James Padilioni Jr

George Orwell, famed author of 1984, a prophetic book that becomes less fiction and more reality daily, once remarked, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” What Orwell meant was that the ruling elite who controls the status quo also has the power to shape our view of history. By controlling what information is acceptable for school textbooks, and setting the popular narrative of a historical event, they are able to then revise history to suit their particular agenda. Truly, if you control the present, and influence the telling of history, you can then use that history as a guide for the future. This has never been proven more true than when one looks at the mythos of Abraham Lincoln.

American civil religion remembers Abraham Lincoln in almost godlike dimensions. He is called “the Great Emancipator”, and school children often learn the story of “Honest Abe” walking several miles to return pennies to a customer he had shortchanged. The Lincoln Memorial, which calls itself a temple, is the most splendid of all the monuments dedicated to former presidents in Washington, DC, a town that is no stranger to deifying the memories of men. In fact the statue of Abraham Lincoln set within his temple measures an imposing 19′ sitting. In scale, he would stand 28′ tall! The 16th president of the United States is remembered, both figuratively and literally, in larger than life proportions.

This becomes a problem for true students of history, however, when one begins to look at the state of our country today. We have a juxtaposition of a supposed Constitutional, federal republic with its very limited and expressly delegated federal powers, and the honest reality of a massive, leviathan-sized, globe straddling empire of a government, with broad and ever expanding powers. How in the world do these two very different, yet both very real situations exist? Of course, the argument could be made that minarchism is a situation which can never really exist, because as Thomas Jefferson surmised, “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” This argument is correct, and directly applicable in this situation, because in order to tell the historical record accurately, you must view Abraham Lincoln as the agent of that process in which liberty yields, and government inevitably gains ground.

There are three main points that need to be made about Abraham Lincoln, and the Civil War in general that will hopefully serve to clear up the historical record to some extent. Also, let me emphasize that the term “Civil War”, while popularly known, is not necessarily an accurate descriptor of what transpired between 1861-1865, with many favoring “War of Northern Aggression” instead. I understand this view, but will continue to use “Civil War” because that term is the most commonly understood and easily identifiable for most people. The points to be addressed are:


1) The Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, and as a result;

2) the view of Lincoln as Emancipator is greatly exaggerated and dishonest.

3) The ever expanding powers of the federal government can have its genesis traced to
Abraham Lincoln.

As children, we are educated that slavery was a significant, if not the main factor in the Civil War. This is historical revisionism at its best, because it takes what is outwardly a truth, but presents it in such a distorted way that effectually it becomes a lie, and obscures the real truth. Let me start by saying that it would be intellectually dishonest to act as if there was not an internal struggle over the issue of slavery in the US. For 80 years before the outset of warfare, northern states starting with Pennsylvania had outlawed slavery. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society was formed as early as 1775. During the Federal Convention, the most vehement critics of the slave trade and slavery in general surprisingly were the delegates from Virginia, a state who’s entire economy was based upon slave labor. George Mason, Virginia patriot, declared that slavery “made tyrants of all men”. Yet, at the very hour Mason stood and spoke in Philadelphia, there were nearly 100 slaves working to increase his wealth on his plantation back along the Potomac River. Moving forward, slavery was absolutely a hot button issue in 1850′s America, as the life of abolitionist John Brown so accurately depicts. Brown was instrumental in both “Bleeding Kansas” and also the raid and attempted slave insurrection in 1859 in Harpers Ferry, VA (now WV, more on this to come).

However, the truth of the matter is that the Civil War was absolutely not fought over slavery. To understand how this is so, there are two pieces of evidence to consider. The first is the situation of high protective tariffs. In this pre-16th Amendment America, the federal government was funded solely through user fees, land sales, and tariffs. The southern economy, being largely agricultural, was highly dependent upon importing manufactured goods. This situation was something that all 13 original colonies shared, but as the new Republic developed, and the Industrial Revolution took off, the North, being less suited to agriculture, became a manufacturing powerhouse. The South then had a choice to make in importing its needed goods: continue to purchase goods from the British and French predominantly (as they had done since the colonial days) or purchase from the new northern manufacturers. In order to strongly coerce the South into doing business with the North exclusively, the federal government erected very high protective tariffs and limitations against imports. What this did was make it too expensive for the South to import goods from
England or France, even if those goods were preferable, and created a monopoly in which the northern manufacturers received the majority of the South’s business. This situation is evidenced by the Nullification Crisis of 1832, in which South Carolina nullified the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, with their near 50% average duty. The stalemate forced the hand of the federal government to lower the average rate to between 15 and 20% with the Tariff of 1833. This dispute was temporarily quieted, but not for long.

The Morill Tariff passed into law March 1861 was the final straw in the back of the South. Economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo writes in a Mises.org article that the Morill Tariff increased the average tax rate from around 15% to 37.5%, while also greatly expanding the imports subject to it. The South rightly perceived that the forced tariff at the hands of the federal government, dominated by northern interests, was a tyranny upon their right to free trade. When SC seceded from the Union, followed by ten other states, the federal government had a very grave problem on its hands. Without the forced market of the South, the federal government’s tax revenues would plummet. The federal government was entirely dependent upon the tariff that was paid exclusively by southern imports. The federal government had two options: force the South to stay in the Union, and thereby keep the tax revenue, or watch the South freely trade with other nations, and eventually run out of money. The choice was clear for Abraham Lincoln. The Union was to be preserved above all costs.

Lincoln’s own words prove that for him, this was never about human rights, but about preservation of the Union. In his infamous August 1862 letter to NY Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln betrayed his true intentions for waging war:

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.

Further evidence of this is seen in the Joint Resolution on the War issued by Congress in 1861. “Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression[...], nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to[...] preserve the Union”. The federal government was not interested in freeing the slaves. They were only interested in keeping the South attached to the North and the tariff revenue that union provided. Let the true historical record show that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Secondly, as mentioned above, Lincoln was not motivated out of the concern for human rights in deciding what course to take. Even with his famed Emancipation Proclamation, the notion of him being a “Second Moses” is greatly exaggerated. If one looks at the Emancipation closely, you’ll discover a problem:

“[...]all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free [...]”.

The document is clear that the states “in rebellion” would have their slaves freed. However, if you were a slave in Delaware, Kentucky, Marlyand, or Missouri, slave-holding states that did not secede from the Union, you were not emancipated at all. In fact, for the first time in US history, slavery was actually officially recognized on the federal level. The Emancipation Proclamation drew the lines of slavery inclusively around the slaves in the border states, through an executive order. Great Emancipator? Hardly.

The last point to be addressed will show how Lincoln wrote the blueprint for the excess in government and tyranny that has become hallmarks of the American political system, and of the presidency in general. So much of the angst in our country today is over the intrusion of the federal government into our personal lives. We are touched by government everyday in more ways than we can imagine. In no particular order, I will just list off some of the actions of President Lincoln that put us on the slippery slope to where we are today.

1. Violation of Article 4 Section 4 that compelled the federal government to protect the states from invasion. Here the federal government was the invasion force.

2. Arrest and detainment without trial of the Maryland Legislature to prevent a vote on

3. Conversely, supporting the secession of WV from VA, and recognizing the reorganized government of Virginia as legitimate despite the fact that it was not popularly elected.

4. Suspension of habeus corpus. Imprisonment and detainment of thousands of dissidents, including newspaper editors and even Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio.

5. Established the first direct income tax in 1862.

Much of what Lincoln did during the course of the Civil War was repeated and expanded in later years. As historian James G. Randall notes in his book Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, “it would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his
powers.” Perhaps a more appropriate moniker for Lincoln would be the “Great Tyrant”.

In Murray Rothbard’s War, Peace, and the State war is described as such:

“It is in war that the State really comes into its own:
swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy
and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies,
rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily
betraying truth for the supposed public interest.”

Never was this more truly demonstrated than in the case of the Civil War. The federal
government greatly increased its powers over the states and the citizens as a direct result of the war. Where the South was devastated by its effects, the federal government emerged stronger and more haughty than ever. As a condition of allowing the states back into the Union (that they created in the first place) the state constitutions of the former Confederacy were forced to be rewritten, in order to specifically outlaw secession (proof that secession was not illegal in 1861). The federal government had waged a war to gain power, control, and revenue, and it made sure that this power gained would be permanent.

The purpose of history is to have a full understanding of the actions of man. It is only by truly understanding where we have been and the mistakes we have made along the way that we can move forward in a wiser fashion. However, when history is told with myopic lenses, the lessons we draw from it are flawed. As the lessons are flawed, so is the application of those lessons to our present time. The history of Abraham Lincoln, and what occurred in America during 1861-1865 should serve as a stark reminder on how dangerous and blunt the arm of government can be. As a result of President Lincoln’s actions, over 600,000 Americans lost their lives, the bloodiest war in US history. This is no trifling matter. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes if we are not aware of what those actual mistakes were. And I would argue that we are in the process of duplication as you read this article.

The veneration of corrupt men as demigods in the secular, civil religion of American history is not only inaccurate, but it is nefarious and shameful. The point of this article isn’t to be provocative, or to just flame-throw. I am not anti-American, or pro-slavery, or anything else one might try to read into my words. I am, however, very deeply interested in truth. Truth will only be achieved by erasing mythos out of American history. Literature has plenty of fictional heroes, the stuff of legend. An American history textbook should have no such characters.


Views: 130

Replies to This Discussion

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 in Congress

I have always wondered what changed his mind. Not being a Lincolnphile, I've never found an answer that suited me.

I would like to know what changed his mind as well, OldNorth. Perhaps the Emperor temptation or just ye ole doing-the-bidding-of-those-who-put-you-in-office ;)

The Triumph of the Reich-Publican Party

In their valuable book Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War,  Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. examine the role played by the "48ers" -- veterans of the 18 interconnected revolutions that convulsed Europe in 1848-1849 -- in creating the Republican Party, bringing Abraham Lincoln to power, and conducting the war against the South.

Lincoln, who would later slaughter hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to create a unitary national government, offered unqualified support to the proto-Marxist revolution of 1848. “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," he insisted in a January 12, 1848 speech. "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."

The “48ers,” note Kennedy and Benson, sought to overthrow the existing political order and then consolidate power over larger territories. They weren’t secessionists who sought merely to withdraw from an unsuitable political arrangement, as was the case with the American South. The revolutions of 1848 understandably appealed to the idealistic impulses of people weary of absolutism. But, as Kennedy and Benson observe, this proved to be a familiar bait-and-switch, with those “freed from local decentralized control” were made subject to “centralized authoritarian control" in the name of Democracy.

The revolutionaries applauded by Lincoln lusted to reconstruct society through violence. In Germany, the stated objective of the revolution was to fuse a multitude of independent principalities into "a united indivisible republic." Again, this foreshadowed the work of Abraham Lincoln and the party that elevated him to power.


When the revolt of 1848-49 was crushed, the "48er" diaspora brought many of the most ambitious and radical of the revolutionaries to the United States, where many of them were instrumental in creating the Republican Party. Several of them -- such as Joseph Wedemeyer, Charles A. Dana, Franz Sigel, August Willich, and Carl Schurz – played prominent roles in the war to conquer the independent South. Dana, a personal friend of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, was assistant secretary of war under Lincoln.



"Destroying the New World Order"



mobile page


12160 Administrators


Latest Activity

Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post A Point in History
"cheeki kea Thank you for your inspiring words! Always a pleasure to hear from you."
21 hours ago
Doc Vega posted blog posts
22 hours ago
cheeki kea commented on cheeki kea's photo
cheeki kea posted a photo
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post A Point in History
"That's thought provoking Doc V. But you're not "Just" (simply) an unknown St.…"
cheeki kea left a comment for Lora Lee Abel
"Hi Lora if it won't correct you could change photo for similar one. I have not used a phone…"
Doc Vega posted blog posts
MAC posted a video

IDAHO SHUTS DOWN FARMERS "We're all going to fail"

Idaho shuts down 500,000 acres of farm land with water curtailment. Video sourced from @oneatatime8677 0:00 Water curtailment impacts Idaho farmers, risking ...
Lora Lee Abel left a comment for cheeki kea
"hi, I was wondering if you could turn my photo around, it was right side up when I added it but I…"
cheeki kea left a comment for Lora Lee Abel
"Greetings to you Lora so cool that you've joined us. I'm sure you'll find many…"
Lora Lee Abel is now a member of 12160 Social Network
Larry Harmen posted a blog post

China has weaponized Ebola to take over North America after WW3

The Defense Minister with his own Mouth has said it.…See More
Doc Vega posted a blog post

The Tricky Maneuvering over Operation Overlord 6, June 1944

Supreme Commander over the allied forces involved in the D-Day amphibious landing on June 6, 1944,…See More
cheeki kea posted photos
Jun 6
Burbia posted a photo
Jun 5
tjdavis posted a blog post
Jun 5
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Jun 5
MAC posted a discussion
Jun 4
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post A Message to Illegal Aliens
"Less Prone Dude you are exactly right! "
Jun 4
Less Prone commented on KLC's group MUSICWARS
"Time to remember"
Jun 4

© 2024   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted