American Stalin:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Real Abraham Lincoln

They didn't teach you this in school... A published economist's comments on Abraham Lincoln...

"Lincoln was a master politician, which means he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar." -- Economist Murray Rothbard, "America's Two Just Wars: 1776 and 1861," in "The Costs of War: American's Pyrrhic Victories," ed. John Denson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1997), p. 131

The Editor of Ebony Magazine comments on Abraham Lincoln...

"On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race. In Galesburg, he referred to 'the inferior races.' Who were 'the inferior races'? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called 'mongrells," and probably all colored people." -- Lerone Bennett, Jr., Editor of Ebony Magazine, "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream" (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 2000), p. 132

How Honest Abe really felt about slavery... which begs the question: Was the Civil War really fought because Honest Abe was sympathetic to slaves, and wanted to free slaves? Let's see what Honest Abe himself says about the subject...

"Negro equality? Fudge!" -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 1859 (Vol. III) "If I could save The Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" -- Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862 "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." -- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854 "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858," in "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy P. Basler (New York: Da Capo Press, 1990), p. 445 "I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white 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 will ever forbid the two races 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." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois," in "Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings" (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 636, and in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, page 371 "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas," p. 444 "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273 "We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States, not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois "The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Peoria, Illinois "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." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861 "Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington." -- Letter from Abraham Lincoln to A.H. Stephens, Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150 "My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley "Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857 Mr. Wendell Phillips said that Lincoln was badgered into issuing the emancipation proclamation, and that after it was issued, Lincoln said it was the greatest folly of his life. President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation evidently had in mind to colonize or segregate the slaves if freed: "It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there." Abraham Lincoln later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina: "If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of." Ben Butler responded to this by saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. Actually, Honest Abe brought up the slavery issue to gain sympathy only after he was losing the war. It worked, and the tide turned. However his true character is revealed in his words.

How Honest Abe really felt about Christianity:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." -- 1862 letter from Abraham Lincoln to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln Comments made by Abraham Lincoln's friend and former law partner, William H. Herndon, shortly after Lincoln's death:

"Mr. Lincoln was an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism." "He never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception." "He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake."

In 1834, while still living in New Salem and before he became a lawyer, he was surrounded by a class of people exceedingly liberal in matters of religion. Volney's Ruins and Paine's Age of Reason passed from hand to hand, and furnished food for the evening's discussion in the tavern and village store. Lincoln read both these books and thus assimilated them into his own being. He prepared an extended essay--called by many a book--in which he made an argument against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not inspired, and therefore not God's revelation, and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. The manuscript containing these audacious and comprehensive propositions he intended to have published or given a wide circulation in some other way. He carried it to the store, where it was read and freely discussed. His friend and employer, Samuel Hill, was among the listeners and, seriously questioning the propriety of a promising young man like Lincoln fathering such unpopular notions, he snatched the manuscript from his hands and thrust it into the stove. The book went up in flames, and Lincoln's political future was secure. But his infidelity and his skeptical views were not diminished. -- Herndon's biography of Abraham Lincoln titled The True Story of a Great Life.

How Honest Abe really felt about secession:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." -- Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, January 12, 1848, Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94



"Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding states" - William Seward, U.S. Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln on 10 April 1861 to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to the Court of St. James (Britain)
Honest Abe's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln practically imposed a dictatorship on the Northern states, closed down nearly 300 Northern newspapers, had thousands of Northerners arrested, invaded the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri and took over their legislatures, all because those three sovereign states didn't want to participate in his war which they considered unconstitutional. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, during which tens of thousands of antiwar Northerners were imprisoned for voicing their views. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Chief Justice when he correctly ruled that according to Article I of the Constitution, only Congress, not the president, could suspend the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus. Most Americans do not know that the American Civil War stated out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still revered in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending their treatment of Tibet, use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports that interesting twist over here. At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln and his little coup of Northern Industrialists wanted a nice short six month war to get them out of a depression. The federal government was dead broke and 10,000 businesses had gone bankrupt in the North. They had agreed to pull out of the Southern port forts and a truce was in effect. Confederate peace negotiators in Arlington, Virginia were assured that the North had no military intentions toward the seceded South. 'We just have some hot heads we have to contend with up here before we can do a non-aggression treaty'. To get the war started Lincoln launched multiple resupply missions to several of the forts, an act of war at the time, to get the Confederate States of America forces to fire on them which they did at Sumter in Charleston. Lincoln claimed that an innocent food supply convoy had been attacked. The archives showed they were landing troops, artillery and munitions. To this day we hardly ever meet a soul who knows this real history despite it's being right in our archives. It is rare to find a military officer, especially a Yankee, that knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the professional historians...it has something to do with hurting book sales. Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Here’s a little known fact about “Saint Abraham”: When General Benjamin “Beast” Butler issued an order declaring all the women of New Orleans to be prostitutes because they refused to genuflect to his occupying soldiers on the streets, Lincoln refused to rescind the order despite international pressure to do so. The order was a license to rape. - Thomas DiLorenzo And that, folks, is a brief, politically incorrect, observation of the indisputable facts. More Abraham Lincoln research Pastor John Weaver's booklet: Honest Abe Wasn't Honest Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views Worst President Ever? Let's be honest about Abe, shall we? Lew Rockwell's King Lincoln Archive De-Mythologized Lincoln Suggested Books
The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
When In The Course of Human Events by Charles Adams
Abraham Lincoln: Was He A Christian by John E. Remsburg
The Real Lincoln by Charles L.C. Minor
Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas DiLorenzo
Facts and Falsehoods Concerning The War On The South by George Edmonds
America's Caesar by Greg Loren Durand

Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War by Walter Kennedy. This web page is not copyrighted. You may use anything on it without permission.

Remembering The Destroyer Of The Republic

By Al Benson Jr.


In February the country remembers the birth of the man who was responsible for the destruction of the republic the Founding Fathers gave to this country. What this man left us instead of the old republic was a centralized, collectivist “democracy” where the governmental forms were preserved but the real substance removed, and to this day, thanks to an educational system that has dumbed down millions since its inception, we don’t realize that.

Abraham Lincoln has been regarded by generations as “the great emancipator” because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It didn’t free a single slave. Go back and read it. The proclamation “freed” slaves where Lincoln had no authority to, in the Confederate States, and it left in bondage those slaves in any territory held by the Union where slavery existed. Sounds like the sort of “emancipation” Mr. Obama wants for present day America.

Lincoln was a friend to communists and socialists. He had them in his armies. He had them as friends. Some of them helped draft the Republican Party platform he ran on in 1860. Socialists and communists were among the early Republican Party movers and shakers.

When Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (he was actually a hired hack writer) in 1848 he listed ten points for communists to use in taking over a country. Whether inadvertently or not, Lincoln incorporated several of these into his agenda. The Communist Manifesto called for “A heavy, progressive graduated income tax.” In 1862 the Lincoln administration foisted upon Americans the Internal Revenue Service, which soon began to tax everything from soup to nuts. Didn’t realize we’d gotten the IRS quite that early did you? Most think it didn’t come until the early 1900s. Wrong! It was a “gift” from Mr. Lincoln.

Marx advocated “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Lincoln’s administration, in 1863, gave us the National Banking Act, which mandated uniformity in banking and bank note currency.

In his manifesto, Marx also promoted a “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of population over the country.” This was carried out by the “Southern Redistribution Act” which redistributed property into large collectives, or combines, under the control of Yankee carpet-baggers. Part of this constituted taking the property of Southerners and “redistributing the wealth” to the greedy hordes of carpet-baggers who came south after the War to capitalize on Southern misery, and to get rich as quickly as they could, any way the could. Even though, by this time, Lincoln had gone to his reward, the Marxist policies of his administration were being carried forward, and even expanded by those would-be Marxists in the Republican Party that followed him.

But the real linchpin of Marx’s program was its tenth point: “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial labor.” To implement that, the Lincoln administration gave us the Morrill Land Grant Act, which authorized Federal aid to “established government-controlled (public) colleges. With the aid came increased government accountability and regulations.” Author John Chodes has noted: “This was the closest that Washington had ever come to direct aid to education. The stated objective was to fund colleges that teach agriculture and mechanic arts via money raised through federal land-grant sales. The true objective was to bring the Northern perspective to the reconquered areas of the South, to teach the rebel’s children ‘respect for national authority’--to break their rebellious spirit forever. The three R’s had absolutely nothing to do with this landmark bill.” The idea was to brainwash the next generation of Southern youngsters so they would never dream of seceding as their fathers had--and the government schools in the South are still doing that today.

All of this happened under Lincoln or his immediate successors. Lincoln’s view of a centralized national government presiding of one “indivisible” nation was the same view held by Marx, and later Hitler. It was not the view held by our Founding Fathers, nor by the delegates of those states that ratified the Constitution, but whose ratification language clearly stated that, should this new Union not work out, their states retained the right to withdraw (secede) and again look after their own interests. The thought of individual states governing themselves scared the daylights out of Lincoln, just as it does today’s national totalitarians in both parties.

One writer has called Lincoln “America’s Lenin” while another has referred to his as “America’s first Bolshevik.” Noting Lincoln’s imitation of so many points in the Communist Manifesto, who can disagree with either of them. The era of big government started with Lincoln, and thanks to that, we now have Obama. Seems like the “great emancipator” really didn’t emancipate much other than the spirit of Marxism in America.

On the Web

Lincoln, Fort Sumter and the Strategy to Initiate War

The following is a presentation given regarding the involvement of President Abraham Lincoln with the firing on Fort Sumter, such action being an excuse by the Federal Government to wage war upon those states which had seceded from the Union. It would be difficult to edit the article to remove references to its being a presentation without making considerable changes at least to its structure if not its facts and allegations.

Lincoln, Fort Sumter and the Strategy to Initiate War

I come before you tonight to say a very few words about a man who is certainly well known to you all – the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. I say a very few words because to cover the subject in any depth at all would require far more time than I have. Indeed, the difficulty in addressing the subject at all is made even greater by the wealth of material already known about Lincoln that is, in fact, untrue. Unraveling the Lincoln myth of necessity increases many times over the amount of correct information that must be told. I therefore had two choices: present a wealth of what you might call factoids about the man with little or no corroborating information or cover one seminal point at length and in greater detail. I choose to do the latter.

The question then became, what point should I cover that will make a difference in your own view of history? Or more important still, what incident involving Lincoln will make a difference in our understanding of history itself rather than simply the history of Abraham Lincoln? Does it matter that Lincoln was not the deeply spiritual man we have been led to believe but totally irreligious and even blasphemous in his opinions and utterances? Does it matter that he was not the Great Emancipator? Is the fact that Lincoln’s humor was not folksy but bawdy and profane of importance? Is it pertinent that he wasn’t a political babe in the woods, but an established hack in Illinois politics which was as corrupt then as it is now? Frankly, no, it does not. Oh, these points may make a difference in the myth of St. Abraham the Pure, but they do not affect the more important aspects of what Lincoln actually did as opposed to what people have been led to believe he did.

To my mind, the most important point of history that needs to be addressed in any expose of Lincoln is the myth that the South fired the first shot of the War, thus bringing upon itself all the calamities that followed. Of course, we are talking about the attack on Fort Sumter. Every schoolchild – and therefore, virtually every adult – knows that the South fired on the United States flag without provocation or with very little provocation – but nothing could be further from the truth.

It would take an entire library of books to detail the background of the decades long series of events which led to the War of Secession. Many textbooks and commentaries falsely simplify the process by declaring that the South started the War - apparently without provocation - by firing on Union-held Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Case closed, right? Well, not exactly! By the time of the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861, seven states had already seceded from the Union. It was the desire of these states - South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas - to leave the Union in peace. It was also the consensus of most Northerners and Northern newspapers that secession was a constitutional right even if it might not be the best course of action. An editorial in one newspaper, The Bangor, Maine DAILY UNION, on November 12th, 1860, summed up this belief when it stated: “Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state... A state coerced to remain in the Union is a 'subject province' and can never be a co-equal member of the American Union”.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Nelson advised the U.S. Secretary of State that it would be a violation of the Constitution if the President used coercion against any state in an attempt to force it to remain in, or return to, the Union. So why, then, did the Southern troops stationed in Charleston fire upon Fort Sumter when public opinion in both the North and South seemed to be on the side of the secessionists? Well, to start, it all goes back to the purpose of Fort Sumter. Sumter was not a military fort; it protected nothing. Rather, its purpose was the collection of tariffs from ships entering the harbor at Charleston. You see, the Great War of 1861-65 was fought, like all wars, for money. Abraham Lincoln had been asked shortly after his inauguration why the Southern states should not be allowed to leave the Union in peace. His response was a sarcastic question which can be paraphrased in these words: Let them go? Let them go??! Then where, sir, would I get my revenues? Lincoln knew that approximately 75% of federal revenues were collected at Southern ports in the form of tariffs and Charleston was a major collection point through Fort Sumter.

In early December of 1860, President James Buchanan had signed an agreement with South Carolina’s Congressional representatives that forts Moultrie and Sumter would not be reinforced nor would they take aggressive action against Charleston. In return, the forts would not be attacked by South Carolina’s forces. Shortly after South Carolina seceded on December 20th, 1860, Major Robert Anderson moved the troops stationed at Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in an action that disturbed and puzzled the officials in Charleston. Previous to this, in early December of 1860, President-elect Abraham Lincoln had instructed General Winfield Scott, head of all Federal forces, to prepare a plan to hold or retake the forts after Lincoln's inauguration on March 4th, 1861 despite the agreement signed by President Buchanan. Unbeknownst to Buchanan, General Scott sent a ship on January 7th, 1861 with supplies and 200 concealed troops to reinforce Sumter. This ship, the "Star of the West", was turned back by fire from South Carolina artillery batteries but it proved a major embarrassment to Buchanan who wished to avoid war as was his constitutional duty.

In early February, a very aggressive attack plan was presented to again reinforce Fort Sumter but Buchanan would not agree and his Cabinet declared that such a plan would constitute an act of war and would be interpreted as such by the South. On February 25th, President Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy sent a three-man Peace Commission to Washington to discuss many issues including the transition of Fort Sumter from Union to Confederate hands. Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861 as President of the United States and refused to talk with the members of the Peace Commission who were still trying to make headway in Washington. Lincoln also announced that tariffs would continue to be collected at Fort Sumter for the coffers of the Union regardless of the secession of South Carolina from the Union. Indeed, Lincoln even joked that any state could leave the Union so long as it continued to send tariff revenues to Washington. However, Lincoln also made it clear that, unlike previous presidents, he regarded secession to be constitutionally illegal and that he was willing to use military force to prevent or overcome any state that attempted to employ it. Thus, military coercion – the waging of war by the central government against the people and states of the South which had been rejected by the People, the Nation and the Federal Government prior to Lincoln’s inauguration – became the stated intention of that same United States Government under its 16th President.

It is important to note that though Lincoln cited the Constitution as the basis for his determination of the illegality of secession and his permitted response to it, he would later in the war, on his own initiative and without following the constitutional provisions regarding the involvement of Congress and the High Court, suspend habeas corpus, wage war on the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly and the press, use the military to coerce elections in the North and have thousands of Northern civilians, including newspaper editors, publishers and journalists as well as state legislators, arrested and imprisoned for long periods without trial or even without charges being brought against them. There can be no question that Lincoln used the United States Constitution as a means by which to cloak his tyrannical reign with legitimacy!

To return to the developing situation at the time: anxious, if possible to effect an amicable reconciliation between the States, the Confederate States Commissioners, addressed a note, on the 12th of March, to William H. Seward, Secretary of State, in the new Cabinet, setting forth the character and object of their mission. Mr. Seward replied to this verbally and informally, through Mr. Justice John A. Campbell, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Campbell was a citizen of Alabama, in full sympathy with the Southern cause. He was therefore selected by Seward as a plausible intermediary. In this way the Commissioners were given to understand that Seward was in favor of peace and that Fort Sumter, about which the Commissioners felt the greatest concern, would be evacuated in less than ten days.

This proved, however, to be a farce and a deception practiced upon the Commissioners by Seward and the Lincoln Government at Washington. They were kept in the dark as regarded the intention of the Federal Government in relation to the status quo of Fort Sumter. And it was not until a provisioning and reinforcing fleet dispatched from the ports of New York and Norfolk early in April, had actually hove in sight of Fort Sumter, that they were placed in possession of the facts of the intention of the Federal Government in regard to that facility. For on March 9th, Lincoln proposed that Fort Sumter be reinforced though his Cabinet overwhelmingly opposed this action because it was believed that to do so would lead to war. Lincoln continued to attempt to persuade his Cabinet to approve reinforcing Sumter but failed again at a Cabinet meeting on March 15th . Finally, on March 29th he was able to convince the Cabinet to approve his plan although the members knew it would lead to war. On April 6th Lincoln gave the order to reinforce Fort Sumter and, for all intents and purposes, the War of Secession began.

The Confederate Peace Commissioners came in possession of these facts through a notice given on the 8th of April to Gov. Pickens of South Carolina, that a fleet was then on its way to provision and reinforce Sumter. The fort was at this time commanded by Major Robert Anderson, of the U. S. Army, with a force of less than a hundred including the men Anderson had moved from Fort Moultrie, and it was also incorrectly reported that the garrison was very short of provisions. Interestingly, on March 3rd Jefferson Davis had appointed General Pierre G. T. Beauregard as commander of Confederate forces in Charleston. In one of those odd anomalies that occurred throughout the War, Beauregard and Major Anderson were good friends. Anderson had been an instructor of Beauregard when the latter was a student at West Point. Beauregard was in command of about six thousand volunteer troops at the time, collected for the purpose of defending Charleston. Gov. Pickens informed him of the notice he had received and this was telegraphed by Beauregard to the authorities at Montgomery.

The Secretary of War replied to Beauregard: “If you have no doubt of the authenticity of the notice of the Government at Washington to supply Fort Sumter by force, demand its evacuation; and if this should be refused, proceed to reduce it.” On the 11th of April the demand for Sumter’s evacuation was made by Beauregard and Major Anderson, in writing, stated that the demand would not be complied with. This was sent by Beauregard to the Secretary of War at Montgomery, who returned the following response: “Do not needlessly desire to bombard Fort Sumter. If Maj. Anderson will state a reasonable specified time at which he will evacuate, and agree that, in the meantime, he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort, as your judgment decides most practicable.”

In a strategy later used by the propagandists of such notaries as Stalin and Hitler, Lincoln then began leaking stories to supportive Northern newspapers that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were near starvation and in desperate need of provisions. This, of course, was an outright lie and is refuted by the communications and records of Major Anderson himself. Additionally, the records reveal that the merchants in Charleston were daily selling foodstuffs to the garrison at Fort Sumter. Nonetheless, Lincoln's ploy worked and there was outrage in the North over the mistreatment by South Carolina of the troops at Fort Sumter. The President knew he would need Northern public opinion behind him to engage in a war with the South but that the prevailing opinion of the time had shown to be just the opposite. So, in point of fact, Lincoln needed a cause celeb, a perceived “criminal act” committed by the South against the Union to outrage the public and change the prevailing opinion. Therefore, he ordered a force of three warships to Charleston to reinforce Sumter with an estimated date of arrival of April 15th. This action left President Jefferson Davis in a quandary. Through reports from his own people he was aware of all this activity by Lincoln and he wanted to avoid being goaded into a position where the South fired the first shot which, of course, was exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Now this is very important to understand! Legally the aggressor in this kind of circumstance is not necessarily the side firing the first shot but the side causing the first shot to be fired. In other words, from the point of view of legality, the South having been forced into a military response was not the aggressor but, sadly, the perception in the North would be just the opposite and would therefore provide the public opinion boost necessary for Lincoln's war plan. I ask you to remember two later incidents whose public outcry precipitated the nation into a war that was not at all popular at the time: Remember the Maine! and Remember Pearl Harbor! We have come to know over time that both of these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time. Well, neither was the attack on Fort Sumter! Rather, it was a deep, convoluted and extremely premeditated effort to do just what was done, force the South to fire what were apparently the first shots of the war.

By this time, the Union fleet was approaching Charleston and some of Beauregard’s batteries and forces were between it and Fort Sumter. Should it arrive while Anderson still held the fort, Beauregard knew he would be exposed to attack from the rear as well as from the front. He therefore gave Major Anderson notice that he would at an early specified hour compel him to withdraw from the fort if he did not otherwise willingly evacuate his position. Major Anderson, indicated that he was honor bound to resist. At 4:30 A.M. on April 12th, Beauregard again sent word to Anderson that the Confederate forces had no choice but to begin firing on the fort due to the efforts of the United States Government to reinforce it. Accordingly, the shore batteries opened fire on the morning of the 12th of April which fire was returned by the guns of Fort Sumter. The fleet came near, but in the absence of official orders from the Government, took no part in the conflict. The bombardment lasted 32 hours at which time Major Anderson then agreed to capitulate. During the entire period of shelling, some 30-odd hours, there was not one single Union casualty since Beauregard had forewarned the garrison of the actions that would be taken and the soldiers were able to take refuge out of harm’s way – hardly a war-like action on the part of Beauregard and the Confederates. In fact, the only casualty occurred when, after the surrender of the fort, the Union forces were firing a salute as they lowered their flag and an ember fell into some gunpowder causing an explosion which resulted in one death and five injuries. As a ship carrying Union soldiers left the harbor to rendezvous with the force that had arrived contrary to all prior arrangements between the United States government and the State of South Carolina, Confederate soldiers lined the beaches of Sullivan's Island and other areas around the harbor and removed their caps in a salute to the departing forces, many of whom they had come to know and respect.

Despite the goodwill between the combatants however, Lincoln now had what he wanted and the news of the Confederates firing on the American flag was quickly distributed to Northern newspapers which resulted in the anticipated fervor for severely punishing the bloody and prideful South for firing on Old Glory. The fall of Fort Sumter aroused the Northern people to the highest pitch, and enabled the party now in power, to draw large accessions from Democratic, and American parties There is little doubt that Lincoln and the Republicans wanted war. They had done all in their power to avoid compromise, the compromise favored by the vast majority of the very people who had elected Lincoln to the presidency. Lincoln had maneuvered the Confederate leaders into firing the first shot knowing that this act would inflame the passions of the North, and allow him to open hostilities against states that sought only a peaceful departure from their old compact. Historians J. G. Randall and David Herbert Donald, in their book The Civil War and Reconstruction, pondered: “Did Lincoln anticipate that sending this expedition to provision Fort Sumter would precipitate a civil war? Even at the time there were those who claimed that Lincoln well knew the consequences of his action and deliberately tricked the Confederacy into firing the first shot. There is indeed some evidence to support this view.” This evidence comes from several sources, mostly from the mouth or pen of Lincoln himself. In May of 1861, he wrote to Captain Gustavus Fox, the commander of the relief expedition to Sumter, “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.” On July 3rd of that same year, Lincoln confided to Orville H. Browning, a close personal friend, about the plan to supply and reinforce Sumter, “The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could.” Southern historian Charles W. Ramsdell believed that “Lincoln, having decided that there was no other way than war for the salvation of his administration, his party and the Union, maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot in order that they, rather than he, should take the blame of beginning bloodshed.”

In the months between the secession of the cotton states and the firing on Fort Sumter, Republicans received a large measure of the blame for instigating the crisis that was at hand. The party suffered a loss of popularity even within its own rank and file, leading J. W. Kane of Pittsburgh to write to Stephen Douglas: “ The Republican party would not have a majority in any state of the Union if the election were to come off tomorrow. “Lincoln’s stealth in forcing the South into firing the first shot changed all that. He was a master of public relations and knew that constitutional abstractions carried little weight in the minds of the common people. All that the masses cared about was who fired the first shot.” In talking about the actions of the Republicans during the time between Lincoln’s election and the firing on Fort Sumter, one noted historian summed it up in this way: “But if they must choose between saving the party, at the cost of civil war, and saving the Union through sacrificing the party, they placed party first.”

President Jefferson Davis later stated: “The order for the sending of the fleet was a declaration of war. The responsibility is on their shoulders, not on ours.” Unfortunately, despite the truth of this comment by Davis, the fact is that the North won the war Lincoln desired and intentionally initiated, a war which led to the deaths not only of countless hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, but of the Constitution and the Republic as well. However, it also meant that, as usual, the winner got to write the history of the conflict. As a result, Mr. Lincoln got his war and schoolchildren are taught that the South started it by firing upon Fort Sumter without provocation. How sad for us as a nation to be wedded to such lies. The time has long passed for us to amend the record and let the light of truth reveal the falsehood of the myth of Honest and Noble Abraham Lincoln.

SWR's Lady Val

The John B. Gordon Story

By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.
Historical-Writer, Author of book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country”, Speaker and Member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
Kennesaw, Georgia

Jeremiah 6:16 of the Bible reads;

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

But, have we forgotten God and the old paths of our Founding Fathers and Mothers? Is American history even taught anymore in public and private schools?
As the world looks to America, do we know who helped make the USA free and great?

President Theodore Roosevelt said of John B. Gordon, quote "A more gallant, generous, and fearless gentlemen and soldier has not been seen in this country." unquote

February is Black History Month and it is also the birthday month of George Washington, America’s first president. February is also the birthday month of John Brown Gordon of Georgia.

John B. Gordon, born February 6, 1832, was an orator, lawyer, statesman, soldier, publisher and governor of the State of Georgia. His is best known as one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's generals. At Appomattox, Gordon's corps encounter with the soldiers under Gen. Joshua Chamberlain is a classic story. Gordon would always remember Chamberlain for the courtesy and respect shown he and his men.
Carter Godwin Woodson, father of Black History Week, has much in common with John B. Gordon. Both men believed that accurate American history should be taught in our schools. Woodson also believed the study of Black history should include those African-Americans who fought on both sides of the War Between the States.

Black History Week became Black History Month in the 1960s.

Woodson, eleven years after the first Black History Week, founded the "Negro History Bulletin" for teachers, students and the public.

Gordon also worked to see that the history of the Confederate soldier was taught in public schools. After the war only the Northern version of the War Between the States was taught to Southern children.

John B. Gordon believed in the South's Constitutional right to secession, but after it was crushed, he worked to reunite the nation and helped white and black Southerners the war had made poor.

In Gordon's day there were no skyscrapers, telephones, automobiles, bright lights, or bad air to obscure the view of Heaven's stars. The American Revolution was in the past only as far back as the Great Depression is today. American history was still taught at a time when the Union and Confederate Veterans were still living and honored.

A John B. Gordon birthday celebration was first held in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, February 6, 1993, in front of Georgia’s old historic state capitol building. Weather forecasters called for rain and cold but God must have blessed that day as it was warm and sunny. Nearly one-thousand people came to remember Gordon.

A Confederate reenactment band with authentic band instruments played “Dixie” and everyone stood straight and proud. The band gave the melody, but the crowd sang the words.

Many speakers praised Gordon. One man turned to Gordon's statue and asked "General Gordon what would you say to those who would change the history of America?" Gordon, the American, the Southerner might have answered: "Take your hist ory and teach it to your children or others will teach their history!" Gordon set up a publishing company after the war to help teach children their Southern history.

In 1995, a third John B. Gordon memorial was held in Atlanta, but this time it was cold and snowy. Among the speakers in 1995, was a young Black-American. Eddie B. Page was a true friend and defender of the heritage of America. He was proud of the United States, 1956 Georgia and Confederate flags. Eddie knew his history, Southern style, and did not parrot "Political Correct" history.

John Brown Gordon was born in Upson County, Georgia. He was the fourth of twelve children born to Zachariah and Malinda Cox Gordon.

After attending the University of Georgia he came to Atlanta to study law. Here he met and married Rebecca Haralson and their union was long and happy.

September 17, 1862, is known as the bloodiest day in American history. Confederate General John B. Gordon was there, defending a position called the sunken road. Wave upon wave of Union troops attacked Gordon's men. The casualties were beyond today's understanding. Gordon was struck by Union bullets four times, but continued to lead his men. Then, the fifth bullet tore through his right jaw and out his left cheek. He fell with his face in his hat and would have drowned in his own blood except for a hole in his hat. Though Gordon survived these wounds, the last bullet left him permanently scarred. That is why you see later photographs of him only from the right side.

For years the John B. Gordon celebration, in Atlanta, was concluded by a mile march to Oakland Cemetery where the general is buried with his Confederate compatriots. Not since past Confederate Memorial days has there been a scene on an Atlanta street of soldiers in Confederate gray and women and children of black mourning dress.

The spirits of Carter G. Woodson and John B. Gordon were there with us on those February days when Confederate gray marched through a Black-American neighborhood. The people watching the parade were told about the Gordon service and were invited to Oakland. Black children spread the word that this was a memorial to Gordon who was once governor of Georgia.

Woodson and Gordon are still with us---in spirit and, if you listen, they are saying, "Teach your children the whole story of America’s past."

Let’s not forget!

The Roots of Hate:

[Snippet from Chapter 16 of Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865, G. Edmonds, 1904] (out of copyright)
How the Republican Party Created a Hatred for the South

Alexander Hamilton was the head and front of American Monarchists. He wanted to make this Government a pure Monarchy. Hamilton advocated a “strong centralized Government,” of imperial policy.

Gouverneur Morris, a contemporary and friend of Hamilton, said: “Hamilton hated Republican Government, and never failed on every occasion to advocate the excellence of and avow his attachment to a Monarchic form of Government.”

From the formation of the Union, the Federalists of New England hated and feared Democratic principles. Their great leader, Hamilton, made no secret of this feeling. In his speech at a New York banquet Hamilton, in high opposition to Jefferson’s Democracy, cried out: “The People! Gentlemen, I tell you the people are a great Beast!”

In 1796 Gov. Walcott, of Connecticut, said: “I sincerely declare that I wish the Northern States would separate from the Southern the moment that event (the election of Jefferson) shall take place.”

Congressman Plumer. a Federalist and an ardent Secessionist, in 1804 declared that: “All dissatisfied with the measures of the Government looked to a separation of the (Northern vhp) States as a remedy for grievances.”

As early as 1796, men of Massachusetts began to talk of New England seceding from the Union. It was declared that if Jay’s negotiation closing the Mississippi for twenty years could not be adopted, it was high time for the New England States to secede from the Union and form a Confederation by themselves.

The Monarchic principles did not thrive under Hamilton’s lead. Hamilton was too plain spoken. The Republican party became more astute. In 1861, while making loud professions of desiring the largest freedom for the people, that party was making ready to rob them of every liberty they possessed. “At the formation of this Union,” says E. P. Powell, “Hamilton laid before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 eleven propositions, which he wished to make the basis of the Union, but they were so Monarchistic in tone they received no support whatever.”

The Republican war on the South stood solidly on Monarchic principles. The principles of 1776 were set aside in the 6os, but not for years after the South was conquered did Republicans openly admit they were inspired by the spirit of Monarchy. During McKinley’s last campaign, Hamilton was loudly lauded and Jefferson decried as a visionary, a French anarchist. Hamilton Clubs were organized and Republican novelists set to writing romances with Hamilton as the hero. During Garfield’s campaign, a Republican paper, the Lemars, Iowa, Sentinel, said: “Garfield’s rule will be the transitory period between State Sovereignty and National Sovereignty. The United States Senate will give way to a National Senate. State. Constitutions and the United States Senate are relics of State Sovereignty and implements of treason. Garfield’s Presidency will be the Regency of Stalwartism ; after that—Rex.”

Fate used the hand of an insane “Stalwart” to impede, if not stop, the Monarchic plans of that time. The New York Sun, July 3rd, 1881, quoted President Garfield as saying: “The influence of Jefferson’s Democratic principles is rapidly waning, while the principles of Hamilton are rapidly increasing. Power has been gravitating toward the Central Government.”

Power did not gravitate, it was wrenched at one jerk to the Central Government by Lincoln’s hand, as will be seen later on. Not until after Hamilton and Jefferson had passed away did the followers of Jefferson drop the name “Republican” which they had borne during his life, and assume the name “Democrat.” Democracy—the rule of the people—is more expressive of Jefferson’s doctrines. Not until 1854 did the men of the Federal and Whig persuasion unite and organize a party and take the name “Republican.”

The Republican party of the 6os was the legitimate offspring of the old New England Federalists, and inherited all its progenitor’s faiths, hopes, hates and purposes, viz: Passion for power, fear and hate of Democracy, hate of the Union, belief in States’ Rights, in States’ Sovereignty, in Secession, and the strong persistent determination to break the Union asunder and form of the Northeast section a Northeastern Confederacy.

All these ideas belonged to the old Federalists of New England, and were handed down to the Republican party in 1854. Wendell Phillips, New England’s tongue of fire, speaking of the inherent purposes of his party, said: “The Republican party is in no sense a national party. It is a party of the North, organized against the South.”

The Republican party was organized against the South, organized to fight the South in every possible way; to fight as its progenitors, the Federalists, had fought from 1796 to 1854, with calumnies, vituperations, false charges, every word and phrase hate could use, until the time came to use guns, bayonets, bullets, cannon balls and shells; and faithfully did that party carry out the ignoble and cruel purpose of its organization. The war on the South was begun by the Federalists of New England in 1796. In 1814 a work of some four hundred and fifty pages, called “The Olive Branch,” was published in Boston, which throws electric light on certain almost forgotten events in New England’s history. “The Olive Branch” contains extracts from a series of remarkable productions called the “Pelham Papers,” which appeared in the Connecticut Courant in the year 1796. The Courant was published by Hudson and Goodwin, men of Revolutionary standing. The Pelham Papers were said to have been the joint production of men of the first talent and influence in the State. Commenting on these papers of 1796, the “Olive Branch” of 1814 says:
“A Northeastern Confederacy has been the object for a number of years. They (the politicians of New England) have repeatedly advocated in public print, separation of the States. The project of separation was formed shortly after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The promulgation of the project first appeared in the year 1796, in these Pelham Papers. At that time there was none of that catalogue of grievances which since that period, have been fabricated to justify the recent attempt to dissolve the Union.”

This refers to the efforts made in 1804 and 1814 to get the New England States to secede from the Union, so they might be separated from the Democratic Southern and Western States. The “Olive Branch” continues:
“At that time there was no “Virginia Dynasty,” no “Democratic Madness,” no “war with Great Britain.” The affairs of the country seemed to be precisely according to New England’s fondest wishes. Yet at that favorable time (1796) New England was dissatisfied with the Union and begun to plot to get out of it. The common people, however, were not then ready to break up the Union. The common people at that time had no dislike of the Southern States. Then New England writers, preachers and politicians deliberately began the wicked work of poisoning their minds against the Southern States. To sow hostility, discord and jealousy between the different sections of the Union was the first step New England took to accomplish her favorite object, a separation of the States. Without this efficient instrument, all New England’s efforts would have been utterly unavailing. Had the honest yeomanry of the Eastern States continued to respect and regard their Southern fellow-citizens as friends and brothers, having one common interest in the promotion of the general welfare, it would be impossible to have made them instruments in the unholy work of destroying the noble, the splendid Union.”

But for the unholy work of having taught the common people of New England to hate the people of the South, the cruel war of the 6os would never have been fought. “For eighteen years,” continues the “Olive Branch” (the eighteen years from 1796 to 1814), “the most unceasing endeavors have been used to poison the’ minds of the people of the Eastern States toward, and to alienate them from, their fellow-citizens of the Southern States. The people of the South have been portrayed as “demons incarnate,” as destitute of all the “good qualities which dignify and adorn human nature.” Nothing can exceed the virulence of the pictures drawn of the South’s people, their descriptions of whom would more have suited the ferocious inhabitants of New Zealand than a polished, civilized people.” [End Snippet]

Submitted By SWR's Lady Val