Lincoln Vs. Hitler, Who's Worse???

Go down

Lincoln Vs. Hitler, Who's Worse???

Post by Admin on Mon May 26, 2008 12:30 am



In "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo lays the true Lincoln bare.

DiLorenzo wrote 2 books on lincoln and his thesis is basically this:

lincoln did not give 2 shites about the slaves, and regardless, slavery would have ended anyway as it did all over during the same period, and his motivation for the civil war had NOTHING to do w/the civil war.

his motivation was the "american/hamiliton" system of gov't. which is BIG Gov't.

most people before the civil war and in fact, 2/3 northerners at the time during the civil war, believed that the south should be allowed to leave the union as this was the understood arrangement of the states. So, Lincoln FORCED his view through murder and an unconstitutional war.

Lincoln (and/or those under his rule and support) did very unconstitutional and immoral things during the civil war like steal, rob, kill thousands (probably 50,000) of innocent civilians including women and children in the south, jail those who spoke or wrote against the war.

Finally, the worst thing Lincoln did was to forcefully set the precedent for big all powerful government. One that can do whatever it wants at whatever the cost despite the will of the people. This is the exact opposite of the Jeffersonian principals of small government the founders envisioned and the people supported.

Lincoln was NOT a hero but a tyrant and a murdering thug!!!!

Kaptainsteve

The facts of the matter are that Lincoln had no desire to free the slaves when he invaded the South, and that the war was in no way about slavery. the Civil War was about the "American System" of Hamilton and Clay, which had been rejected by the people in favor of Jeffersonianism.

Lincoln forced upon the nation what it would not accept through popular vote, and what it could not accept under a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution. In all honesty, Lincoln wreaked more havoc against the fate of the world than even Hitler did, as Hitler was stopped after committing horrendous tragedies, while Lincoln's legacy lives on. Lincoln destroyed the great compact among the states and the sacred document that gave that compact its life. Now we have a central bank, huge standing armies, high taxation, and an invasive central state. Hooray for Thomas DiLorenzo for having the courage to publish this book!

Source: Amazon Reveiw


Lincoln will probably be forever known as the "Great Emancipator" because of the Emancipation Proclamation. But every Lincoln scholar knows something that few Americans are aware of: The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, because it specifically exempted those areas of the southern states that were at the time under the control of the federal armies while allowing slavery to exist in the "loyal" border states of Maryland and Kentucky and in Washington, D.C. itself.

"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another," the London Spectator observed on October 11, 1862, "but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government.

As Lincoln stated in a famous, August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda strategy designed to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. It came as a complete surprise to most

Northerners, who thought they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands to preserve the union. As a result, there were draft riots in New York City; a desertion crisis was created in the U.S. army, with some 200,000 deserters, according to historian Gary Gallagher; and war bond sales plummeted. According to James McPherson, the "dean" of "Civil War" historians, Union soldiers "were willing to risk their lives for the Union, but not for black freedom . . . . They professed to feel betrayed."

Slavery was ended in 1866 with the Thirteenth Amendment, but at the cost of 620,000 lives; hundreds of thousands more that were crippled for life; and the near destruction of almost half the nationís economy. By contrast, dozens of other countries (including Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) ended slavery peacefully during the first 60 years of the nineteenth century. Why not the U.S.?

Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but his war destroyed the union defined as a voluntary association of states. Forcing a state to remain in the union at gunpoint renders that state a conquered province, not a genuine partner. This was the overwhelming sentiment of Northern opinion makers at the outset of the war.

As Horace Greeley wrote on March 21, 1861: "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." If southerners wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so." "Nine out of ten of the people of the North," Greeley wrote, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union.


Source: Thomas Delorenzo at Mises.org

More great stuff Here.
avatar
Admin
VIP
VIP

Number of posts : 116
Registration date : 2007-12-15

Swamp-Ass
Swamp-Ass Master:
40/50  (40/50)

http://swamp-ass.com

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum