deeteroderdas on Nostr: ...

quoting nevent1q…y2cp

Happy Worst President’s Day
https://mises.org/power-market/happy-worst-presidents-day

> Lincoln was a crony capitalist on economic policy, advocating protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for railroad corporations, and a government-run central bank to pay for it all.

Personally I believe Wilson is the worst but Lincoln was pretty terrible too.

> The truth is that Lincoln was by far the worst president in American history. He was certainly the most “reviled” (by the people of the North during his lifetime), as Larry Tagg documented in his book, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President.” Thanks to the Republican party propaganda machine, which essentially monopolized American politics for the half century after the war, Lincoln was transformed from the most hated and reviled of all American politicians during his lifetime to a saint. (See The Deification of Lincoln by Ira D. Cardiff).

Saying Lincoln was a good president because "he ended slavery" is akin to saying Stalin wasn't that bad because without him Hilter would have won. Of course slavery is evil and must be ended (still hasn't been by the way), but that hardly makes Lincoln a hero. Other nations ended slavery without the senseless bloodshed. During Lincoln's rule even abolitionists in the north opposed the war. These people were literally tarred and feathered.

We can recognize the positive change without deifying Lincoln. That's the point. Just as we can celebrate positive changes today without excusing the behavior of the current clown in chief.

So what is so bad about Lincoln?

> Lincoln destroyed the voluntary union of the Founding Fathers and replaced it with a union held together by war and the mass murder of Southern civilians (at least fifty thousand according to Princeton historian James McPherson), turning it into something resembling the old Soviet Union more than the original American union.

> Lincoln waged war on Southern civilians for four long years, ordering the bombing and burning of American cities to the ground and rewarding the commanding generals who committed these war crimes of plundering, raping, murder, and arson with promotions and glory. The population of the South was about 9 million at the beginning of the war. Scaling the death toll for today’s U.S. population, McPherson’s estimate of 50,000 civilian deaths would be the equivalent of 1.9 million civilians being killed by the U.S. government in just four years. Coming from Lincoln cultist James McPherson, the 50,000 figure is bound to be an underestimate.

But Lincoln was against slavery. Nah, not really. He was a politician. They really can't have principles.

> Lincoln’s first inaugural address should be known as his “Slavery Forever” speech. He started out announcing that he had no intention of disturbing Southern slavery (at a time when there were also slaves in Union states); that he never had any intention of doing so; that this was clearly stated in the Republican Party platform of 1860; and that it would be unconstitutional to do so. He then expressed his strongest support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which compelled Northerners to capture runaway slaves (and which was enforced in Washington, D.C. during the Lincoln presidency).

I'm sure this post triggers some stackers... I was triggered as well when I first heard someone making these points many years ago. Lincoln was a man. Flawed and one that did some good things. No question but he's no idol and our culture in the US treats him as an idol. Even those that oppose many things he is responsible for creating. He's just off limits for criticism. Why?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/885008