Libertarian Lincoln Lies
By Alexis Deacon
There has always been warring factions within the Republican Party and within the liberty movement. Libertarian Objectivist and radical atheist Ayn Rand was harshly critical of men of faith, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, because to her the very idea of God was an insult to human kind. William F. Buckley Jr. of the National Review denounced the paleoconservative group, the John Birch Society due to their off the wall conspiracy theories. Now there is a group of what I call radical Libertarians, who are spreading vicious lies about one of America’s greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Oftentimes one of the main differences between Libertarians and Conservatives is faith. In these times when I feel we are witnessing a war on God, it is ironic that a man like Lincoln, who was so well steeped in the word of God, is under attack. Lincoln’s love of God is clearly reflected in his words and speeches but the lies about him go beyond his faith. Rewriting history is an action we must be guarded against if we want to save our Republic. We have to be steadfast about preserving the truth.
Who are these people and what are they saying about Lincoln?
“On Dec. 23, 2007, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Paul told then-host Tim Russert that the Civil War was ‘senseless’ and that ‘Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war.’ Paul accused Lincoln of provoking the war to ‘get rid of the original intent of the Republic.’ Paul sees Lincoln as a dictator and a villain.
Ron Paul fan, Thomas E. Wood, and author of the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, agrees with Paul’s views on Lincoln. He thinks even the name of the Civil War is wrong. According to him it should have been called the war between the states and he says Lincoln was no friend to the slaves. If the name Tom Wood sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen radio talk show host, Mark Levin, annihilate this man over the past decade through various Internet debates. Wood has relentlessly pursued Levin over the years trying to make a name for himself.
Then there is Thomas James DiLorenzo, a friend of Wood and an economics professor at Loyola University, who wrote an entire book on what he calls the “Lincoln myth” entitled, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and An Unnecessary War. DiLorenzo believes Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted a large centralized government.
Llewellyn Harrison “Lew” Rockwell, Jr, the paleolibertarian who founded the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, publishes anti- Lincoln articles on his website, LewRockwell.com. These men listed above and many of their followers have a sinister agenda of promoting secession and nullification. On many occasions I have posted legal experts opinions on why nullification is not the answer to our Republic’s woes.
As you know, I’m an advocate for an Article V Convention of the States. If we are truly conservatives, we have to have faith and hope that federalism is the last chance we have to save the Republic. Many political groups who speak out against the Convention of States are also proponents for nullification and although they aren’t as outspoken about it, they also stand for nullifications’ sneaky sidekick which is secession. In 1995 the Ludwig von Mises Institute hosted a conference on the legality and viability of secession. Many of the groups who ridicule a Convention of States by calling it a “con con” are the same people deliberately using revisionist history when it comes to Lincoln. They call President Lincoln a lawless dictator who wanted to grow government. They say the Civil War was not about slavery but instead about states rights. Why would these people lie like this and what is their motivation? I’ve done some digging to get to the bottom of this.
Some of the Lincoln hating nullification activists still have the isolationist, racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial mindset which Bill Buckley fought against decades ago. When Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, Tim Manning Jr. endorsed him. Manning is the editor of Southern Heritage and Southern Partisan, both Neo- Confederate publications and he endorsed Paul due to him being an honorary member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for over a decade. Manning states “Paul has given countless speeches in front of Confederate flags for Southern Heritage groups and has never faltered from his defense of Dixie. Or, for that matter, our critique of Secretariat-General Lincoln.”
Tom Wood who partnered with Ron Paul to produce a home schooling program in 2013 called the Ron Paul Curriculum is also a founding member of the League of the South. Has Ron Paul shown racist tendencies? Ron Paul opposed issuing a congressional medal to Rosa Parks. In an interview he said he would have been against the civil rights act in 1964 and he stood by and defended some racist statements he made in newsletters back in the 80’s and 90’s before changing his tune much later only because he was running for president. Paul’s actions make his views on race questionable.
Paul then used his “legalize marijuana” stance and hippie anti-war lingo to romance the youth and get them on board with his unique brand of Libertarianism, thus indoctrinating what are now known as Paul-bots, a bunch of young fakertarians ready to break up the union in any way they can. The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) founded in 2007 has many of these Paul-bots as followers. Millennial aged “tenthers” go out on social media trying to turn people against the Convention of States, calling it a “con con” and bad mouthing Lincoln.
Wikipedia defines a “Neo-Confederate” as an individual who views the Southern secession in a heroic light. They list a summary of their beliefs. They even mention DiLorenzo and Wood by name. The old adage is true in this case; “Hey fellas, I looked up the definition of Neo-Confederate and there was a picture of your face.”
This Neo-Confederate movement calls the Civil War the “war of Northern aggression” and Lincoln is cast as an evil dictator.The Abbeville Institute and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are the two groups fueling this cause. Time magazine described Abbeville’s intellects as “Lincoln loathers” who consider “Abraham Lincoln not as the Great Emancipator; he is Dishonest Abe, a president hell bent on creating a big central government, even if that meant waging war.”
Setting the record straight
The Civil War was not about tariffs despite how the Neo-Confederates try to mislead people. They contend it was about states rights versus Lincoln’s quest for a big centralized government. Lincoln still abided by the election process which no “dictator” would have done. The Civil War was about continuing mankind’s quest for freedom. Abraham Lincoln believed what he read in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Even though the framers couldn’t free the slaves at the time because they needed all the states to ratify the Constitution, they left a system in place for it to be done at a later date.
Seven states left the union before Lincoln had even been inaugurated. The South attacked the North first putting Lincoln in a horrible and unprecedented position. At the time the North not only had more liberty because of its stance against slavery, it also had a robust free market thriving economy. The South knew the institute of slavery was on its way out and they acted out of fear. The South didn’t believe in the natural rights of the black people. All of the humans which were thought of as slaves were mere property. Lincoln considered attempting to buy the slaves to avoid violence but none of the slave states were willing to cooperate with that plan.
The Lincoln liars’ biggest claim is that President Lincoln was a despot for suspending Habeas Corpus. Washington was under attack at the beginning of the war. Transportation routes and communication lines were cut and citizens were in danger. Lincoln needed to get troops down from the North to save the capital. Article 1 of the Constitution allows congress to suspend Habeas Corpus, not the president. However, the Congress did retroactively bless Lincoln’s decision to take this upon himself during a time of complete chaos and crisis. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy for us to be Monday Morning quarterbacks. Did Lincoln make some mistakes? Of course. He is human. However, many of the people who were taken in to military court were deserters and treasonous traitors who would have been arrested anyway. Lincoln was an honorable man who did his best to lead the nation and follow the rule of law during one of the darkest times in our nation’s history. Although it was bloody and many lost their lives, the end result was a nation which was more free and which took the first step towards righting the horrible error and misfortune of slavery.
Jason Kuznicki, a libertarian from the Cato Institute explains that the Civil War was not about states rights like some Neo-Confederates try to argue. The Civil War was indeed about slavery. He points out all four states Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, which seceded specifically listed slavery as the reason. He also pointed out that the South loved big government when it sided with them as it did with the Fugitive Slave Law. This pretty much dispels the myth of the South fighting over states rights and against centralized government.
In an article from the heritage foundation, another expert, the honorable Frank J. Williams explains Lincoln’s position and how wartime laws differ from peacetime laws. “Abraham Lincoln declared martial law and authorized such forums to try terrorists because military tribunals had the capacity to act quickly, to gather intelligence through interrogation, and to prevent confidential life-saving information from becoming public.” Williams mentions that every survey of historians rank Lincoln as number one among the great presidents. (See Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Ultimate Approval Ratings,” New York Times Magazine, Dec. 15, 1996)
Lincoln Authors Thomas Krannawitter and Rich Lowry explain, “the Founders thought revolution was justified in the case of a violation of natural rights. The Confederates, in contrast, wanted to wage a revolution to ensure no interference with their violation of the natural rights of slaves.”
What’s the real motive and agenda behind the fringe groups’ revisionist history of Lincoln?
What’s the real motive and agenda behind the fringe groups’ revisionist history of Lincoln? They don’t believe in liberty or civil rights. They really believe the Constitution itself is flawed and that America should have kept The Articles of Confederation. They might not even support any executive branch. Lincoln loved to study the work of the framers and James Madison didn’t really believe in secession. He believed the states were united as a nation and should be an indestructible union. Our country never could have survived a few decades if states could secede every time they lost an election. Madison believed in the right of a revolution but not for “light or transient causes.”
The Neo-Confederates follow the philosophy of John C. Calhoun. Calhoun followers believe the nation went in the wrong direction by not keeping the Articles of Confederation. They believe the Constitution was corrupt and Lincoln represents the Constitution and has to be degraded along with our founding government document. This is why many Neo-Confederates oppose constitutional conservatives and ideas like the Article V Convention of the States. They believe the nation took a wrong turn when it ratified the Constitution. They may even have a strong desire to break apart the union which Lincoln worked so hard to keep united.
Keep the true story of Abe Lincoln Alive
Lincoln loved Shakespeare, the Bible and American individualism which is why his words still resonate with patriots today. Growing up, I remember Lincoln was used as a symbol for persistence, a reminder to every American that no matter how many times you fail, in this country you can continue to dust yourself off, pull yourself up and make your dreams come true. Lincoln was a symbol of hope in dark and stormy times. He embodies the rags to riches American dream.
Jack Levin started a new genre of books which can be read by all ages. He is a trendsetter because many other well known conservatives have followed his lead producing books and trying to teach our children history while they are young and before the Left- run school system attempts to indoctrinate them with anti-American rhetoric. Levin’s new book includes stunning Civil War illustrations. When you look at these pages and into the eyes of the slaves, one can find a greater appreciation for what a genuine healer Lincoln was to a truly wounded nation at that time. Both of Jack Levin’s Lincoln books give the reader a feel for what a sincere man this President was.
I would also recommend Rich Lowry’s book, Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream–and How We Can Do It. It’s the inspirational Abe we all grew up with. It’s the true man and president our nation has loved all along. Lowry is an editor of National Review. He is a staunch defender of Lincoln when it comes to attacks on him from the Neo-Confederates. In an article Lowry wrote, he brought up Thomas Krannawitter’s book Vindicating Lincoln. Krannawritters work is another I highly recommend. It goes into lengthy detail explaining why Lincoln is misunderstood. He believes we need Lincoln’s moral compass now more than ever as our nation faces Obama’s fundamental transformation. And he is right.
I hope conservatives across this land digest as much information as they can about Lincoln. Then they will be armed when they run across people who want to attack this man. It is my wish for patriots around the country to keep the truth of our nation’s history alive to counter the deceivers.
Alexis Deacon was born a conservative. Her parents were in politics. So, she has been on the campaign trail since she first started walking and active in politics ever since then. She is a successful entrepreneur who lives in the Virginia, D.C. area. To read more about her click here.