Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists

Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Published by Paige Quintel

More info:

Published by: Paige Quintel on Feb 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists
Marxism in the Civil War
By: Jonathan Harris
Before reading the book "Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists" I have to admit I was a bitskeptical. Despite my predisposition to be wary of any fiber of genuine Christian morality flowingwithin the veins of Lincoln not to mention the founders of the GOP, I did not think it likely that any of them would be sympathetic towards the precepts of communism. After all, communism is a monster of the 20th century isn't it? Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Carter may have been affected, but Lincoln?Having given up thefantasythat "Honest Abe" "freed the slaves" and "saved the union" by maintainingthe constitution and being authentic with the true intentions of Thomas Jefferson, I decided to seewhether or not this association between Lincoln and the teachings of Marx was legitimate. What Ifound was shocking - perhaps more so to the average products of public education than I, butadmittedly I was astonished. Herein I will endeavor to acquaint my readers with a couple of the moredamning facts which give us reason to question the allegiance of the Republican party to free marketsand limited government. While I cannot offer nearly half of the information I'd like to, I encourage youif interested to pick up a copy of the book by clicking on the icon above. These are facts historians haveconveniently left out and its time Americans became introduced to them. They will explain the "statecapital" tendencies of the GOP, expose the Lincoln cult, and trace the origin of the progressive diseasein the US. I ask you to continue to read and in so doing unlock history's best kept secrets.
Marx and Lincoln
When we survey the history of the "Civil War" through the eyes of the world's most notoriouscommunist, we are acquainted with a man who hated(as can be seen in his post-war letter to President Johnson) the South out of pathetic ignorance.Karl Marxsupposed that the South had in secret preparedto undermine the United States for years, that Jefferson Davis was a "dictator," that the ConfederateConstitution (which outlawed the slave trade) promoted slavery, that the Supreme Court was a tool of slaveholders, and that the South geographically encompassed three-quarters of the Union.In the autumn of 1861 Marx, the Father of Communism,wrotethe following regarding the "AmericanCivil War."
The war of the Southern Confederacy is, therefore, not a war of defense, but a war of conquest, a war of conquest for the extension and perpetuation of slavery
It is interesting to observe that virtually all Liberals and a majority of modern day conservatives wouldheartily agree with such a statement. This should raise a "red flag" in the minds of those who loveliberty.Why is it that the majority of Americans, even those who advocate the free-market, agree withthe way in which Karl Marx of all people framed the cause of the war? Though Marx and his partner incommunism Fredrick Engels lived in Great Britain, they served "as propaganda agents for the Northerncause in Europe." The authors point out that "while most Americans think of abolition of slavery as anend in itself, communists had a completely different view of abolition." Marx stated in 
, "Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded."After the war was over Marx said in aspeech:
 And the successful close of the war against slavery has indeed inaugurated a new era in the annals of the working class. . . Still the Civil War offered a compensation in the liberation of the slaves and theimpulse which it thereby gave to your own class movement.
As one can see, the freeing of the slaves was not an end in itself to the Father of Communism, butrather a means to an end- that end being the revolution of the working class against the proletariat. Ishould note that the authors do dismantle Marx's notion that the South was aggressively fighting to"perpetuate" slavery. On the contrary, the War Between the States was a war of centralism vs.federation, of humanism vs. Christianity, of socialism vs. capitalism, and of imperialism vs. popular sovereignty. We do not have time to address Marx's popular lie in this review, but would encouragethose curious regarding this issue to pick up a copy of Myths of American Slavery.After Lincoln's second inaugural victory, Marx delivered acongratulatory letter to the 16th president on behalf of the
 International Workingmen's Association
which stated in no uncertain terms where theallegiance of the communist community lay. The last paragraph of the letter is as follows:
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. Theyconsider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded  son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of anenchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
Though no conservative should have a problem with the rescuing of 
"an enchained race" 
(Although itmay be pointed out that Lincoln never accomplished this task, and the radical republicans enchained allmen to civil slavery while in the process making the lot of the slave even worse) all of our eyebrowsshould raise when we hear the words "reconstruction of a social world." Was Lincoln fulfilling the nextstep in creating a world in Marx's image? How can this be?
The American System and Socialism
The answer lies in an idea of strong central government promoted by Alexander Hamilton, passed on toHenry Clay, and finally making its way into the White House through the election of Abraham Lincoln.The "American System" as it was called is defined by the authors as "nothing less than an attempt toincrease the power of the Federal government beyond that which the Constitution authorizes." Clay, a politician Lincoln modeled himself after, was an advocate of centralized banking, internalimprovements, and protective tariffs all of which conflicted with the Constitution and promoted acentralized state. Sometimes these policies are referred to as "State Capitalism," a system in which thegovernment favors certain businesses and regions over others in exchange for favors and vice-versa. Itgoes without saying that it takes a strong central government to impose a system of redistribution. Thecommunist transformation (note: communist and socialist meant the same thing in 1860) of Americagained legitimacy under the leadership of the early Republican party due to these policies. If wecompare the
 to Lincoln's actions we can see this quite clearly. The Manifestocalls for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax." In comparison, Lincoln signed the LegalTender Act in 1862, and the national currency acts in 1863 and 1864. Instantly a system of nationallycharted banks were created and a federally run national banking monopoly was born. One of theleading supporters for nationalizing baking, (R) John Sherman of Ohio proclaimed, "Nationalize asmuch as possible [and thereby] make men love their country before their states." In 1862 Lincolnsigned America's first income tax into law creating the first IRS service. Another idea supported by both Lincoln and Marx was Federal involvement in education. In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill act,named for Senator Justin Morrill who defended it this way: "The role of the national government is tomold the character of the American people." Instantly money that was made through Federal land grantsales went to funding colleges. It goes without saying that Washington controlled the curriculum. InCarl Sandburg's six-volume account of the life of Lincoln he highlights something conservatives shouldfind disturbing. When referring to Robert Owen's (an early American socialist) utopia it is said that "thescheme lighted up Lincoln's heart." It is for these reasons that columnist Vin Suprynowicz has calledLincoln and his most ardent supporters "American Bolsheviks."

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->