LINCOLN

[Scronx]

This is from the Atlantic Monthly, Dec 05, per Rebel underground Dec 05. While tragic and in a way heartbreaking for Lincoln's own sake, it would tend to support my thesis that many politicians are clinically insane and therefore the most dangerous people to be in charge of running anything. I for one don't consider even these inferences (if true) to be such an excuse or alibi for him, but if they help explain whyAmerican history went to hell in the 1860s, that's progress. /\/


Lincoln's Depression


An interesting alternative analysis of Lincoln's mental, neurological, and physiological condition, titled "Abraham Lincoln's Organic and Emotional Neurosis," was published in the April 1952 issue of the A.M.A. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. Written by Edward Kempf, MD, this analysis, though dated, convincingly postulates that Lincoln's mental aberrations may have been symptomatic of brain damage caused by a blow to the head that he received at age ten, when a recalcitrant workhorse kicked him. He was deeply unconscious for a prolonged period afterward, and for a while was thought to be dead. A pronounced indentation on the left side of his forehead is clearly visible in his life mask.


Kempf's article isn't the final word on Lincoln's mental condition by any means, but it successfully connects many disparate mental symptoms, physical traits, and life events. Ken Higgins, Anchorage, Alaska

[Scronx]

Another quote just in per SHNV (thanks, Chuck!) to add to the huge number already on file showing Lincoln up as a "racist" and "white supremacist." I see it's attested at a diversity of spots online.


http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&n...amp;hl=en& btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=But+for+your+race+am ong+us+the re+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i& as_filetyp e=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i& as_sitesea rch=&as_rights=&safe=images


"But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."

[Scronx]

Here's the lowdown on the real reason the WBTS was fought. It was all about empire, statism, and LOOT.It had absolutely nothing to do with freeing slaves!
<H1 align=center>The Hampton Roads Peace Conference During the WarBetweentheStates</H1>
by John V. Denson
by John V. Denson

< =1.2 src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/.clickability.com/10/_1/.js">




window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.locati on.href; return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;


var js=0.0;

< =1.0>js=1.0;

< =1.1>js=1.1;

< =1.2>js=1.2;

< =1.3>js=1.3;

< =1.4>js=1.4;

< =1.5>js=1.5;
<NOBR></NOBR>


Most establishment historians today might as well be the Orwellian historians writing for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984, especially in relation to the War Between the States. They rarely, if ever, mention the Hampton Roads Peace Conference which occurred in February of 1865, because it brings into question most of the mythology promoted today which states that Lincoln and the North fought the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery and the South fought for the purpose of protecting it, and therefore, it was a great and noble war.


........................................President Lincoln stated that he had always been willing to discuss a peace offer as long as the first condition was met and that would be for the Confederacy to pledge to rejoin the Union. If that condition was agreed upon then they could discuss any other details that were necessary. Mr. Stephens responded by suggesting that if they could come up with some proposal to stop the hostilities, which might lead to the restoration of the Union without further bloodshed, would it not be advisable to act on that proposal, even without an absolute pledge of ultimate restoration being required at the beginning? President Lincoln replied firmly that there would be no stopping of the military operations unless there was a pledge first by the Confederacy to rejoin the Union immediately.................


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html

[Scronx]

<DIV ="blog">
<H2 ="date">April 14, 2006</H2>
<H3 ="title">Lincoln's Plot to Murder Jefferson Davis</H3>
<DIV ="blog">Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at April 14, 2006 09:30 AM
</DIV>
Few Americans know this, but there is growing acceptance among "Civil War" historians that Lincoln's assassination on Good Friday in 1865 was probably revenge for Lincoln's own foiled plot to assassinate Jefferson Davis. It's known as the "Dahlgren affair," so named after Union Army Col. Ulric Dahlgren, who was killed on March 2, 1864 during a failed raid on Richmond. On his body were found orders to assassinate Davis. The government originally denied this, but today, distinguished historians such as Stephen W. Sears, author of a fantastic book on the Battle of Chancellorsville, among others, insist that the story is true. The papers were authentic. There is also much agreement that this is what motivated John Wilkes Booth.
The sickening deification of Lincoln began almost immediately, and was instigated by New England preachers and their pals in the Republican Party. They said Abe was born in a log cabin, close enough to a manger; he was a "railsplitter," close enough to a carpenter; he died on Good Friday; he supposedly died for the sins of the nation, just as Christ died for the sins of the world; and there were even rumors and reports that his tomb was empty. War + religion = insanity.
<DIV ="blog">http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010355.html</DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">John Wilkes Booth: looking saner and saner</DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth</DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">LATER: Abe's Kin fought for South</DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">President Abraham Lincoln had personal troubles that transcended merely running the war. His wife, the former Mary Todd of Lexington, Ky., had four brothers and two brothers-in-law in the Confederate service, which provoked constant public criticisms and expressions of doubts about the first lady and her own loyalties. </DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938001/posts</DIV>
<DIV ="blog"></DIV>
<DIV ="blog">LATER: columnist's [and author's] tragicomic view of "that ape"</DIV>
<DIV ="blog">
This guy starts out exposing Bush and Lincoln as world-wrecking madmen........and ends up glorifying one and mitigating the other? Strange world! /\/.\/\/.
Bush joins Lincoln as detested war leader


T he president lied us into war. Much of the prewar intelligence was wrong. The defense chief was detested as "brusque, domineering and unbearably unpleasant to work with." Civil liberties were abridged. And many embittered Democrats, claiming the war had been a failure, demanded the troops be brought home.


George Bush? Yes -- but also Abraham Lincoln. One is struck by the parallels in reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's masterful new book, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln."


Lincoln repeatedly asserted that his aim was to prevent the spread of slavery, not eliminate it in the South. "I believe I have no lawful right to do so," Goodwin quotes him as saying.


Thus when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation two years into the war, freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, his Northern critics claimed that he had misled the country. A bloody and unnecessary war was being fought in a Utopian effort to bring the blessings of democracy to a people who had little experience with it.


Oh, where did this president get off claiming, as Lincoln did, that his implied powers as commander-in-chief allowed him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, perhaps the most fundamental bulwark of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon tradition?


................No, Bush is no Lincoln. As Kearns Goodwin makes clear, Lincoln was a rare combination of visionary -- his rhetoric may be America's greatest poetry -- and "political genius." Most, if not all, historians agree that a bloody Civil War was probably inevitable. Iraq bids fair to be the quagmire critics say it is.


But the parallels suggest a degree of modesty among those inclined to see Bush -- and his embattled defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld -- as unmitigated disasters. As with Lincoln, much will depend on the outcome.


from IHR news briefs, 29 Nov 2005:
<DIV align=left>A Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry</DIV>
<DIV align=left>By Thomas J. DiLorenzo</DIV>
<DIV align=left></DIV>
<DIV align=left>The January 18, 2002 issue of The Weekly Standard "outed" Doris Kearns Goodwin as a plagiarist, proving that her book, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, used numerous phrases and sentences without attribution from three other books: Time to Remember by Rose Kennedy; The Lost Prince by Hank Searl; and Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times, by Lynne McTaggart. Once this was made public – and the almost identical phrases in Goodwin’s book placed side by side of the originals from which she plagiarized in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, Goodwin admitted that she had previously reached a large "private settlement" with Lynne McTaggart for plagiarizing her work.Such a thing would normally ruin any normal intellectual, but not a valued court historian who has lionized all the major champions of Big Government in recent decades – FDR, Johnson, the Kennedys. The Boston Globe came to Goodwin’s defense...</DIV>
<DIV align=left></DIV>
<DIV align=left>http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo98.html</DIV>
<DIV align=left></DIV></DIV></DIV>Edited by: nelson

[Scronx]

Interesting discussion from SHNV of two of ape linkum's worst white-collar crimes. ButI mainly post it to show that people in Ohio (and many, many, other Northern locales) were as appalled by ape's acts as anyone else. Since these writers can spell "habeas" correctly they probably know what they're talking about.


No conflict
<DIV>From: JonWhite@TIDEFANS.COM
To: kbachand@juno.com </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&lt;&lt;&lt;Conflicting information </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>From: _kbachand@juno.com_ (mailto:kbachand@juno.com) </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In a previous issue of SHNV I asked for anyone to provide documentation that Lincoln ordered the arrest of Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A response from John White (following) asserts the following: “Taney ruled that the President does not have authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, only the legislature does.� </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Now someone (name not given) has contributed a newspaper article (also reposted below)--"The Crisis" Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday, March 11, 1863--asserting: "Congress, by the act passed yesterday authorizing the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus throughout the whole extent of the country, has consummated its series of measures for laying the country prostrate and helpless at the feet of one man." </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>There is a contradiction between these two assertions. Who did it: Lincoln without the approval of Congress (as is the case in Taney’s complaint) or the Congress (as claimed in the newspaper article). Can anyone provide a resolution?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Ken Bachand
Hendersonville, NC&gt;&gt;&gt;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Bachand, there is no conflict between these two items. Look at the dates. Meryman was arrested in May 25th 1861. Taney's ruling in Ex Parte Merryman was issued May 27th 1861. President Lincoln did not convene Congress (the only Federal organ, according to Taney, possessing the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus) until July 4th, 1861. The bill referenced in the newspaper article was passed in March of 1863, almost two years after President Lincoln authorized military commanders to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Baltimore. If Lincoln took it upon himself to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and to delegate that power to subordinate military commanders, then he was in error (according to Roger Taney). If he wanted to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, he should have convened Congress forthwith, so that they could suspend the writ. But he didn't convene Congress. He suspended the writ himself.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Now, because Congress eventually got around to suspending the writ of habeas corpus in 1863 does nto excuse the Executive in doing so on his own bogus authority in 1861.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I believe the Ohio newspaper article was taking issue over whether the writ of habeas corpus should have been suspended, not alleging that it was done illegally.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I hope this helps.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Respectfully,</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Jon White</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>***********************
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>RE: Conflicting Information on Habeas Corpus </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>From: fireeater1861@yahoo.com </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The question put by Mr. Ken Bachand is: Did Lincoln suspend the writ of habeas corpus in 1863 or did Congress?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The answer is that Lincoln first illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus on 27 April 1861 (and more suspensions followed later). The phony Congress, controlled by Lincoln and scared to death of him, rubber-stamped his suspension of the writ on 3 March 1863, ex post facto.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In other words, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the approval of Congress. The act was considered illegal by the majority of legal scholars of the day. The suspension of the writ is provided by the Constitution in Article I (Section 9), which pertains not to the powers enumerated to the Executive but to the Legislative branch.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Greg Loren Durand discusses the issue in his book, "America's Caesar" (especially pages 398ff and 450ff). Rawles' "A View of the Constitution" (1825) held that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus (see the Kennedy &amp; Kennedy edition, p. 105).</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>~MacDonald King Aston</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>***********************</DIV>
<DIV>
Lincoln vs. Roger B. Taney </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>From: NCarolinareb@netscape.net
To: kbachand@juno.com, demastus@aol.com </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Roger B. Taney ("TAW-nee") was the fifth Chief Justice of the United States from 1836 until his death in 1864. He is best remembered as the author of the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), overturning all restrictions on the spread of slavery into the territories, and declared that no African American, either slave or free, could ever be counted a citizen under the Constitution of the United States and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. The plaintiff did not become free after traveling through territory in which slavery was prohibited, because this would deprive his owner of his right to property.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>With the secession of the first seven southern states and Lincoln's call for troops to *suppress the rebellion", Maryland's secession seemed imminent. This would have isolated Washington, DC. To stop this Lincoln declared martial law in parts of the State of Maryland and suspended the right to habeas corpus, essentially arresting any Maryland government officials who were a threat. At the time, Justices of the Supreme Court traditionally sat as circuit judges while the Supreme Court was not in session. In this capacity, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled in Ex parte Merryman (1861) that only Congress had the power to take this action.
Some scholars argue that Lincoln made an aborted attempt to arrest Taney himself in response to his habeas corpus decision, though the evidence is relatively sparse and currently unresolved. Lincoln ignored the court's order and continued to arrest prisoners without the privilege of the writ, though Merryman was eventually released without charges. Some Radical Republicans in Congress even considered initiating impeachment charges against Taney.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Kenny Ramsey, Commander
SCV Camp 2048
Tehachapi/Bakersfield</DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>Edited by: nelson

[Scronx]

Note which image they chose for the homepage
<DIV>Master archive of historical Abraham Lincoln cartoons

http://www.abrahamlincolncartoons.info/ </DIV>Edited by: nelson

[Scronx]

Many famous and beloved Lincoln quotes are fake





..........while some are so horrible you almost wish they were. This one only appears 4 times online, but alas with no attribution. It certainly sounds authentic, and if anybody can produce a source I'll make it worth their while. The ramifications for today's atmosphere of stifling conformity and coercion should be obvious.


The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime." "Arrests," wrote President Lincoln to that Albany committee of Democrats, "are not made so much for what has been done as for what might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy. "Under Lincoln's definition silence became an act of treason. "Much more, if a man talks ambiguously, talks with 'buts' and 'ifs' and 'ands' he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason."

[Scronx]

John Wilkes Booth, continued.


"Booth believed he was striking down a despotic American Caesar who had conducted a ruthless Civil War by trampling on the Constitution, suspending the right of habeas corpus, trying thousands of civilians before military tribunals, and ending slavery in Booth's beloved South" -- ho hum, what a ridiculous notion.


Fresh angle on hunt for Lincoln's assassin


Where's Oliver Stone when you really need him?
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


Turns out that there was a conspiracy to shoot the president.
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


President Lincoln, that is.


In the past few years, at least five books have been devoted, in whole or in part, to explaining how and why the actor John Wilkes Booth in April 1865 murdered perhaps America's greatest president. The accounts also talk of those who helped Booth.
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


Now comes veteran Lincoln-hand James L. Swanson with a fresh angle: how Booth and his cronies were detected, chased down and caught in the furious 12-day aftermath of America's first presidential assassination. And he looks at how Booth was shot dead in a Virginia tobacco barn that had been set afire by pursuing soldiers.
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


Swanson labors under some handicaps.
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


The narrative's most interesting character -- Lincoln himself -- is gone after the first act.
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


Its most controversial figure -- Samuel Mudd, the Maryland physician who set Booth's broken leg and was sentenced to life in prison for it -- takes center stage for only a few hours after the killing. (Swanson concludes that Mudd, part of an earlier, never-consummated plot to help Booth kidnap Lincoln, was not involved in the assassination, though he did help Booth escape.) So Swanson lets Booth's flawed, flamboyant character push the tale along. The result is a diabolically fascinating Booth, neither a cat's-paw in a Confederate government plot, as Lincoln's contemporaries believed, nor the ego-driven loner he seems when viewed in the light cast by 20th-century assassins such as Lee Harvey Oswald..............


http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...ticle?AID=/200 60222/LIFE/602220318/-1/NEWS01
<DIV id=locati&#111;n></DIV>


<!-- At Rendering:
Time used: 44423 ms

Initializing : 15ms

Starting first parse

.Build 0: 2095 ms (Misc)

.Build 3: 38670 ms (Article)

.Parsing macro sitecatalyst

..Build 3: 1313 ms (Article)

.Completed macro sitecatalyst

.Build 9: 1548 ms (Content)

. NewsList: 672ms

.Build 16: 672 ms (NewsList)

Retrieve categories: 16ms

Read templates: 1328ms

Read objects: 34246ms

Scripts: 3052ms


At Runtime:
Time used: 44704 ms

Initializing : 15ms

Starting first parse

.Build 0: 2095 ms (Misc)

.Build 3: 38670 ms (Article)

.Parsing macro sitecatalyst

..Build 3: 1313 ms (Article)

.Completed macro sitecatalyst

.Build 9: 1548 ms (Content)

. NewsList: 672ms

.Build 16: 672 ms (NewsList)

Retrieve categories: 16ms

Read templates: 1328ms

Read objects: 34246ms

Scripts: 3052ms

Starting second parse

.Build 0: 265 ms (Misc)

Retrieve categories: 0ms

Read templates: 0ms

Read objects: 0ms

Scripts: 0ms


-->

<!--
var SymReal&#079;nLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

Sym&#079;nLoad()
{
if(SymReal&#079;nLoad != null)
SymReal&#079;nLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymReal&#079;nLoad = window.&#111;nload;
window.&#111;nload = Sym&#079;nLoad;

//-->

[Scronx]

<H1 align=center>The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up</H1>
by Thomas J. DiLorenzoby Thomas J. DiLorenzo


On July 19 the Associated Press and Reuter’s reported an "amazing find" at a museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania: A copy of a letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution.


Actually, the letter is not at all "amazing" to anyone familiar with the real Lincoln. It was a copy of a letter that was sent to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that would have made southern slavery constitutionally "irrevocable," to use the word that Lincoln used in his first inaugural address. The amendment passed after the lower South had seceded, suggesting that it was passed with almost exclusively Northern votes. Lincoln and the entire North were perfectly willing to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution. This is one reason why the great Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner, author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, hated and despised Lincoln and his entire gang.


The Lincoln cult knows about all of this, but works diligently to keep it out of view of the general public. The fact that news organizations reported the "find," however, creates a problem for the cult. A cover-up/excuse-making campaign must commence.


The document was found in the Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Historical Society archives in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The director of the Society, Joseph Garrera, described in the press as "a Lincoln scholar," immediately announced that the document is not at all important, since such documents are "a dime a dozen".............[img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]


[no link available yet]

[Michael]

Here is an article on Lincoln becoming president with less than 40% of the popular vote.


http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9699


In other words, how a minority of the voters can cause a widespread catastrophe that is still with us today.

[Nelson]

Here's a long, seemingly authentic article on Lincoln's family origins. It's also based right where I'm sitting, in the very "Heritage Corridor" hyped by the SC Dept. of Tourism. Most of the names inthe articleare still quite visible or active in these parts, though Hanks is an ironic exception. Am 50 feet from Crayton St., 6 blocks from Tribble and of course 20 minutes from Fort Hill in Clemson. Ironically enough, the first friend of mine ever written up by the SPLC was James Orr, a farm boy in NJ who dared to run for office on a populist platform.


Speaking of Jew Jersey, this story was published in a Sons of Confederate Veterans and conveyed to me by two fellow ex-Jerseyites, one of whom is a homeschooling mother of six—all of whom are known to dress in period garb for War Between the States Reenactments.


The mystery is where this Craytonville was. It no longer exists, although people avow that the spot of the trysts in question was actually the corner of Whitehall and North Main where a CVS now sits.


http://www.greenvillesouth.com/abe.html


THE MYSTERY OF NANCY HANKS CALHOUN, LINCOLN: ENIGMA STILL INTRIGUES HISTORIANS


Who was Abraham Lincoln?


His true origin becomes lost in a sea of folklore, myths, half-truths and biographical confusion when one attempts to take a hard appraising look into his parental background. But stick to it long enough and look hard enough and out of the perplexities emerges a pattern that seems to make sense, albeit a pattern, which millions profess not to see.


That's the dilemma when it comes to dealing with the true Lincoln. He has been made a saint, a martyr and the symbol of the Republican Party. Lincolnophites have done a good job of raising him on high and placing him on a pedestal as the personification of wisdom, justice, humility and human principles.


The real Lincoln is virtually unknown to the American people of this era. This is not to say he was not a man of great mental ability. He was. But to enshroud him in the cloak of a saint is pure blasphemy. Lincoln was no holy man, even though that huge statue of him in Washington depicts him in a prayerful mood. He was an agnostic to put it mildly and when a young man wrote pamphlets espousing the cause of atheism. This was his privilege. He is to be admired for giving utterance to his true thoughts instead of locking them in a mental closet and posing as a worker in the vineyard. We merely mention this angle to show how far wrong most people are in their appraisal of Lincoln.


Lincoln was a shrewd lawyer. What's more, he charged some of the highest fees of his era. He was well heeled when elected to the presidency. When he died he left a small fortune to his trouble making widow, who promptly squandered it and as far as freeing the slaves, he only freed those behind the confederate lines over whom he had no control. Slaves in territory occupied by Federal forces weren't affected by the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln wasn’t concerned so much with liberating the Negroes as he was with creating confusion within the Confederacy.


BUT WHO WAS THIS LINCOLN? FROM WHENCE DID HE COME?


There are those who say, and not without reason, that Lincoln was the son of John C. Calhoun, whose home still stands on Fort Hill at Clemson, and Nancy Hank of Craytonville. Conclusive proof is lacking but there is proof enough to lend substantial credence to the theory. Lincoln never claimed to be of legitimate birth. To the contrary, William H. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, claims that Lincoln told him on more than one occasion that he, Lincoln, was an illegitimate. Herndon also said that Lincoln was a he-man, not a melancholic sentimentalist and when occasion demanded could swear in a most eloquent manner.


If Lincoln was an illegitimate, this is not to be held against him. Some of the greatest men in history were illegitimates. Still, the story that he was the son of John C. Calhoun and Nancy Hanks is intriguing enough to justify placing the evidence on exhibit for all to see.


In the beginning, to lend further strength to the illegitimacy theory, we refer to the memoirs of the late Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior during the Roosevelt administration. Ickes tells of a conversation he overheard between Roosevelt and the Librarian of Congress. The subject was the purchase of a private collection of Lincoln letters and other papers. The Librarian of Congress quibbled, "Mr. President, " he said, “if these letters are purchased they will become public property and will prove beyond doubt that Lincoln was an illegitimate. Shall we decline to purchase the collection, or shall we purchase it and suppress or destroy papers relating to Lincoln' s paternity?” To this Ickes quoted Roosevelt as replying, “Purchase it and destroy nothing. Whether or not Lincoln was an illegitimate has nothing to do with his greatness.”


What happened to the collection is questionable. As for the Lincoln-Calhoun angle, today is presented what may be termed a “synopsis of facts.” They were gathered by an Independent writer after much research and or the first time the South Carolina angle is tied to the North Carolina angle as presented by the late Judge Felix Alley in his “Random Thoughts and the Musings of a Mountaineer.”


Those readers who wish more than just an assemblage of words should visit the Ebenezer cemetery, south of Anderson and near the Abbeville county line. Here they will find a tombstone erected to Luke Hanks, born October, 1774, died April, 1856. He was the son of Ann and Luke Hanks, and brother of Nancy Hanks. Nearby are ancient tombstones erected to other members of the Hanks family. Parents of Nancy Hanks are buried in the original Hanks graveyard, now deserted to grass and brambles. Their graves are unknown, for native rock slabs protrude here. They bear no inscriptions.


A few miles southward from the Ebenezer community, is Craytonville, a thriving town in the early years of Anderson county and the site of Orr’s tavern. It was operated by Jehu Orr, a veteran of the Revolution. The same tavern had earlier been operated by Ann Hanks.


The tavern had a bar. Nancy Hanks was a barmaid. Orr took over the tavern in 1817. Mention of the tavern introduces into the picture John C. Calhoun, South Carolina’s greatest statesman.


Calhoun returned to his home on an Abbeville county farm from the law school in Litchfield, Connecticut, in 1807 and commenced the practice of law. He had frequent business in Pendleton, seat of government for the Pendleton District. Craytonville was midway between Abbeville and Pendleton. Calhoun often stopped at this tavern for the night. He found the food there quite satisfying, and a certain maid good to look upon. Her name was Nancy Hanks.


This brings up the question. Who were the Hanks? The family history of this stalwart pioneer tribe was long ago carefully traced by the late J.D. Knotts, of Swansea, well known South Carolina historian. He conducted considerable research in Amelia county, Virginia; Hardin and Washington counties, Kentucky; Buncombe county, North Carolina, and Anderson and Abbeville counties in this state (SC).


In brief, Benjamin Hanks came from England, settled in Massachusetts, raised a large family. The Hanks boy were skilled workmen. During the Revolutionary War they made cannonballs for the continental army. After the war, they cast a bell to replace the famous Liberty Bell at Philadelphia, cracked while being rung too violently.


Luke Hanks came to Anderson county in 1778 in company with three other brothers. The brothers went west. Luke stayed, married and became the father of several children. Some of Luke's offsprings married and intermarried with children of Benjamin Harris, who got a number of land grants from 1765 to 1808 in what is now Anderson, Abbeville, Oconee and Greenville counties.


The will of Luke Hanks, dated May 14, 1789, was found on file in the Abbeville court house in, 1910 by B.F. Gary, well known Abbeville attorney. The deceased gave all his land to his wife, Ann Hanks, for life, then to her children. No one knows when Ann Hanks died, but in 1835 the heirs of Luke Hanks commenced a kind of friendly suit to divide up the 210 acres of land he had owned.


For some unknown reason there are two lists of heirs. In one list, a girl, Scilla South, is omitted; in another list, she is included. The same goes for a girl by the name of Susan Hanks, who married a Haynie. Litigation continued until 1842, when all heirs agreed to throw down all the past because of improper, awkward groupings of the heirs. Peter Vandiver, of Anderson, a cautious and able lawyer, then proceeded to straighten things out.


Thomas Hanks, Luke Hanks Jr., and John Hanks were still alive; George and Robert dead; Martha, Elizabeth, Sudie and Judith, who had married four sons of John Haynie, were dead, and Scilla, who had married a South, also dead. Lucretia, who married a Pruitt, was alive. In as much as children of the deceased were to the shares of their parents, there were 57 heirs, 27 of whom had moved out of the state. All were given a legal citation in the Highland Sentinel, a newspaper published at Anderson by I.P. Reed.


Among the descendants beyond the state was one Nancy Hanks. There are five Nancies in the 57 heirs, two Nancy Haynies, one Nancy A. Hanks, Nancy McDonald, and this Nancy Hanks. Nancy A. Hanks was a grandchild and represented by "Guardian ad Lit em". Her skirts are cleared. Then who was the other Nancy Hanks?


She had gone beyond the borders of the state for she never made a showing; never claimed her share in the estate. She was called but chose not to answer.


Now it is known that Luke and Ann Hanks had a daughter by the name of Nancy who disappeared when a young woman. She was the same Nancy Hanks who worked at the Craytonville tavern; the girl who appealed to John C. Calhoun, the young lawyer.


Shortly after the close of the War Between The States in the historic Burt home in Abbeville, General Armstead Burt confided to friends the story of Nancy Hanks. Along about the same time, James L. Orr, of Anderson, then Governor of South Carolina related the same story. In earlier years, John Hanks, grandson of Luke and Ann Hanks, confirmed in the presence of witnesses all that was said in later years.


General Burt married John C. Calhoun's niece. He was a lifelong friend of the Calhoun family. It was at his house that Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Cabinet met for the last time. Following Lincoln's assassination, General Burt told a group of friends in the utmost secrecy that the greatest trial in Calhoun's life was caused by a young woman named Nancy Hanks and when things came to the worst he hired a young man named Lincoln to take her away. This Lincoln was a hog drover, a native of Kentucky. In 1809, Lincoln arrived in Pendleton District with a number of other men and a drove of Tennessee hogs. After selling the hogs, Lincoln was hired to go to Charleston (or Ninety Six) to bring back a cannon for an artillery company which had been organized in proximity of Craytonville. In due time he returned not only the cannon but a keg of rum in addition. This is now known as "The Old Reformer". It stands on the plaza in Anderson. The rum vanished long ago.


Lincoln was not exactly a freelancer. At times he worked for a man named Abe Enloe, a large cattle and slave dealer. Enloe lived in what is now Buncombe county, North Carolina and maintained quite a bit of livestock at Craytonville. Following the expedition to secure the cannon,


Lincoln remained in Craytonville to look after Abe Enloe's interest.


Here he made the acquaintance of John C. Calhoun, who was in quite a "picklement”. He had discovered that Nancy Hanks was well along the way toward giving birth to a child of which he was the father. On learning that Lincoln planned to return to Kentucky within a short time, Calhoun employed him to carry her to the home of her uncle Joseph Hanks, who lived in Elizabethton, Kentucky.


Nancy left Craytonville on horseback, riding behind Lincoln. Nancy's child was born in North Carolina, where Lincoln stopped to talk business with Abe Enloe.


Thus goes the story as related by General Burt; also by James L. Orr, who served as a speaker of the House of Representatives; as Governor of South Carolina, and who died while ambassador to Russia. Orr was especially in position to know about Nancy Hank's situation. He was born in over the tavern there from the Hanks family. When Orr entered politics the Hankses were among his best and most loyal supporters. They confided in him family secrets.


Mrs. Fannie Calhoun Marshall, of Abbeville, who died some 30 years ago at the age of 102, always maintained that Abraham Lincoln was the son of John C. Calhoun and Nancy Hanks. She too, was in a position to know. Was she not a Calhoun herself? On the other side of the fence the Hankses never denied Lincoln's mother was a native of Anderson county. For years they were silent on the matter, however, possibly because of sectional animosities aroused by the War Between The States.


An interesting sidelight is furnished by a letter written in 1860 by James R. Hanks, son of Luke Hanks' brother, Joseph, who migrated to Kentucky, after pausing briefly in Anderson county. James R. was a hatter by trade, a Republican politically. The letter in question he addressed to J. P. Martin, a kinsman in his county, requesting that Martin and other members of the Hanks clan support Lincoln for president "for he is our kinsman”.


The late Jesse McGee and Tillman Hanks say such a letter did come but they did not see it. Mrs. Laura Hanks said she heard Col. Martin say he had received it. J.L. Tribble said Samuel Emerson told him he had seen and read the letter. It made Col. Martin mad and he refused to answer it.


In 1910, in the presence of J.D. Hanks and John F. Martin, Laura Hanks, then an aged woman (having been born in 1841) said that since her marriage into the Hanks family she had heard of Nancy Hanks' affair with John C. Calhoun and Nancy’s subsequent escape into Kentucky. She knew most of the Hanks boys and girls. Some left South Carolina and died in the west. Luke and George died in Anderson county. She could tell all about their burying and where and who preached Luke's funeral. Mrs. Hanks' statement was written down by Motte Barns, of Anderson. Also in 1910, Jesse McGee, then 85, made the following statement to Knotts: “I married Squire James Emerson's daughter in 1852, and settled down and have lived all these years right here in the midst of the Hanks family. Squire Emerson took great interest in tracing out the connection between the Hanks family in this county and Abraham Lincoln. He found that there was no doubt about Nancy Hanks being the mother of Lincoln."


The late Mrs. A.B. Byrd, of Belton, whose first husband was Dr.W.C. Brown, brother of the late Governor Joe Brown, of Georgia, made an interesting statement throwing much light on the Lincoln tradition, of which the following is a synopsis:


In 1856, Mrs. Byrd married Dr. W.C. Brown, who was practicing medicine at Belton, and along about that time Abraham Lincoln became prominent as a candidate for the presidency. One day “Uncle Johnnie” Hanks, for whose family Dr. Brown was physician, came for some medicine.


In Mrs. Byrd's presence, Dr. Brown asked Hanks if all those reports about Nancy Hanks, Lincoln and Calhoun were true. He replied, "I am sorry to tell you, Doctor, that they are. Nancy was my father's sister and I know what I’m talking about.” Hanks then related how Calhoun frequently stopped at the tavern at Craytonville two or three days at a time and hunted and fished with the Hanks boys. When the family found out about Nancy’s condition, Nancy asked the privilege of staying until she could communicate with her uncle in Kentucky and procure a home. Calhoun, who had caused her sorrow, had promised to give her $500 to carry her where she wanted to go.


William Hanks, of Belton, a grandson of Luke, told D.J. Knotts in the presence of H.F. Hanks, a merchant of Belton, and also in the presence of the Rev. W.T. Tate, that in about 1890 Col. B.F. Crayton, of Anderson, asked him if he knew he was a kinsman of Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Hanks replied that he had heard such. Mr. Crayton then added that there was no doubt about it as the facts had been related to him by his father, from whom Craytonville was named.


There is a striking resemblance between Lincoln and Calhoun. In 1872, President U.S. Grant appointed James L. Orr, of Anderson, as ambassador to Russia and personally proceeded to make out his Masonic credentials for him. While this was being done, Mr. Orr turned to a group of his fellow Masons, pointed to Calhoun and Lincoln's pictures, called attention to the resemblance and commented that some day history would say that Calhoun was Lincoln's father.


In his Random Thoughts and Musings of a Mountaineer, Judge Felix writes, "Hon. Thomas G. Clemson was John C. Calhoun’s son-in-law. His private library is in the possession of Clemson College. It has, for a long time, been rumored that in the library there are documents that prove beyond all preadventure that John C. Calhoun was the father of Abraham by Nancy Hanks. The rumor is also that these documents are not open to the public, and that notwithstanding such rumor, no one has been heard to deny the existence of the documents referred to.”


Shortly after close of the War Between the States, Lincoln's old law partner, William H. Herndon, wrote a biography of the late president. Herndon stated that several times Lincoln told him that he (Lincoln) was illegitimate. When the first edition of the biography was placed on the market, Lincoln-loving fanatics frantically sought to buy up the books and destroy them. They also brought great pressure to bear on Herndon. This resulted in the first edition being withdrawn. The book was then "toned down" to omit all references to illegitimacy. There still are, however, at least half a dozen copies of the original edition in existence.


Judge Felix Alley produces a tremendous amount of evidence that Tom Lincoln carried Nancy Hanks from Craytonville to the plantation of Abe Enloe in North Carolina; that Lincoln was born there and named Abraham after Abraham Enloe. Later, Tom Lincoln carried Nancy on to Kentucky to the home of her uncle, Joseph Hanks. Meanwhile he formed an affinity for the unfortunate girl and later married her, thus providing the infant Abraham with the surname of Lincoln.


It was not until long after Lincoln's death, that any record evidence of the-marriage of Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks was found. Herndon and Ward H. Lamon in the biographies of Lincoln had each asserted that after the most diligent search, no records could be found. However, in 1878, W.F. Booker, Clerk of Court of Washington county, Kentucky, found what purported to be a certificate of Jesse Head, a Methodist Deacon or minister, setting forth that he did perform a marriage ceremony for Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks on the 22nd of September, 1806. The authenticity of this and other records has been questioned by several authors. They are believed to be clever forgeries. Marriage certificates were virtually unknown until about 50 years ago.


Just when Lincoln was born is a matter open to question. Many years after the death of his mother and the death of Thomas Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln made an entry in his stepmother’s Bible that he was born February 12, 1809. Truth is, he probably didn't know when he was born; just selected this date at random, considering it to be "as good as any".


Some years later Herndon made this comment, "What the facts referred to by Mr. Scripps were, we do not know; for he died several years ago without, so far is known, having revealed them." Thus it will forever remain a mystery what it was that Lincoln wished suppressed about his ancestry.


In only two instances did Lincoln, by his own hand, leave any record of his history or family descent. One of these was a modest bit of biography furnished Jesse W. Fell, in 1859, in which he makes brief mention of his mother, saying, "She came of a family of the name of Hanks."


After Lincoln's death, his personal papers were impounded and placed in trust of his son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who became president of the Pullman Sleeping Car Co. and who survived until the late 1930s. One day in about 1932 a friend called on Robert Todd Lincoln and found him busily engaged in burning a portion of his father's papers. When the friend protested, Lincoln said, "History has been written and there is no point in changing it at this late a day".


Only two writers ever saw the papers in their entirety and that was more than 80 years ago. John Nicolay and John Hay, Lincoln's presidential secretaries, had access to the documents when they prepared their great ten volume "Life of Lincoln".


Herndon accused these historians of portraying Lincoln "with silken gloves and camel-hair brush, not with an iron pen.” He maintained they suppressed Lincoln's all but jilting of Mary Todd on the night of their marriage and "maternal facts of Lincoln's paternity".


David C. Mearns, the Congressional Library's authority on Lincoln's life, was asked some 20 years ago if Nicolay and Hay suppressed what they alone knew, he replied: "It was the Victorian age, not only in England but in America as well. The Victorian mode was cupids, lillies and blue birds; to write was to gild."


And there the matter rests -- "to write was to gild." In all probability, Lincoln's true paternity has been gilded over. All of which really makes little difference insofar as Lincoln the man is concerned, but contributes nothing toward satisfying the curiosity of quite a few people in this section of the country.


John Locke Scripps, of the Chicago Tribune, is said to have been Lincoln's first biographer. He obtained from Lincoln in person, the information for a campaign biography in 1860 after he had been nominated for the presidency. He gave Scripps the facts necessary to enable him to prepare his book; and soon after Lincoln's death, Scripps wrote as follows to William H. Herndon, who had commenced to gather material for his biography of Lincoln, "Lincoln seemed to be painfully impressed with the extreme poverty of his early surroundings and the utter absence of all romantic and heroic elements. He communicated some facts to me concerning his ancestry, which he did not wish to have published and which I have never spoken or alluded to before".


Copied at Abbeville Courthouse, South Carolina District of Abbeville:


This agreement made and entered into on the 19th day of February 1809. I John C. Calhoun of the said state and district, of the first part and Nancy Hanks of the second part, for and in the consideration of the sum of $100.00 per year, to be paid to Nancy Hanks, for the support of an illegitimate son born February 12, 1809. The said sum of money to be paid to Christopher Orr, who shall act as guardian for said child.


John C. Calhoun Signed in the presence of, and on the above mentioned date. Witness Christopher Orr, Robert Brown Norris, Thomas Lincoln.





When you've finished reading this account, explore these links holding other views of Lincoln's parents:


Glenn Gohr's Home Page with Kanks Genealogy
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....age/hanks.html


ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S PARENTS: a site created by Roger Norton http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln81.html


If you know of oither resourecs to explore this topic, please send and email.


This account of THE MYSTERY OF NANCY HANKS CALHOUN, LINCOLN: ENIGMA STILL INTRIGUES HISTORIANS, has been copied word-for-word (with a minimum of obvious spelling corrections) from an earlier typewritten copy included with genealogical records of a Greenville SC family. The originating source is not known by this transcriber.


© 2006 greenvillesouth.com

[Nelson]

Good short speech by Tom DiLorenzo


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo132.html


"He literally threatened an invasion over tax collection"


"He was not well-like and even despised by his own people"


"Even the communist Party USA used to hold Lincoln-Lenin rallies in NYC, and had gigantic pictures of Lincoln and Lenin in their offices"

[Nelson]

From SHNV: Castro links Che, Lincoln
http://leagueofthesouth.net/rebellio...p/site/castro_ links_che_lincoln/


despite his dementia, ol’ Castro’s on to something:
<BLOCKQUOTE>


Abraham Lincoln alongside Che Guevara? Cuban leader Fidel Castro linked the two today in a newspaper column ridiculing American calls for democratic change in Cuba.


Castro praised Lincoln for abolishing slavery in the United States. He wrote that the Civil War president was “anchored to the just idea that all citizens are born free and equal.”</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV =posted>Posted by Mike Tuggle on 10/30 at 08:46 AM
</DIV>

[Michael]

An article entitled "Jimmy Carter criticizes Lincoln and his brutal war."

Former US president Jimmy Carter is a contributing author in a new book on Abraham Lincoln.





In the recent past Carter has written two books advocating peace in the Holy Land. His books have been denounced by a variety of Jewish organizations for advocating a two state solution.





His new work is being attacked for telling the truth about Abraham Lincoln. Carter rejects the term "Civil War," and calls the war "un-Christian." Carter also correctly suggests that slavery would have ended peacefully without war.

http://cofcc.org/?p=4490

[Nelson3]

Oh boy, a riotous dialog between Thomas DiLorenzo and John Lofton on Nerd Gingrich's (and others') paroxysms of Lincoln-worship!

http://www.iotconline.com/radio/aview/tav20090715a.mp3

[Michael]

An article entitled "If Obama is the New Lincoln, What Should Be Expected"

During Lincoln's campaign, Marx cheered him on, calling him "The single minded son of the working class." Marx even wrote a personal letter of congratulations to Lincoln, on both of his elections, letters that were hand delivered by the US ambassador to England. Praise from Marx and his communists continued to fall upon Lincoln and even through the 1930s, the Communist Party of New York celebrated a Lincoln-Lenin Day. Marx was also very active in drumming up support in England and France to stymie their recognition of the Confederacy and the loaning of aid for its survival.

Americans as a whole love the tired and worn out myth of loving their freedom, their constitution and their rights and being willing to die for them. Nothing could be further from the truth, well at least in the North.

In the 1850s, as the Republican Party came to power, they and their Whig allies, in order to help their Marxist oligarchs and financial backers, while building the Imperial Federal government, placed heavy export duties on American goods. At that point, most of those goods came out of the South. Thus it came to pass that 30% of the American population was paying for 70% of the Federal budget. The government was growing quickly, making an onerous yoke upon the people. However, the German/English stock of the North seemed to enjoy this, while the Scots Irish of the South chaffed. As such, at this point, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, a dedicated Red, the Southern states, in their individual assemblies voted overwhelmingly to secede, as was their right at the time under the US Constitution.

Lincoln and the Republicans would have none of that. The problem was, much of the North was against any kind of war and while choosing not to leave the Union, actively supported the South's rights. To that end, Lincoln suspended the right of Habeas Corpus and without charges, began the mass arrests of his enemies and critics.

In total, 48,000 people were imprisoned by Lincoln, without trial, their lands confiscated, their reputations destroyed, their lives ruined, all this by the "champion" of the Constitution, as he is now called. Amongst these were prominent journalists, editors and politicians. In short, Lincoln all but wiped out the old conservative press of America. He further forbade the post service from delivering any newspaper or magazine that dared to criticize him.

http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2009/...ma-is-new-linc oln-what-should-be.html

[Michael]

An article entitled "Asia Times publishes article blasting Lincoln as a brutal dictator who turned nation over to corporate elites."

http://cofcc.org/2010/11/asia-times-...article-blasti ng-lincoln-as-a-brutal-dictator-who-turned-nation-over-to-co rporate-elites/

[Nelson3]

SHNV


New England Slave Traders Profiting Twice
<DIV>From: bernhard1848@att.net </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The British government resolved the question of African slavery peacefully with compensated abolition, and using the accumulated wealth of the country to ease the transition. Neither the fervent abolitionists nor the Northern government advanced any such peaceful plans, though their stated object was the end of slavery. Below, Lincoln and his Secretary were eager to please their radical masters and force a gunpoint-reunion with States that had no desire to associate with them. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net
</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>New England Slave Traders Profiting Twice: </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>“We met Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward aboard the steamer, and soon the conference was commenced by Mr. [Alexander H.] Stephens. [Lincoln] distinctly affirmed that he would not treat except on the basis of reunion and the abolition of slavery. Neither Lincoln nor Seward showed any wise or considerate regard for the whole country, or any desire to make the war as little disastrous to the whole country as possible. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>If they entertained any such desires they made no exhibition. Their whole object seemed to be to force a reunion and an abolition of slavery. If this could be done, they seemed to feel little care for the distress and suffering of the defeated party. Mr. Lincoln, it is true, said that a politician on his side had declared that $400,000,000 ought to be given by way of compensation to the slaveholders, and in this opinion he expressed his concurrence. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Upon this Mr. Seward exhibited some impatience and got up to walk across the floor, exclaiming as he moved, that in his opinion the United States had done enough in expending so much money on the war for the abolition of slavery, and had suffered enough in enduring the losses necessary to carry on the war. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>“Ah, Mr. Seward,” said Mr. Lincoln, “you may talk so about slavery, if you will; but if it was wrong in the South to hold slaves, it was wrong in the North to carry on the slave trade and sell them to the South (as it is notorious that they did, he might have added), and to have held on to the money thus procured without compensation, if the slaves were to be taken by them again.” </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Lincoln said, however, that he was not authorized to make such a proposition, nor did he make it. It was evident that both the President and the Secretary were afraid of the extreme men of their party.” </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>(Southern Historical Society Papers, The Peace Commission of 1865 (excerpt), Hon. R.M.T. Hunter, Volume III, pp. 173-174)</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>LATER. </DIV>
<DIV>
<H3 =title>More Knee-Slapping Lincoln Cult Hilarity </H3>
<DIV =-byline>Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on February 23, 2011 11:53 AM </DIV>
<DIV =entry>


Writing in the Washington Post, Lincoln cultist Harold Holzer (bosom buddy of Hillary Clinton and co-author of Mario Cuomo) “defends” Lincoln against scholarship that shows that he was probably gay or bisexual by writing that Abe was “a regular customer in prairie brothels.” I wonder what all those ministers who love quoting Lincoln and holding him up as a moral role model in church on Sundays will think of this!


“Defending” Lincoln against “charges” that he was too compassionate(!), Holzer points out that Abe reveled in ordering conscript/deserters to be shot; boasts that he ordered the “largest mass execution in American History” when 38 Santee Sioux Indians were hanged after each was given a five-minute military “trial”; and, after all, he waged “the bloodiest war in American history.”





</DIV></DIV>Edited by: Nelson3

[Michael]

An article entitled "Abraham Lincoln 'tried to deport slaves' to British colonies"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...8/Abraham-Linc oln-tried-deport-slaves-British-colonies.html

[Nelson3]

THIS IS MAGNIFICENT despite its extreme brevity and the understandable partial ignorance of the three speakers on slavery, race etc.</font>

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/45490...coln-worst-pre sident-ever/