The Real Lincoln

Just in time for the birthday of the great usurper, Jasime Baucham who blogs @ has given us a look at the facts surrounding Abraham Lincoln’s Presidency. Just a quote from the article:

Abraham Lincoln’s heroism is great exaggerated in modern circles. His own words prove that he was not a proponent of emancipation, he did not believe in racial equality, and his Emancipation Proclamation did not emancipate a single slave…
read the rest of the article here


  1. Ooops, sorry. I meant The War of Northern Agression not the civil war. My bad.

  2. Great info! I’m currently teaching the civil war to my kids (kindergarten through 6th) and I always half-laugh at the thought that what I’m teaching them is probably heresy in the public school system.

  3. Thanks for posting the link!

  4. Three books I would recommend in light of the current discussion on Lincoln:

    The War Between the States: America’s Uncivil War

    Lee By Douglas Southall Freeman

    The Secret Six : John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement

    I think they help to balance out the popular history about the “War of Northern Agression”

  5. The winners always write the history books, at least until they are long dead and gone. Then people without a horse in the race can look back with a little less bias and maybe see what really happened. But you won’t read it in high school text books. I’ve been reviewing textbooks for my 10th grade son’s history for next year, and I can’t find anything I like that is actually written for high school students. I think the treatment of Lincoln’s motives, the treatment of Kennedy’s assassination, and the role that maintaining slavery played in instigating the American revolution are key give-aways. In every book I’ve reviewed, Lincoln was a saint dedicated to the freedom of all people, Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman ( who was also killed by a lone gunman), and the American revolution had nothing at all to do with England’s moving rapidly in the direction of ending slavery. Funny, those are never the conclusions reached by history books written for adults. The state just can’t deal with kids being taught anything other than the national myth (and apparently most Christian publishers can’t either), and few adults are ever interested enough to read further on their own after enduring miserably boring high school history. In fact, high school history was one of the reasons we decided to pull our second son out of public school at the beginning of high school. My older son’s text book had a sidebar on PAGE 3 about Islam, on the same page where they discussed freedom of worship as being important in the founding of Maryland and Rhode Island. I’m sorry, but freedom of religion for Muslims just did not play a major role in the founding of either of those colonies. And the book didn’t actually say so either, but it was definitely implied by the careful placement. This text also started every chapter with a personal account from either a woman, a Black person, or a native American. You’d have thought there wasn’t a single white man involved in any time period of American history.

  6. Derek I think it can be argued that it did not take a bloody war to end slavery. I am against chattel slavery too. The rest of the western world ended slavery without a civil war. Look at Wilberforce and England. I believe that as the gospel advanced there would have inescapably been an end of slavery.

  7. Ok, I read the article. It was totally right. It’s not revisionist history either. The biography I read was a positive one and it stated all those things about Lincoln too. They’re just not readily taught in school.

    I’m conflicted on the Civil War because I’m a huge opponent of slavery but a huge proponent of states rights. The Civil War damaged states rights beyong repair and instituted a very bloated and overly powerful federal…much more powerful than our founders intended. My current book about George Washington bears that out.

  8. Theresa to answer your question directly I will tell you that I called him a usurper because he had no right to invade the CSA in the first place. Details are spelled out quite nicely in the article

  9. I read a biodgraphy about Lincoln and was surprised to find alot of those things out too. He actually campaigned saying he had no intention to end slavery, although he was an abolitionist. He didn’t want to risk angering the South further. What he did advocate was making a law that no other states added to the Union could be slave states. He didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after the Civil War had been going on a while, and only did it as a snub to the South, and in the hopes that the slaves would rise up against their owners and fight for the North when they heard about it.
    It is also not widely known that he did not believe that free blacks and whites could live in harmony together in the U.S. He advocated sending all the freed slaves to a Caribbean island to start their own country. He only abandoned the idea after the free black leaders in the North rejected the idea.
    I didn’t read the article. Maybe it said all of that.

  10. Out of curiosity, can you explain what you mean by your phrase “the Great Usurper”? Surely you don’t mean that you wished to see the Confederacy win the Civil War. Although Lincoln wasn’t perfect and obviously still harbored thoughts about the real equality between blacks and whites (although far less than most people of the time), he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation (which gave freedom to about 20,000 slaves from Union-occupied North Carolina and the Sea Island of South Carolina, as well as freedom to runaway slaves from the Confederacy, but what it really did was seal the Union in the fight to end slavery, which it did) and he also promoted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. When you consider that he accomplished these things within the tensions of his cabinet and while the nation was at war, it’s even more credible. He would have accomplished even more if he wasn’t assassinated by a racist Confederate spy.

    If you look at any political figure you can find faults to find wrong with them, but that doesn’t negate or cancel the good work they actually accomplished.

Don't just think it: say it!

%d bloggers like this: