Abraham Lincoln – America’s Most Reverenced And Bloodstained Sociopath

Posted: September 21st, 2010 by Gadget42

by Tom DiLorenzo PhD, RunToGold

sociopath is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Nowhere are sociopaths better able to act out their extreme antisocial attitudes than with genocidal behavior through the instrumentality of government. Often times the most reprehensible are the most reverenced. For example, throngs flock to reverence and adore Chairmen Mao’s body in Tiananmen Square and Lenin’s embalmed body in the Red Square at the heart of Moscow.

Like victims with Stockholm Syndrome it seems that citizens that are left love and reverence their most culpable genociders. After all, both per captia GDP increases and the unemployment rate decreases significantly when you reduce the denominator or numerator by 6, 20 or 40 million.

In California IOUs I mentioned the sacrosanct sociopaths, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton. I received quite a few emails and comments from apologists for the Church of Lincoln along with some questions such as ‘What possible evidence can you offer?’, ‘Should Lincoln have allowed the South to leave with slavery intact?’ and ‘Maybe you can explain what you were trying to point out by placing them in this category?’ To help answer those questions I have brought on the show one of the preeminent Lincoln scholars.


Lincoln responded by issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney.

Trace: In the episode 76 of the RunToGold.com podcast I brought on the  Thomas DiLorenzo. He is an American economics professor at Loyola University in Maryland,  adheres to the Austrian School of Economics. He’s a senior faculty member at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech. He has authored quite a few books on this topic including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln; his agenda and an unnecessary civil war where 500,000 Americans were genocided, then we also have Lincoln Unmasked: What You are Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe, and is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution, and What it Means to Americans Today.

So, as we delve into these topics, I think you’ll find it very interesting to remove some of the false assumptions that we find in our revisionist history. So, without further ado, on to the interview with Dr. Tom DiLorenzo.

Trace: Welcome to the show, Dr. DiLorenzo.

Tom: I’m pleased to be with you today!

Trace: Well, I have recently wrote an article about Lincoln and I mentioned Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton and some of the great injustices that they wrought on the American people, and I had quite a few questions about it, and I thought who better than the preeminent expert on Lincoln? You have written 2 books The Real Lincoln: A New Look at His Agenda and an Unnecessary War and also the bookLincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About to Know About Dishonest Abe. So when we’re talking about this great, revered American president, what are some of the things that are hidden about him? What are these things that we are not supposed to know about President Lincoln?

Tom: Well, one of the things you are not supposed to know is what he said in his first inaugural address, where he pledge his support for a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery, and so in his first inaugural he was satisfied with enshrining slavery in the constitution explicitly. It had never been explicitly in the constitution. And in that same speech, he threatened a war over tax-collection. He said that it is my duty to collect the duties and impots – which is tariffs- but beyond that there would be no invasion of any state.

So he literally threatened a war, and carried out his threats, of course, by invading the Southern States over tax-collection, and that’s not taught in school. So, that’s one thing, he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern civilians, he shut down over 300 opposition newspapers, he deported an outspoken democratic party-member of Congress named  Clement L. Vallandigham from Ohio and he confiscated firearms which violates the second amendment. And he basically started the war without the permission of Congress. So that’s why some historians call Lincoln a dictator, but they say he was a good dictator.

Lincoln promised iron-clad constitutional protection of slavery but of course slavery was already protected by the Constitution.

Trace: Oh yeah, because they are apologising, perhaps, for having a strong federal government and violating the 10th amendment, and a lot of those things. So when we are looking at Lincoln, and his… you know, you started with these gross violations of private property rights, really  the Civil War was about collecting taxes, you say. It didn’t have anything to do with slavery.

Tom: Well, it did have something to do with slavery because Lincoln and the Republican party opposed only the extension of slavery into the new territories, it never opposed Southern slavery. In fact, as I just mentioned, Lincoln promised iron-clad constitutional protection of slavery but of course slavery was already protected by the Constitution, the Southern states did not have to secede to protect slavery, it was already constitutional, there were no challenges. The courts–the slavery — I wish there were, I wish we could have ended it peacefully, like all the other countries in the world did in time, but we did not.

And so, the basic cause of the war though was the Southern States thought that they were sovereign and they had the right to be in the union or not be in the union. Lincoln was the first American president ever to take the position that the federal government had the right to literally invade, pledge war on, his own country, to stop them from seceding. You have the New England federalists to secede in the early part of the 19th century they even have a convention in Hartford Connecticut in 1814 to vote up or down on succession and there was little discussion about whether it was illegal or not.

Just about everyone assumed that it certainly was legal because the States were sovereign. And so that was really what the war was about; are the States sovereign or is the government at Washington the master of us all? And of course when the North won the war, it proved that the government at Washington is our master, and no longer our servant.

Trace: Yeah, and I mean it was a very accepted doctrine that the States had a right to secede back then, especially Lysander Spooner was one of the people that argued quite a bit in favour of these states-rights or nullification, because how else can you have a government that governs with the consent of the governed, unless the people have a right to leave, or the states in this case.

Tom: That’s right. All you have to do to convince yourself of that is read article 7 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the constitution will be ratified by 5/13 states at the time. It didn’t say the U.S. government will ratify the states; it says the states ratify the constitution, granting delegated powers to the U.S. government, and those powers were supposed to be used to the benefit of the people of the states. The original system was that if the people were ever to be in charge for sovereign control of their own government, the way in which they would do it would be through political communities organized at the state and local level, that’s how we were supposed to be the masters rather than the servants of our own government, our own central government, and that was understood by everybody.

Like I said there was a group of federalists talked about secession, there was a secession movement in the middle Atlantic states in the 1850’s and even some of the famous abolitionists of the North proposed that New England secede from the South because they did not want to be apart of a country that still had slavery. Although I think we need to keep in mind that there were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853, so that’s not too far off of the Civil War era.

Trace: Yeah, so when we look at Lincoln it appears that ironically he extended slavery to all people in the Americas instead of actually abolishing it. In his erosion of these essential checks and balances in the political machinery that we have been talking about, you hit on it in the beginning, his gross violations in the beginning of the Great Writ, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, can you explain a little what the writ of Habeas Corpus is, and then delve in to what he did with his interference with the federal courts, and also with.

Tom: Well, see, it’s the one thing in the Constitution that guarantees our personal liberty and whenever the government accuses us of a crime we have the right to due process, we have the right to confront our accusers, we have a right to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, and so forth, so that when Lincoln listed that he had the army literally break down the doors of houses of people and dragged them out to some dungeon somewhere in a gulag. And there were tens of thousands of people, including the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner, he was a newspaper editor who was opposing all of this, and a lot of prominent citizens.

Read more at this link.


Leave a Reply