Abraham Lincoln reconsidered
Much of Moriarty’s recent essay (Jan. 1997) is devoted to backpedaling from the man that General George McLellan called “the Royal Ape.” There seems to have arisen in Moriarty’s psyche some dim recognition that Lincoln wasn’t such a good role model for race-conscious whites after all. It is difficult to take seriously any racialist who favors the man that Nelson Mandela has identified as one of his most admired heroes along with Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao.
Unfortunately, following Moriarty’s change of heart, he expends much ink to convince readers that the Southern view of Lincoln is irrelevant. He still denies that Lincoln played a major role in initiating white dissolution. He wonders if a successful South would have become just another Brazil. He assures us that “white racism” won’t sell anymore and that neither the Old South nor the pre-civil rights South can be resurrected. Finally he proclaims that while “the issue today is how to salvage the, or a, white nation in America . . . splitting the white population along sectional lines seems counterproductive.”
At the end, there is a return to the earlier article (Nov. 1996) that puffs Lincoln as revealer of life’s great profundities. Southerners who just don’t “get it” receive some rather condescending advice. Having lost a vicious war by being too chivalrous, they should gratefully abase themselves before their conqueror’s all-seeing wisdom.
Certainly the South suffered, and its wounds are evident to this day. But suffering is more profitable if it brings knowledge as well as experience. Lincoln taught the Confederates the difference between a war and a duel. Lincoln can teach today’s white Majority the difference between the United States of America and the American Nation.
This statement displays a callous disregard for the hundreds of thousands of courageous men in gray who fought to preserve their race and their civilization in the conflict of 1861-1865 and who endured the infamous Reconstruction that followed. It also displays a lamentable lack of understanding of the causes of the war and the nature of the forces arrayed against the Confederacy. Most distressingly it reveals a myopic inability to discern that the Cause of the Confederacy in 1861 is also the cause of white racialists today.
The South was not so ignorant as contemporary Americans of Lincoln’s true colors, one of which turns out to be Red. Southerners in 1860 were well aware of the destructive force that first showed its face in 1848, when Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, the year that saw the outbreak of socialist revolutions throughout Europe. Although these revolutions were premature, it was seven more decades before the forces of communism were able to subvert a European state in their nihilistic revolt against civilization.
In an 1860 sermon delivered in the shadow of looming war, Southern theologian James H. Thornwell revealed just how well the South understood not only the implications of the North’s rising secular humanist pseudoreligion and its ideological soul-mate, abolitionism, but also the relationship of both to the embryonic political and ideological monstrosity whose evil, all-devouring nature he could have only guessed at in 1860.
The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake.
This startling quote shows just how well Southerners understood who the principals were in the impending clash that New York Senator William Seward called “an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces.” Americans should consider carefully the implications of the North’s “Red” connection. Those who see Lincoln as anything other than an agent of white destruction place themselves in league with just about every enemy the white race has. One hopes that this is done out of ignorance rather than by informed choice.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels supported Lincoln’s war. During the war, Marx wrote a column for socialist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. Award-winning historian James McPherson made the connection between Lincoln and socialism in Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution:
Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutions of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions, Karl Marx praised Lincoln in 1865 as “the single-minded son of the working class” who led his “country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
Russian revolutionaries favored the North. Alexander Herzen called Jefferson Davis “the greatest political criminal of our time.” Michael Bakunin wrote of Lincoln’s war, “[I]n the struggle between the Northern and Southern United States.. .the North.. .has all my sympathies.” Bakunin was even more pleased with Reconstruction and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Winning the war wasn’t enough; for “popular self-government” to become a reality, “another revolution. . .far more profound” was required. Like the Bolsheviks who infiltrated America in the 1920s and 1930s, these early Communist revolutionaries clearly saw the potential of using the Negro race as a proletariat for subjugation of the West.
In light of this, perhaps it is not coincidental that Lincoln’s administration enacted into law three planks of the Communist Manifesto. The first was a national banking act. The second was the Internal Revenue Service. The third, enacted by the Morrill Tariff Act, was public education at Land Grant Colleges.
Lincoln benefited from the failed 1848 Communist revolutions in more material ways. Many veteran “forty-eighters” fled to the U.S. With the outbreak of the War for
Southern Independence, they joined Lincoln’s invasion army, forming an experienced cadre of military leaders who helped compensate for the fact that many of the best U.S. officers cast their lot with the Confederacy. Friedrich Engels later wrote of this bonanza of Communist leadership that “had it not been for the experienced soldiers who had entered America after the European revolution (1848), especially from Germany, the organization of the Union army would have taken still longer than it did.”
The list of revolutionaries who served as Union general officers is revealing. It includes: Joseph Weydemeyer, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, Thomas Meagher (commander of the Irish Brigade), Peter Osterhaus, August von Willich, Friedrich Salomon, Alexander Schimmelfennig, E. S. Solomon, Albin Schoepf, Julius Stahel, Max Weber and Frederick Hecker. The title of William L. Burton’s 1988 book, Melting Pot Soldiers, tells the story with a remarkable economy of words.
There is hardly time or space to recount the many horror stories of Lincoln’s personal aberrations. There is some evidence that he was the bastard offspring of a North Carolina man who took Lincoln’s mother into his home as an orphan child and molested her sexually. Lincoln publicly professed Christianity for the sake of politics, but as a young man he wrote a book mocking Christianity and the Bible. Recent medical studies of Lincoln’s condition suggest that he may have suffered from Marfan’s Syndrome, a genetic disease that frequently leads to early death. Throughout life he was plagued by nightmares, delusions, hallucinations and forebodings about his own death, which some writers believe he may have craved.
His 1832 address to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield supports that theory, George McDaniel writes:
In that bizarre speech, speaking almost wistfully, Lincoln rhapsodized about the founding fathers’ having achieved glory in death. He went on to warn his young audience cryptically about the possibility of a genius rising up in America, who, in his quest for fame, might attempt to destroy the country. He counseled his bewildered audience that they must help defeat this evil genius. Could Lincoln just possibly have been speaking of his own evil side and could the two faces exemplify his schizophrenic nature? Could Lincoln himself be the “house divided against itself” that he spoke of years later?
Lincoln was almost certainly a sexual deviant. Rumors persist of dalliances between Lincoln and Marine guards in the White House. These charges are unproven but others are more certain. In his book, The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, historian Michael Burlingame describes Lincoln’s homosexuality and the sadomasochistic marital relationship with his wife. In his 1926 book, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, Carl Sandburg, hardly a lightweight source, described Lincoln and merchant Joshua Speed as having “a streak of lavender and spots soft as May violets.”
In The Story the Soldiers Wouldn’t Tell: Sex in the Civil War, medical historian Thomas P. Lowry tells how Lincoln slept in the same bed with Speed for four years. When Speed announced his marriage, Lincoln became so depressed he could not perform his duties as an Illinois legislator. His friends feared he might commit suicide. As quoted in Lincoln associate William Herndon’s 1888 work, Life of Lincoln, Lincoln wrote to Speed:
Your [letter], announcing that Miss Fanny and you are “no more twain, but one flesh,” reached me this morning. . . . I feel somewhat jealous of both of you now. You will be so exclusively concerned for one another that I shall be forgotten entirely. . . . I shall be very lonesome without you.
While honorable men like Stephen Douglas and James Buchanan tried to salvage the Constitution and white civilization, Lincoln’s abolitionist allies, known at the time as “Black Republicans,” fanned the flames of race war. Thomas Jefferson had long ago seen that the fervor aroused by the slavery question would lead to a national catastrophe. In a prescient letter to Massachusetts Congressman John Holmes following the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which excluded slavery from territories north of latitude 36°30’ Jefferson wrote:
[T]his momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. . . . A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated. . . . I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons.
The War’s cause has been distorted by both sides in the aftermath. The South’s detractors claim that the war was fought to free the slaves. Many Southerners, fearing the “racism” smear, counter that the war was fought over states rights and free trade. The reality is that slavery was the central issue but in a way radically different than liberals admit. Southerners were forced to fight for survival against the “angry passions” that Jefferson foresaw.
Have Americans forgotten why John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry? Throughout the decades before the war, abolitionists agitated relentlessly for armed servile insurrection against the South. Intent on fulfilling this malevolent fantasy, Brown planned to arm Virginia’s slaves as a prelude to massacre. For this monstrous act, the Northern press compared Brown favorably to Jesus Christ. With the examples of the bloody Nat Turner Rebellion, the genocidal Haiti massacres and other lethal slave uprisings before them, Southerners had little choice but to defend themselves against those who openly advocated their mass murder.
Outgoing President James Buchanan understood the potential for disaster far better than Lincoln. In his final speech to Congress in December 1860, he said, “Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and therefore any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended over the heads of the people must at last become intolerable.” No one in a position of leadership incited passions more than Abraham Lincoln. To the South, Lincoln, the great “house-divided-against-itself-cannot-stand” abolitionist, was the point of the sword Buchanan so vividly described. The election of 1860 was the beginning of its descent. The South had no choice but to abandon a union that sanctioned murder of white women and children.
Given events since the war, is it true that Lincoln was “the historical and political progenitor of today’s largely self-inflicted white genocide?” Is this mere “heated opinion,” as Moriarty contends? Significantly, he fails to quote the remainder of my critical passage:
Beyond the murder of over 600,000 of his own countrymen in a war of fratricidal vengeance marked by the deliberate employment of “total war” by Lincoln’s Union army commanders. . . Lincoln’s war conferred moral sanction, and indeed constitutional compulsion, upon the lethal delusion of racial egalitarianism.
It is the ascendancy of the ideology of racial equality that threatens our existence. Lincoln was not alone in creating our plight. It is certainly true that others have followed in his footsteps. But it was Lincoln who created the legal and social climate that legitimized the destruction of America’s racial hierarchy. The inexorable consequence of Lincoln’s revolution held at bay for a century by segregation and Jim Crow was an inevitable and concomitant rise of race-mixing and the agent of our “self-inflicted genocide.”
This view is not mine alone. Perceptive Southerners said as much at the time. In his postwar book, In Defense of Virginia and the South, Robert L. Dabney, chaplain to Stonewall Jackson, described the deadly peril Lincoln’s revolution created: “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.” He added:
[T]he offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race. . . . And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.
The assertion that the embattled South thought of the War as some sort of romantic lark is so far divorced from historical reality as to be deeply insulting. Outnumbered more than 4-to-1 in population, and 100-to-1 in industrial capacity at the beginning of the War, the South fought because it had no choice. It was Lincoln who raised an army to invade the South. It was the South which fought with grim desperation as long as it was able.
Men like Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were not squeamish when it came to the art of killing. When asked what to do about massive looting and vandalism by Union troops in Fredericksburg on the eve of the December 1862 battle, Jackson replied: “Kill them, sir. Kill them every one.” Forrest’s ferocity is the stuff of legend. His philosophy was “war means fighting, and fighting means killing.” He was SO good at it that William T. Sherman once wrote, “Forrest should be hunted down and killed if it costs 10,000 lives and bankrupts the treasury.”
Grant asked Lincoln to suspend exchange of Union and Confederate prisoners because he calculated that one Confederate was worth three of his “melting pot soldiers.” The Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee inflicted such devastating casualties on Grant’s Army of the Potomac that it very nearly cost Lincoln the election of 1864.
It is true that the South refrained from the organized butchery of Sherman, Phil Sheridan, Benjamin “Beast” Butler and other Unionists who waged total war on defenseless civilians. The burning of Atlanta, the march to the sea, the destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, the depopulation of parts of Missouri and Georgia, the internment of civilians in concentration camps, the obscene treatment of Southern POWs in Northern camps, and uncounted other atrocities bear scathing testimony to Lincoln’s barbarism against the South. However, only a man utterly devoid of civilizing instincts could construe such behavior as a virtue. As with the Allies’ wars against Germany, self-righteous carnage against our own blood kin has brought the white race perilously close to disaster.
The second assertion that Lincoln teaches us, the “difference between the United States of America and the American Nation,” says nothing positive about Lincoln. One presumes that “the United States of America” denotes the federal government, and “the American Nation” denotes the people themselves, sans government. One further presumes that a racialist must surely favor preserving the people ahead of their institutions. However, in the conflict of 1861-1865, it was Lincoln who fought to preserve the “Union,” that all-powerful empire that was the United States of America. Conversely the South fought to preserve itself from racial amalgamation. It seems self-evident that a racialist must embrace the South’s position and condemn the megalomaniac who tried to destroy it.
Does Southern nationalism (“sectionalism”) have no role in the political calculus of the 20th century? Who voted for California’s anti-immigration Proposition 187 and anti-affirmative action Proposition 209? Far from abandoning racial awareness, we must fan its flames. As conditions worsen, the white population will polarize along racial lines.
As for Southern nationalism, if “sectionalism” is not the answer, what is? How, except by irredentism and geographic concentration, can an ethnostate arise? Shall we all move to odd-numbered street addresses and call that our nation? The idea is preposterous. Any animal in the wild knows instinctively that it must defend it’s own territory or die. One can already see sectionalism at work in Quebec and in the Southwest, where Mexico is assiduously colonizing land that was once American. Does anyone believe that Mexicans intent on establishing “Aztlan” will forego “sectionalism” in pursuit of their goal? Those who dismiss Southern nationalism and the strong racial consciousness that underlies it should ask themselves what they would substitute in its place.
While no one wishes bloodshed, we must realize that salvation may not come without disruption. A core group identity and a locus of action are mandatory for success. Diffuse resistance everywhere translates to effectiveness nowhere. Most Southerners still retain a sense of kinship and loyalty to their Southern heritage. This self-consciousness exists in few other regions. It is not so pronounced even in the West, where antipathy to the federal government is at least as strong as it is in the South.
If one “section” or even one state takes action, it may be joined by others, just as Lincoln’s call for the invasion of the lower Southern states precipitated secession by Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. Refusal by a governor to accept a particularly noxious federal diktat may, in fact, be the confrontational spark that one day ignites the birth of an ethnostate. This will work best in a region where sectional loyalties command participation by sister states. It could have happened when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock.
Finally, no war is won without a unifying cause and symbols of that cause. The Confederate flag is still a talisman of extraordinary power, as anyone who has ever lofted it in defiance in the face of blacks can readily attest. The elemental fear and dismay are palpable.
What lessons, then, are we to learn from the man whose war caused the deaths of more white Americans that all other American wars combined, the man who ushered in political and social equality for a race whose genes are destroying Western civilization, the man who advanced the universal ist cause as no one in his era had done before or since? Perhaps there is a lesson for us, but it is not the one cited in Moriarty’s “Deep Politics.” It is this: failure to discern the true nature of any conflict abrogates all hope of victory. In war one must identify enemies and allies. Those who are not allies are enemies, and must be treated as such.
Lincoln overthrew a nation based on the sanctity and preeminence of the white race in order to preserve an empire that trumpeted such sanctimonious “principles” as preservation of the Union, racial equality, commercial hegemony and on and on. This makes Lincoln the enemy.
What non-Southerners must recognize is that it was the South that fought to save the white race. In Lincoln’s own words, Southerners fought against an “evil genius” who tried to destroy the American Nation and its founding people. Consequently the Southern Cause is the cause of whites everywhere and all whites must join that cause if we are to succeed. When the time comes to rectify the racial disaster that looms before us, the South will be in the forefront of that struggle. But it must not be alone. The “irrepressible conflict” is more than just a Southern struggle. It is more than just an American struggle. It is a struggle for white survival.
SOURCE: Liberty Bell, April 1997