Obama’s Audacious Hero
“Rommel… you magnificent bastard, I read your fucking book!” - George S. Patton while whipping Rommel’s ass
Given the pressing situation at hand, as interested as I am in discovering who the real Lincoln is, I’m more interested in discovering who the Lincoln of Obama’s mind is. My intuition tells me that the darker the view I find, the more likely I am to discover the Lincoln he aspires to be.
And if this darker Lincoln turns out to be the real one, and a reputation not as controlled by the victors of the Civil War prevails, oh fucking well, because I’m much more concerned with saving this country’s ass than I am in saving this dude’s reputation.
Review of “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”:
If there are any sacred cows in America, the one at the head of the herd has got to be Abraham Lincoln. Our culture gleefully villifies almost everyone. Psycho-biographies, in which the darkest interior rooms of the subject are exposed to light, are the rage these days. But somehow Lincoln for the most part has managed to escape all this. He’s still the great American hero, venerated by layperson and scholar alike, sometimes to the point of embarrassing hagiography. (I once knew a history professor, for example, who insisted that students refer to Lincoln, both in class discussions and in term papers, as “MR. Lincoln.” His class could just as well have been offered by the theology department.)
Thomas DiLorenzo refuses to genuflect before Lincoln’s altar. In *The Real Lincoln*, a book that’s guaranteed to infuriate a wide audience, ranging from Civil War buffs to Lincoln scholars to African-Americans to political liberals to history traditionalists, DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln’s real historical legacy is the strong centralized state that characterizes the American political system today. From first to last, claims DiLorenzo, Lincoln’s political vision was the creation of a Whiggish empire of protectionist tariffs, government subsidized railroads, and nationalization of the money supply. In the first year and a half of his administration, he pushed through much of this agenda. The average tariff rate tripled, railroads began raking in government money (a “war necessity”), and the National Currency Acts monopolized the money supply.
So far none of this is terribly alarming. Even admirers of Lincoln will admit much of what DiLorenzo says about Lincoln’s economic dream and Whig leanings. But where DiLorenzo begins to stir up a storm is when he claims (1) that Lincoln basically allowed an unnecessary and horribly bloody war to occur in order to further his political vision of a strong state; (2) Lincoln was a “constitutional dictator”; and (3) Lincoln was never terribly concerned with slavery as a moral injustice.
In reference to the first point, DiLorenzo points out that the right to secession was simply taken for granted by most Americans prior to Lincoln’s administration because they saw the country as a voluntary association of states. Lincoln didn’t “save” the Union so much as he destroyed it as a voluntary association. In reference to the second point, DiLorenzo provides example after example of Lincoln’s disregard–supposedly in the interests of the state–for the Constitution: launching a military invasion without Congressional consent; suspension of habeas corpus; censorship of newspapers; meddling with elections; confiscating private property; and so on. Finally, in reference to the last point–which is probably the book’s most inflammatory one–DiLorenzo argues that Lincoln rarely mentioned the issue of slavery in political speeches until it became politically expedient to begin doing so. His opposition to slavery was always based on what he feared was its economic dangers, not on moral principle. As his contemporaries accurately noted, Lincoln the “Great Emancipator” was never an abolitionist. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he was willing to tolerate slaveholding in nonsecessionist states. His ultimate solution–one that infuriated abolitionists such as Horace Greeley–was to colonize American blacks “back” to Africa or the Caribbean.
Much of DiLorenzo’s claims about Lincoln’s activities will be familiar. What’s new about the book is the overall unfavorable portrait of Lincoln that emerges as DiLorenzo discusses them. It may be the case that DiLorenzo has swung too far in the opposite direction from conventional Lincoln hagiography. But it may also be the case that his book will encourage more moderate and accurate portrayals of Lincoln in the future. One can admire Lincoln without worshipping him.
 |
|
I love you Pat, but I have to disagree on this one small point.
Obama is NOT Lincoln, Lincoln saved our country. Obama is Jefferson Davis, Mao TseTung, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, a destroyer with a pretty face. Republicans need to embrace their radical past, not run from it. We all need to be John Brown’s, standing up to our government for whats right no matter what. It just so happens, that at this juncture in time, Chairman Obama is the president, instead of the hero who should be in his place. We need to realize that we Republicans, have to be the rebels now.
I’m not saying Obama’s Lincoln. Recheck my intro. What I’m saying is that he carries a dark view of Lincoln in his head, and it is THAT Lincoln, regardless of how real that Lincoln is or not, that he aspires to be.
I truly believe that Lincoln wanted to be King of the United States, hence Obama’s fascination with him.
He wants the title of King.
I for one, do not know what’s in his mind, or heart, but one thing that does nauseate me is the self-aggrandizing, whether it’s attempting to seat himself in Lincoln’s chair, or Moses, or whoever he may believe himself to be. These seem to be attempts to be something he’s not, by rubbing shoulders with someone perceived in our nation’s history, as great. Is it more used-car-salesman/politico hype? Does he really believe the baloney? Or is it, whatever he thinks he can sell to the American public? I don’t know, but both, are simply to much to stomach.
Lincoln did NOT save the country. Lincoln used force to keep an entire segment of the country in the union. This union is and was always a voluntary compact. The south did NOT want to take over the North. It merely wanted to part company and leave the compact also known as the constitution. Lincoln knew the south’s agricultural base was paying for most of the central government’s expenses and wasnt going to let this go.
Lincoln not only did NOT save the country, he destroyed fellow Americans with war and scorched earth by firing on civilians (Vicksburg,Atlanta)and causing starvation,disease and poverty to be rampant.
The War of Northern Aggression remains to this day the bloodiest conflict in US history. All avoidable. Indeed Lincoln was outspoken against the Mexican War and yet ignored the same arguments to war on the South.
No savior he. Damn his name forever.
I agree with Pat’s ideas on the intro. Like I mentioned on the earlier Lincoln post, I have been turning this over in my head, what about lincoln does obama really admire and idolize?
Remember Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus for the good of us all.
Roger that Pat.
Also, I would like to retract my statement that Obama is Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis was a veteran and a patriot, who sacrificed and bled for his beliefs. The southerners who rebelled were not evil people, they were descended from the same founding fathers as everyone else. At the time the south rebelled countries throughout the world participated in the African slave trade, and in a way many still do, so to qualify the south as evil, or to feel like you cant question the veracity of mainstream civil war history just because of the existence of slavery, is to be ignorant of the real history as it happened and not as it was written. That said, I think the fact that obama is trying to paint himself as an American icon, without achieving, or sacrificing for anything, speaks volumes about his fascination and reliance on the cult of personality to engender loyalty among the American people.
Never let a good crises go to waste; where have I heard that before?
btw, I wonder how Lincoln would pontificate upon today’s hip-hop crowd, overcrowded prisons, crack culture, inner-city civic minded citizens, fatherless children, political correctness, and overpaid athletes. Just curious.
“Remember Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus for the good of us all.”
Yes, I agree with you, but to me, it all seems to be much more, a ploy, an attempt to use Lincoln as the, “sugar coating”, on the, “bitter pill”, of his agenda, the excuse to do whatever he has in mind. Does he really admire Lincoln? Or does it just sound good to the targeted audience that he is trying to convince, aka, whites? Does he plan to use the pages of history from Lincoln’s time during the Civil War, as his playbook? As you keenly point out, “for the good of us all”. A smooth talking politician, can fool a lot of people with this baloney.
I would still rather point to John Brown as the perfect example of Republican ideals, than anyone else. He knew in his heart that slavery was evil, several years before Lincoln came to power, and attempted to change it himself through force of arms. Slavery was an evil that was very much a part of the civil war truth, regardless of the many other disagreements between north and south. The fact that obama is trying to make us an unarmed people is as much a threat, or more so, than any other conflict between the people and their government than has ever existed. His assault on our Bill of Rights is an evil that should unite northern and southern republican idealists all over the country.
It would be interesting to know what Obama thinks of Lincoln, and where those views were formed. I don’t know if it would help to understand him.
I believe that both he and his wife are insane with rage and were raised that way. Obama wants to be great and so I would expect that he thinks America should be liberated from all pro-American doctrine or freedom loving Americans. (that would be us)
I think that Obama wants to enslave the people that he sees enslave blacks during civil war days. Almost as a pay back, he must think that the GOP enslaved blacks during that time.
Clearly, Obama is insane. His decision is to destroy the only freedom GIVING country in the world. Every communist, Marxist, or hard line Maoist has waited for this moment in time. With great strength Americans need to send 10 million to DC and light a fire.
I know it’s not in line with this story Pat but, the lawsuits concerning Obama’s birth has been thrown out.
I don’t think the asshole knows shit about Lincoln.
We’ll find out one day his highest grade at Columbia and Harvard was a 2.0 as an affirmative action graduate.
Lincoln is a prop for the puke.
Not so fast, the fat lady has not yet sung!
Check this out: http://defendourfreedoms.us/
Over 110 plaintiffs in all
It ain’t over, till it’s over!
Kirk, I stand corrected. Forgive me for believing the MSM.
Its funny that obambi should aspire to be like lincoln sence he was a republican, oh yha he didnt think about that, the jackass.
I don’t want to “figure out his brain” you know a man by his fruit and this is one bad apple.
I’m in total agreement with a real true black American, Mr Alan Keyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkMfToY9Pk
Recently on a trip to DC I was waylaid at the National Archives by a reporter of the LA Times (he said) who wanted my views on government. I reminded him he asked! He went on to get me to tell him the similarity between Pres O(crap) and Lincoln. I almost hit him with my cane! The ONLY similarity I see it they are both Senators from IL. Therein lies the problem, given what is going on in IL. We are seeing Chicago back room politics come to Washington.
Who has a broom big enough to sweep out DC and put some sane people in government?
If you know and understand one’s ideology….then, you may not be able to read their mind, but you might be able to predict what they might do….
Bingo.
I’m reading a Lincoln book now, written in 1940.
I don’t know what this author in this new book is smoking but there are plenty of statements by Lincoln in the book I’m reading where Lincoln refers to slavery as evil and, in fact, states that the Civil War is God’s punishment to BOTH SIDES for the genesis and continuance of this “evil.”
Yes, he goes back and forth on how far to push the South on the slaves issue, but generally because he holds that saving the “union” is the #1 priority. But make not mistake, Lincoln definitely sees slavery as a moral abomination.
The nice thing about reading books from an earlier time is that they are written by scholars interested in printing the truth, rather than the dipshit johnny-come-latelys that will make up just about anything to sell their books.
On another point: Barry Soetoro is NO Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wrote millions of words during his lifetime and Soetoro has covered up everything associated with is dishonest life. Evidence shows that even his two books were likely ghost-written by coward Bill Ayers.
O’barry is an absolute disgrace.
“The nice thing about reading books from an earlier time is that they are written by scholars interested in printing the truth, rather than the dipshit johnny-come-latelys that will make up just about anything to sell their books.”
Double bingo. The History section is the first area I puruse whenever I enter a used-book store.
Kirk, I stand corrected. Forgive me for believing the MSM.
Why would you believe the MSM? Are you an astroturfer?
Ex-Democrat, you say the book was written 40 years ago? Well there are just as many far older than that with an opposing view of Lincoln. Lincoln was one weird cat. I`m sorry but a queer as well. No man sleeps in the same bed with another dude, no matter how poor he was when he was doing it. He wanted big gov and told the people what they wanted to hear to either set his own agenda or his puppet masters. Alot of us Southrons still despise him. Oral tradition can be just as credible as any so-called history. Be mindfull that the victors are the ones who write the history. My family and many others have passed down through generations sagas of the criminal and barbaric attack on our rights. You don`t just up and fight like mad for years over slaves, no that is just an excuse that came along a few years after it began. Hell New York had almost bucked out too. He shelled our cities,burned our farms and stole our lands. The shit was needless. Others say well S.C. fired the first shot, well yes they did Lincoln was sending a fleet to Charleston. Now why wait to stand around and let them kick your ass. If a man steps up to you aggressively you`re not going to just stand there and let him get the upper hand. Especially if he`s twice your size. Ever heard of the saying” we`ll bomb them into the stone age”? That was from shelling Vicksburg whose population became nearly like that of Stalingrad. Slavery in Western culture was slowing and would haved petered out after awhile anyway. I`ll lay off now . But the way you feel about BHO and leftists is how our people felt back then. So we get fucked twice by the Federals , how nice. You in the North are getting a dose of Lincoln now. Lets move on together against these centralist,socialist assholes.
Thank you.
My folks and grandparents and great grandparents came from Mississippi.
Lincoln’s order to General Dix of May 18, 1864: “arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors and publishers of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce.”(11) The two journals were the very embodiment of all that was most respected, so that General Dix hesitated, and was compelled to obey by peremptory letters from Secretary Stanton.(12) Rhodes mentions “the arrest of a crippled newsboy for selling the New York Daily News in Connecticut.”(13)
It would be difficult to characterize the above described usurpations in language stronger than was applied at the time. Rhodes quotes from a lecture of Wendell Phillips delivered in New York and Boston, December, 1861, as follows:
“Lieber says that habeas corpus, free meetings like this, and a free press, are the three elements which distinguish liberty from despotism. All that Saxon blood has gained in the battles and toils of two hundred years are these three things. But today, Mr. Chairman, every one of them — habeas corpus, the right of free meeting, and a free press — is annihilated in every square mile of the Republic. We live today, every one of us, under martial law. The Secretary of State puts into his bastile, with a warrant as irresponsible as that of Louis XIV, any man whom he pleases. And you know that neither press nor lips may venture to arraign the Government without being silenced. At this very moment one thousand men at least are “bastiled” by an authority as despotic as that of Louis…. For the first time in our history government spies frequent our great cities.”(14)
And Rhodes quotes protests of Robert C. Winthrop, in a speech of November 2, 1864 — almost three years later — of “newspapers silenced and suppressed at the tinkling of an executive bell a thousand miles away from the scene of hostilities.”(15)
And Rhodes goes on:
“Yet the matter did not go unquestioned. Senator Trumbull introduced a resolution asking information from the Secretary of State in regard to these arrests, and, in his remarks supporting it, pointed out the injustice and needlessness of such procedure. ‘What are we coming to,’ he asked, ‘if arrests may be made at the whim or the caprice of a Cabinet Minister?’ and, when Senator Hale asked, ‘Have not arrests been made in violation of the great principles of our Constitution?’ no one could gainsay it….
In truth, the apprehension of men in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, and northern New York on suspicion that they were . traitors, instead of leaving them to be dealt with by the public sentiment of their thoroughly loyal communities, savored rather of an absolute monarch than of a desire to govern in a constitutional way.”
Rhodes quotes from a letter from Schleinden to Sumner: “One of the most interesting features of the present state of things is the unlimited power exercised by the Government. Mr. Lincoln is in that respect the equal, if not the superior, of Louis Napoleon”; and Rhodes refers, too, to “the comparison constantly made in England between the coup d’etat of Louis Napoleon and the coup d’etat of Abraham Lincoln,” and, excusing the use of such power, adds, “The county attorney of Illinois had assumed the power of a dictator”
Rhodes’ History of the United States is one of the latest records in this matter. While he eulogizes Lincoln as ardently as any other, he speaks of “the enormity of the acts done under his authority,” and says, “he stands responsible for the casting into prison of citizens of the United States to be counted by thousands on orders as arbitrary as the Lettres de Cachet of Louis XIV,” when the mode of procedure might have been, “as in Great Britain in her crises between 1793 and 1802, on legal warrants,” and he pronounces Lincoln’s conduct “inexpedient, unnecessary, and wrong.”(19) And Rhodes says more specifically on the same page, “After careful consideration… I do not hesitate to condemn the arbitrary arrests and the arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press in States which were not in the theatre of the war and where the courts were open… that the offenders should have been prosecuted according to law, or, if their offenses were not indictable, permitted to go free.” Besides all this, Rhodes gives unqualified commendation to Governor Seymour for a patriotic spirit and proper jealousy for his country’s liberty shown in his bitter opposition to Lincoln’s usurpations, and shows how very far Seymour’s resentment towards Lincoln went. Rhodes even calls Lincoln a “tyrant.” Of a proclamation issued two days after the edict of Emancipation (Sept. 24, 1862) he says, after giving particulars of it, that it “applied to the whole country…. and was the assumption of the authority exercised by an absolute monarch.”(20) And he quotes Joel Parker, Professor of Law in Harvard, as follows: “Do you not perceive that the President is not only an absolute monarch, but that his is an absolutely uncontrollable government, a perfect military despotism?” And Rhodes says of Curtis, a Justice of the Supreme Court, that “he now published a pamphlet, entitled Executive Power, which called Lincoln ‘a usurper’ and his power ‘a military despotism.” And Rhodes adds, “Indeed it is not surprising that it gave currency to an opinion that he intended to suppress free discussion of political events.”(21)
Totally agree that for Obama lincoln is a cover. We might learn more from reading about Xerses.
Perhaps you’re right. I mean, using Lincoln simultaneously as inspiration and cover is rather audacious. Not Obama’s style.
Yeah… audacity is Bill Ayers’ style.
Well, writing style anyway.
I know every time I start to think Barry might be ’smart’, I recall that vid of him in Bristol, VA when his teleprompter didn’t work.
Ayers wrote his books.
Reid and Pelosi write his legislation.
He either campaigns giving tent revival style speeches or is just “present”.
Fucker is likely just Nanzi and Soros’ bitch.
Having just moved to Virginia recently and having been raised a Massachusetts yankee, I’m reading a lot of books on the Civil War, the Generals and Lincoln. I’m also finding out a bunch of stuff I wasn’t taught as a “yankee”.
I’m still processing all I’m reading about that time and haven’t come to any conclusions about the war or the president. I do know that Buchanan was no help and pretty much ignored the whole situation during his term prior to Lincoln’s. Lincoln saw The Union in trouble of being torn a part and he was determined that the US stay together. That was his #1 concern according to the few books I’ve just read. Slavery, though abhorrent to him, was on the back burner in his agenda of keeping the Union together until he found a way to take care of some of the slavery issue as a way to get more support for the war, which was dwindling fast by the end of 1862.
Politics were very ugly back then, to the point that today’s politics looks like chicken feed. Newspapers didn’t always report the facts (surprise) and would have no scruples when it came to character assassination. And Lincoln was not well thought of by many in those circles.
I always check out the background of the author to try to find what the context of the book may be coming from. But I’m still reading and I’m no scholar. (And living in an area where a good part of the Civil War took place is awesome for a history buff!!)
Now to the president - What I also have come to see about Obama is that if there is a dark side, he’ll grab onto it with all his might to further his Big Government and Nanny State agenda. It’s what liberals do. Reading speeches of liberals and then conservatives, I have found that liberals’ speeches always have more doom and gloom and crisis than conservatives’ speeches. They give the impression that they are the only answer to all the crisis. Libs goals are to control everybody and everything and own the whole pie. And they will do whatever is necessary to make it so, whether right or wrong. Conservatives may want to control too, but usually just their piece of the pie and are more focused on everyone getting a piece of the whole pie. The conservatives’ answer seems more to lie with the individual having the resources to make it on their own.
The fact that he latched onto Lincoln as an identity for himself, besides making me laugh, showed me that he uses larger than life personages to blow smoke up one’s posterior. Which is no surprise from a man who is as outwardly malleable as anyone can be. A perfect puppet for those who have one goal and one goal only - to control.
Pat - this is a great thread you have going here! thanks for posting this.
It is actually untrue that Lincoln abhorred slavery. Lincoln in his own words admitted that the white race was superior to the blacks.
The basic outline was that Lincoln wanted the control and power that a federalist government would bring. It was presented to Lincoln that if he made the war about slavery, it would garner the sympathies of other countries. So Lincoln publicly made it all about slavery, when the truth was far from it.
——
Source: Gabor S. Boritt, “‘And the War Came’? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility,” Why the Civil War Came edited by Boritt (1996), pp 3-30.
—–
Source: Abraham Lincoln said this in a speech he delivered to the people of Charleston, Illinois in 1858.
But as far as I’m concerned, the word “racist” is a Marxist word that has no real meaning whatsoever.
- Jared Taylor
My comment on the OMB Director’s crap is worth posting here also…So I make some similar statements here.
As Pat stated in his post on “All Wars Are Economic And Are Always Between Centralists And Decentralists”…..Obama and the Democrats want to tear the country apart. To them, being “traitors” is just part of the game of destroying capitalism and Judeo-Christian beleif along the way…
I guess the thing I can’t figure out is when we yell out “enough is enough.”
At what point is the last line drawn in the sand and not like we do now of drawing one and the democrats cross it….and we draw another line, the a 3rd, 4th,….1,000th, etc.
I honestly thought that when the violence from the KosKids happened at the Repulican Convention, or the media smears of Joe the Plumber, real and tangible proof of them stealing the election, Obama’s birth certificate….but I guess those were just the 1,000,000th and more lines in the sand.
I guess the Yahoo headline is correct….we have no leader and we are just full of bluster as Conservatives.
And Obmama just set up Cap and Trade to make gas prices go back up…..we’re up to 1,999,999 lines and counting.
How about, when the UN ratifies the “Anti-Blasphamy Law” in a few weeks as a World Law to stop the 1st Amendment; Gun Insurance laws to kill the 2nd Amemdment, etc. Even this weekend, Pelosi and other democrats said they will shut down talk radio and set up monitoring & filtering of conservative internet sites.
I guess those will just be more lines drwan in the sand that we will just “bluster” about.
Pat it seems the only book obambi is following is karl marx book, redisribute the wealth any of us has aquired,and give to people that sit on their dead asses and do nothing. TRUTH.