That the question of, "The Confederacy created to perpetuate slavery?, could even rise illustrates the validity of the fact that, "The victors write the history books." It also emphasizes the poor quality of public education as our children are not taught to research facts and think, but rather to become automatons in support of a heavily regulated, Government dominated society.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a two-faced bigot. I offer these undisputable FACTS.

Many of Lincoln’s personal views on race relations can be described only as the views of a white supremacist. Indeed,he even used the words “superior and inferior” to define the “proper” places of the two races in American society.

In the September 18, 1858, debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, he stated: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior,and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Basler 1953, Pages 145 –46) (Roy Basler was the editor of Lincoln ’s collected works)

When asked what should be done if the slaves were ever freed, Lincoln ’s initial response was to suggest sending them all back to Africa: “Send them to Liberia,to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this ” (Basler 1953,255 –56).

Lincoln had no intention to disturb Southern slavery in 1860.In his First Inaugural Address he announced that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,and I have no inclination to do so ” (Basler 1946,580). He also promised in the same address to uphold and strengthen the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, even though lax or nonenforcement of that clause would have quickened slavery’s demise.

Lincoln ’s actions were consistent with his words with regard to the slavery issue. In the summer of 1861 he was presented with an opportunity to liberate thousands of slaves,but he refused to do so. General John Fremont,the Republican candidate for president in 1856,was the Union army ’s military commander in Missouri. Fremont drew a line across the state from east to west separating the pro-Confederacy side from the pro-Union side and issued an order stating that any individual on the Confederate side caught carrying a firearm would be shot and that anyone aiding the secessionists would have his slaves emancipated.

Slave-owning Unionists would be left undisturbed.
(Nevins 1959,337;Foote 1986,vol.1,95 –97;Randall and Donald 1961,371 –72).

When Fremont sent his order to Lincoln for approval, Lincoln not only disapproved it; he stripped Fremont of his command. For Lincoln ’s stated objective was to “save the Union” and to preserve federal power,not to free the slaves.

Additionally, as Lincoln stated in a famous, August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Furthermore, Union General Ulysses S. Grant said that if he “thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.”

A war over slavery? Not hardly! The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence. Lincoln refused the offer.

So, first of all, please do try and wrap any clothes of righteousness around this two-faced out and out bigot. He did not possess a single ounce of honor gained as an abolitionist because he did not give a hoot about freeing another man.

Like so many other politicians before and after him, Lincoln was but a whore willing to sell out anything for the Ppower of the office. Lincoln was a BETTER whore than most because he was willing to invade the South and wage a war which cost the lives of over 600,000 men, women, and children to fulfill the wishes of his handlers.

Lincoln had a debt to pay to the Northern industrialists, bankers, and railroad interests that put him in office. They supported him because they knew he would do whatever was necessary to bleed the South for the money the northern financial interests needed for their goals. You see the South was paying about 80% of the revenue which supported the federal government through tariffs.

The great historian of the American west, Dee Brown, describes the historical origins of political insider trading in his book, "Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroads".

The book tells the story of a group of men who might be called the founding fathers of political insider trading, the most prominent of which was Abraham Lincoln. The rest were some of the founding fathers of the Lincoln’s Republican Party; many of them served as generals in the union army.

In the mid to late 1850s Lincoln was a prominent railroad lawyer. His clients included the Illinois Central, which at the time was the largest corporation in the world. In 1857 he represented the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, which was owned by four men who would later become infamous as "robber barons" for receiving – and squandering – millions of dollars in federal subsidies for their transcontinental railroad. Granting these men their subsidies would become one of the first orders of business in the Lincoln administration. (Remember 80% of the funds The Federal Government got came by tariffs paid by the Southern States.)

These men – Thomas Clark Durant, Peter Dey, Grenville Dodge, and Benedict Reed – were easterners from New England and New York State who had "a store of hard experience at canal and railroad building and financing," writes Dee Brown. And they must also have been quite expert at stealing taxpayers’ money for useless government-funded boondoggles. Prior to the War between the States, government subsidies for railroad and canal building were a financial disaster. So disastrous were these government pork barrel projects that by 1860, according to economic historian Carter Goodrich, Massachusetts was the only state in the union to have not amended its constitution to prohibit taxpayer subsidies to private corporations (Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890, p. 231).

In a dispute with a steamship company the above-mentioned men "sought out a first-rate lawyer, one who had a reputation for winning most of his cases," writes Dee Brown. "They found him in Springfield, Illinois and his name was Abraham Lincoln." The jurors in the case failed to reach a decision, but Lincoln’s performance "won him a considerable amount of attention in the Chicago press and among men of power, who two years later would push him into the race for President of the United States." One of those "men of power" was Chicago newspaper editor Joseph Medill, whose newspaper trumpeted the Lincoln candidacy on behalf of the railroad interests of Illinois.

This powerful clique of New England/New York/Chicago business interests "aroused the suspicions of the South," says Brown, since they were so vigorously lobbying Congress to allocate huge sums of money for a transcontinental railroad across the Northern states. Southern politicians wanted the route to pass through their states, naturally, but they knew they were outgunned politically by the political clique from "the Yankee belt" (New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, the upper Midwest).

These Northern political insiders, who would form the core of leadership of the Republican Party and later, in some cases, of Lincoln’s army, positioned themselves to earn great riches from the proposed railroad subsidies. John C. Fremont, who would be a general in Lincoln’s army, was a wealthy California engineer who conducted an extensive engineering survey "to make certain that the most favorable route would end up not in San Diego but in northern California, where Fremont himself claimed sizable land holdings." Another wealthy Yankee, Pierre Chouteau, "put his money into a St. Louis factory to make iron rails and went to Washington to lobby for the 38th parallel route."

Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas "owned enough strategically located land in Chicago to be a millionaire if his favored route westward through Council Bluffs and Omaha was chosen . . ."

And "Abraham Lincoln, the future President evidently agreed with his debating partner that the route through Council Bluffs-Omaha and the South Pass was the most practical. Lincoln acquired land interests at Council Bluffs". A short time later, after the Chicago/New England/New York "men of power" propelled him into the White House, Lincoln began signing legislation giving these men millions of acres of public lands and other subsidies for their railroads.

Virtually all of the "leading lights" of the Republican Party got in on the political insider trading game by demanding bribes for their votes in favor of the subsidies. Pennsylvania congressman Thaddeus Stevens "received a block of . . . stock in exchange for his vote," but he also demanded "insertion of a clause

[in the subsidy legislation] requiring that all iron used in the construction and equipment of said road to be American manufacture." In addition to being a congressman, Stevens was a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer. At the time, British iron was far cheaper than Pennsylvania iron, so that Stevens’s "restrictive clause" placed a bigger burden on the taxpayers of the North who, at the time, were already being taxed to death to finance the war.

Congressman Oakes Ames, "who with his brother Oliver manufactured shovels in Massachusetts, became a loyal ally [of the subsidy-seeking railroad companies] and helped to pressure the 1864 Pacific Railway Act through the war-corrupted Congress." (It took a lot of shovels to dig railroad beds from Iowa to California).

During the post-war Grant administration the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Schuyler Colfax (later Grant’s vice president) visited the western railroad routes to attend a ceremony in his honor but, writes Dee Brown, "he preferred cash above honors, and back in Washington he eagerly accepted a bundle of Credit Mobilier stock from his follow congressman Oakes Ames, and thus became a loyal friend of the Union Pacific."

Another of Lincoln’s generals, General John Dix, was the Washington lobbyist for the railroads who "spent most of his time strutting about Washington in a general’s uniform." (Dix was the same general who Lincoln ordered in 1862 to shut down all the opposition newspapers in New York City and arrest and imprison the editors and owners because they voiced the South’s Right to secede and opposition to Lincoln’s War Against Liberty).

General William Tecumseh Sherman was also sold land at below-market prices and, after the war, he would be in charge of a twenty-five year campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians, which was yet another form of veiled subsidy to the railroad corporations. After the war Grenville Dodge, who was also a Union Army general despite his lack of military training, proposed making slaves of the captured Indians and forcing them "to do the grading, with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away."

These men – the founding fathers of insider trading – were responsible for the massive corruption of the Grant administration which was only the beginning of what historians call "the era of good stealings."

In the 1859-1860 congressional session the House of Representatives passed the Morrill tariff, followed by the Senate in the next session, in early 1861, just before Lincoln’s inauguration. The average rate would soon be elevated to 47.06 percent.

So, Southerners had been complaining bitterly about being plundered by the tariff, while, in their view, most of the money was being spent in the North. Then the Republican Party gains power and, before anyone expects a war, more than triples the average rate at a time when the tariff was the primary source of federal tax revenue; there was no income tax yet.

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in "Tariff History of the United States") to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

So, Lincoln owed everything–his nomination and election–to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple.

So, Lincoln owed everything–his nomination and election–to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer.

Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;"

In this First Inaugural Address and says it is his duty to “collect the duties and imposts” (among other things) and, as long as those much higher duties are collected, “there will be no invasion.”

The tripling of the average tariff rate was the keystone of the Republican Party platform of 1860. Once in power, Lincoln announced to the South, effectively: We are going to make tax slaves out of you by tripling the rate of taxation, and as long as you collect these taxes there will be no military invasion. Lincoln the extortionist says pay up and live, or don’t and we invade.

This was being done while the Confederate Constitution was outlawing protectionist tariffs altogether, which would have caused most of the trade of the world to be diverted from high-tariff Northern ports to lower-tariff Southern ones.

Some Northern newspapers affiliated with the Republican Party were openly calling for the bombardment of Southern ports (before Fort Sumter). “Let the South adopt the free-trade system,” the Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 10, 1860, and the North’s “commerce must be reduced to less than half of what it now is.” The Newark Daily Advertiser editorialized on April 2, 1861, that Southerners had apparently “taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade,” which “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North.” The paper called South Carolina the “chief instigator” of these free-trade doctrines, and called for the “closing of the ports” in the South by military force. Ferrier’s casual dismissal of the role of the tariff in the war as only being of interest to “neo-Rebels” is ahistorical.

You see, when you look for motives, the old adage, "Follow the money." still applies. Lincoln had his backer’s interest to protect, and now it looked like the South was going to turn off the money spigot.

There are numerous credible and convincing sources to establish the South’s Right to secession. Horace Greely’s New York Daily Tribune, which supported the South’s legal right to secede until it realized that Southern secession meant Northern economic collapse and anarchy. Then Greely changed his tune, but at first he readily compared the South to the American Colonies in the Revolutionary War and wrote in the Tribune on the very day South Carolina’s Secession Convention opened, December 17th, 1860:

“We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government," We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. (Source: "The Right of Secession," The New-York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860, in Howard Cecil Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964), pages 199-201.)

Sadly, today "Party of Lincoln" – The Republican Party has in reality merged with the Democrat Party and neither are concerned about defending the Rights and Liberties of the individual regardless whether he be Southerner or Northerner. I am always amazed how people can justify their vote.

Vote for a Republican or a Democrat and you simply get a mirror image of the other. The Republicans try to paint themselves as “compassionate conservatives”, and the Democrats refer to themselves as “progressives”. But, the truth today remains the same as George Wallace observed, “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference.”

“Progressive”? “Compassionate conservatism”. I’ll tell you their true definition.

“Progressive” and “compassionate conservatism” are but shabby coats that attempts to cover the naked ugliness of socialism and the expansion of a big, intrusive, omnipotent, Lincolnesque Government. They are oxymorons. “Progressive” as a word was co-opted and attached to a political concept that is only “progressive” as is an untreated cancer, and nothing is “compassionate” or “conservative” which diminishes the personal Rights and Liberties of the People and expands Government into areas which were undelegated by the Constitution. These are merely terms which socialists use to try and camouflage themselves in aura of respectability when in fact their politics are no better than the outright theft of the unalienable Rights of ownership to the fruits of one’s labor coupled with an unrestrained desire for managing the everyday lives of the populace through regulation.

This “progressive” political fervor has long been associated with the leftist Democrat Party. Most democrat voters fully expect the Democrat candidate to be a socialist. After all, providing the circus, the entertainment, and Government financial support is what they vote for. They gladly prostitute their vote in return for payment from the public treasury which their socialist masters have seized under threat of prison from Citizens who are the producers of the economy.

The same leftist supporters who favor a "bigger is better" Government, federally funded health care, the nationalization of our schools, a reduction in our personal Liberties, federal pork spending on a grandiose scale, massive illegal immigration, and a steady stream of new socialist programs paid for with the financial enslavement of future generation with a massive public debt have found there are kindred spirits in the republican political leaders who are elected. Particularly George W. Bush and the neocons.

Like Buchannan said when referring to the Democrat and Republican Parties, "Merely two wings on the same bird of prey."

Sadly, most Democrat and Republican voters are but a human incantation of Pavlov’s conditioned reflex experiments. They immediately "pull the lever" to vote for anything with a "Republican" or “Democrat” sign by the name. Republican voters try to justify their vote either by proclaiming they are supporting "conservative" candidates (never mind the politician’s record proves the opposite), or "my Republican candidate is not as big a socialist as the democrat candidate" logic???. However, Republican voters stay in a continual state of denial that their candidate is a Democrat twin.

The republican socialists set a new record for pork spending (read enslaving America’s future generations) in the omnibus spending bill passed by the house last winter and then enacted in early 2004 by Bush. Verify at:

Or take a moment and read:

Even better read several of the articles found at:

Try learning some FACTS about the republican socialist party’s management of the Government. It is no better than the Democrat socialists.

The FACT I made was that the Democrats fully expect a socialist hand out government when they elect democrats. But, comatose, die hard Republicans still proclaim the republican party is a conservative party which fights for the Rights of the individual despite the facts.

Illustrative of the theft of the worker’s money and the socialist programs embraced by the Republicans is the handout Bush proclaimed he would deliver when he told the republican faithful that if he is reelected he will see federal funding for setting up health centers in every country in America.

In a recent article, former true conservative Georgia Republican Congressman, Bob Barr, wrote, "Has America been betrayed by President George W. Bush? In his most recent book, The Bush Betrayal, James Bovard poses and then answers this question with a resounding ‘yes.’"

In his column, Barr also correctly writes, "[W]hich recent president’s term in office was characterized by support for the so-called assault weapon ban, a huge increase in deficit spending, bigger budgets for virtually every domestic program, including Americorps and the National Endowment for the Arts, and signing into law a massive increase in federal government regulation of political speech, whose administration would you suspect they were describing? That of Democrat Bill Clinton? Nope. [ We’re] talking about the first term of Republican President George W. Bush."

Mr. Barr is absolutely right! When it comes to Bush’s first term in office, never has so much been overlooked by so many!

If even the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) blasts the Republican politicians in their words, "Consequently, the number of pork projects skyrocketed from under 2,000 five years ago to 9,362 in the 2003 budget," Riedl says. Total spending on pork projects has correspondingly increased to over $23 billion.’

Riedl adds that the trend continues in the 2004 appropriations bills in which there are over 10,000 earmarks." (read whole article at:

There are, however, still some who are pointing out this Republican socialization. Take a few moments and read Free Republic web site article at:

Go on, take the time and LEARN why when I call the Republican "socialists" I am in good company. Read:

I can go on and on, but I find it revulsive that I must sometimes spoon feed some of my Republican friends who are so indoctrinated to be a lever pulling Republican that they continue to defend their socialist actions even in the face of reality.

Perhaps some Democrat – AKA “Progressive” (read outright socialist), Republican – AKA “Compassionate conservative” (read camouflaged socialist), or any other lemming can quote where in the Constitution is the Federal Government is given the Power to seize money from one segment of the population and hand it over to another segment. You can certainly find this concept in the Communist Manifesto, or Mao’s Red Book, but it is nowhere to be found in any area of our Constitution or the writings and teachings of the Framers of that Constitution.

And while your at it, where is the Constitutional authorization for the Federal Government to be involved in the management of "Health Care", or "the Education of our children"? (to name only 2 of the myriad areas they are unconstitutionally involved in).

Individuals supporting “progressive” politics, Democrats, or Republicans spouting the mantra of “compassionate conservatism” are indicative of a disease possessing either a complete lack of knowledge of the principles of Government that created this Nation, or the position of a confirmed socialist who wishes to transform our Republic into a democratic socialist government (aka mob rule).

A Government that does not obey the Law, and the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land, and instead allows policy and statute law created at the whim of the majority (the actions of a democracy) is the absolute worst kind of Government. Why? Because no one’s unalienable Rights are protected.

Some thoughts for you to ponder –

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most money from the public treasury – with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations have been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
— Alexander Tyler

“Big government by its very nature is government that intrudes in people’s lives, usurps their rights and responsibilities and confiscates their money. There is nothing conservative about any of this. Regardless of how benevolent and well-meaning its intentions are, government expands almost entirely for the purpose of controlling and regulating the lives of its citizens. Each act of government, each law passed, each regulation written is a step toward limiting the freedom of some one or some group or some organization or some business or industry. Granted, some of these steps may be necessary but most of them are not. So let’s not kid ourselves. If conservatives are people who put freedom ahead of security and individual rights ahead of government control, then it must follow that they are opposed to big government. This being the case, a policy of ‘big government conservatism’ is merely an excuse for wayward conservatives to justify moving leftward and anyone who denies this is an ignoramus, a fool, or a hypocrite.” —Lyn Nofziger

Socialism is the politics of Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Pal Pot, Mao and deserves no place at the table for a free man. Liberty and socialistic big Government are incompatible. What we now have is even worse that the Government which prompted the secession from the Union. It truly astounds me that any educated Southerner could vote and thereby support the idealogy of either one of these two political parties.

No, had the South won the War of Northern Aggression, the preservation of slavery would not have been the result. The result would have been the preservation of Liberty and private Property Rights.

Jim Welch