Lincoln, States Rights and the Unnessesary War

I am reading two books by the Historian DiLorenzo called The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.  He pulls the veil away from the Lincoln cult and shows how Lincoln ranks as one of the worst killer in history along with Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Nero and Mau. DiLorenzo shows how, far from waging war on the South to free the African slaves, Abraham Lincoln’s own views on race were those of a white supremecist.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln advocated slavery.  It is hard to give a cliff notes version of the two books.  I have been writing down quotes but they are at my apartment.  DiLorenzo delves into documents from the founding fathers advocating the right of sessesion.  These two books have done more to helping me understand the real reasons for the civil war era than all the propoganda put out by politically correct historians.

“If we would grasp the significance of the Civil War in relation  
> to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in  
> connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar  
> tasks.  The chief of these leaders have been Bismark and Lenin.   
> They with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three  
> great new modern powers (U.S, Germany and Russia)….Each  
> established a strong central government over hitherto loosely  
> coordinated peoples.  Lincoln kept the Union together by  
> subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German
 
>  states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin began the work of  
> binding Russia into a tight bureaucratic net…Had the Confederates 

> somehow won, they would have been justified in stringing up  
> President Lincoln and the entire Union high command as war  
> criminals, especially for waging war on civilians…and launching an
 
>  invasion without approval of congress.”  Lincoln unmasked by Thomas
 
>  J. DiLorenzo, also
>  author of The Real Lincoln.
>
>   “There is a natural disgust to blacks and whites interbreeding,”  
> Abraham Lincoln.
>
>   “We have between us a broader difference than exists between  
> almost any other two races.  This physical difference is a great  
> disadvantage to us both and affords a reason at least why we should 

> be separated.  It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate.”
 
>   These remakrs of Abraham Lincoln were addressed at the time to an 

> indiginant United States black leader.  The black leader had been  
> invited to the White House by Lincoln so that he could entreat the  
> black leader to take the American blacks and move to Haitti or West 

> Africa.  “They are not all American black colonists,” Lincoln told  
> him.  “Something less than 12,000 settlers have been sent hither  
> from this country.  Many of the original settlers have died, yet  
> like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.”

“I have never been in favor of abolishing slavery,” Abraham Lincoln.

I am reading two books right now by the historian DiLorenzo which deal with exactly what you are talking about.  One is called The Real Lincoln and the other is called Lincoln Unmasked.  It should be uncontroversial that the founding fathers saw the right of secession as axiomatic after having fought their own war for just that purpose.  DiLorenzo pulls the veil away from the Lincoln cult which grips our country by showing that the civil war was fought to consolidate power in the executive branch and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery.  Lincoln’s own views on slavery and race were ambiguous.  He frequently voiced support for slavery and said he favored a permanent separation of blacks and whites.  He spoke of his “natural disgust” to the idea of intermarriage between the races and tried to convince black leaders to immigrate American blacks to Haiti and Liberia.  Why is this important?  It shows that the civil war was not fought to free slaves.  Slavery was practiced in the northern states and was already on its way out in the south.  In fact, the civil war probably prolonged slavery. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been ridiculed in the mainstream press for bringing these ideas into the light, yet if you look at the primary documents from our countries founding, which Robin has just posted, two things become clear as day: The state governments saw themselves as autonomous units, with the federal government acting only as their agent, and they reserved the right to secede from the Union.  What would we say of a president who decided to change all this by launching an unprovoked and illegal invasion without the approval of congress, in the process waging one of the bloodiest wasr thus far in world history, much of which depended on civilian casualties?  Would we deify him by bringing flowers this time of year to his Zeus-like shrine?  Apparently…because that is exactly how we celebrate Lincoln.  “If we would grasp the significance of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time,” quoted in Lincoln Unmasked, “we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks.  The chief of these leaders have been Bismark and Lenin.  They with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers (U.S, Germany and Russia)…Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples.  Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin began the work of binding Russian into a tight bureaucratic net.”