Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Much madness is divinest sense 
To a discerning eye; 
Much sense the starkest madness. 
’Tis the majority 
In this, as all, prevails. 
Assent, and you are sane; 
Demur — you ’re straightway dangerous, 
And handled with a chain.
~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

Would you want to tangle with that?

By Ron Holland
Abraham Lincoln should without a doubt be named America’s greatest war criminal. His war of invasion not only killed over 600,000 innocent Americans but it was obvious from his earlier speeches that he had previously advocated the prevalent constitutional right of democratic, state by state secession. Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

Because of Lincoln, the former American constitutional republic fell from a dream of liberty and limited government into the nightmare big government we have today without the earlier checks and balances of state sovereignty. After Lincoln, In foreign policy, the US forgot George Washington’s warning about neutrality and we became an aggressive military abroad until today we have troops defending the Washington Empire in over 144 nations around the world.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connections as possible. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world. 
~ George Washington

Lincoln shares his war criminal actions with other well know tyrants that waged war on their own people. 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. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency.
Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln was an honorable statesman who let election year politics and the special interests supporting his presidential campaign corrupt a once great man. He knew what he was doing was wrong and unconstitutional but succumbed, as in the case of many modern day politicians, to the allure of money, power and ego.
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
This quote above shows Lincoln as a statesman twelve years before he plunged the United States into its most disastrous war. Suffering a death toll so high in death rates as a percentage of total population, his act of carnage ranks with the political genocides of Stalin, Lenin and Mao during their communist revolutions. A death toll so great that it dwarfs the American deaths in all of our many declared and undeclared wars before and since this American holocaust of death and destruction.
From the following quote you can see that later Lincoln radically adjusted his rhetoric to meet the needs and demands of his business establishment supporters and financial supporters.
No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. 
~ Abraham Lincoln
Why the complete change in rhetoric and actions? Simple, to preserve high tariffs and corporate profits for the Northeastern business establishment. Lincoln who earlier in his career had obviously favored the right of peaceful secession, provoked a war that killed 600,000 Americans, as a pay back to the eastern manufacturing establishment that bankrolled his presidential campaign. These special interests would have suffered serious financial loss if a low tariff Confederate States of America were allowed to peacefully, democratically and constitutionally secede from the United States in lawful state constitutional conventions of secession which were identical to the ratification conventions when they had joined the Union. Thus the real reasons for the death and destruction of Lincoln’s War were covered up and hidden by historians who continue, even today, to deny the truth and hide the ultimate costs of Lincoln’s American holocaust.
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. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.
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.
The multitude of Lincoln apologists would say that this is just another Confederate argument certainly not accepted by most historians. I might counter that the opinions and books of these "so called" establishment historians who live off my tax dollars through government funding at liberal controlled universities and think tanks are prejudiced towards Lincoln and Washington DC. They are no different from the official government historians in China, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their job is to lie to the American people and cover up a true and honest account of our history in order to support the government and political system in power.
History shows us that a fair and honest discussion of Lincoln’s wartime actions will not be possible as long as the Washington political establishment remains in power. Since Lincoln, the Washington Empire has reigned supreme and omnipotent and for this reason, establishment historians have never honestly debated the Lincoln war crimes.
Consider this. Was a fair and honest account of Lenin or Stalin written and published during the Soviet Communist regime? Of course not. Could a less than worshipful history of Hitler’s Third Reich have been published until after 1945? No! Even today, with only nominal communist control of China, an honest appraisal of Mao’s revolution and crimes against the Chinese people still is not possible. It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Just as Lenin’s statue could not be toppled in Red Square until after the fall of the Soviet Communist government, or the truth about Hitler couldn’t be told until after defeat of Nazi Germany, it is the same here in the United States.
It is my hope that someday, in the not too distant future, a true account of the war crimes of Lincoln will be discussed, debated and even acknowledged. The Lincoln Memorial should be remodeled to show the horrors of "Lincoln the War Criminal" with the opportunity for all to visit Washington and learn how war crimes, genocide and holocaust are not just crimes that foreign politicians commit. Government and political tyranny can and has happened here just like in Germany, China and the Soviet Union and that through education and honest history, it will never happen here again.
In the future, may we have the opportunity to learn about the Nazi holocaust at the United States National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and then have the chance to visit the Lincoln War Crimes and American Holocaust Museum a few blocks away. One will state for all the world that NEVER AGAIN will a tyrant or government be allowed to target, exterminate and destroy an ethnic, racial or religious minority. The other will pledge NEVER AGAIN in America will we allow a president or government to make unconstitutional war against Sovereign states or their citizens and then cover up the truth up for over 145 years.
We should start today with an honest appraisal of what Lincoln really did to Dixie, how our black and white innocent noncombatants suffered under his total war policy against civilians. Finally we should address the cost in lives, lost liberty and federal taxes the citizens of the US have had to endure because our limited constitutional republic was destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a smart politician and he could have been an excellent president, had he considered the short-term costs of his high tariff and the long time price every American had to pay for his war of invasion. It is time to stop worshipping Lincoln and educate the public about the war crimes he committed against the citizens of the Southern States so this WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!
{NOTE: Ron Holland is a financial and political writer and investment consultant living in Asheville, NC. To review Ron's Personal Website, his Freedom Quotes Directory or his Fortress Dixie Website just click on the link. Ron is a member of the SCV, SPNC and the League of the South. Although not Jewish, he is a past Circle of Remembrance Contributor to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Ron can be reached at  is the editor of Dixie Daily News and is now creating a new Lincoln website - Abraham Lincoln: An American War Criminal|
Please forward any suggested articles and website links to Ron at


  1. Lincoln had his Appomatox Court House, Octavian had his Battle of Phillipi...

    Sic Semper Tyrannis!

  2. ....from Republic to Empire seems "the way of the world".

  3. Assent, and you are sane;
    Demur — you ’re straightway dangerous,
    And handled with a chain.

    Heed the words.

    You'll probably take some heat over this post, FT.

    My view of Lincoln....

    He was no saint -- never mind that he has been canonized, partly, I think, because he was assassinated and the first POTUS in office to be killed by an assassin.

    Of course, no man -- least of all any politician (and Lincoln was one, statesman or not) -- is a saint. Over and over again, the eternal plays of William Shakespeare show to us that every "hero," no matter his good qualities, is flawed -- the primary theme of every Shakespearean tragedy.

    As one from the South, I have heard all "the bad stuff" about Lincoln. Some of what I heard can be chalked up to sour grapes, but much of it cannot.

    In my view, more than anything else, Lincoln exemplified that the end (the publicized end, if you like) justifies the means. Clearly, that is the basis of every tyranny.


    Off for the day for another museum outing today with Mr. AOW. Back at a reasonable hour -- the paratransit van's schedule willing.

  4. Hitler... Mao... Lincoln?

    This is over the top. Sounds like Ron is pissed because he couldn't inherit his parents' slaves.

    What AOW said.

  5. "It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union."

    The man is a lunatic. There is no other comment necessary.

  6. "The man is a lunatic. There is no other comment necessary."

    Is he Shaw? Or is the question just to painful to answer?

    I have always said that Lincoln was perhaps the first true statist President the nation was to elect to that lofty office.

    Freeing the slaves, the noble result of what was basically a war over regional economics and control aside, Lincoln fought a war with his own countrymen over the right for the south to dissolve it bonds with the north. Much as 13 original colonies did in a not to many years before.

    It is a viable philosophical argument. One most lack the will to even consider.

    My comments are offered without judgment, but rather to provoke thought. Personally I'm glad the union survived, and the slaves were freed.

  7. "The man is a lunatic. There is no other comment necessary."

    Is he Shaw? Or is the question just to painful to answer?


    This is the statement [it isn't a question] I referred to in my comment:

    "It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union."

    If the USA were no different than it is in Communist China, or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, no one who opposes President Obama and his policies would be writing on public blogs or anywhere else that he is corrupt and something that comes from the sewer, and still be walking the streets.

    The person who wrote that nonsense is a lunatic.

    No one is sitting in prisons or being tortured or sent to the gulag because he disagrees with the president.

    And there's been no government sponsored Kristalnacht on Latinos or Muslims.

    That's what I was responding too.

    The man is a lunatic, and we need to mock people, who are clearly out of their minds, on stupid statements when they make them.

  8. Ah yes. I reread it, I missed your point, or jumped the gun. Perhaps a bit of both.


    AOW got it. Les got it.

    Disappointingly, Ms. Shaw and SilverFiddle did not get it. Both get an F for seizing on a phrase or two that irritated their sensibilities -- and at the same affirmed their prejudices regarding a topic they'd obviously much prefer not to address all. Meanwhile, they failed utterly to comprehend the Big Picture -- aka The Point. They followed the typical pattern of letting Passion get in the way of Reason.

    So BOO to them! ;-)

    I did not write the article. It may be unfortunate, but in reality style is often as important as content. The author indulged in the use of hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric which superficially mars his case, but his thesis is sound. Through sheer force of will -- and, as we learn from Mr. Holland, an allegiance to moneyed interests that corrupted him -- Lincoln functioned not as president so much as dictator, tyrant, and mass murderer.

    Ms. Shaw made an enormous error in thinking this item was in any way intended primarily as a criticism of President Obama, although parallels with Obama's colossal effrontery and that of several other former post-Lincoln presidents could -- and probably should -- be drawn.


  10. PART TWO

    It's true that in this day and age we no openly cart people away and execute them for speaking against the government, or put them in concentration camps in order to "reeducate" or "reorient" their thinking and thus change their priorities.

    Oh no! We're far too advanced for anything as crude as that.

    Instead of imprisonment, torture and mass execution, we now "condition" our citizens to think and believe certain secular doctrines by inundating with an incessant flood of Marxist-Liberal-Progressive propaganda. We do this through movies, pop music, television, newspapers, magazines and our State-Run Educational System which has been ruthlessly pushing Cultural Marxism and the notion that One World Government, where all nations are regarded and treated as equal, must be the Ultimate Aim of an “Enlightened” New World Order.

    We don't NEED concentration camps anymore. Freudian Psychology softened us up along with movies celebrating criminality, adultery, illegitimacy, denigrating religion, glamorizing sin and degradation of all kinds. This soon was followed by "Infotainment," Sex, Drugs Rock 'n Roll, faux Folk "Protest" Songs, Heavy Metal, Rap, and a thoroughly corrupt, debased educational system masquerading as "enlightened," have done a far more effective job of running us into the ground than the Coliseum, Dungeons, the Stake, the Gallows, the Russian Revolution, Auschwitz, and Mao's Takeover of China ever did.

    Lincoln's assumption of brutal, dictatorial power was not only unconstitutional, it was ungodly.

    Mr. Holland, despite his admittedly purple prose, is eminently fair. These two paragraphs are the crux of the matter:

    ”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. In the Russian Civil War, from 1917 - 1922 around 9 million died under Lenin and we must add another 20 million under Stalin from 1929 to 1939. The Mao communist regime in China killed 44 to 70 million Chinese from 1949 – 1975.

    “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 overthrew the existing Chinese and Russian governments.”

    There’s nothing hyperbolic in any of that. It’s a simple statement of fact.

    It's most unfortunate that whenever the subject of Lincoln comes up all most people can think of is "HE FREED the SLAVES!" "HE FREED the SLAVES!" "HE FREED the SLAVES!"

    In truth Lincoln didn't give a rat's rump for Negroes. he thought they were innately stupid and that they smelled bad. His motives were never so pure as those we've been conditioned by a century of myth-making, brainwashing and pseudo-scholarly "hagiography" to ascribe to him. It was never about Freedom, Justice, or even preserving the precious Union. It was -- as always in the realm of politics -- about Money and Power.

    Bringing the plight of Negro slaves into the argument is a red herring -- just as strident cries of RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! present false reasoning and an egregious lack of logic whenever anyone dares question or criticize the policies advocated by President Obama.

    ~ FreeThinke

  11. Well that's the way it is with elites, FT.

    They screw up the slavery thing and that has to be taken care off at great cost. Then the idiots stick us with the Robber Barons and we had to clean up that mess.
    Kapital unwinds and we go through a world war and a depression as the Masters screw up again.

    Made some progress under FDR and the elites screw it up again while you sit back and spout bromides longing for the days of mint juleps on the veranda.

  12. Silverfiddle said...
    Wow. I agree with Shaw. Wow.

    I understand that the Ice Age cometh to hell today.

  13. "In my view, more than anything else, Lincoln exemplified that the end ... justifies the means.

    Clearly, that is the basis of every tyranny."


    You win not only The Gold Medal, but the Silver and the Bronze as well along with a great big beautiful Blue Ribbon, and a Steak Dinner for you and your Mister at the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse nearest you!


    You GOT the POINT!!!


    Thank God SOMEBODY was thinking straight.

    You've made my day. I feel vindicated.


    ~ FreeThinke

    PS: You weren't so dusty, either, Les. ;-)

    [NOTE: I am not being sarcastic, but I plead guilty to being hyperbolic. How's that for fairness?]

  14. FT, Damn I just got to preoccupied with Mr. No Name Anonymous over at my sight and never got back. My bad.

    But I do appreciate you understanding that while I believe Lincoln was a great leader and effective I also know he was as bonafide a statist as there ever was.

    Great statists can be great leaders. It doesn't make then right in the ethical or philosophical sense.

  15. Ms. Shaw quoted this sentence out of context:

    "It is no different today in the United States than it is in Red China or was in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union."

    In what "sense" does Mr. Holland really mean that?

    Obviously, he could not have intended it to be interpreted literally. He may be guilty of hyperbole, but he's neither stupid nor mentally unbalanced. He's merely challenging orthodox views generated by agenda-driven mythmakers.

    Literal interpretations are rarely made by bright, sophisticated people, unless they deliberately wear ideological blinders.

    This game we play of always attributing the worst possible motives to people for whom we feel no natural affinity greatly hampers our chances of ever finding the truth for which so many of us claim to be searching.

    Of course motives and results may often be at odds, but that's another issue.

    Using selected "facts" to distort or misrepresent the truth is a plague on the political process. That it is in fact a time-honored practice in now way diminishes its undesirability and infinite capacity to do harm to the body politic.

    ~ FreeThinke

  16. Is it truly "sic semper tyrannis," Thersites, or is it merely further proof that like it or not "Might makes right?"

    Most people who think about these things at all shy away from the admission that latter is probably the truest interpretation of the resolution of most conflicts, but I cannot.

    History is written by the victors not the losers. Isn't it perfectly natural that they would tend to portray themselves in the most favorable light?

    Elementary, Watson. Elementary!

    Has there ever been a case where enlightened wisdom and truth prevailed over brute force?

    If so, I'd like to know about it.

    ~ FreeThinke

  17. I find the comparison between Cleopatra to Mary Surratt a bit strained, Thersites.

    After all Cleo had the privilege of quietly clasping an asp to her bosom and presumably died in the dignity of her privacy.

    Poor Mary on the other hand suffered rough treatment, great discomfort and much indignity before she was publicly hanged before jeering throngs along with other members of the conspiracy. [Yes, Virginiatann, conspiracies really do exist. ;-]

    I've always thought it a hideous irony that Mrs. Suratt was shielded by her executioners with an umbrella to protect her from the burning rays of the hot summer sun while she stood on the platform waiting to be hanged with a bag over her head placed there as a courtesy to crowd so their delicate sensibilities would not be offended as her eyes rolled helplessly and bulged out of her head, her skin turned purple and her facial features were otherwise distorted by the agony of her death throes.

    In my never humble opinion Lincoln got just what he deserved. Mrs. Suratt did not.

    The only person directly connected to the sorry saga of the Lincoln presidency I've ever felt sorry for was Mary Todd Lincoln surely one of the saddest, most pathetic victims of circumstance who ever lived.

    ~ FreeThinke

  18. Was Lincoln strong? Was he brilliant? Was he one of the most astonishing figures in History?


    Was he "good?" Was he noble? Was he wise? Was he kind? Does he deserve canonization?


    What we think of as Abraham Lincoln is a product -- a fabrication of image makers -- not a man.

    ~ FreeThinke

  19. FT,
    Hard to believe that others misinterpreted what you said here. Ah, well, such is the life of blogging, I guess.

    a Steak Dinner for you and your Mister at the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse nearest you

    I know where one is, but have never been there. **wink**

  20. We have a Ruth's Chris not far from where I live, AOW, but to tell you the truth, even after being here for fifteen years I have yet to have "The Ruth's Chris Experience," myself.

    I do wonder if it could possibly be so good as to justify the exorbitant cost?

    Maybe we'll both get the chance to find out one of these days.

    Something to look forward to ...

    ~ FreeThinke

  21. Ms. Shaw!

    You can't seriously want to equate yourself with Eternal Damnation now can you?

    No conservative I know would ever concur with that assessment of your character.

    Thanks for visiting. Please keep coming back. Who knows -- someday I might say something you find appealing. ;-)

    All the best,


  22. What ARE you trying to say, Ducky?

    Do you consider Stinkin' Lincoln as one "the elites?"

    As is so often the case , you either miss -- or choose to ignore -- the point of the post.

    The Civil War was NOT about freeing the slaves. It was an immoral exercise designed to enhance the economic interests and promote the ascendancy of vested northern interests.

    Dishonest Abe was just a tool bought and paid for -- like all politicians.

    IDealism had no part in the the thing.

    ~ FreeThinke

    PS: And who mentioned mint juleps on the veranda? Certainly not I! - FT

  23. FT I think you are vastly misinterpreting history on this one.

    The South was threatening secession well before Lincoln, and it was Lincoln's election that began to push them over the edge. Lincoln repeated, time and again, in the beginning of his administration that he did not want to stop slavery (out of fear of secession).

    Lincoln was right when he gave his house divided speech. The country could not have remained half-slave and half-free forever. If it didn't happen on his watch, it would have happened on someone else's.

    Lincoln's argument against the constitutionality of secession was logically correct, and he was well within his right to quell the rebellion.

    Was Lincoln's total war policy prudent? I don't know. If we're going to condemn him for it, then we may as well condemn Harry Truman and FDR for World War II (the big bombs, and then the revenge bombings of German cities).

    I would not condemn the man for navigating through such a crazy shit storm. What was he SUPPOSED to do?

  24. What was he SUPPOSED to do, Jack?


    There was no AGGRESSION on the part of the southern states. Those people did nothing to THREATEN the lives or the PROPERTY of their northern neighbors.

    There is no parallel at all with FDR and Harry Truman. You're comparing baseball bats with badminton racquets -- or footballs with shuttlecocks, if you prefer.

    SIX-HUNDRED-THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND men DIED, countless others were maimed, blinded, wounded deprived of their property, and countless thousands of women and children were made POVERTY-STRICKEN WIDOWS and ORPHANS by Lincoln's MANIACAL exercise of illegitimate power.

    Lincoln was no hero. He was a MONSTER.

    You've just been brainwashed like everyone else into accepting the unacceptable as "heroic."

    ~ FreeThinke

  25. WHo agressed whom? I believe the guys in Fort Sumter fired on the Union ship.

    And do you know the Constitutional argument AGAINST secession?

    In case you don't, it has to do with the preamble. The secession states said that since the states entered into the contract of the Constitution, they had the right to exit. But Lincoln's argument said that it wasn't the states that entered into the contract . . . it was the people.

    The preamble states "We the people . . ." not "We the states . . ." So the states had no real right to seceed.

    And as you said in your argument, there were a lot of innocent people--many of whom probably would not have wanted to seceeed in the first place--who were killed at the hands of total war. SO do you really think the "people" would have opted for secession and war? I doubt it.

    And yes, my comparisons were totally fine because I compared Lincoln to other presidents who resorted to killing innocents to winning a war. Harry Truman ordered 2 atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan, bombs that killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children and affected them for generations to come because of the radiation.

    FDR was totally fine with revenge bombing German cities. How many innocent Germans were killed for that?

    And self-determination is a pretty ridiculous argument, given the South was trying to self-determine their ability to keep their slaves from exercising any form of real self-determination.

    When your motives are hypocritical, any nobility your arguments might hold goes completely out the window.

  26. Also sprach Jack Camwell.

    What are your REAL reasons for arguing so passionately, Jack? Do you REALLY believe what you're saying, or do you just like to argue for arguments' sake? I honestly can't tell.

    ~ FT

    PS: Thanks for stopping by. - FT



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.