12

Reality vs. Lincoln, Slavery, and Civil War

The mainstream narrative about Abraham Lincoln is almost entirely myth. Lincoln is portrayed as all good and as one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, the reality is very different from the mainstream narrative.

Let’s first look at the handful of positive things we can say about Lincoln:

  • Lincoln did not execute the Confederate generals or punish its soldiers as was customary in most warfare until that point. He even let them keep their guns!
  • I think that Lincoln believed the following, “Slavery is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor, which is one of America’s founding principles.”
  • He was a world class writer, debater, and speaker.

In spite of the few positive things we can say about Lincoln, the facts prove that Lincoln was a reckless racist fascist democidal psychopath. For example, Lincoln:

  • Committed genocide against Native Americans.
  • Imprisoned the elected legislature of Maryland.
  • Enthusiastically proclaimed in the Lincoln v. Douglass debates that he believed that blacks were inferior, should have lower social status, and should not marry whites.
  • Did not mobilize for war as the South was mobilizing even though he intended to go to war, thus exposing his government to easy capture if the Confederacy had been so inclined.
  • Started the Civil War, which killed 750,000 Americans – more than all other wars combined.
  • Started the Civil war only to prevent secession (not to end slavery), and yet secession is a right (that’s how America had been formed); whereas, slavery was an atrocity.
  • Started the war against the advice of his entire cabinet.
  • Told his generals to sacrifice two Union soldiers to achieve each Confederate casualty if necessary to win the war.
  • Was happy with the incompetent drunkard Ulysses S. Grant because Grant was willing to sacrifice three union soldiers to achieve each Confederate casualty.
  • Attacked civilian populations.
  • Declared, several years into the war, in his Emancipation Proclamation, that slaves in the Confederacy were free but that slaves in the 4 slave states in the Union were still not free. In other words, it was an utterly powerless, meaningless, hypocritical, racist, and ineffective proclamation.

Although governments, and especially US administrations, have a long history of perpetrating false flags, I have not verified the claims that the Union itself fired on Fort Sumter to get the war started. However, even if the South fired first, it is self-evident that the Union, under Lincoln’s orders, started the Civil War because placing one’s troops in a foreign country is an act of war.

For months after the Confederacy had seceded, it kept asking Lincoln to get his army out of Confederate territory and told Lincoln that if he sent more troops into Confederate territory, then they would be fired upon. Now, Lincoln knew the Confederacy was mobilized for war and was not bluffing, and he knew that Washington DC was undefended because he had been negligent, but he still sent troops to Fort Sumter, and thus it is self-evident that Lincoln started the Civil War.

When evaluating American history in relation to slavery and the Civil War, it is important to note several additional facts:

  • Democrats were the pro-slavery party. Lincoln was a Republican and was more comfortable with slavery than were other Republicans, and thus Republicans have always said that no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor, and Democrats have always been willing to promise the fruits of other men’s labor to whoever would vote for them.
  • All of the most politically correct leaders would have been willing and eager to own slaves (it’s in their genes): Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, George Soros, Oprah, Golda Meir, Che Guevara, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, etc.; whereas, America’s founders were all very uncomfortable owning slaves. (To be fair, I suspect MLK might have have been uncomfortable owning slaves.)
  • Free blacks owned slaves.
  • Slavery was rampant in Africa (by Africans) before America, and it still exists in Africa today.
  • It is looking as if black families were more intact under slavery than they are now because government dependency is an atrocity; it is the new plantation; and it is unconstitutional.
  • Slaves in America revolted far less than in any other country because they were treated better (because the owners were on site).
  • European countries ended slavery only because it became impractical because of slave revolts (because the owners were off-continent).
  • Slavery was ending anyway because of the advent of farm machinery, such as the cotton gin.
  • Southern states were being oppressed and exploited by northern states before the Civil War, continued to be exploited after the war, and continue to be oppressed and exploited to this day.
  • Slavery was not one of America’s founding principles. Slavery contradicted America’s founding principles, and everyone knew it.
  • Frederick Douglass bashed the Constitution … until he read it. Then, he praised the Constitution as the best hope for blacks.
  • Black people in America today are much better off than black people in Africa, and thus have benefitted more than anyone from the enslavement of their ancestors.
Jim
 

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 12 comments
Dennis Gorelik - August 10, 2015

> All of the most popular politically correct politicians would have been willing and/or eager to own slaves: Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, etc.

"Would have been willing" if what happened?

Reply
Jim - November 28, 2015

If they had lived back then.

Reply
Dennis Gorelik - November 28, 2015

Why do you think they would be willing to have slaves?
Hiring people was an option back then too.

Reply
Jim - November 28, 2015

Isn't it obvious?

Their party, the Democratic party, was the pro-slavery party, and it still has the same philosophy, which is that they will give the fruits of other men's labor to whoever will vote for them. How is it that the party who claims to want to empower the little guy is the party that wants to disarm the little guy? How is it that the party of choice is the so anti-choice on education?

These progressive/liberal leaders are arrogant, elitist, racist, greedy, selfish, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest people who have earned little or none of what they have. They want the fruits of other men's labors by any means necessary. Even most slave owners were not as bad as these leaders.

Reply
Dennis Gorelik - November 29, 2015

> Isn't it obvious?

Nope.

> Their party, the Democratic party, was the pro-slavery party

Democratic party circa 1850 is a very different party than Democratic party 2015: different people, different goals.

> they will give the fruits of other men's labor to whoever will vote for them

That problem is typical for almost any political party.
But ok, say Democratic party is more likely to do such wealth redistribution that most other parties.
That still does not mean that modern Democratic politicians support slavery.
They are not suggesting to take away all the wealth.

> How is it that the party who claims to want to empower the little guy is the party that wants to disarm the little guy?

What does it have to do with slavery?

> How is it that the party of choice is the so anti-choice on education?

It is "equal opportunity and standardization vs freedom of choice" debate.
What does it it have to do with slavery?

> progressive/liberal leaders are arrogant, elitist, racist, greedy, selfish, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest people

What does it have to do with slavery?

> earned little or none of what they have

How come their income is worse than, e.g. your income?
They play their role in society and getting compensated for that.
Anyway, what does it have to do with slavery?

Reply
Jim - November 29, 2015

It is obvious. You already know that a large majority was OK with slavery and that a large minority actually owned slaves. You also know that most so-called liberal leaders have a total lack of respect for ordinary people, and thus they would be among that large minority.

A "role in society" is an imaginary concept that you are supposed to believe so that you will not rebel. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.

Reply
Dennis Gorelik - November 29, 2015

> It is obvious.

Only if you allow logical fallacies in your line of though.

> large majority was OK with slavery

Consensus in modern society is very different that consensus 160 years ago.
Please do not equate one to another without strong supporting arguments.

> You also know that most so-called liberal leaders have a total lack of respect for ordinary people

I do NOT know that.
I assume some lack of respect from leaders toward ordinary people, but not total lack of respect. Total lack of respect is very unpractical.

Reply
Jim - November 29, 2015

It is obvious if you are reasonably well informed. You may not know about Che, who millions of so-called liberals where on their T-shirts, so just follow the link I provided in this article, but if you live in America, then you have no excuse for not knowing about the Clintons. If you want a good summary of the true nature of the Clinton's, then read Roger Stone's book, "The Clintons' War on Women."

You should know that behavioral tendencies, such as dominance, is in our genes, and the "consensus"cannot alter one's genes, so I would say that they would not only have owned slaves in the past, where you agree that was the "consensus", but I would say that they would own slaves now if they could get away with it. If they are willing to deceive, rape, rob, murder, and oppress ordinary people, then why wouldn't they have the genes that would make them willing to use them as slaves?

Reply
Dennis Gorelik - November 29, 2015

> "The Clintons' War on Women."

Are you sure this book is about Clintons' tendency to own slaves?
Clintons have some moral principles different from average people. Some of their moral principles are negative. But I do not recall any meaningful indications that Clintons would like to have slaves.
Note that dominance is not the same as having slaves.
From our history we know that voluntarily employment generally works fine, while slavery generally has severe negative consequences.
I am pretty sure Clintons know that too and would not own slaves even in society that allows it (such as Southern United States in 1850).

Reply
Jim - December 3, 2015

What kind of evidence would convince you that these so-called liberal leaders would have owned slaves if they had lived in America before the Civil War?

Reply
Anonymous - February 7, 2016

Aaaaah! Dennis has the old progressive line of thought: Lalalalala—–I can't hear you!"

Reply
Dennis Gorelik - February 8, 2016

Observing time machine experiment might convince me.

What kind of evidence would convince you that Clintons would not have owned slaves even if they legally could?

Reply

Leave a Reply: