuff on the net, though. Not a short cut to the reading, but it helps. May I suggest the interview with Norman Dodd. That’s probably the equivalent to a Master’s in History, and it is only 59 minutes long. An easy read is Major Jordan’s Diary. Again, no offense, but dismissive oversimplification of complex issues is not a… Read more »

w lawlor
Reader

“you sir are , full of merde, read James Douglas’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable” then get back to us. But I imagine the prejudice you evidence will keep the facts from altering your view.

Gregory Griffin
Reader

Lincoln did what anyone in politics would have done at that time. No one of European descent in the Americas would I Label a hero(stolen land,genocide,disgustingly short memory, etc) but, Lincoln was no worse than any other candidate and better than some. I agree that the real story hasn’t been told about the founding of this country or the true interactions of the peoples of Western Europe’s interactions with the rest of the planets population.

c d
Reader
c d

This article is just plain loaded with hyperbole, and I wonder sometimes whether there is some hidden agenda behind such alternative media pundits. As for Lincoln specifically it may serve us better to talk to those scholars who know him more intimately than an author like Dilorenzo, who clearly has an ax to grind. Let ‘s avoid allowing alternative media experts own orthodoxies from taking root and continue to search for the broader, ultimate truth.

Ingimundar
Reader
Ingimundar

Can PCR say it any plainer:
“The reason I am writing about this is to illustrate how history is falsified in behalf of agendas. ”

Just accept it at that! Why not?

Veikko Taipale
Reader
Veikko Taipale

“You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be 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 amongst 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.” Statement to the Deputation of Free Negroes (14 August 1862), in The Collected Works of… Read more »

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

The South could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves. So what made them declare their independence? They may have mentioned slavery in the secession documents but anyone with half a brains knows that all wars are about money and resources. The final straw was the Morrell Tariff Act of 1857. The first flag of the Republic of South Carolina went up at the United States Customs House in Charleston, SC on December 21st 1860. That is a flag that not many know. Maybe we Southerners should fly that flag as an act of rebellion against the PC… Read more »

Alex Hidell
Reader
Alex Hidell

I admire Dr. Roberts and 99 per cent of the time agree with him. This is a bit of an exception however. Lincoln was influenced by the outlook and mores of his day, possibly less so than the average man of the times. In fact he did think blacks should be the equal of whites and he allowed many blacks to visit and petition him in the White House and held social affairs for some of them, notably his friend Frederick Douglass. Sojourner Truth was also a visitor to the president and he met many mothers of black soldiers serving… Read more »

trey
Reader
trey

Here is but one easily found Lincoln quote: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living… Read more »

Alex Hidell
Reader
Alex Hidell

You are talking about 1858. Time passed and Lincoln changed his mind. He didn’t want to alienate slaveholders in the states which did not secede since they sent men to the Union armies and paid taxes to support the war effort. Lincoln knew their time was coming to free their slaves. It did come after the war ended, by act of Congress.

The fact that Lincoln was able to change his mind and accept new ideas and better political positions is one of the positive things about him.

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

He didn’t change his mind. When abolitionists visited Lincoln in the White House during the war he used the N word so much they were shocked. They complained about it and wrote about it. While the war was going on Lincoln was busy setting up colonies in the new country of Liberia for slaves voluntarily repatriated to Africa. Do some research.

bob adams
Reader
bob adams

Go read “The Real Lincoln”. Lincoln said he didn’t believe that blacks were the equal of whites. His repeated use of the ‘N’ word in the White House shocked Northern abolitionists when they came to lobby him. He wanted all blacks repatriated to Africa. Look up the history of Liberia. Read the Emancipation Proclamation carefully. It freed no slave in Union states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky or West Virginia. It freed no slaves in Union occupied states like Florida or Tenn. It declared that all slaves in the states in rebellion were free. Well those states were what was left… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

There is one piece of information that Paul Craig Roberts and Thomas di Lorenzo have ignored (whether accidentally or deliberately, I do not know) and that is the fact that before he embarked on a political career, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer who specialised in representing railway companies and railway workers in various court cases. He started his legal career in an Illinois-based firm in 1837 taking on cases and most of these cases involved the growing railway industry as it was one major industry among others in Illinois at the time. Lynn Stuart Parramore, in her 2012 Alternet article… Read more »

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

In addition to affecting commercial interests such as railroads, allowing the US to split in two would have had profound geopolitical ramifications for North America. It probably would have lead to more wars between north and south over the the newly conquered western territories, possibly would have given Mexico a shot at reclaiming at least some of them, and would also possibly have allowed the British Empire to remain a key player in North American affairs a good deal longer. (As it happened, Britain ended up granting Canada dominion status and basically pulling out in 1867.) Though Lincoln never mentioned… Read more »

lawrence
Reader
lawrence

I believe there was another reason for the proclamation One of the Big concerns for Lincoln was preventing Europe mainly England from supporting the south , since England had previously declared slavery illeagal it would be very hard for it to support a pro slave south once the north declared slavery over

Tom
Reader
Tom

Lawrence, I believe that the Emancipation Proclamation also had something to do with the war that was going on. One of Grant’s observations was that the reports of army sizes were skewed because they were written without counting the number of slaves used to support southern troops, which among the northern armies consisted of soldiers. So, when Grant captured enemy positions he also captured numerous slaves, cannon, etc. What to do with the innumerable captured slaves was resolved with the Proclamation.