deepthink

    
 Perhaps the greatest example of distorted history is how most people feel

that Abraham Lincoln was one of America’s greatest presidents.  Most Americans

believe that President Lincoln was a great humanitarian who fought the Civil War in

order to free the slaves and preserve the Union.  Why do Americans feel that way?
 It’s because,  American historians writing history with a view

toward enabling American students to feel good about their country have distorted

the facts to present president Lincoln as bigger than life and almost as righteous as

God or George Washington.
 
So badly have American history textbook authors distorted the facts concerning

Lincoln that Thomas J. Dilorenzo, in his book, The Real Lincoln, writes, Most of what

you know about Abraham Lincoln is false.
 
While most Americans think Lincoln was in favor of equality for all races, Dilorenzo

records a quote from one of Lincoln’s speeches as follows: The whole nation is

interested that the best use shall be made of these new territories.  We want them for

the homes of free white people.
 
 That quote never appears in any American history textbook, because the authors of

those books omit any facts that don’t present Lincoln as a champion of racial

equality.  That would undermine their wish to promote the biggest lie of American

history—the idea that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.
 
Further evidence shows that Lincoln was, like most of America’s founding fathers, a

white supremacist.  That explains why slavery of the black man and the genocide of

the red man happened in a nation that claimed all men were created by God with

certain rights.  Neither the black man nor the red man were considered to have been

created by Jesus Christ but the devil, hence the term red devils became a common

utterance in America’s early history.
 
Further proof that Lincoln was a white supremacist can be gleaned from the speech

Lincoln gave in the Lincoln-Douglas debate of 1858.  “I have no purpose to introduce

political and social equality between the black and white races.  There is a physical

difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their

living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a

necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of

the race to which I belong have a superior position.  I have never said anything to the

contrary.”  Ibid, pg. 13.
 
Dilorenzo records further evidence that Lincoln wasn’t the champion of the black

man that many history textbook authors would have us believe, by writing, Lincoln

promised to support the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which obligated the federal

government to use its resources to return runaway slaves to their owners.  Ibid, pg.

13.
 
I have heard Lincoln apologists address that issue by claiming Lincoln had to make

such a promise to win the presidential election.  To that I would say that if it were

true, it supports Dilorenzo’s quote of economist Murray Rothbard, who said, “Lincoln

was a master politician, which means he was a consummate conniver, manipulator,

and liar.”  Ibid, pg. 11.  Such a reference would certainly be left out of history

textbooks, because the historians want to promote Lincoln as “Honest Abe.”
 
Saying that Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves puts a more-attractive face

on the war than the truth, which is that Lincoln and the Republican party saw an

opportunity to put down state’s rights by branding the war for secession or Southern

independence as a war to free the slaves.  Americans would feel much better about

such a war if they believed that America shed its blood to free slaves, which is more

in keeping with the noble idea that America is concerned about liberty.
 
The truth is that those who framed the Constitution gave rights to the states that

became known as state’s rights as a way to prevent an all-powerful, centralized,

federal government.  The founding fathers studied what caused or enabled

governments to become tyrannical.  The common denominator was that all

dictatorships had powerful, centralized, federal governments.
 
Their thinking was to create a union.  States would be invited to join and, by so

doing, fulfill Jefferson’s dictum that Governments derive their right to govern by the

consent of the governed.  It was understood that, as a state could give its consent to

be governed by the union, so it could withdraw that consent and leave the union.
 To prove that is true, I have included a quote from the Declaration of

Independence:

 To secure these rights [of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness],

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent

of the governed….  Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these

ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new

government. 

 Before the Civil War, Lincoln was in total agreement with that, as proven by

the following:

 ”Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right

to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them

better.  This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and

believe is to liberate the world.  Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole

people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.  Any portion of such

people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory

as they inhabit.”
   Abraham Lincoln
   January 12, 1848

 From those quotes, we can say with certainty that the Constitution of the

United States granted the right of states to secede from the Union, and that Lincoln

gave lip service to agreeing to it publicly.  Why did he say he was fighting the Civil

War to preserve the Union, when he agreed in public speeches that the Confederate

States had a constitutional right to secede from the Union?
 
We must either accept that he was a liar and deceived people to win the election,

which discredits any claim one may wish to promote him as Honest Abe, or he

secretly had a concealed motive for waging war against the Confederacy.  I suggest

he was both.
 
Just as it is currently apparent that the American people were lied to concerning the

reasons for the Iraq war, wherein America went to war not because Iraq posed a threat

to the world or the US or to promote democracy in the region, it may well be that

America used the war on terror as a smokescreen to further American hegemony. 

America has a war-driven economy.  Iraq presented an opportunity to wage another

economically stimulating war, and to further American  Neocoms whos believe

America should use our military power to spread christianity around the world. and to

fullfil the scripture “Go forth ,subdue the Earth and bring it under your

dominion”,Genesis 1:28

 It isn’t the purpose of this blog to study the Civil War.  It was mentioned as

another example of distorted history.  By reading such history, most Americans, if

asked why the Civil War was fought, would say to preserve the Union and free the

slaves.  Neither is true.  Lincoln fought the Civil War to stop state’s rights.  He used

the rationalization of preserving the Union as justification for the war.  Freeing the

slaves and preserving the Union had nothing to do with it.
 Lincoln apologists will point to the Emancipation Proclamation and say

proudly, “Lincoln freed the slaves.”  The fact of history such people conveniently

overlook is that the Proclamation didn’t free any slaves where Lincoln had

jurisdiction.
 Dilorenzo wrote:

 At the same time, it is important to note that Lincoln’s Emancipation

Proclamation didn’t free a single slave.  As described by James G. Randall and David

Donald in their epic, The Civil War and Reconstruction, The stereotyped picture of the

emancipator suddenly striking the shackles from millions of slaves by a stroke of the

presidential pen is altogether inaccurate.  The Real Lincoln, pg. 35.

 Lincoln maintained that the proclamation was merely a war measure, not an

attempt at genuine emancipation.  Ibid, pg. 37

 Dilorenzo speculates that the main objective for issuing the proclamation

was the hope of inciting a slave insurrection in the South, or at least the threat of

one, which would force the Confederation to withdraw troops from the front lines.  At

the time of the proclamation, the North was losing the war.
 
The worst injustice such distorters of history have done is to invert history.  They

presented Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, as someone who was a traitor

to the Constitution, when he was actually within his constitutional rights.  Even

Lincoln attested, in a previous quote, that the Constitution permitted people to

withdraw their consent to be governed.  Lincoln has been presented as a hero of the

Constitution.  In reality, he betrayed it and the American Revolution.  In the end, he

created the one thing the founding fathers feared—a powerful, centralized federal

government.
 The modern Republican party constantly claims it is the party of the

Constitution and is for small, limited government.  In reality, it’s the Republicans

who put the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, in the White House.  He

went into office not to defend the Constitution but to betray it and establish an all-

powerful centralized government.  That led to an increasingly larger and larger

American government.  Bush, the most-recent Republican president, has created the

biggest government ever.
 
Why don’t the American people know that?  It’s because of the distorted history in

American textbooks.  Based on those books, Americans think they have the most-

righteous government in the world and thus have the moral high ground from which

to judge anyone else.
 
Most modern Americans believe Lincoln was one of the country’s greatest presidents.

 In truth, he betrayed the Constitution, didn’t free the slaves, and started America

down the road to imperialism, leading to one of the world’s greatest genocides, that

of the Native Americans.
 
He was America’s worst president.  Because of his inept statesmanship, he cost the

country over 600,000 lives and almost lost the Union.  People know of Lincoln’s

many failures before he became president.  Suddenly, historians would have us

believe that the man who’d been a colossal failure at almost everything he did was an

instant success when he became president.  The truth is, he failed at being president,

too.
 
The Civil War was a tragic one, and Lincoln deserves a great deal of the blame.  That

war was not only unconstitutional but unnecessary.
 To show how not knowing true historical facts coupled with illogical

thinking can still effect modern-day conclusions,  the day after labor day, 2007, John

McCain on a radio talk show made the following remarks concerning the difficult

decision Lincoln made concerning signing the Emancipation Proclamation. McCain

said, “It is reported that Lincoln made a pact with God that  If God would grant the

union a victory in the war he would sign the Emancipation Proclamation into law.”
 
Presumably McCain and many modern-day Christians believe that this shows how

religious Lincoln was, and since the union did have a victory shortly after this alleged

pact Lincoln supposedly made with God shows that God was on the side of the

Union, and against slavery.  Neither McCain nor those who see nothing wrong with

the idea of Lincoln making a pact with God shows that neither McCain or those that

cite the above reference understand Christianity.

 Christianity does not teach that God is opened to being bribed into doing

something.  If Lincoln entered into such a pact with God, it reveals that Lincoln in

effect said to God, “Look, I know it’s the right thing to do is to sign the Emancipation

Proclamation into law, but I am not going to do so until you grant the union a

victory.”  Christians should universally reject this notion as not true, because it sets

the false example of God allowing himself to being manipulated by Man. If true it

would mean that God can be bribed!

 Also, Lincoln admitted “The Emancipation Proclamation”  was not intended

to free the slaves but was rather a ploy to insight a slave insurrection in the South in

hopes of causing the confederacy to withdraw troops from fighting Yankees.

Wouldn’t one logically think that God should have known that Lincoln was insincere

about freeing the slaves, so Lincoln was attempting to deceive God.
 
 
 The idea that God wanted slavery abolished because the north won the war

is another example of illogical thinking. If God was against slavery, He had a funny

way of showing it.  Although Jesus Christ walked amongst slaves, he never organized

a demonstration against slavery nor spoke of their liberation during his lifetime. 

Also doesn’t it seem a little strange that if God was against slavery that when through

the writings of Paul, his apostle, God didn’t take the opportunity to instruct Paul to

tell Christians they should liberate their slaves?!! To the contrary Paul only gave

instructions on how slaves and masters are to treat each.other.  These

scriptures would be accepted in any modern court house as evidence that God

approved of slavery!   Indeed we can find scriptures in both the Old Testament and

The New Testament that both the Jewish God Yahweh and the Christian God Jesus

Christ  who by the way according to christian teachings are one and the same,

condoned slavery as the following scriptures will attest:  

 ”Both thy bondmen, and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of

the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond

maids” Leviticus 25:44( This verse does not endorse the idea that Judaism’s God

Yahweh, the father of Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ himself, depending upon your

point of view, have been opposed to slavery.  To the contrary, this verse has Yahweh

endorsing the practice of slavery but pointing out that the Israelites themselves are

not to be slaves — only the heathen or nonbelievers may be made slaves or kept as

slaves.
One might even quote Leviticus 25:46 as proof that God intended slavery to last

forever, which brings up the question how can Christians promote Christianity as a

religion that helped put an end to slavery in America by inspiring the Abolition

movement. “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to

inherit them for a possession : They shall be your bondmen F O R E V E R” Leviticus

25:46
 Some Christians might wish to point out that it is unfair to quote the Old

Testament, because Christianity is based upon The New Testament. Fair enough, so

let’s ask the question, is Ephesians in the New Testament? Since it is the following

scriptures does not reflect any change in God’s attitude concerning slavery which is

God-condoned slavery.

“Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear

and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eye service, as

men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

Ephesians  6:5 and 6 This is evidence that slavery is  the will of God.  It would appear

then Christianity can not be said to be in opposition to slavery which cast

dispersions on the belief that God inspired the abolitionist movement.

 Doesn’t it seem a Little perplexing why God waited until just before the

Civil War to finally inspire the abolitionists movement? Wouldn’t God have been better

advised, if it were possible to advise God, that if he had inspired the early colonist

against slavery that the scourge of slavery would have been nipped in the bud instead

of waiting so long before inspiring a movement against slavery?

    Is it not also true that many Christians believe that Thomas Jefferson was

inspired by God in writing the Declaration of Independence. If so then God believed

that governments derive their right to govern by the consent of the governed. If this

be true then in order for God to be consistent with this idea, He should have wanted

the confederacy to win the Civil War, for the confederacy was attempting to stand

upon the very same principle that God allegedly inspired Jefferson to proclaim! It

would be better not to proclaim that the side that wins a war does so because it is

God’s will.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS