Lincoln's War of Aggression (YouTube Video)

 Don't blame us for Lincoln's views on race. We report, you decide.

Mark Levin: A Flaming Ignoramus on the Civil War

I originally posted the article belon on February 6, 2010. Today, September 2, 2014, Mark Levin again displayed his ignorance on his radio show by praising Abraham Lincoln.  Mark no doubts thinks the Russians are terrible aggressors for invading the Ukraine this week -- and he'd be right.  For some reason, when Lincoln did the same thing, even more ruthlessly, in 1861, that was just fine.  Because American tyranny is good, because Old Glory, Stars and Stripes Forever.  Or something.

********

Mark Levin is an excellent writer and has given a lot to the conservative movement.  However, his increasingly asinine remarks on the radio about the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America compel me to finally call him out.

Yesterday the Irate One stated that the Confederacy represented an "illegitimate form of government" based on "dangerous rebellion."  What a load of happy horse sh*t.  If that is true of the Confederacy, it is also true of the United States, who came into being in the same way:  through secession and a declaration of independence.  Furthermore, the Confederate States were not in "rebellion" to the Constitution or anything else.  They were merely exercising their right to self-government under the very American concept of "the consent of the governed."  They were merely following the legal means of seceding as outlined in textbooks at West Point, as commonly understood since the beginning of the American republic:  sovereign bodies that accede to a union of political states may also secede from the same union when it suits their needs and purposes to do so.  Abraham Lincoln himself stated as much in a speech to Congress while he himself was but a congressman:

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. 

Any government that forces a population into its fold through force is tyranny.  The Northern states were on the side of tyranny during the Civil War.  They did not fight to "free the slaves" as is commonly and erroneously taught to every third-grader; they fought to force the South back into a union it no longer wanted; the slaves were totally negotiable.  The Civil War was like most wars, fought over territorial control, the right to govern and the right to tax.  Similar situations today:  China's invasion of Tibet and its desire to annex Taiwan; Russia's desire to annex Georgia and its former colonies.

Abraham Lincoln was a flaming disaster to the United States, clearly the worst president in our history.  He started a war of tyranny and subjugation and killed 630,000 people in the process.  Yet, Lincoln is Mark Levin's hero.  It figures.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT, MARK.

Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans Issue Press Release About Spielberg's Lincoln Movie

   

PRESS RELEASE  

 

LINCOLN MOVIE MYTH EXPOSED

(Atlanta, Georgia - February 25, 2013)    After being heralded by Hollywood critics as one of the best films of 2012, Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," starring Daniel Day Lewis in the title role, has been branded by historians as nothing more than fiction or "a good tale, not that different than the ones for which Lincoln, himself, was known in his day."  One historian went so far as to remark that Spielberg's "Lincoln" bears no more resemblance to the historical account than that of the 2012 fantasy film "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter."

Spielberg's film attempts to depict Lincoln's crusade to end slavery once and for all in these united States amidst the final months of the War for Southern Independence.  Far from being historically accurate, the film radically alters Lincoln's personal beliefs about slavery, as well as his political affairs over the issue.  As do many of the revisionist textbooks of recent years, the film portrays Lincoln's famous "Emancipation Proclamation" of January 1, 1863 as the expression of a deeply held moral, and even religious, belief about slavery that led him to bring an end to the institution wherever he had the authority to do it.  Citing the various Northern states who continued to permit slavery even after Lincoln's emancipation statement, historians point out that the declaration actually freed no slaves.  In effect, it purported to free slaves in the only region of America where Lincoln did not have authority -- the still independent Southern states of the Confederacy -- while, at the same time, freeing no slaves in the part where he did, in fact, have the authority to deal with the issue.  Many of Lincoln's day, as well as most reputable historians today, cite Lincoln's actual motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation as his desire to attempt to thwart the very real likelihood that Great Britain would intervene on the side of the Confederacy in order to protect their cotton imports from the deep South.  Knowing that the English crown had been emotionally affected by the likes of such pro-abolition works of fiction as Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Lincoln's emancipation had the desired effect of creating a moral dilemma for Britain which ultimately kept them from entering the War.

Lincoln's true feelings about slavery are revealed in his letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, dated August 22, 1862 in which he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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 save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."  In the light of his own words, Lincoln's true motivation behind the Emancipation Proclamation becomes crystal clear... it was a war measure designed to bring the War to an end.

As to Spielberg's fascination with Lincoln's supposed wish to forever end slavery in America by way of a Constitutional amendment and the myth that slavery was the issue over which the South seceded in the first place, again, history eludes the talented film producer.  In December of 1860, just days before South Carolina became the first Southern state to lawfully secede, Kentucky Senator John Crittenden offered what became known as the "Crittenden Compromise" which included a proposed constitutional amendment which would forever protect slavery in the states where it already existed in perpetuity.  In an effort to assure the Southern states that he did not intend to interfere with the institution of slavery after taking office, Lincoln had frequently expressed in his stump speeches the same sentiment that he demonstrated previously at a debate in Charleston in which he said, "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, 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 together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."  Historically, the Crittenden measures failed, not because of a lack of Northern support, but because the Southern states insisted that their real concern was not what would become of slavery but, rather, what would become of the union since it was headed toward federal tyranny over the States and the rights of the people; thus they chose to secede in spite of the proposal to keep slavery.

Spielberg's Lincoln certainly does not reflect the historical Lincoln accurately by portraying that he wanted to abolish slavery for high moral reasons any more than the film, and others, depicts the South historically when it portrays Southerners as leaving the union because it wished to perpetuate slavery.  Clearly, the real issue of the War -- fear of an all-powerful federal leviathan -- has once again eluded filmmakers and, as it appears more every day, has doomed us to repeat the tragedies of the nineteenth century in our future barring a miraculous change of course.  

For interviews regarding the historical Lincoln or the causes of the War from the Southern perspective, please contact Jack Bridwell, Division Commander for the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans at 1-866-SCV-in-GA or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org.  Additionally, a wealth of educational information may be found online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org in both the printed and audio format.    

  

END RELEASE

 

  

Ray McBerry Enterprises is the public relations firm for the Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.  

A Great Film About Abraham Lincoln, Passed Over for an Academy Award?

I of course, refer to the film, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter."  No, it's not really historically accurate, but not much less so than Spielberg's "Lincoln."

As a great and glorious example of moral rectitude, Lincoln was a fraud.  When I have time, I will tell you all facts about the Emancipation Proclamation that most of you never learned in school...like the fact that it didn't free a single slave -- nor was it intended to.  Perhaps our Second Coming of Lincoln will issue a Confiscation Proclamation, ending gun ownership.  But that would be unconstitutional...just like the first proclamation.  However, that is discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, when you go to the movies, pass up "Lincoln."  It is total B.S.  Believing in myths and feel-good but false history does no one any good.

In fact, "feel-good" history is often a ruse by which to justify modern politics in the here and now.  Carl Sandburg's  biography of Lincoln, written in the 1930's, was a disguised justification for FDR's New Deal.  Spielberg's "Lincoln" is presented for the same purpose, to justify Obama's overreach and suspension of the Constitution.  The more you buy in to Hollywood's phony Lincoln, the less willing you will become to oppose Obama, whose policies are probably less extreme than those of Old Abe.

So you think Old Abe was a hero, even though he started a war without the approval of Congress, arrested and imprisoned thousands of US citizens without charges or trial, illegally suspended Habeas Corpus, ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for ruling it unconstitutional, shut down hundreds of newspapers who disagreed with his policies, acquiesced in the illegal and unconstitutional deportation of an Ohio congressman (for opposing him), and issued a sweeping proclamation without the participation or agreement of Congress.

Further, he ordered Union troops to burn Southern universities, private homes and farms, to destroy livestock and confiscate medicines, and to use captured Confederate officers as human shields against artillery.  His glorious Yankees raped Southern black women, used Southern black men for target practice, and kidnapped others to be pressed into labor for the Union Army.  Other Northern troops stole private property from private homes, carrying off the silverware and candlesticks.  Think of that the next time you hear "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

Lincoln was a dictator; there is absolutely nothing about the man that can be called "American."  He operated completely outside of the law and the Constitution and managed to kill more Americans than any foreign despot ever could.  His time in office was a reign of terror, not enlightenment, not justice, not heroism and certainly not morality.

As for the weepy and wimpy Lincoln of Spielberg's propaganda, he did not exist.  Lincoln despised black people, considered them to be an inferior race that should be deported to Africa or Central America.  His opposition to slavery in the territories was for economic and racial reasons, not equality.

Lincoln's war on the South was all about preventing secession, not about emancipation.  The Northern army was called "the Union Army," not "the Abolition Army," for a reason.  This fact becomes more pertinent and important every day, now that tens of thousands of Americans in every state in the Union have petitioned Obama for the right to peacefully secede from the socialist tyranny now under construction.  When states actually do begin to secede once again, Obama will undoubtedly try to stop them by brute force...just like Lincoln did.  And if you buy into the Lincoln myth, how could you possibly oppose him?

Aha, now you see the reason for this propaganda.  You are being trained to embrace tyranny as great patriotism, and Obama as the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

Critics Pan Spielberg's "Lincoln" as Boring, Ahistorical

Rebellion Blog has new information on Spielberg's new film, "Lincoln."

It seems there are folks out there (besides us) that understand real history and don't like seeing it perverted in such obvious ways.

Read "Spielberg's Lincoln a "bloated $50-million history lesson."

Update:  Thomas J. DiLorenzo has written a critical rebuttal to Spielberg's film titled "Lincoln Film Is Propaganda."  Read it here.

More Nonsense on Spielberg's Fictional "Lincoln"

There's another discussion online about director Steven Spielberg's new movie, "Lincoln."  I commented there, for anyone who's interested.  See the discussion here.

Having watched the latest ads about this monstrous distortion of history, i.e. Spielberg's "Lincoln," I fear for the future of the American republic.  Many Americans are totally ignorant of the most basic facts of history, and they will readily swallow this Hollywood malarkey as truth.  So much easier to watch a movie than read a book.

The new ads show Lincoln as a passionate purveyor of equality for blacks in America, motivated only by his deep convictions of freedom for slaves and his love of a suffering humanity, with emancipation his major, overriding goal.

In truth, the slaves were not much of a consideration while Lincoln was using military force to destroy Southern independence.  To Lincoln, the slaves were both a nuisance and a political tool; he didn't care for blacks at all, considered them an inferior race, and wanted to get rid of them by deporting them to Africa or Central America.  His attitude per Spielberg was "Oh, let's free black people and make them our social and political equals!"  His actual attitude was, "Let's get these damn inferior Negros outta here."

The facts show that Lincoln was utterly ruthless, politically ambitious and even dictatorial in office.  He knowingly and enthusiastically supported war on civilians, the burning of private homes and universities, and he hoped for a slave rebellion that would murder Southerners in their beds (thus saving him the trouble).  However, that's reality.  Spielberg's fictional Lincoln was a caring, weeping, meek and mild messianic figure who wanted to end the scourge of slavery, all out of the goodness of his heart, for justice, mercy, equality, for puppy dogs and butterflies, for tulips in spring and peppermint candy canes at Christmas.  It's enough to gag a mule.

Update:  This Canadian website has an interesting essay on the Lincoln myth, "Lincoln:  An Invented Hero."

Spielberg's "Lincoln" Another Myth-Making Whitewash of America's Bloodiest President

Steven Spielberg, a liberal supporter of Barack Obama, does his best to give new life to the Lincoln myth.  Once again, Old Abe is shown as a sage, a saint, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and the Apostle Paul all rolled into one.

Spielberg's Lincoln is all about "ending slavery," and pictured as a sensitive, caring soul, almost a wimp.  The real Lincoln didn't give a hoot in hell about ending slavery; he only wanted to drag the bleeding South back into a Union it no longer wanted, a Union that was no longer voluntary, all so Abe could keep his tax revenues.  Also, Dishonest Abe detested black people, swore like a sailor, didn't believe in the Bible, and told ribald jokes.  That probably won't be in the film.  Also, don't count on the film showing his anti-black speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or his lecture to blacks visiting the White House (on how inferior they were to whites), or his letter to Horace Greeley regarding his non-stance on slavery.  Also, there is little possibility of the film showing Lincoln approving of total war, the use of Confederate officers as a shield against artillery, the burning of private homes, farms and universities or the random shelling of civilians in Charleston.  No, I suspect the Spielberg Lincoln will be too busy weeping for suffering mankind, feeling deep emotions, and emoting like a bleeding heart on steroids.

We will never be rid of the Lincoln myth.  It will be with us always, like flies on cow pies, mosquitoes in July and ants at a picnic.  Have a look at the trailer below but try not to vomit.