This stunning article about Abe Lincoln will make you wonder if anything we have been taught is even remotely true.  
Apparently what we think about the Civil War, is not.  
This one is a must read.
I'n not buying all of it...
whiledb: professor of economics at Loyola College in Baltimore. --- LETS HEAR FROM SOME HISTORY MAJORS OU THERE!!  
Black Publisher Takes On Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist who "wanted to deny Blacks equal rights because of their race and deport them to a tropical clime with people of their own color and kind," argues Lerone Bennett Jr., the executive editor of Ebony magazine, in his latest book, the 626-page "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream."  
Bennett, who also authored the 1961 book, "Before the Mayflower," a survey of African American history, relies on historical documents and accounts from Lincoln's friends and fellow lawmakers to make his argument.  
Bennett first dismantles the "myth" of the Emancipation Proclamation. Black and white abolitionists pushed a reluctant Lincoln to sign the act, Bennett writes, and he quotes a congressman who said Lincoln "feared that enlistments would cease, and that Congress would even refuse the necessary supplies to carry on the war, if he declined to place it on a clearly defined antislavery basis."  
Still, Lincoln knew the law would not actually free any slaves immediately because it only applied to Confederate areas not occupied by Union troops. The proclamation, Bennett writes, was a largely symbolic gesture intended to sustain enthusiasm for the Civil War.  
Lincoln also supported the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that whites return escaped slaves to their owners or risk punishment, Bennett writes. In practice, the act also enabled unscrupulous whites to arrest free African Americans and sell them into slavery, he adds.  
As president-elect, Lincoln "pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act better than any other Southern White man," Bennett writes. "Lincoln distinguished himself by publicly and repeatedly supporting the men and the dogs who were trying to capture the men, women and children who were trying to climb over the American Berlin Wall between slavery and [freedom in] Canada." Once he became president, Lincoln went a step further by making support for the law a litmus test for all potential cabinet appointees, Bennett writes. A decision on whether to admire Lincoln today, Bennett concludes, is a "choice for or against slavery, ... the slavery that is still walking the streets of America."  
"Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream" is published by Johnson Publishing Co. in Chicago.  
glitch p-udding: history is full of people who ultimately do the right thing at the right time even if it contradicts their own personal views.
Psychomike: Well, let's see. He had a war that could have been resolved in the courts.  
He only freed the slaves in the south, hoping that while able bodied men were in the war there would be a slave uprising. There wasn't.  
He shut down newspapers. Rigged elections. Arrested people without charges who made jokes about him. He issued an arrest warrent for the head of the Supreme Court. His own state refused to let Blacks in to live.  
Maybe I'm missing something.  
What exactly did he do that was right?
Tim: The truth is out. I sure wish they would make public school teachers read this.
i didn't like reading it
jinx: but i'm glad i did. i already knew a few parts but wasn't aware of the whole enchilada.
glitch p-udding: it is not my intention to totally discredit this link. but...  
is that all it takes? one newspaper article from virginia and history has been completely rewritten in this guy's point of view?  
i'm *well* aware of serious incosistancies in america's (actually, any country's) history, but didn't these problems start because we blindly believed one person's perspective?  
lincoln was hardly the slave-freeing, racial-equality seeking person some people think he was...but then again, who was? i think it has been made very clear that his primary goal was toi preserve the union...not to free slaves.
Hi Glitch
Psychomike: There ws no union until after the civil war. The rights of states came first.  
Support Lincoln? Cool. Then you support the invasion of Iraq, WW 1, Korea and Viet Nam. It is logical. It makes sense.  
Oppose our entry into WW1, Korea, Nam and Iraq?  
Then you must support the south.  
There is no third road. Period.
clu: Lay off the crack pipe. Just a suggestion.
aktaeon: Careful about not aligning yourself with Psychomike, he's studying the racist doctrine of white supremacists and supporting a movement to recook internment as the 21st century savior.
glitch p-udding: please understand that i'm dead serious when i say this:  
what on earth are you talking about?
A united national country needed for overseas folly
Look- if the south had won states could come and go as they please. There would not be a united federal power to meddle in the affairs of the world. But the south lost. And with it went the dreams of non-interference that men like Jefferson and Washington had.  
To those that worry that Bush might pull a Lincoln all I can say is0 you have to be kidding. Yet the threat is there, that any President could call on Lincoln's "special powers".  
I don't expect any state to leave the Union anytime soon. So why is this still an issue? Because while many who support Lincoln and the North in the Civil War cheer the rigged elections that far surpass the Florida debacle, the arrest without charges of people who just told jokes about Lincoln, the shutting down of newspapers for calling for the use of law over guns, the massacre and mass rapes that happened in Sherman's march- I take the other road. What Lincoln did was intolerable. He was a tyrant. We as Americans must never let that happen again.
clu: What the fuck are you talking about?
ultrafastx: The economic and technical prowess of the United States is a direct result of the centralized government you seem so ready to dismiss as antithetical to the Founding Fathers' vision.  
Furthermore, while Jefferson and Washington may have held the belief of nonintervention as you put forth (which I believe is debatable), it was by no means a universal sentiment. If the French had believed in nonintervention, we would have been under British rule for another 150 years until the collapse of the empire.  
Finally, I am sick and tired of people thinking the founding fathers are some kind of infallible, ubermen who had the answer to all the world's problems, past, present and future. They devised a philosophy that was progressive and intelligent for their time. It worked then and most of its tenets are fundamentally sound and intransient. But it was not--and was never meant to be--a panacea for the nation's problems, concepts carved in stone and immutable. The system was built the way it was to allow it to change and be flexible and adapt and grow with the nation in a very organic manner. So just because it disagrees with what some of (or even all) the founding fathers said, or was not explicitly mentioned by them doesn't necessarily mean it wrong, bad and evil!
I get it
Psychomike: I think you need to read the article that started the topic, and the one above by the publisher and editor of JET and EBONY magazines.  
Lincoln wanted the U.S. to be a world player. So did Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Nixon.  
They won. The founding fathers lost.  
If the American dream ended the second term of Thomas Jefferson when companies began funding candidates, the wishes of the founding fathers ended with the bloody fields of the Civil war.  
Those who worry that our incursions around the world could end the founding fathers dreams are blind. That ideal was lost a long, long time ago.
This is from the book the post is about
Psychomike: Apparently I am stating ideas that are far beyond what most can grasp. I guess it's because they are a new look.  
You can look up the book being referenced in the first post here:  
This is from the book- and is now being taught in some colleges:  
What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.  
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.  
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taugh in school—a side tha calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.  
"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."  
In case you missed it:  
the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government,  
Without that supremacy- no foreign incursions.  
clu: Therefore, the Iraq war is justified.
lorddimwit: OK, so the last refuge of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is to claim that they're simply too sophisticated for everyone else to understand.  
Your ideas aren't new. They aren't clever. They aren't even shocking. This kind of shit has been circulated by revisionist historians for decades.  
I don't think that you know how to read things critically. Either that or you're confusing Lincoln and Theodore Bilbo. I'm assuming that you don't know how to read critically.  
Reports such as this one have been circulated for a long time and continue to come out today. Lincoln was a racist. Jefferson was a Nazi. Edison had ties to the Order of the Bleeding Skull.  
There are whiffs of facts in all of these. But they're being penned by people whose intent is to topple the secret ring of Freemasons  
who run the country and return us to the good old days before paper money and abolish the satanic aircraft carrier. In other words, random loons.  
When you start relying on stuff like this as fact, your logic becomes shaky and people start being critical of you. Once you start extrapolating further arguments from the original sludge, people start thinking you're smoking crack. You can observe this very process happening in this thread.  
I'm not suggesting that the article is a load of crap (though I've looked into Civil War politics quite a bit and I do believe it is). I'm suggesting that you need to understand what a well-argued piece of writing looks like before you try to write your own.
Here is how Iraq fits in
Psychomike: You can't have the Iraq war if the U.S. has placed loyalty to the state above loyalty to the federal government. Which it clearly did.  
You can't have the Iraq war if Lincoln did not consolidate power into a federal system.  
Just a statement of fact.  
That's why I say support Lincoln, you support the war in Iraq. Or you don't understand how we got to this point, how we came to be.  
HOMELAND SECURITY- a money pit for police and fire departments. Civilians learn color codes.  
CIVIL DEFENSE- States practice evacuation, citizens help defend power plants and docks,people in buildings know how to conduct drills, exits. First aid and martial arts classes are taught. Civil defense is run by states.  
Let me ask you a question. Which looks more effective to you? The state or the federal?  
ultrafastx: You can't have the Iraq war if the U.S. has placed loyalty to the state above loyalty to the federal government. Which it clearly did.  
That's why I say support Lincoln, you support the war in Iraq. Or you don't understand how we got to this point, how we came to be.  
You need to take logic class. This latest argument if just further proof that all of your arguments are full of fallacies (I'm not great at identifying them by name, I believe I've seen some mix of Slippery Slope and False Dilemma, I think, and probably others).  
While the Iraq War would probably not have happened if Lincoln hadn't succeeded, it was not certain to happen simply because he DID succeed. Furthermore, one can support a centralized Federal government and still not support intervention in foreign disputes or state-building. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
glitch p-udding: lincoln and iraq? this is going to go down as one of the most bizarre lf conversations ever.
FuzzyDave: even more bizarre is that Ebony and Jet magazine are being used as sources for an historical argument.
Ya know all psychomike's earlier comments about WMDs being hidden in the desert near the Syrian border?  
Mmm-hmmm. You know what I'm thinkin...
clu: If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.


Mac: The Wookie defense?
bear: that dude don't live on endor are you crazy?
soulorcell: radical fundamentalist moslems are hell-bent on wiping out matter who won the civil war...but, I think I see your point...if the united states didn't exist, the united states wouldn't be at war...brilliant :P