Profile | Chip Hanlon
Website | Delta Global Advisors
» Follow Me on Twitter
» My Facebook
Author's Latest Posts |
- Polls Continue to Sing for Tom Campbell
- Dear "Anon:" Gore "Confuses" Weather with Climate
- Think Others Haven't Noticed Our Fiscal Trajectory?
- Carly: "The Had Enough Party"
- Senator Sessions Says What Justice Alito Cannot
More»
Abraham Lincoln, War Criminal
By Chip Hanlon | 04/24/09 | 04:24 PM EDT | 18 Comments
Forget everything you thought you knew about Abraham Lincoln, folks, because he is actually one of history’s greatest war criminals—on par with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
At least, that’s the belief of many Libertarians.
I’m reminded of this today because as the new CEO of Red County, some very interesting mass emails are now flowing through my inbox. One such email came to me late Thursday from a gentleman named Ron Holland, promoting a gathering called Freedom Fest which is to take place later this year. More on Holland in a minute but first, an excerpt of that email:
For Immediate Release
Early FreedomFest 2009 Survey Results Throw the Establishment & Political Correctness Out the Window
Asheville, NC., - April 24, 2009 - The FreedomFest Conference, America’s trade show for liberty announces the opening of their annual free market online survey and early results show Americans are fed up with the political, Wall Street and media establishments. There are 15 survey questions on a wide variety of subjects including economics, politics, the GOP & Ron Paul, the financial meltdown & the media. You can vote and analyze the early results… and remember the survey preferences often swing dramatically depending on whether traditional conservatives or libertarian voters are responding.
Note, you may only vote once and after that you can only see the updated survey results.
Some of the early results are as follows:
- Washington, DC dramatically leads Iran, Russia and China as the greatest threat to the nation.
- Overwhelming majorities believe the national debt is not a legitimate debt of the American people and that drugs should be legalized.
- The worst president in American history is Lincoln rather than Bush and Ron Paul leads Gingrich and Palin as the preferred leader of the GOP.
- The GOP, Democrats and Federal Reserve are equally to blame for the economic crisis.
…seemingly typical Libertarian-type stuff at first glance. But look in particular at the third point in the survey results above-- about Lincoln being America's worst President-- because it actually understates the belief of many in this crowd.
Which brings us back to Ron Holland, the sender of this email: In truth, I need say little about him. Instead, here’s a link to an article he wrote which quite succinctly summarizes his deeply-held beliefs: Abraham Lincoln, America’s Greatest War Criminal
And you thought I was just making up the title to this post in order to grab your attention!
For starters, I didn’t realize the list of U.S. criminals of war was so long that it needed a ‘greatest of’ ranking, but my own apparent ignorance aside: if you choose not to read Holland’s article in full, allow me to provide a few quotes from it which convey his thinking:
- "History shows us that politicians make war against their own citizens even more than against foreign nations. The reasons are often to establish and preserve their power base, as was the case in the Russian Revolution and the Mao Revolution. For others, like Hitler, it was misguided super patriotism and racism that brought death to tens of millions. Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues."
- "While Lincoln’s death toll is small in comparison to total deaths by Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, there are many similarities between these men."
- "Still the US constitutional republic, as established by our founding fathers, was in effect destroyed by Lincoln’s unconstitutional war just as surely as Mao and Lenin over threw the existing Chinese and Russian governments."
Regarding the Civil War, people like Holland believe that in the name of individual liberty, the South should have been allowed to secede. To answer the obviously nettlesome follow-up question of, “what about the individual liberties of the slaves they would have taken with them?” they have conjured up theories about how the slaves would have actually been better off in such an instance, that the result would have been fewer African-American deaths until their eventual liberation (which they take as a given).
So in the name of liberty, the Southern whites should have been allowed to secede with their enslaved blacks. Oh, and the fight against secession was merely waged on behalf of greedy corporations (note that the South’s economic interest in preserving slavery is conveniently ignored).
How do you like that logic?
Really, there’s little point for the rest of us to take on the views of a man like Holland; the minds of those who agree with him won’t be changed and at any rate, my point here is a much bigger one for Republicans: we must win back Ron Paul voters.
A seemingly odd transition from all of this? Hear me out.
Why equate Paul’s views with those of Holland? Watch the video below:
And that’s just for starters (I’ll be writing in more depth on his various views in coming weeks).
Listen: everything else aside, I might strongly consider picking O.J. Simpson as the tailback on my all-time football team. Problem is, I happen to know the rest of his story.
Likewise, I understand the urge to embrace many of the fiscal principles that Ron Paul advocates, but I also happen to know the other viewpoints he holds or sympathizes with— the tax denier movement, isolationism in the extreme, no foreign aid of any kind—and realize one can become a hostage to his own supposedly “pure” philosophical system.
Rank-and-file voters can be excused for this ignorance, however, because even some well-known folks who should know better seem confused, as well.
Last year, for instance, Steve Forbes accepted an award from the Freedom Fest group, purveyors of the conference referred to at the start of this article, and he’s scheduled to speak again this year. John Fund, Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow are set to speak, as well. And one bullet point I omitted from the survey in that email reported that Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs and Cody Willard were the attendees’ media favorites.
Is this an honor they covet? Perhaps they should be asked.
Since Holland was emailing on behalf of the festival and Lincoln is so prominent a part of his belief system, the people who sponsor the event apparently agree with him on the matter. One wonders, however, if even the high-profile politicos mentioned above truly understand the complete belief system of Ron Paul—and make no mistake about it, this gathering is the Congressman's core audience.
All of us know a few fellow Republicans who, in frustration over our party’s failings on fiscal issues, voted for Ron Paul in 2008. It is simply my contention they have no idea the sum total of his viewpoints for which they voted as a result.
We need to craft a game plan for countering the Democrats, yes, but part of our returning the GOP to the majority will require returning Ron Paul and his core philosophical supporters to the 1%-ers they truly are by winning back frustrated Republicans who voted for him in protest.
Part of that equation has to do with returning to our fiscal senses and once again providing a genuine small-government alternative to the Democrats.
But part of it has to do with educating our wayward Republican friends about exactly who and what they voted for.
TAGS: ron paul, lincoln, isolationism, libertarians
| 
|
18 Comments | Related Topics »National
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
Interesting to see such divergent views on such a (seemingly) well-documented topic.
Have a great weekend,
EEJS
Wow, this completely challenges everything I believed regarding Mr. Lincoln. Tell me, does this make John Wilkes Booth a hero? He did bring an end to the tyranny......
Ron Paul is completely cookoo for cocoa puffs!
All the kooks are going to come out of the woodwork to damn you to hell for blaspheming their "true conservative" messiah. They're as bad as the idiotarian Obamabots.
Which reminds me...I wonder how some of those Paulbots who voted for Obama are feeling about their stupidity now?10
Slavery would have not survived through the 19th century without the Civil War. Industrialization and the abolition of the international slave trade were rendering slavery to be an ineffective and woefully inefficient means of maintaining a productive labor force. Also, the disparity in voter population between Northern and Southern states would continue to break down the influence of the pro-slavery coalitions in Congress to the point where moderates like Lincoln could have controlled the debate. But these long term developments were disrupted by the Civil War, and combined with Lincoln's untimely death, ushered in a Reconstruction plan that degraded the Southern states and fanned the flames of racism in a post-bellum Southern society.
Paul's contention regarding Lincoln and the Civil War boils down to a first principle stating that the loss of 600,000 lives was not a fair trade off for the abolition of slavery. I don't see why that is an unreasonable assertion. If that assertion is to be accepted, it shouldn't be unreasonable to consider ways in which war could have been prevented and slavery abolished more quickly, which is ultimately Congressman Paul's central argument regarding the Civil War. It's not necessarily a debate over secession, but rather a debate over how the same outcome could have been derived at a lower human and material cost.
Wait just a second. A few specific retorts: "Slavery would have not survived through the 19th century without the Civil War. Industrialization and the abolition of the international slave trade were rendering slavery to be an ineffective and woefully inefficient means of maintaining a productive labor force." So you assert. Similarly, leftists try to discredit Reagan today by claiming the Wall would have fallen on its own. That's also an open question which can only be comfortably asserted in retrospect, but it directly contradicts their own terror over his policies when they were, in fact wetting themselves at the time, particularly over his walking out at Reykjavic. Likewise, of the competing voices at the time, I'm not aware of an alternative to the pro-union/pro-slavery arguments which was credibly arguing we could all just wait it out. Feel free to correct me on this point. "Also, the disparity in voter population between Northern and Southern states would continue to break down the influence of the pro-slavery coalitions in Congress to the point where moderates like Lincoln could have controlled the debate." This hurts your point, meaining it provided reason for the South to secede due to the desire to protect slavery lest it be legislated away from them. "Paul's contention regarding Lincoln and the Civil War boils down to a first principle stating that the loss of 600,000 lives was not a fair trade off for the abolition of slavery. I don't see why that is an unreasonable assertion." You have chosen to hear only a portion of Paul's response. Here is what he said directly prior to the words you cite: Ron Paul: "No he shouldn't have gone to war, he did this just to, uh, enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. It was the iron fist of... (inaudible--Russert interrupts)." So, Cicero, is that what you believe? Did Lincoln wage the Civil War for the sake of northern corporate interests (as Holland asserts) and to fundamentally revoke our freedoms, putting them at the whim of his "iron fist?" Directly defend that statement, if you can. Don't him a pass. And he is on record in multiple instances of having said such things,this wasn't some misunderstanding.
I don't agree that Lincoln had much of any ability to prevent the WBTS from starting. The factors that ultimately made war plausible were almost entirely out of his control. So to the extent that this is true, I would disagree with Paul's statement which you cite, yes. While I do understand why some believe the argument that Lincoln sought to undermine the Republic and the Constitution with the actions that he took, in the end that entire discussion is rendered unsatisfied due to Lincoln's assassination. Lincoln himself believed he was doing what was necessary to preserve the Union. Not being in the heat of the moment, it's fine to debate whether or not what he did was necessary. But regardless of that, he promised to pull back from his more aggressive uses of presidential power once the war was ended. Unfortunately, we will never know if that indeed would be true. I tend to take Lincoln at his word, but the fact that there is no way to vindicate his promises opens the door for a legitimate debate over his use of war powers. I think Lincoln did wage for the war for reasons he felt were right, contrary to what Paul asserts. However, I would agree that northern corporate lobbies did have some vested interest in some conflict being carried out, and to varying extents those economic conflicts were driving forces behind the war. Things like tariffs, travel rights, and textile markets were all issues that Northern businesses fought over against the South in addition to slavery expansion, and proved to be the pocketbook issues which allowed slavery to become an emotional accelerant for hostility between the regions. But no, I don't think Lincoln was a patsy for such interests, as one could construe from the Congressman's remarks. On the contrary, Lincoln was more driven by an individual perception of Providence which he felt had placed him in the right time and place to do something important and great. Hitler thought the same thing about himself, incidentally. But Lincoln was at least a fundamentally decent man who wanted to and indeed did do a lot of good in this world. A flawed human being and a flawed President, but probably the exact kind of President we needed to get us out of a very dark period in our history.
As the county chairman for Congressman Paul's new organization Campaign For Liberty, I will love debating with you Chip the principles Congressman Paul stands for. And while I don't agree 100% of the time with his ideas and beliefs, I'll take him any day over the ones of GW Bush, Boehner, and McConnell and all the other so called "conservatives" who led our party to where we find ourselves today.
Allan, you tacitly admit here that this belief of his embarrasses you, as it should. You're a good guy... I bet you'd admit that deep down, you're less a Paul supporter than a frustrated Republican yourself. Or do you even consider Reagan a "failure," as does Paul. By the way, why if he's so ideologically pure does Ron Paul keep up the pretense of remaining a registered Republican if he hates us so much? Doesn't seem very philoshophical or brave of him...
I don't think Reagan was a failure. In fact I think he's been the best President in modern times. I am an extremely frustrated Republican with what happened in the last eight years when we held all the power. I can say convincingly that the GOP has not learned its lesson yet. That means we are going to be the minority party for a long time unless our ship's course is changed. What we hate is what the party has become. I don't think some of Ron's so called "radical ideas" like getting rid of the IRS, ending foreign aid, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc are very radical at all. What is radical is all the over spending, over borrowing, and printing of all the money to come up up with the shortfall that causes all the inflation. The party should embrace Congressman Paul's supporters and energy that we bring to the party. If they don't, they will not win back a majority...plain and simple.
I agree with you that the GOP needs to win back the frustrated Republican Ron Paul voter. In other words, you! Precisely my point, man.
Always thought Lincoln was one of the great presidents...
But then again, history is written by the victors.
What Ron Holland and CiceroWriting says actually makes sense.
I believe it was an economic war and that no one cared about the slaves except for abolisionists.
The slaves weren't really free until the early 60's.
Fine article, Mr. Hanlon. The line between tyrant and hero usually depends on whether you won or not. In this case, Lincoln won, but he did not slaughter "innocent" people like the other mentioned “dictators” to consolidate power for his own nefarious needs. Lincoln had a clear purpose...to preserve the Union, as it was formed, in order to keep it strong enough to resist European domination and provide a stable economic system free from interstate tariffs and other barriers that would bog down general prosperity. The problem with the Ron Paul's stand is that it goes too far the other way. In times like these, where the Federal Government has grown too powerful, a “little government as possible" message theory is appealing, but would be a fatal mistake. The problem with Ron Paul’s view is that you can’t hold constants in the real world. Other countries still want to take what you have, terrorist organizations still will attack your country, and some people and organizations, unchecked, will cause general mayhem and hurt everyone else for their own ends. You need checks against aggression and power, to minimize that power, not lie down, and pretend that if you don’t face it, it will just go away. Lincoln was no tyrant, but a realistic man living in the real world, who believed that preserving the Union was the right thing to do for the future of its inhabitants. If the general failure of the Articles of Confederation proved, you can’t have a virtually non-existent central government and expect the members to have the security to complain about the lack of state’s rights.
From Lincoln's first inaugural address: "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 lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." and "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. How does this show Lincoln's concerns for the slaves? And what does ex-parte Merryman say about Lincoln's concern for freedom? You are just another Republican hack.
Libertarians may as well flush their ballots down the toilet. The end result is ultimately the same. Hanlon hits the nail on the head. Many Ron Paul supporters are frustrated Republicans looking for an alternative to the self-destructive policies being embraced by so many in the GOP. Until Republicans get their act together, people will look elsewhere for leadership. However, a more thorough examiniation of the Libertarian agenda/mindset is warranted. Frustrated Republicans would be better off working to purge their own party of the misguided members who have squandered our majority status.
Why do you suppose Lincoln would have made the statement to Horace Greeley
of The New York Tribune, that his “paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either 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 all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Lincoln may have wanted to “save the Union,” because he knew that the North could not progress without the South.
Just because the socialists manufactured the word "isolationism" into a bad word, does not mean that the United States keeping its military at home and minding our own business would be a bad thing. Try reading the constitution for a change. When you find in it authorization for fedgov to send our troops into foreign countries when we have not been attacked by them, let me know.
HCB
Hey Chipster,
It's good to hang with the boys, isn't it? Just as long as you fight for the party line.
Keep kidding yourself that somehow you're going to "convert" Ron Paul people to
neo-conism. And you're especially not going to do it by intellectually bullying
the likes of poor Allan - or anyone else for that matter.
Ron Paul ignited a firestorm of enthusiasm because he embraced the great
founding principles of this country. Those principles are anti-thetical to Clay/
Lincoln's "American System" just as they are to today's creepy neo-cons.
If you had a shred of manhood you would sit down and read DiLorenzo's "The
Real Lincoln." If you have an ounce of integrity, after reading it you would resign
from the Republican Party and seek therapy. If you garnered the courage to
read it and still argued for the Civil War - and for Lincoln's "greatness" - I pity
your soul.
Chip, where do you stand: Are you loyal to your big government Republican
friends or to principle? If you're for small, i.e. limited government, you have
to despise what Lincoln did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY
Post new comment