On Lincoln
----------------
Lincoln wasn't a good president. He wasn't even a mediocre president. He was a terrible president. He suspended individual rights. He massively expanded the government through money printing. He led millions of people to their deaths. All for power.
What we learn in school is that he was the great emancipator, ending slavery and winning a war that had to be won. That he was some man of genius and virtue, thrust upon the national stage at the right time to progress history.
Such is the result of the history being written by the winners. Similar hagiographies have been written about FDR and even Woodrow Wilson. But like the news, much of history is spun to manipulate us. Most of conventional history is fake and even a cursory study of what actually happened is enough to make you question how virtuous they were, and why they made the decisions they did. Almost always, you find that they were opportunistic cowards that did what would cost them least, even at the expense of the people they affected.
History is a tricky topic because the counterfactuals are always very speculative. But what we can judge is the values played out in actions taken, and in that sense, Lincoln was pretty terrible. He suspended habeas corpus, he cheated in border state elections to keep them in the union, and he massively, massively expanded the scope, power and size of government through inflationary theft.
It's hard to imagine what things were like before Lincoln, because before him, was a string of single-term Jacksonian, hard-money Democrat presidents. This was back when liberal meant being for personal liberty and that era of government before 1860 was insanely small, about 2% of the GDP. He would oversee an unprecedented expansion which would take the government to 20%.
Much of it, was, of course, because of the Civil War, and the popular narrative is that he needed to wage that war to end slavery. And yes, the issue was a major one in that era, but the elimination of slavery was more of a lucky by-product than an aim. His main goal, as he stated over and over again and as acted out in his policies, was to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
In preserving the union, he destroyed the idea that states had the right of secession, he weakened the idea of natural rights and he stole through inflation and sent many to their deaths. The centralizing of the federal government, the behemoth that we live with today began during his heyday.
The main thing that preserved his legacy was his assassination. Had a couple of battles gone the wrong way in 1863 and 1864, he wouldn't have been re-elected and he would have disappeared into the annals of history as a political amateur that lucked into the presidency in 1860 and screwed things up for 4 years. Instead, he was re-elected, assassinated and the horrific legacy of reconstruction was blamed on others. In short, he died at the right time.
There are those, of course, that will argue that Lincoln would have done things differently, and that he would have been more merciful to the south and rebuilt things as to spare them the suffering. But that's inconsistent with everything he did. Like most politicians he was a power grabber and he did what was politically expedient and not what was virtuous or right. He suspended habeas corpus (needing a reason to arrest and detain people)! He made generals do what would make him look good so he would get elected, not what would save the most lives or win the war the quickest. He created the greenback, which was a form of money printing to finance the war. And he spent an insane sum of other peoples' money through implicit and explicit taxes to "preserve the union."
Ending slavery, of course, was a big deal and in the annals of history, it's a dark mark in the history of the US that the institution survived so long. And yes, the Civil War did end it, but that wasn't the objective of the war itself.
Being Republican, he had a large Radical wing that he had to deal with and they wanted abolition, and later full voting rights for blacks. Because the south had seceded, they had the votes to pass the constitutional amendments, though only toward the end of the war when it was clear the north would win. That was a political expediency that ended up defining his legacy. But really, it's his biographers and historians of the winning side that have spun him to be a hero, when he was anything but.
The big flaw of Lincoln is that he created an unnecessary war that cost millions of lives and billions of dollars, one that set back the US by decades. Letting the south secede and revoking the Fugitive Slave Act would have ended the institution just as well, for much less cost. And this isn't idle speculation. Brazil had the second largest slave population in the 19th century that was whittled down quickly because the slaves had northern provinces where they could escape. The price of slaves dropped dramatically and soon, the institution itself was destroyed through economic means, not martial ones.
What's worse about Lincoln's legacy is that he set a precedent for federal power that brought forth the progressive era and eventually to Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The centralization of federal power began with him.
Lincoln wasn't a good president. But the history is written by the winners and they have made a secular saint out of him.
Plus, America wasn't even good at slaving.
God had to show up in Egypt. And they had the pyramids built by then.
Plus the Slavs got so slaved that they became the generic brand name for chattel.
honestly, all the guilt is silly. some Euros went to Africa and found a functioning and mature international slave market.
They bought some.
not that special guys. settle down.
nostr:note1ug8rx09pa8x0fwgm45d8sumzj8ss9xxp5cqqj8lhm8cu34d42uzqvatlg9
He's the only monument in DC behind bars.
He also instituted tariffs on European industrial goods to force the south to buy from the north at higher prices instead of Europe’s cheaper goods. He arguably could have avoided the war altogether by just allowing free trade, but was beholden to Northern industrial money. Just another example of his choice for political expediency.
Sounds like a centralizer.
Lincoln was also a racist. Hated the black man. Truth.
Only made slavery an issue because no one in the north wanted to fight anymore, and wanted France and England to stay off his back by making his side the moral one.
A person that truly studies & understands history could never teach history in schools. Lies upon lies upon lies.
Ben Franklin electricity explanation is so laughable; it’s comparable to Santa coming down a chimney.
Thank you for pointing this out
The big thing for me, living in Texas, being from Seattle… who wouldn’t have fought based on their location/neighbors. The north is portrayed as heavenly, but people killing your neighbors, who would you protect? It’s very simplified for history, but everyone was basically dealt their cards at birth.
I want so hard to disagree with you but finding it hard to.
If you hear “Lincoln was our best President” enough times, especially when young, it’s hard to reverse your thinking.
If anyone thinks slavery has been abolished in the United States, they should read the 13th Amendment again.
Sadly a lot of people will consider you radical or even label you the “R” word for this post.
Reality is, the institution was going away on its own. There was no need to completely demolish the legitimacy of the United States government, which is what he did by violating consent of the governed. Industrialization of agriculture was literally around the corner, and would have made the practice obsolete in a wealthy country like ours within a few years.
Instead, the north illegally occupied the south, intentionally destroyed their economy through carpetbagging for basically forever (the south is still typically poorer on average), then disenfranchised that entire half of the country through the sedition act (basically ensuring the entire generation would never be allowed to hold office again).
The fact that you can be anti-slavery, pro-equality, pro-human rights and still think the Civil War was an illegal war of occupation for political causes is lost on people these days when there is no longer room for nuance.
In their own words:
Lincoln: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it”
Lee: “If I owned the four millions of slaves, I would cheerfully sacrifice them to the preservation of the Union, but to lift my hand against my own State and people is impossible.”
The cause for wars are typically religious, territorial, or economically based. The civil war was about economics between the north and south and the slavery issue was just an attention diversion.
We are all slaves today to the fiat systems, so likely time for another major war.
Dead on, thanks for writing!
Being from the south, it’s clear how horrific that war was, and people even generations later still feel the negative effects of his presidency.
Most northerners or people from the Western states probably don’t think about the civil war much, but it’s still ingrained in the psyche of the south
Love my southern roots. My grandma told me a couple years ago we had family fight for the south. She also said they call it “The war between the states” instead of the civil war
Correct. The South did not seek to conquer the North. It was a "War of Secession" . Similarly, 1776 also began a war of secession. There was no "American Revolution" as the colonists did not seek to conquer the British (the King had utterly failed in his contractual role as protectorate of the colonies, and allowed Parliament to enact taxation without representation).
When one side is so loath to let the other side go that they literally go to war - that is a sure sign that there is some serious exploitation (and not just of the slaves - which were not all black).
how do you even know who the real Licoln was? You are just regurgitating what his opponents said.
'Johnson' should be appended to the 'Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt' list.
Lincoln was the first Worst President Ever.
Without Lincoln, the industrial revolution would have definitely taken a different path and I wonder if overt slavery would have ever been extinguished from the southern states. My interpretation of history tell's me there would have been more strife and discordance, just delayed. And that the industrial revolution would have been massively blunted. And thus, the technological revolution bitcoin would not yet be here.
I'm all for realist takes and Lincoln is was definitely an imperfect human, but this reads a bit more like an overly edgy take on a white-washed world.
Do you mean how the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution unfolded post 1860s? Not looking to split hairs here but if you mean the the Revolution itself, it is considered to have roughly taken place between the 1760s and the 1830s. Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865. Not trying to dunk here, merely remarking that he played a big role in Reconstruction but not the Industrial Revolution.
Rothbards Conceived in Liberty also shows the charlatans such as George Washington and Ben Franklin as those very same opportunists that took advantage of the situations they were placed in and did no such altruism as theyve been portrayed to do. both tryants in their own rights for the sake of their own gain. i highly recommend anyone to read this book.
I've meant to read this but never have. Thanks for that tidbit.
Its so damn good. Its long but very informative and dense.
Great men deserve great takes. 👏
I haven't really considered this before now. Thanks for sharing this perspective.
if history that wasnt too long ago are written to manipulate/indoctrinate the readers, then how messed up are religions lol
kinda sent Lincoln down the river with this post
FYI, inflation of 30%, growth of Government from %2 to %20 of GDP just to "preserve the union"
nostr:nevent1qqsg6d3429gwytceqp3jj6hnwd4da9zcy5z7t3ymznk8mywjwgwn3vsprdmhxue69uhkummnw3ezu6rpwpc8jarpwejhym3wvdhj7q3qzmc6qyqdfnllhnzzxr5wpepfpnzcf8q6m3jdveflmgruqvd3qa9sxpqqqqqqz0f9p4q
nostr:nevent1qqswyr3n8js7nn85hyd66xncwd3frcgznrq6vqqfrlmanuwg6k64wpqprdmhxue69uhkummnw3ezu6rpwpc8jarpwejhym3wvdhj7q3q0vlhsqm4qar0g42p8g3plqyktmktd8hnprew45w638xzezgja95qxpqqqqqqzd72fxd
Summarised using Venice.AI
The text you provided is a critique of Abraham Lincoln's presidency and legacy, arguing that he was not a good president and that his actions led to the centralization of federal power, the destruction of individual rights, and the loss of many lives. The author claims that Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the union, not to end slavery, and that his actions were driven by political expediency rather than a desire for justice and virtue. They also argue that the elimination of slavery was more of a lucky by-product of the Civil War than a deliberate aim.
The author makes several claims about Lincoln's presidency, including:
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which is the right to be protected from unlawful imprisonment.
He cheated in border state elections to keep them in the union.
He massively expanded the scope, power, and size of government through inflationary theft.
He destroyed the idea that states had the right of secession and weakened the idea of natural rights.
He set a precedent for federal power that led to the progressive era and eventually to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
The author also argues that Lincoln's legacy has been distorted by his biographers and historians, who have spun him as a hero when he was anything but. They claim that if Lincoln had not been assassinated, he would not have been remembered as a great president, and that the horrific legacy of reconstruction would have been blamed on him.
In conclusion, the text you provided is a critique of Abraham Lincoln's presidency and legacy, arguing that he was not a good president and that his actions led to the centralization of federal power, the destruction of individual rights, and the loss of many lives. The author claims that Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the union, not to end slavery, and that his actions were driven by political expediency rather than a desire for justice and virtue.
If this is the case, who owned Lincoln? Someone had to have compromised him.
Damn, thanks Jimmy!! Quick history lesson complete!
I’m of the opinion that this was the last straw and final act that sealed his fate. “On March 3, 1865, the U.S. Congress passed a bill, which Lincoln subsequently signed as the last act of Congress prior to his assassination, that allowed the Mint Director to place "In God We Trust" on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon"
Lincoln didn't 'free the salves', he preserved continuity of government.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 
