En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 26 août 2017

The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire


The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire

“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”–Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory, p. 114

The author of the above quotation, Lerone Bennett, Jr., was the executive editor of Ebony magazine for several decades, beginning in 1958. He is a distinguished African-American author of numerous books, including a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. He spent twenty years researching and writing his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, from which he drew the above conclusion about the so-called Lincoln scholars and how they have lied about Lincoln for generations. For obvious reasons, Mr. Bennett is incensed over how so many lies have been told about Lincoln and race.

Few Americans have ever been taught the truth about Lincoln and race, but it is all right there in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (CW), and in his actions and behavior throughout his life. For example, he said the following:

“Free them [i.e. the slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals” (CW, vol. II, p. 256.

“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, vol. II, p. 521).

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary” (CW, vol. III, p, 16). (Has there ever been a clearer definition of “white supremacist”?). 

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . 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” (CW, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes” (CW, vol. III, p. 146).

“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too” (CW, vol. II, p. 281)

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of “colonization,” or the deportation of black people from America. He was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which procured tax funding to deport the small number of free blacks residing in the state. He also supported the Illinois constitution, which in 1848 was amended to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state. He made numerous speeches about “colonization.” “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . such separation must be effected by colonization” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). And, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). Note how Lincoln referred to black people as “the African,” as though they were alien creatures. “The place I am thinking about having for a colony,” he said, “is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia” (CW, vol. V, pp. 373-374).

Bennett also documents how Lincoln so habitually used the N word that his cabinet members – and many others – were shocked by his crudeness, even during a time of pervasive white supremacy, North and South. He was also a very big fan of “black face” minstrel shows, writes Bennett.

For generations, the so-called Lincoln scholars claimed without any documentation that Lincoln suddenly gave up on his “dream” of deporting all the black people sometime in the middle of the war, even though he allocated millions of dollars for a “colonization” program in Liberia during his administration. But the book Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, drawing on documents from the British and American national archives, proved that Lincoln was hard at work until his dying day plotting with Secretary of State William Seward the deportation of all the freed slaves. The documents produced in this book show Lincoln’s negotiations with European governments to purchase land in Central America and elsewhere for “colonization.” They were even counting how many ships it would take to complete the task.

Lincoln’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery, thereby enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution.


Lincoln stated at the outset of his first inaugural address 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.” Furthermore, “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the [Republican Party] platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .” By “domestic institutions” Lincoln meant slavery.

Lincoln also strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Clause and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in his first inaugural address by reminding his audience that the Clause is a part of the Constitution that he, and all members of Congress, swore to defend. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Act was strongly enforced all during the Lincoln administration, as documented by the scholarly book, The Slave Catchers, by historian Stanley Campbell (University of North Carolina Press, 2011). “The Fugitive Slave Law remained in force and was executed by federal marshals” all during the Lincoln regime, writes Campbell. For example, he writes that “the docket for the [Superior] Court [of the District of Columbia] listed the claims of twenty-eight different slave owners for 101 runaway slaves. In the two months following the court’s decision [that the law was applicable to the District], 26 fugitive slaves were returned to their owners . . .” This was in Washington, D.C., Lincoln’s own residence.

Near the end of his first inaugural address (seven paragraphs from the end) Lincoln makes his most powerful defense of slavery by saying: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service [i.e., slaves]. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

The Corwin Amendment, named for Rep. Thomas Corwin of Ohio, said:“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor [i.e., slaves] or service by the laws of said State.” 

After all the Southern members of Congress had left, the exclusively-Northern U.S. Congress voted in favor of the Corwin Amendment by a vote of 133-65 in the House of Representatives on February 28, 1861, and by a vote of 24-12 in the U.S. Senate on March 2, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

Lincoln lied in his first inaugural address when he said that he had not seen the Corwin Amendment. Not only did he support the amendment in his speech; it was his idea, as documented by Doris Kearns-Goodwin in her worshipful book on Lincoln entitled Team of Rivals. Based on primary sources, Goodwin writes on page 296 that after he was elected and before he was inaugurated Lincoln “instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.” “These proposals” were 1) the Corwin Amendment; and 2) a federal law to nullify personal liberty laws created by several states to allow them to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

In 1860-61 Lincoln and the Republican Party fiercely defended Southern slavery while only opposing the extension of slavery into the new territories. They gave three reasons for this:

(1) “Many northern whites . . . wanted to keep slaves out of the [new territories] in order to keep blacks out. The North was a pervasively racist society . . . . Bigots, they sought to bar African-American slaves from the West,” wrote University of Virginia historian Michael Holt in his book, The Fate of Their Country (p. 27).

(2) Northerners did not want to have to compete for jobs with black people, free or slave. Lincoln himself said that “we” want to preserve the territories for “free white labor”.

(3) If slaves were brought into the territories it could inflate the congressional representation of the Democratic Party once a territory became a state because of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution that counted five slaves as three persons for purposes of determining how many congressional representatives each state would have. The Republican Party feared that this might further block their economic policy agenda of high protectionist tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from competition; corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad-building corporations; a national bank; and a giving away, rather than selling, of federal land (mostly to mining, timber, and railroad corporations). Professor Holt quotes Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings explaining: “To give the south the preponderance of political power would be itself to surrender our tariff, our internal improvements [a.k.a. corporate welfare], our distribution of proceeds of public lands . . .” (p. 28).

Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a “war measure,” which meant that if the war ended the next day, it would become null and void. It only applied to “rebel territory” and specifically exempted by name areas of the South that were under Union Army control at the time, such as most of the parishes of Louisiana; and entire states like West Virginia, the last slave state to enter the union, having been created during the war by the Republican Party. That is why historian James Randall wrote that it “freed no one.” The apparent purpose was to incite slave rebellions, which it failed to do. Slavery was finally ended in 1866 by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with virtually no assistance from Lincoln, as described by Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in his book, Lincoln. On page 545 of his magnum opus David Donald writes of how Lincoln refused to lift a finger to help the genuine abolitionists accumulate votes in Congress for the Thirteenth Amendment. Stories that he did help, such as the false tale told in Steven Spielberg’s movie about Lincoln, are based on pure “gossip,” not documented history, wrote Donald.

Lincoln Promises War Over Tax Collection

In contrast to his compromising stance on slavery, Lincoln was totally and completely uncompromising on the issue of tax collection in his first inaugural address, literally threatening war over it. For decades, Northerners had been attempting to plunder Southerners (and others) with high protectionist tariffs. There was almost a war of secession in the late 1820s over the “Tariff of Abominations” of 1828 that increased the average tariff rate (essentially a sales tax in imports) to 45%. The agricultural South would have been forced to pay higher prices for clothing, farm tools, shoes, and myriad other manufactured products that they purchased mostly from Northern businesses. South Carolina nullified the tariff, refusing to collect it, and a compromise was eventually reached to reduce the tariff rate over a ten-year period.

By 1857 the average tariff rate had declined to about 15%, and tariff revenues accounted for at least 90% of all federal tax revenue. This was the high water mark of free trade in the nineteenth century. Then, with the Republican Party in control of Congress and the White House, the average tariff rate was increased, by 1863, back up to 47%, starting with the Morrill Tariff, which was signed into law on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration by Pennsylvania steel industry protectionist President James Buchanan. (It had first passed in the House of Representatives during the 1859-60 session).

Understanding that the Southern states that had seceded and had no intention of continuing to send tariff revenues to Washington, D.C., Lincoln threatened war over it. “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he said in his first inaugural address, “and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority.”


And what could “force” the “national authority” to commit acts of “violence” and “bloodshed”? Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” “Pay up or die; the American union is no longer voluntary” was his principal message. In Lincoln’s mind, the union was more like what would become the Soviet union than the original, voluntary union of the founding fathers. He kept his promise by invading the Southern states with an initial 75,000 troops after duping South Carolinians into firing upon Fort Sumter (where no one was harmed, let alone killed).

The Stated Purpose of the War

The U.S. Senate issued a War Aims Resolution that said: “[T]his war is not waged . . . in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Southern] states, but to defend . . . the Constitution, and to preserve the Union . . .” By “established institutions” of the Southern states they meant slavery.

Like the U.S. Senate, Lincoln also clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to “save the union” and not to interfere with Southern slavery. In a famous August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, he wrote that:

“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Of course, Lincoln’s war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with an involuntary union held together by threat of invasion, bloodshed, conquest, and subjugation.

The Very Definition of Treason

Treason is defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The most important word here is “them.” As in all the founding documents, “United States” is always in the plural, signifying that the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, are united in forming a compact or confederacy with other states. Levying war against “them” means levying war against individual states, not something called “the United States government.” Therefore, Lincoln’s invasion and levying of war upon the Southern states is the very definition of treason in the Constitution.

Lincoln took it upon himself to arbitrarily redefine treason, not by amending the Constitution, but by using brute military force. His new definition was any criticism of himself, his administration, and his policies. He illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus (illegal according to this own attorney general, Robert Bates) and had the military arrest and imprison without due process tens of thousands of Northern-state citizens, including newspaper editors, the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who was a Baltimore newspaper editor, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, his chief critic in the U.S. Congress, and essentially anyone overheard criticizing the government. (See Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall).

More than 300 Northern newspapers were shut down for criticizing the Lincoln regime as documented by James Randall, the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the twentieth century.

Lincoln’s Real Agenda: A Mercantilist Empire

Lincoln began his political career in 1832 as a Whig. Northern Whigs like Lincoln were the party of the corporate plutocracy who wanted to use the coercive powers of government to line the pockets of their big business benefactors (and of themselves). They proclaimed to stand for what their political predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, called the “American System.” This was really an Americanized version of the rotten, corrupt system of British “mercantilism” that the colonists had rebelled against. Its planks included protectionist tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers and their banking and insurance industry business associates; a government-run national bank to provide cheap credit to politically-connected businesses; and “internal improvement subsidies,” which we today would call “corporate welfare,” for canal-, road-, and railroad-building corporations. So when Lincoln first ran for political office in Illinois in 1832 he announced: “I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” He would devote his entire political career for the next twenty-nine years on that agenda.

The major opposition to Lincoln’s agenda of a mercantilist empire modeled after the British empire had always been from the South, as Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler, among others, vetoed or obstructed Whig and later, Republican, legislation. There were Southern supporters of this agenda, and Northern, Jeffersonian opponents of it, but it is nevertheless true that the overwhelming opposition to this Northern, Hamiltonian scheme came from the Jeffersonian South.

Henry Clay was the leader of the Whigs until his death in 1852, and Lincoln once claimed that he got all of his political ideas from Clay, who he eulogized as “the beau ideal of a statesman.” In reality, the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln “American System” was best described by Edgar Lee Masters, who was Clarence Darrow’s law partner and a renowned playwright (author of The Spoon River Anthology). In his book, Lincoln the Man (p. 27), Masters wrote that:“Henry clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises . . . He was the beloved son of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had not platform to announce, because its principles were plunder and nothing else.”

This was the agenda that Abraham Lincoln devoted his entire political life to. The “American System” was finally fully enacted with Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad Bill, which led to historic corruption during the Grant administration with its gargantuan subsidies to railroad corporations and others; fifty years of high, protectionist tariffs that continued to plunder Agricultural America, especially the South and the Mid-West, for the benefit of the industrial North; the nationalization of the money supply with the National Currency Acts and Legal Tender Acts; and the beginnings of a welfare state with veterans’ pensions. Most importantly, the system of federalism that was established by the founding fathers was all but destroyed with a massive shift in political power to Washington, D.C. and away from the people, due to the abolition (at gunpoint) of the rights of nullification and secession.


Lincoln’ Biggest Failure

Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere else in the world during the nineteenth century. This includes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, where slaves were once used to build slave ships that sailed out of New York, Providence, Hartford, Providence, and Boston harbors. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853.

Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Fogel and co-author Stanley Engerman, in their book, Time on the Cross, describe how the British, Spanish, and French empires, as well as the Swedes, Danes, and Dutch, ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. Whenever slaves did participate in wars in Central America and elsewhere, it was because they were promised freedom by one side in the war; the purpose of the wars, however, was never to free the slaves.

The British simply used tax dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then legally ended the practice. The cost of the “Civil War” to Northern taxpayers alone would have been sufficient to achieve the same thing in the U.S. Instead, the slaves were used as political pawns in a war that ended with the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research (the number was 620,000 for the past 100 years or so), with more than double that amount maimed for life, physically and psychologically. (Lincoln did make a speech in favor of “compensated emancipation” in the border states but insisted that it be accompanied by deportation of any emancipated slaves. He never used his “legendary” political skills, however, to achieve any such outcome, as a real statesman would have done – minus the deportation).

The Glory of the Coming of the Lord?

By the mid nineteenth century the world had evolved such that international law and the laws of war condemned the waging of war on civilians. It was widely recognized that civilians would always become casualties in any war, but to intentionally target them was a war crime.

The Lincoln regime reversed that progress and paved the way for all the gross wartime atrocities of the twentieth century by waging war on Southern civilians for four long years. Rape, pillage, plunder, the bombing and burning of entire cities populated only by civilians was the Lincolnian way of waging war – not on foreign invaders but on his own fellow American citizens. (Lincoln did not consider secession to be legal; therefore, he thought of all citizens of the Southern states to be American citizens, not citizens of the Confederate government).

General Sherman said in a letter to his wife that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people” (Letter from Sherman to Mrs. Sherman, July 31, 1862). Two years later, he would order his artillery officers to use the homes of Atlanta occupied by women and children as target practice for four days, while much of the rest of the city was a conflagration. The remaining residents were then kicked out of their homes – in November with the onset of winter. Ninety percent of Atlanta was demolished after the Confederate army had left the city.

General Philip Sheridan similarly terrorized the civilians of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. All of this led historian Lee Kennett, in his biography of Sherman, to honestly state that “had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants” (Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman’s Campaign, p. 286).

About All Those Statues

Professor Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was perhaps the most famous academic libertarian in the world during the last half of the twentieth century. A renowned Austrian School economist, he also wrote widely on historical topics, especially war and foreign policy. In a 1994 essay entitled “Just War” (online at https://mises.org/library/just-war), Rothbard argued that the only two American wars that would qualify as just wars (defined as wars to ward off a threat of coercive domination) were the American Revolution and the South’s side in the American “Civil War.” Without getting into his detailed explanation of this, his conclusion is especially relevant and worth quoting at length:


“[I]n this War Between the States, the South may have fought for its sacred honor, but the Northern war was the very opposite of honorable. We remember the care with which the civilized nations had developed classical international law. Above all, civilians must not be targeted; wars must be limited. But the North insisted on creating a conscript army, a nation in arms, and broke the 19th-century rules of war by specifically plundering and slaughtering civilians, by destroying civilian life and institutions so as to reduce the South to submission. Sherman’s famous march through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal horrors of the monstrous 20th century. . . . As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

Perhaps, some day, their statues will be toppled and melted down; their insignias and battle flag will be desecrated, and their war songs tossed into the fire.

Perhaps, some day. But in the meantime, and for the past 150 years, the mountain of lies that has concocted the Lincoln Myth has been invoked over and over again to “justify” war after war, all disguised as some great moral crusade, but in reality merely a tool to enrich the already wealthy-beyond-their-wildest-dreams military/industrial complex and its political promoter class. As Robert Penn Warren wrote in his 1960 book, The Legacy of the Civil War, the Lincoln Myth, painstakingly fabricated by the Republican Party, long ago created a “psychological heritage” that contends that “the Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue” caused by his victory in the “Civil War,” feels as though he has “an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future.” This “indulgence,” wrote Warren, “is the justification for our crusades of 1917-1918 and 1941-1945 and our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal rehabilitation for others” (emphasis added). Robert Penn Warren believed that most Americans were content with all of these lies about their own history, the work of what he called “the manipulations of propaganda specialists,” referring to those who describe themselves as “Lincoln scholars.”

12:02 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : histoire, états-unis, lincoln, abraham lincoln, 19ème siècle | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 11 octobre 2014

Northern Opposition to Lincoln’s War


Debunking the Myth of “National Unity”: Northern Opposition to Lincoln’s War

Of course, there is never “national unity” about anything, especially war, democratic politics being what it is.  When is the last time you heard of a unanimous vote expressing national unity in the U.S. Congress about anything?  Even the vote to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not unanimous.

The myth of national unity during the “Civil War” was invented and cultivated by the history profession, the Republican Party, and the New England clergy in the post-war era to “justify” the killing of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in the Southern states; the plundering of the South during “Reconstruction;” the destruction of the voluntary union of the states and the system of federalism that was created by the founding fathers; and the adoption of Hamiltonian mercantilism as America’s new economic system.

Any serious student of the “Civil War” knows that this is all absurd nonsense.  In addition to myriad draft riots, there were massive desertions from the Union Army from the very beginning of the war (see Ella Lonn, Desertion During the Civil War); Lincoln did shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprison thousands of Northern political dissenters without due process.  He did deport the most outspoken Democratic Party critic in Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio.  He did rig elections by having soldiers intimidate Democratic Party voters.  And he did send some 15,000 federal troops to murder the New York City draft rioters by the hundreds in July of 1863. All of this has been discussed for decades in “mainstream” history scholarship such as Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall and Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague.  The history profession has, however, done a meticulous job in seeing to it that such facts rarely, if ever, make it into the textbooks that are used in the public schools.

But times are changing in the era of the internet and of independent scholarship on the subject by scholars associated with such organizations as the Abbeville Institute.  The Institute’s latest publication is entitled Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, edited by D. Jonathan White.  It includes essays by White, Brion McClanahan, Marshall DeRosa, Arthur Trask, Joe Stromberg, Richard Valentine, Richard Gamble, John Chodes, and Allen Mendenhall.  These nine scholarly essays destroy the nationalist myth of “national unity” in the North during the War to Prevent Southern Independence.

Marshall DeRosa’s opening essay on “President Franklin Pierce and the War for Southern Independence” goes a long way in explaining why the nationalists in American politics believed that it was imperative to invent the myth of national unity.  President Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire was a Democrat who opposed the invasion of the Southern states.   He was a Jeffersonian, states-rights president, which is why he was mercilessly smeared by Lincoln’s hatchet man, William Seward, who accused him of treason (re-defined by the Lincoln administration as any criticism of it and its policies).  The real objects of Seward and Lincoln’s wrath towards Pierce, DeRosa explains, were the ideas that President Pierce stood for and was elected president on, as illustrated in the Democratic Party Platform of 1852.

The main ideas of this platform, upon which Pierce ran for president were: a federal government of limited powers, delegated to it by the states; opposition to the form of corporate welfare known as “internal improvements”; free trade and open immigration; gradual extinction of the national debt; opposition to a national bank; and realizing that the Constitution would have to be amended as a means of peacefully ending slavery.  This latter position was the position of the famous nineteenth-century libertarian abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.

It was because of these ideas that Pierce was libeled and smeared by the Republican Party of his day, with subsequent generations of historians merely repeating the smears disguised as “scholarship.”  Lincoln’s claim to fame, on the other hand, writes DeRosa, “is not that he adhered to the rule of law [as Pierce did], but that he had the audacity to disregard it.”  Thanks to the history profession, moreover, “Americans continue to pay homage to the villains that laid the tracks to our present sorry state of affairs.”

D. Jonathan White surveys the Northern opponents of Lincoln’s war that were slandered by the administration and its media mouthpieces as “copperheads” (snakes in the grass).  Among the “copperheads” were many prominent citizens of the North who, like President Pierce, were passionate defenders of the rule of law and constitutionally-limited government.  Their main complaints were against Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus and the mass arrest of Northern political opponents without due process; the draft law, which they considered to be a form of slavery; the income tax imposed by the Lincoln administration – the first in American history; and protectionist tariffs (the cornerstone of the Republican Party platform of 1860).  Because of these beliefs, hundreds, if not thousands of “copperheads” were imprisoned without due process by the Lincoln administration.

Allen Mendenhall contributes a very interesting article about how the famous U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was wounded three times in the war, became a sharp critic of Lincoln, his “mystical” union, and the war during the rest of his life.  Brion McClanahan’s essay describes in scholarly detail the Jeffersonian Democrats in the state of Delaware who opposed the war (the state gave its three electoral votes and 46 percent of the popular vote to Southern Democrat John Breckenridge in the 1860 election).  R.T. Valentine does essentially the same thing in his chapter on opposition to Lincoln’s policies in Westchester County, New York and the greater Hudson Valley.  He describes in detail how the residents of these areas, many of whom had family history in the area going back to the time of the founding, deeply resented the pushy, imperialistic, arrogant “Yankees” who were the base of Lincoln’s support and who had been moving into New York state from New England in droves.

Arthur Trask demonstrates that there was also a great deal of opposition to Lincoln’s war in Philadelphia, where many residents had long-lasting business and personal relationships with Southerners, while John Chodes writes of the horrible wartime governor of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, who apparently fancied himself as a mini-Lincoln with his imprisonment of dissenters and other dictatorial acts.

Joe Stromberg and Richard Gamble contribute chapters that explain the role of the Northern clergy in instigating the war.  Stromberg writes of the impulse of many Northern clergymen to use the coercive powers of the state to try to create some version of heaven on earth.  Worse yet,  “[T]he war of 1861-1865, as preached by the clergy surveyed here, became a permanent template for subsequent American crusades, whatever their origins.  From the Free Soil argument of the 1850s, through two World Wars, Cold War, and down to Iraq and beyond.  American leaders insist that their latest enemy [ISIS?] is both inherently expansionist and committed to some form of slavery.  It is therefore the duty of the new enemy to surrender ‘unconditionally’ and undergo reconstruction and reeducation for the good of all mankind . . .”

Richard Gamble traces the transformation of “Old School Presbyterianism” to where it embraced “political preaching.”  For example, upon Lincoln’s election a national assembly meeting in Philadelphia issued a proclamation that was “a turning point in the history of American Presbyterianism”:  “That in the judgment of this Assembly, it is the duty of the ministry and churches under its care to do all in their power to promote and perpetuate the integrity of the Unite States [government], and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal Government.”  The Old School Presbyterians, writes Gamble, “enlisted their church on the Union side,” which is to say, the side that would soon be invading, murdering, raping, and plundering its way through the Southern states.  This, Gamble argues, is how war and imperialism became the keystone of America’s “civil religion.”  This bogus “religion” is illustrated a thousand times over in the Laurence Vance archives on LewRockwell.com.

The Abbeville Institute is to be congratulated for publishing this latest correction of the historical record regarding Lincoln’s war.  Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War should be a part of the library of every American who resents having been lied to by his teachers, professors, film makers, and authors, and who seeks the truth about his own country’s history.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo 

lundi, 04 février 2013

Hitler, disciple d’Abraham Lincoln



Ellen BROWN:

Hitler, disciple d’Abraham Lincoln

“Nous ne sommes pas stupides au point de créer une monnaie liée à l’or, métal dont nous ne disposons pas, mais pour chaque mark que nous avons imprimé, nous avons réclamé l’équivalent de ce mark en travail ou en biens produits. Nous rirons désormais bien fort toutes les fois que nos financiers nationaux affirmeront que la valeur de la devise devra être réglée soit sur l’or soit sur des biens conservés dans les coffres-forts de la banque d’Etat” (dixit Adolf Hitler, citation mentionnée dans “Hitler’s Monetary System, sur http://www.rense.com/ et repris de C. C. Veith, “Citadels of Chaos”, Meador, 1949). Le gouvernement de Guernesey (politicien du Minnesota) ne fut donc pas le seul à avoir résolu ses propres problèmes d’infrastructure en faisant imprimer sa propre monnaie à sa  seule initiative. Ce modèle est toutefois plus connu dans l’Allemagne d’après la première guerre mondiale, lorsque Hitler arriva au pouvoir dans un pays complètement ruiné et livré au désespoir.


Le Traité de Versailles avait imposé au peuple allemand le paiement d’indemnités si considérables que le pays s’en était trouvé totalement détruit. L’Allemagne devait rembourser tous les frais qu’avait entraînés la guerre dans tous les pays belligérants. Ces indemnités se montaient ainsi au triple de la valeur de toutes les propriétés se trouvant sur le territoire allemand. La spéculation contre le mark allemand avaient provoqué son effondrement, entraînant en même temps l’inflation la plus ruineuse de tous les temps modernes. Au moment le plus fort de cette inflation, une brouette pleine de billets de banques, équivalant à la somme de 100 milliards de marks, ne suffisait pas pour acheter une miche de pain. Les caisses de l’Etat étaient vides; de plus, une grande quantité de maisons et de fabriques avaient été placées sous sequestre par les banques et les spéculateurs. Les gens étaient contraints de vivre dans des baraquements et mourraient de faim. Jamais rien de pareil n’était arrivé précédemment. La destruction complète d’une devise nationale avait littéralement bouffé l’épargne des citoyens et réduit à néant leurs activités et l’économie en général. Pire, à la fin de la troisième décennie du 20ème siècle, la crise internationale empire encore la situation. L’Allemagne ne pouvait plus faire autre chose que tomber dans l’esclavage de la detteet dans les griffes des usuriers internationaux. C’était du moins ce qui semblait à l’époque inéluctable (ndt: comme la Grèce ou l’Espagne aujourd’hui...).

Hitler et les nationaux-socialistes arrivent au pouvoir en 1933 et s’opposent immédiatement au cartel des banques internationales, en commençant par battre une monnaie allemande propre. Le modèle de cette politique ne dérive pas d’une idéologie réactionnaire ou totalitaire, du moins considérée comme telle par les conventions politico-idéologiques contemporaines, mais de la politique lancée jadis aux Etats-Unis par le Président anti-esclavagiste Abraham Lincoln, qui avait financé la guerre civile américaine en faisant imprimer des billets de banque au nom de l’Etat, billets que l’on avait surnommé “Greenbacks”. Hitler amorcera de même son programme de crédit national en élaborant un plan de grands travaux publics. Ces projets, destinés à être financés par les pouvoirs publics, comprenaient la construction d’infrastructures diverses, notamment pour juguler les effets désastreux des inondations dans certaines régions du pays, la remise en Etat ou la modernisation d’édifices publics, voire de demeures privées, la construction de nouveaux bâtiments pour l’Etat ou l’administration, de routes, d’autoroutes, de ponts, le creusement de canaux et de bassins portuaires. Le coût de tous ces travaux et projets fut fixé à un milliard de l’unité de la nouvelle devise nationale. On imprima donc pour un milliard de ces billets d’échange non soumis à l’inflation, appelés “certificats de travail du Trésor”. Cette monnaie imprimée par le gouvernement n’avait pas pour référence l’or mais tout ce qui possédait une valeur concrète. Pour l’essentiel, il s’agissait de reçus émis en échange d’un travail ou d’un gros oeuvre effectués au bénéfice du gouvernement. Hitler: “Pour chaque mark qui sera imprimé, nous avons exigé l’équivalent d’un mark de travail accompli ou de biens produits”. Les travailleurs dépensaient ensuite leurs “certificats” pour acquérir d’autres biens ou services, créant par la même occasion du travail pour d’autres citoyens.

En l’espace de deux années, le problème du chômage avait été résolu et le pays était remis sur pied. Il possédait à nouveau une devise stable et solide, n’avait plus de dettes, ne subissait plus d’inflation, alors qu’au même moment, aux Etats-Unis et dans d’autres pays occidentaux, des centaines de milliers d’ouvriers demeuraient sans travail et vivaient de l’assistance publique. L’Allemagne avait également réussi à relancer son commerce extérieur, malgré le fait que les grandes banques internationales lui refusaient tout crédit et se voyaient contraintes, pour ne pas perdre la face, d’organiser contre elle un boycott économique international. L’Allemagne s’est dégagé de ce boycott en instituant un système de troc: les biens et les services s’échangeaient directement entre pays, tout en contournant les grandes banques internationales. Ce système d’échange direct s’effectuait sans créer de dette ni de déficit commercial. Cette expérience économique allemande a laissé des traces durables, encore perceptibles aujourd’hui, comme le réseau d’autoroutes, le premier au monde à avoir eu pareille ampleur.

Hjalmar Schacht, à l’époque chef de la banque centrale allemande, a confirmé que cette politique était bien la version allemande de l’émission des “Greenbacks” par Lincoln. Un banquier américain avait dit à Schacht: “Dr. Schacht, vous devriez venir en Amérique car nous y avons un paquet d’argent et telle est la vraie façon de gérer un système bancaire”. Schacht avait répliqué: “C’est vous qui devriez venir à Berlin. Nous n’avons pas d’argent. Telle est la vraie façon de gérer un système bancaire” (citation issue de John Weitz, “Hitler’s Banker, Warner Books, 1999).



Certes, aujourd’hui, Hitler est décrit comme un monstre dans les livres d’histoire mais cette politique économique, il faut l’avouer, l’avait rendu populaire dans son pays. Stephen Zarlenga, dans “The Lost Science of Money”, affirme que le dictateur allemand doit cette popularité au fait qu’il avait débarrassé l’Allemagne des “théories économiques anglaises”, soit les théories selon lesquelles l’argent doit s’échanger sur base des réserves d’or possédées par un cartel de banques privées plutôt que sur un argent émis directement par les gouvernements. Ensuite, le chercheur canadien Henry Makow énonce l’hypothèse suivante: c’est pour cette raison qu’il fallait éliminer Hitler car il avait réussi à circonvenir les banquiers internationaux et à créer une monnaie propre. Pour étayer son hypothèse, Makow cite un entretien de 1938 accordé par C. G. Rakowky, l’un des fondateurs du bolchevisme soviétique et ami intime de Trotski, qui a fini victime des purges staliniennes. Selon Rakowsky, “Hitler s’est octroyé à lui-même le privilège de fabriquer de l’argent, non seulement de l’argent tangible mais aussi de l’argent financier; il a fait siens les mécanismes intouchables de la falsification et les a mis au service de l’Etat. Si une telle situation avait réussi à infecter d’autres Etats, on pourrait aisément imaginer quelles en auraient été les implications contre-révolutionnaires” (Henry Makow, “Hitler did not want War”, sur: http://www.savethemales.com/ ).

L’économiste anglais Henry C. K. Liu a lui aussi écrit quelques articles et essais sur la transformation inattendue de l’économie allemande dans les années 30 du 20ème siècle: “Les nazis arrivent au pouvoir en Allemagne en 1933, au moment où l’économie du pays connaît un effondrement total, subissant aussi les conséquences ruineuses des indemnités qu’il a à payer suite à la première guerre mondiale; ses prospectives pour obtenir du crédit et des investissements étrangers égalent zéro. Pourtant, en mettant en oeuvre une politique de souveraineté monétaire indépendante et un vaste programme de travaux publics garantissant le plein emploi, son ‘Troisième Reich’ réussit à soustraire l’Allemagne à la banqueroute, même si elle ne possédait plus de colonies à exploiter; ce programme en fit la puissance économique numéro un de l’Europe, en une période de quatre années seulement, avant même de lancer son programme d’armement”. Dans “Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People” (1984) Sheldon Hemry commente: “A partir de 1935, l’Allemagne commence par faire imprimer une monnaie non grevée par la dette et les intérêts: c’est cela qui explique son ascension fulgurante, sa sortie rapide d’une ère dominée par la dépression et la création de toutes les conditions qui en ont fait une puissance mondiale, en moins de cinq ans. L’Allemagne a financé le fonctionnement de son propre gouvernement et toutes les opérations militaires de ses armées de 1935 à 1945 sans avoir eu besoin d’or et sans contracter de dettes; il a fallu l’unité du monde entier, capitalistes et communistes confondus, pour détruire cette puissance allemande et l’hégémonie qu’elle exerçait sur l’Europe et pour ramener celle-ci sous la domination des banques”.

L’hyperinflation de Weimar

Dans les textes modernes on parle souvent de la désastreuse inflation qui a frappé la République de Weimar de 1919 à 1933. La dévaluation catastrophique du mark allemand est citée, dans les textes contemporains, comme l’exemple de ce qui peut arriver si on confère aux gouvernants d’un pays le pouvoir, noncontrôlé, de battre monnaie seul. Cependant, dans le monde fort complexe de l’économie, les choses ne se sont pas passées comme ça. La crise financière de Weimar débute par l’impossibilité d’indemniser les puissances alliées comme l’avait imposé le Traité de Versailles.

Schacht, à l’époque responsable de l’Hôtel des Monnaies de la République de Weimar, se lamentait: “Le Traité de Versailles constitue un système ingénieux de dispositions qui toutes ont pour but la destruction économique de l’Allemagne. Le Reich n’a pas réussi à trouver un système pour se maintenir à flot qui soit différent de l’expédient inflationniste, lequel consiste à continuer à imprimer des billets de banque”. C’est du moins ce que Schacht déclarait au début. Mais l’économiste Zarlenga note par ailleurs que Schacht, dans son livre écrit en 1967 (“The Magic of Money”), avait décidé de “dire la vérité et de coucher sur le papier, en langue allemande, quelques révélations importantes, mettant en pièces les racontars et lieux communs colportés par la communauté des financiers internationaux sur la question de l’hyper-inflation allemande”. Schacht révèle notamment que c’est plutôt la Reichsbank, détenue par des cercles privés, et non le gouvernement allemand qui a sans cesse injecté de nouveaux billets dans l’économie. Par le biais du mécanisme financier connu comme “vente à brève échéance”, les spéculateurs prenaient en prêt des choses qu’ils ne possédaient pas, les vendaient et “couvraient” le déficit en les revendant à un prix inférieur. La spéculation sur le marché allemand fut rendue possible par le simple fait que la Reichsbank mettait à disposition des quantités énormes d’argent liquide pour les prêts; ces marks étaient créés au départ de rien, notés comme inscrits sur les registres bancaires puis prêtés à des taux d’intérêt très avantageux.

Lorsque la Reichsbank n’a plus réussi à faire face aux demandes pressantes de marks, on a permis à d’autres banques privées d’en créer au départ de rien et de les prêter à leur tour pour engranger des intérêts. Selon Schacht ce ne fut donc pas le gouvernement de la République de Weimar qui provoqua l’hyper-inflation; au contraire, il l’a tenue sous contrôle. Il imposa à la Reichsbank des règlements sévères et prit des mesures correctrices immédiates pour bloquer les spéculateurs étrangers, éliminant du même coup la possibilité d’un accès facile aux prêts consentis en cet argent imprimé par les banques. Hitler n’a fait que parachever ce travail amorcé par la démocratie weimarienne, en remettant le pays sur pied avec ses “certificats du Trésor”, imprimés par le gouvernement sur le modèle jadis mis en oeuvre par Lincoln aux Etats-Unis, les “certificats du Trésor” étant l’équivalent allemand et hitlérien des “Greenbacks” du Président anti-esclavagiste. Rappelons toutefois que Schacht avait désapprouvé l’émission de cette monnaie par le gouvernement national-socialiste, ce qui entraîna son renvoi: il fut contraint de quitter son poste de nouveau Président de la Reichsbank, justement parce qu’il refusait de soutenir la politique des “certificats du Trésor” (ce qui le sauva sans doute lors du procès de Nuremberg). Cependant, dans ses mémoires, rédigées bien après coup, après l’épisode hitlérien de l’histoire allemande et le procès de Nuremberg, Schacht a reconnu que l’émission par le gouvernement d’une monnaie nécessaire pour le bon fonctionnement des choses publiques, et dont l’Allemagne aux abois avait un besoin urgent, n’avait pas produit l’inflation que prévoyait, dans de tels cas, la théorie économique classique. Dans ses mémoires, Schacht émet la théorie suivante: le gouvernement national-socialiste a évité l’inflation parce que les usines ne tournaient pas et que les gens étaient sans travail. Schacht est ainsi d’accord avec John Maynard Keynes: quand les ressources pour faire croître la production sont disponibles, ajouter des liquidités à l’économie ne provoque pas l’augmentation des prix; cela provoque plutôt la croissance des biens et des services; l’offre et la demande augmentent alors au même rythme, en laissant les prix inchangés (cf. www.webofdebt).

Ellen BROWN.

(article paru sur www.altrainformazione et sur http://www.ariannaeditrice.it/ en date  du 27 juin 2011).

samedi, 25 avril 2009

Le tyran qui sert de modèle à Obama


Le tyran qui sert de modèle à Obama


par Jan von FLOCKEN


Au début de cette année, quand Barack Obama a été officiellement intronisé Président des Etats-Unis, un souffle chargé de symboles flottait sur la cérémonie. La figure d’Abraham Lincoln, président assassiné en 1865, semblait omniprésente. On évoquera en cette année 2009 le 200ème anniversaire de la naissance de ce Lincoln, devenu en quelque sorte l’un des saints patrons de la démocratie occidentale.  Obama ne s’est pas contenté de reproduire le trajet en chemin de fer que fit Lincoln au printemps 1861, partant de Philadelphie, passant par Baltimore pour arriver à Washinghton D.C., à la Maison Blanche. Obama a également insisté pour poser la main, lors de  sa prestation de serment, sur la Bible reliée et recouverte de velours, vieille de 156 ans, que feu “Old Abe”, alias Lincoln, avait utilisée. A la suite de ce serment, Obama a juré, comme le veut la tradition, de “maintenir la Constitution américaine, de la protéger et de la défendre”.


Personne n’a autant violé la Constitution que Lincoln...


Toute cette démonstration qui cherche à établir un parallèle entre l’homme d’Etat devenu légendaire et le jeune Président, nouvel espoir de l’Amérique, éveille cependant des souvenirs dérangeants voire compromettants, bien que non voulus. En effet, aucun président des Etats-Unis, au cours de ces 220 dernières années, n’a autant violé la Constitution et jugulé les droits fondamentaux des citoyens que Lincoln. Son mandat s’est déployé sous le signe sanglant d’une guerre civile entre Etats du Nord et Etats du Sud. Ces derniers s’étaient séparés de l’Union en 1860-61 et avaient fondé un Etat propre, la Confédération. La Constitution américaine n’interdisait nullement une sécession de ce type car ce n’est qu’en 1868 que la Cour Suprême a énoncé un verdict contraire. Dans un premier temps, les deux parties ont accepté la Sécession. Indice de cette acceptation: Horace Greeley, l’éditeur influent de la “New York Tribune” et ami politique de Lincoln, écrivit dans son journal, en date du 9 novembre 1860: “Nous ne vivrons jamais, espérons-le, au sein d’une République où nous serions contraints de rester à tout jamais par la force des baïonnettes”. 


Or ce sont justement les baïonnettes qu’a fait jouer Lincoln peu après son entrée en fonction. Il a saisi rapidement la première occasion venue: en l’occurrence, un échange de coups de feu aux abords de Fort Sumter, appartenant à la Confédération. Cet incident, qui ne fit que quelques blessés légers, servit de prétexte pour une déclaration de guerre de facto contre les Etats du Sud qui prit la forme d’un appel à 75.000 volontaires le 15 avril 1861. Dans la foulée, Lincoln ordonne en plus qu’un embargo commercial soit décrété contre la Confédération esclavagiste. Cet appel et cet embargo constituent deux fautes politiques graves car, immédiatement après leur mise en oeuvre, quatre Etats demeurés neutres, la Virginie, l’Arkansas, la Caroline du Nord et le Tennessee, quittent à leur tour l’Union pour rejoindre la Confédération.


Dans l’Etat du Maryland, qui, par tradition, penchait pour la Confédération, mais qui devait rester dans l’Union vu qu’il était proche de la capitale fédérale Washington, la population proteste en masse contre la politique belliciste de Lincoln. Le Président met aussitôt l’Article I/9 de la Constitution hors jeu, alors qu’il est cardinal en tant qu’ “Habeas Corpus Act” qui protège le citoyen contre toute arrestation arbitraire et lui garantit le droit d’être entendu par un juge dans des délais rapides. La capitale du Maryland, Annapolis, et la ville de Baltimore, celle où Barack Obama s’est rendu en voulant suivre les traces de Lincoln, ont été placées à l’époque sous la loi martiale. Le 13 mai 1861, le maire de Baltimore, George W. Brown, le chef de sa police et tous les membres du conseil municipal, ont été arrêtés,  sans qu’il n’y ait justification en droit, et emprisonnés jusqu’à la fin des hostilités en 1865. Parmi ces embastillés, il y avait, ô ironie, le petit-fils de Francis Scott Key, le poète qui avait composé l’hymne national américain, lequel chante les louanges de “ce pays des hommes libres et de ce foyer des braves”.


Lorsque le Parlement de l’Etat du Maryland condamna cette incoyable mesure et fustigea l’action illégale et tyrannique du Président des Etats-Unis, Lincoln fit immédiatement arrêter 31  députés qui furent incarcérés pendant trois à six mois sans jugement. Cette action musclée  enfreint clairement l’article additionnel VI de la Constitution, selon lequel tout accusé a droit à un procès immédiat et public devant un jury indépendant. Le président de la Cour Suprême, Roger B. Taney, l’homme devant lequel Lincoln avait officiellement prêté serment sur la Bible, exigea que le Président rende caduques ces arrestations car elles heurtaient trop manifestement les principes de la Constitution. Le Président s’était ainsi arrogé des compétences qui ne sont que du seul ressort du Parlement. A la suite des admonestations de Roger B. Taney, Lincoln lança une directive incitant toutes les autorités publiques à ignorer purement et simplement le jugement rendu par la Cour Suprême, ce qui constitue, bien évidemment, une entorse manifeste à la Constitution (Art. III/1). Un observateur, pourtant favorable à Lincoln, le démocrate allemand Otto von Corvin, correspondant du “Times”, nota, à l’époque, que les gesticulations de Lincoln lui rappellait celles d’un “instituteur de village”.


Pendant la guerre civile,  d’autres entorses à la Constitution eurent lieu; ainsi, en juin 1863, lorsque la Virginie fut partiellement occupée par les militaires nordistes, on proclama la naissance d’un Etat fédéral artificiel, la “Virginie occidentale” (“West Virginia”), alors que l’article IV/3 de la Constitution prescrit sans ambiguïté qu’aucun nouvel Etat fédéral ne peut être créé ou établi au départ du territoire d’un autre Etat fédéral. Toutes ces violations anti-démocratiques de la Constitution sont aujourd’hui relativisées sous prétexte que Lincoln a été le libérateur des esclaves  noirs. Or, à l’été 1862, une demie année avant la proclamation officielle de leur libération, le Président avait encore déclaré: “Si je pouvais sauver l’Union, sans avoir à affranchir un seul esclave, je le ferais”. Le maintien de l’Union a finalement coûté la vie à 600.000 personnes. Il reste aux Américains à espérer qu’Obama, à l’avenir, se contentera d’imiter Lincoln dans des cérémonies purement festives. Car n’oublions pas qu’Obama a dit, peu après son entrée en fonction en janvier: “Ma politique consiste à ne pas avoir de politique”. 


Jan von FLOCKEN.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°16/2009, trad.  franç.: Robert Steuckers).