A Lincolnesque Obama means Trouble
January 19, 2009, 09:44 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

I noted on Saturday that the tasteless embellishing of the Obama Coronation with Lincoln paraphernalia is alarming (Obama=Lincoln? Does that mean Civil War? ). Firstly, Lincoln unleashed an horrifically destructive war on his own countrymen, and secondly he did it not to abolish slavery, but to secure a huge wealth transfer to his political cronies and his region, by inflicting massive tariffs on the economically highly efficient free-trading South. While, if the second turns out to be Obama’s primary objective (which is what Steve Sailer predicts in his book) it will not be a great surprise, few realize this about Lincoln. To make the point I cited Tom DiLorenzo’s seminal The Real Lincoln.

Happily, DiLorenzo has been stimulated by all this raving to publish this morning a succinct summary demonstrating that Lincoln’s objective was mercenary and not humanistic, and furthermore facilitated by deception:

Abraham Delano Messiah Obama? LewRockwell.com January 19 2009 observes

The political Left (which includes almost all journalists in America) just can’t make up its mind over whether Barack Obama most resembles Lincoln, FDR, Jesus Christ – or some combination thereof. All during his campaign many of his supporters kept referring to him as "The Messiah"…and we are told (constantly) that he intends to make use of Lincoln’s rhetoric, especially in his first inaugural address. He has been studying Lincoln’s speeches, we are told by his handlers. If so, we are in for a lot of doubletalk and lies bordering on the psychotic.

DiLorenzo then analyzes four key Lincoln speeches:

Lincoln’s White Supremacy Speech (Known as the Cooper Union Address - February 27 1860)

...in the speech Lincoln promised to do all that he could, if elected, to keep black people out of the new territories and isolated in the Southern states. He pledged to keep them as far away as possible from the Northern population, in other words, which was very pervasively racist. That’s why the speech was so well received in New York City, which had just ended slavery in 1853… The audience reaction was reportedly quite enthusiastic, for most Northerners wanted slavery – and black people – to remain in the South.

(DiLorenzo amplifies, concerning the new Western states:

In his October 16, 1854 speech in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln first explained his (and the Republican Party’s) position on the extension of slavery into the new territories. "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people")

Lincoln’s Slavery Forever Speech (Lincoln’s First Inaugural – March 4 1861)

Lincoln’s first inaugural address may be considered his "slavery forever" speech because in it he goes to extremes to promise his everlasting support for Southern slavery. Quoting himself, he declared that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."… In what was the first Big Lie of his administration, which was barely one hour old, he repeated the statement from the Republican Party platform that said: "[W]e denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." Within a month he would prove himself, and his party, to be liars.

(Lincoln said he would tolerate slavery. He refused in this speech to tolerate rejection of the recent massive tariff increases.)

Lincoln’s "Blame-It-All-On-God" Speech (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural – March 4 1865)

Lincoln cultists have been very busy recently urging Barack Obama to emulate Lincoln’s second inaugural address where he uses Biblical language to "justify" his armies’ killing of hundreds of thousands of their own fellow citizens, the burning down and ransacking of entire cities, the mass murder of civilians, and the plundering of the Southern population. There is no record of Lincoln ever having become a Christian; he never joined a church and rarely set foot in one… but he was very knowledgeable about the Bible, which he skillfully used to dupe the Northern public… As Charles Adams wrote "Lincoln had to shift the blame and remove his own guilt, and he was quite willing to resort to reasoning more characteristic of a psychotic mind than a healthy mind . . . . Lincoln was guilt ridden and was close to being mentally ill at this time."

(VDARE.com note: In America’s Half Blood Prince P172-3 Steve Sailer sees no evidence of spirituality in Obama and concludes

Obama’s celebrated acceptance of Christianity turns out to have been an affirmation of African-American psychic separatism.

agreeing with British essayist Jonathan Raban’s view that Obama is a

"scrupulous agnostic".

Lincoln’s Lying-About-American-History Speech (Gettysburg Address November 19 1863)

The great H.L. Mencken was right when he wrote that the Gettysburg Address was good poetry but bad logic. It was Lincoln’s attempt to rewrite American history in a way that would serve the purposes of the Hamiltonian nationalists, who by his time had morphed into Republicans. Nearly every claim in the speech is false…. Americans were not "engaged in a great civil war," for a civil war is a contest for the takeover of a nation’s central government. Jefferson Davis did not want to be president of the United States any more than George Washington wanted to become King of Great Britain. It was a war to prevent Southern independence… as Mencken pointed out, it was the South that was fighting for the principle of consent of the governed.

Fanatics masquerading as historians can be dangerous. However, there is little evidence that Obama has read much American history – as distinct from Black Mythology of the sort we will hear too much of today. It is his instincts that matter. That is why, having read America’s Half Blood Prince through a second time, I am apprehensive.