Abraham Lincoln, tradator de neam si tara.

Saturday, 14 March, Year 1 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Omul a murit impuscat, asasinat cum s-ar zice, ceea ce este deja un semn rau. "Sic semper tyrannis", adica, "Asa mereu tiranilor". Spre deosebire de Gerri Seinfeld, Lincoln nu fu atacat de nebunul de Joe Davola, ci de John Wilkes Booth.

In principiu, in orice asasinat politic deja infaptuit, fiecare isi poate alege una din cele doua tabere. Fie a afirma ca politicianul mort isi facea treaba bine, iar asasinul, cu rele intentii, a tins sa-l impiedice, fie a spune ca politicianul mort isi facea treaba prost, aducand daune statului, iar asasinul, cu bune intentii, a tins sa-l impiedice. Nu pot avea amandoi dreptate, tot asa cum pozitia de-a spune ca asasinatul n-ar trebui sa fie un mod de a face politica nu-si are sensul, incercand sa discute despre un viitor incert, si nu despre trecutul in care evenimentul se gaseste.

Deci, ori Abraham Lincoln era un presedinte bun, si Wilkes Booth un om rau, ori invers, Abraham Lincoln era un tiran, si Booth un om bun. Tertium, cum s-ar zice, non datur.

Parerea mea proprie este ca Abraham Lincoln era un tiran cum scrie la carte, sanctificat din motive ideologice, in cadrul tarii lui, un Kim Il Sung al Statelor Unite. In sustinere va aduc nu una, ci trei linii de argumentatie, si anume :

1. A provocat un razboi civil, care s-a dovedit pana in final cel mai sangeros conflict din istoria Statelor Unite, si a intregului continent, eviscerand o intreaga generatie, aducand frate in situatia sa traga in frate, si provocand daune materiale pana azi necalculate, actionand intentionat, calculat si cu buna stiinta.

2. A incalcat, repetat si deliberat, cu o dezinvoltura care tradeaza un complet si iremediabil dispret pentru lege si legalitate, constitutia pe care jurase sa o apere.

3. A folosit, in cel mai josnic, demagogic mod cu putinta, un ideal in principiu acceptabil de catre toata lumea (libertatea) pentru a-si urmari scopuri personale, chestiuni ce n-aveau nimic a face cu idealul teoretic discutat, efectele propagandei mincinoase puse in slujba carnagiului ramanand vizibile in mintea cetatenilor mai putin informati pana astazi.

Daca mai adaugam ca, dupa toate aparentele, un baiat sarac, urat si desocializat a comis toate astea dintr-o nevoie dezaxata de-asi impresiona tatal si superidul, mai ca ma ia cu greata.

In probatoriu, sa trecem in revista cateva dovezi punctuale:
2.1. Abraham Lincoln a suspendat Habeas Corpus.
2.2. Abraham Lincoln a cheltuit bani inainte ca ei sa fie apropriati de Congres.
2.3. Abraham Lincoln a trimis 18,000 de persoane la inchisoare fara aplicarea vre-unei proceduri legale. Pentru comparatie, populatia totala a Statelor Unite la acel moment era de 27 milioane. Nu este clar cate lettres de cachet a emis in total monarhia franceza in cursul mileniului ei de existenta, dar pare credibil a afirma ca lui Louix XVI i-au ajuns cateva sute (pentru intreaga domnie, oarecum mai indelungata decat Razboiul Civil).

Asta fiind parerea mea, prezentata pe scurt, pentru ca argumente ar mai fi, nu insist ca este neaparat si corecta. Va poftesc s-o contraziceti dupa bunul plac (eventual chiar si cu argumente), cine stie, poate invatam ceva impreuna.

Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

46 Responses

  1. Ce legatura are "tradator de neam si tara" cu faptul ca ar putea fi considerat eventual postfactum "un tiran" ?

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 14 March 2009

    Tradator inseamna, intre altele, si nefidel. Cam pe linia asta, in care promiti una si-o faci pe cealalta, si ca rezultat mor oameni si ti se strica tara, a fost gandit titlul.

  3. Doar ca oameni mor in orisice caz atunci cand conduci o tara iar a dezbate postfactum si postum intre a solutie si alta e intotdeauna nu doar facil ci si inutil.
    Judecata tinerii promisiunilor catre contemporanii tai le apartine lor nu aiurea. A fi un erou al timpurilor tale si a ramane un erou peste veacuri necesita intre un dram si un car de bine mai mult decat asteptarile.

  4. e ca si cum ai spune ca america e stricata inca de la'nceput, pentru ca Lincoln si'a bagat mana pana la cot in ea. ia sa ne amintim cum spuneau de Mircea cel Batran si de Stefan cel Mare, sau de Brancoveanu chiar, ce mari domnivozi au fost. unul a fost senil, altul un curvar notoriu si ultimul a dat mita la Stambul ca sa ia scaunul.

    problema istoriei este de fapt doua: a) ca n'avem cum sa verificam personal ce s'a intamplat (si mai ales _daca_ s'a intamplat), si b) orice izvoare au fost, sunt si vor fi supuse interpretarii in slujba unui interes sau altuia. degeaba latra toti istoricii ca e cea mai batuta'n cuie stiinta... let's face it, istoria e la fel de fluida precum fizica cuantica, se'ndoaie in functie de regim. regimul politic, that is. cinci generatii au crezut ca la Grivita, in '33, a fost mana unor sabotori nenorociti. pentru ca asta li s'a spus.

    tradator ori ba, Lincoln e o marca buna de masini.

  5. personal, am auzit că e trădător individul care l-a asasinat. azi, filmele de la hollywood îl ridică în slăvi pe lincoln, ca pe un mare geniu, un fondator de naţiune. filmele de gen teoria conspiraţiei zic că ar fi mason. şi mai sunt multe şi felurite opinii.

    îmi place foarte mult comentariul lui andix!

    am citit "bibliografii necenzurate ale unor oameni celebrii" de will cuppy, o carte scrisă într-un ton amuzant şi care vine să confirme cele scrise mai sus de andix! :D

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    6
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 15 March 2009

    @adrian : pe aceeasi teorie, tribunalele de la Nurnberg au fost mai degraba un soi de abuz al puterilor victorioase ?

    Mie imi pare ca, desi este adevarat ca oameni mor oricum, atunci cand ei mor ca rezultat, mai mult ori mai putin direct, al faptului ca un om nu respecta legile, ei sunt, conventional, considerati victimele lui.

    Spre exemplu, oameni mor in accidente de masina tot timpul, cu miile in fiecare an, dar asta nu inseamna ca daca un prost intra pe sensul interzis cu camionul si rade cativa nenorociti, ei "ar fi murit oricum". Un doctor care nu respecta procedurile, si drept rezultat mor din pacienti, e totusi vinovat de moartea lor, chiar daca pacienti mor oricum.

    E o idee sa spui ca doar contemporanii au dreptul sa judece faptele contemporanului lor, dar din nefericire invalideaza istoria. Daca noi suntem cumva fundamental incapabili sa judecam faptele celor cu care nu suntem contemporani, atunci nimic din ce se retine pentru posteritate nu poate avea, in principiu, un sens pentru ea. In particular, Ceausescu a fost cel mai adecvat conducator al generatiilor dinainte de 90. Totusi, oamenii par sa se raporteze la ratiuni precum "judecata istoriei".

    @andix : e o diferenta intre a fi curvar, a fi senil, a da mita suveranului si-a fi mincinos. Nici una dintre primele trei nu este un abuz de incredere. In tot cazul, istoria Statelor Unite incepe cu Jefferson nu cu Lincoln.

    De acord cu problema cognoscibilitatii istorice, si nici vorba sa se apropie ea macar in puncte de nivelul fizicii cuantice sub acest aspect. Lincoln era parca o marca Ford, cat de bune or fi si alea :p

  7. Tribunalele de la Nurnberg, ca si cel de la Targoviste, au fost tribunale exceptionale care nu au legatura cu ce povestim noi aici.

    "Razboiul nu este o arta si doar hazardul decide soarta bataliilor. Daca doi generali stupizi stau cu ostirile fata in fata e musai necesar ca unul din cei doi sa castige." Eu as completa cu "iar cel care castiga are sanse mai mari sa devina erou".

    In cazul unui razboi responsabilitatea nu este niciodata unica. Cand traznetul loveste un copac in padure si se porneste incendiul, e neserios sa spui ca e vina copacului, doar pentru ca era cu 5 cm mai inalt sau mai crud.

    Noi SUNTEM fundamental incapabili sa ne judecam nu doar unii pe altii ci chiar pe noi insine. Intelepciunea milenara ne invata ca judecata este atributul unic al zeilor.

    Mult mai multi oameni mor zilnic in varii tipuri de accidente ce pot fi evitate prin masuri politice/administrative decat in orice razboi. Cand descoperi dupa un cutremur ca proiectele au fost proaste e usor sa acuzi. Din pacate nu e imaginabil / fezabil sa facem totul impecabil.

  8. Nu sunt atat de convins. Cred ca pur si simplu, ca roman si european...m-am obisnuit cu o imagine destul de flexibila a conducatorului (desi incerc sa o combat). Practic , sunt destui conducatori eroi ai Europei pre-moderne care au fost vazuti de al lor popor drept tirani. Americanii au oricum o obsesie in a-si glorifica excesiv trecutul (din ce vad pana is pe forumul cracked.com)

  9. statele unite s-au încropit ca "ţară" pe parcurs. cazul americii arată, în mic, ce se petrece cu orice stat în formare, anume că o comunitate de asecendenţă, limbă şi simţire nu e suficient pentru construirea unui stat. un rol însemnat în procesul de definire a statelor unire ca "ţară" l-a avut războiul de secesiune, acesta demonstrând că o ţară, cu sensul de "neam" sau "naţiune", nu devine un stat în adevăratul sens al cuvântului decât dacă exista şi o comunitate de interese.

    cum interesele nu pot fi niciodata unanim împărtăşite, decât cel mult la nivel formal şi declarativ, ele vor trebui în cele din urmă impuse. din acest motiv, orice societate e dispusă să-şi ierte tiranii, pentru că tiranul e moneda de schimb a aspiraţiilor ascunse, neasumate, ale societăţii. orice popor îşi merită tiranii - şi invers. america e o ţară a ambiţiilor, unde verbul "a reuşi" face legea - şi la propriu şi la figurat. ambiţia de a reuşi împreună şi de a deveni cu orice risc un popor, chiar în lipsa coeziunii metafizice a ceea ce defineşte un popor, face din america o aşezare unică în lume, unde simpla împământenire (mutatul fizic, cu arme şi bagaje), e luată drept angajament şi adeziune de asumare a unei metafizici străine. a deveni un "om al locului" presupune de la bun început că locul tău nu e acolo. e o decizie liber asumată, o minciună fundamentală despre tine însuţi cu care alegi să trăieşti şi pe care înţelegi să-ţi construieşti viaţa.

    america e o ţară de străini, o ţară fără istorie şi care, din acest motiv, nici nu va avea vreodată o istorie. a nu avea o istorie te scuteşte, ce-i drept, de anumite complexe vizavi de cei din jur, dar te transformă totodată într-un om fără umbră, un soi de zombie bântuit de fantoma propriei identităţi. toţi se regăsesc în idealul american, visul americii fiind visul omului serial, generic, în timp ce americanii înşişi nu se pot regăsi total în paradigma niciunei alte culturi, decât pe bucăţi şi în aspecte strict legate de un interes imediat sau de o sensibilitate de moment. pentru amricani, restul lumii e o relicvă în faţa cioburilor căreia se pot extazia sau revolta, dar pe cale nu le pot recunoaşte ca fiind ale lor.

    abraham lincoln a devenit un erou (mai bine zis idol) naţional pentru că a intuit foarte bine că americanii vor să scape de fantoma propriului trecut, care-i încurca într-un mod extrem de neplăcut în viaţa zilnică, găsind totodatăşi mijloacele de a face să tacă această fantomă (chiar dacă, evident, nu a putut-o face să şi dispară pe de-a-ntregul). adevărul sclaviei a devenit tot mai deranjant pentru americani pe măsură ce, perpetuându-se, amintea tuturor de faptul că trecutul şi asuprirea de care fugiseră odată, demult, ca imigranţi, îi urmărea încă şi îi obliga să-l repete şi să-l pună în practică cu propriile mâini, cu toate că îl detestaseră o viaţă întreagă.

    hanah arendt a deslujit cu destulă măiestrie faptul că răul e un lucru banal în esenţa sa, ieşind la iveală atunci când omul uită că e om şi se face părtaş la un mecanism să-l înveţe ce înseamnă să fii om. însă, în momentul în care ajungi o rotiţă într-un sistem, atunci trebuie să te roteşti după cum o cer legile sistemului, iar atunci pur şi simplu a protesta îşi pierde sensul, orice protest devenind automat o declaraţie de ură faţă de sine însuţi.

  10. nevermind the typos :)

  11. mircea, e o diferenta si nu e. se bate si s'a batut into'deauna moneda pe conceptul ala tampit de "role model", care spune ca daca regulezi in afara mariajului nu poti fi un leader bun. astia toti au fost (facuti) role models de istorie, istorici sau alti interesati.

    uita'te la O'bama. daca era gay mai candida? sau altfel, America n'a iertat povestea lui Bill si a taxat'o pe Hillary.

    masele au asteptari de la leader sau domnivod. sa le bage'n sacosa, sa le mareasca sacosa sau sa le dea voie la ce n'au avut pana atunci. in momentul in care asteptarile maselor (fie si pur idealistice) sunt inselate, furia populara ii trimite pe leaderi de la hero la zero. iar treaba asta poate fi evitata numai prin mistificare, miTIficare si constructii artificiale gandite sa gadile ochiul si simtirea in mod placut.

  12. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    12
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 15 March 2009

    @Adrian : Ok, de pe o pozitie tare de genul, oamenii sunt fundamental incapabil sa judece actiunile altor oameni, nu mai ramane nimic din drept, psihologie, sociologie, istorie (de nici un fel) etc. Nu pot, evident, dovedi ca nu-i o pozitie valabila, dar nefiind dispus inca sa-nchid blogul, ma vad silit s-o ignor.

    @krossfire : Un atribut al popoarelor tinere :) Relativismul vine mai cu timpul. Bascalia cica e ultima.

    @grid : drept. Si totusi, in cazul recent in care sarbii incercau sa-si formeze tara, pe exact acelasi calapod pe care americanii din SU si-au construit-o pe a lor, nici doua sute de ani in urma, si pe exact acelasi calapod pe care oricare stat din Europa s-a construit, de la Spania la Suedia, s-a gasit necesara interventia. De ce ? Pentru ca Milosevici era un tiran, si pentru ca regimul lui incalca legile etc. Cu cat e mai tiran Milosevici decat Lincoln ?

    In rest, foarte fina analiza a spiritului unor oameni, mai ales fara a fi trait intre ei (daca bine retin).

    @andix : Se poate discuta mult pe temele astea. Eu unul cred ca Hilary a fost taxata pentru c-a mintit pe tema aventurilor lui Bill, in direct, la tv, si nu pentru ca Bill s-a varsat pe panze straine. Obama in particular e un construct atat de din cale-afara, incat nu cred ca daca mai era si gay la pachet se schimba ceva. Poate daca era fumator.

  13. eh, am trait si eu acolo. doi ani plini şi frumoşi. totuşi, nu mă părăseşte încă ideea că acolo am trăit într-un vis. nu napărat frumos sau urât, ci într-o stare de irealitate vecină cu visul. în dimineaţa zilei de 11 septembrie 2001 eram acolo, martor al uimirii şi disperării atâtor oameni dragi mie. ceea ce m-a uimit atunci a fost însă nu evenimentul ca atare - a cărui amploare nu eram în stare încă să o întrezăresc -, cât faptul că un asemenea eveniment, care reuşise să răvăşească până şi minţile cele mai limpezi, nu era de natură să modifice ordinea lucrurilor. în mod normal, dacă asta se întâmpla în românia, se suspendau cursuri, cădeau toate angajamentele şi trăiam, probabil, cel puţin vreo lună, nu în umbra evenimentului, ci într-o minunată dezordine pe care acesta ar fi provocat-o vieţilor noastre. ei bine, nu şi în america. cuvântul de ordine, atunci şi acolo, era: "să nu lăsăm asta să ne afecteze. business as usual."

    puteam atunci, în prezentul lor, să citesc întregul nostru trecut. vedeam comunismul minuţios re-creat, developat la minut, pus în scenă în termeni de limbaj, de propagandă, de discurs nerostit al terorii. şi vedeam oamenii pliindu-se acestuia fără a-şi pune cele mai elementare întrebări. sigur, erau cei care, contestând viziunea oficială, jucau rolul foştilor disidenţilor, însă întrebarea nu era deloc a ceea ce trebuie făcut într-o atare situaţie şi nici măcar a cauzelor sale. mulţi se întrebau care era vinovăţia americii în toată această tragedie, dar nici măcar asta nu era problema. ei trăiau catastrofa ca pe un afront, în termeni de onoare pierdută ce se cere răzbunată. dar dacă tocmai onoarea, apărată cu orice preţ, dusese la oroare? nu cumva preţul real al ororii era însuşi idealul american, pretenţia absurdă că viaţa poate fi trăită şi clădită pe calapodul visului? cât de corect e să vrei să-ţi împlineşi visele? asta e o întrebare care trebuie să rămână nerostită. cu orice preţ. pentru că visele sunt mai mult decât pur şi simplu scumpe - sunt nepreţuite.

    şi, poate, aşa şi trebuie să rămână. dar atunci, ce ne facem cu catastrofele şi cu crizele? vor putea acestea fi decontate vreodată?

  14. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    14
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 15 March 2009

    E o idee, SU sunt atat de bine organizati, incat daca-si pun mintea pot construi tot socialismul intr-un singur cincinal (de 4 ani jumate).

  15. mircea: pai nu la discutie era invitatia din articol? :D

  16. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    16
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 15 March 2009

    Absolut.

  17. Poate ca masurile luate de Lincoln erau nesesare atunci altfel americanii nu infaptuiau unirea cea mare ! ;)

  18. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    18
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 18 March 2009

    Din prisma asta, ce nu fu necesar in istorie.

  19. Lincoln trădător? Nici pe departe! De asemenea această analiză în extreme e puerilă. Lincoln n-a fost nici un. Kim Il-sung al Americii.

    Războiul ăla nu l-a provocat pentru că a vrut. Confederații au atacat primii. Era nevoie de bani pentru guvern și popor. Tipul a băgat noi taxe și sudiștii nu voiau să plătească. Noile taxe pot fi considerate în sine o trădare. Bogătașii sudiști au pornit propaganda și au convins săracii să se răscoale și ei.

    Habeas Corpus a fost suspendat de Lincoln pentru că Congresul SUA era în vacanță și confederații(sudiștii) au atacat.

    Dacă vrei să aduci vorba de demagogie, sudiștii l-au depășit cu folosirea "libertății".

  20. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    20
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 27 October 2016

    Ce cacat e ala "era nevoie de bani pentru popor" ? La munca cu poporu', si respectiv la supt pula. Asta inseamna tradator, cind te trezesti tu ca tu joci fotbal la meciu' de baschet. Aia nu l-or pus acolo sa faca pe puletele socialist, aia l-or pus acolo sa respecte Republica.

  21. What is this childishness that says two bad men (or bad causes) cannot fight? The badness of one does not redeem the badness of the other.

    Who was the good guy when Saddam and Khomeini fought? Who was the good guy when Stalin and Hitler fought?

    Then from bad premise we go to bad facts. President Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. By that date, the following states had already seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded, met to create the CSA constitution and elected Jefferson Davis as their leader. It's unreasonable to blame a presidential tyrant for acts before his inauguration.

    For the rest, Lincoln did all the tyrannical things you describe. There's no reasonable dispute except to open your eyes and see how tyrant should be used when it's not just a fake sophisticate's way of saying poopy head.

    Tyrant was a *job* description in the early roman republic that the US was consciously modeled after. The tyrant served for a limited time and broke all the rules to fix an emergency and then, ideally, gave it up and went home. When he did so, he was a tyrant but not a traitor, not to his people, nor to his country.

    It is in that better sense that Lincoln's tyranny should be seen by the light of history. That doesn't mean that tyranny is good, just, or something that you would want in any sane world.

    John Wilkes Booth wanted to restart a bloody war to protect an evil institution, slavery, and ended up a dead failure who made reconstruction more harsh than would have otherwise been tolerated. He is the blacker villain.

  22. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    22
    Mircea Popescu 
    Friday, 28 October 2016

    I'm impressed that you read Romanian well enough to follow the conversation.

    Yes, there is absolutely no such thing as "democratic mandate", and so therefore yes you either have what's called a tyrant or else the misery of disorder as seen today as well as every other time an emipre decays.

    This does not mean however that tyranny contrary to the Republic may ever be excused. Lincoln was an evil tyrant BECAUSE he tried to raise taxes on the lordship, and BECAUSE he attempted to assail the priviledges of the lords, and BECAUSE he pretended to raise the common cattle above its proper station.

    We can agree that it is injust and therefore improper for men to be slaves on the basis of the color of their skin. We can never agree that most men may not be slaves. Pick what criteria you wish, for as long as half the walkers are someone's propety all is well.

    Anything else is not mere tyranny, but evil tyranny, and a fundamental betrayal not merely of those only people that matter - the Republic's Lordship - but of everything that is right good and proper as well as of everything THAT COULD EVER BE right good and proper. It is revolt against nature and any possible god, and death is not even punishment - merely needed release from such insanity.

  23. I am not so much objecting to your reduction of Lincoln's historical stature as your elevation of Booth. The duality doesn't work, which is shown by your returning to beating on Lincoln even after I agreed with your criticism. You can't seriously defend Booth but by your good/bad pairing argument, you must.

    And still tyranny does not equal treason. I do wonder what you think of the tyrant Cincinnatus.

    I learned my Romanian in church in NY/NJ among the byzantine catholics whose prayer books here have Romanian on one side and English the other, which means I can speak it and read it. But having never had classroom instruction, my attempts to write it lead to functional failure nearly every time so I've mostly given up writing lest the conversation drowns in the inevitable flood of corrections. My only exception is email with my in-laws. They've learned to be quietly amused.

    Speaking of slavery, Richard Nixon bought my family from Ceausescu, as a demanded pre-negotiation bribe from Ceausescu so that Romania could get MFN. That was how we landed in NY, in my case arriving at age 2. This is one of the few cases I know of where there was an actual market for the selling of ethnic Romanians, the usual Romanian slave markets during communism engaging in the sale of germans and jews.

  24. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    24
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 29 October 2016

    I suppose this point actually has a lot of merit, there's really not THAT much to defend of Booth, other than wiping Lincoln there isn't much there. Nevertheless, actually taking out the Hitler of century 19 is a significant accomplishment, even if relatively late in the game, and one that may well excuse many previous errors. Suppose we could say Booth was a von Stauffenberg that didn't suck ?

    As to Cincinnatus, he is a recurrent icon in the hall of Republican heroes. As he well should be.

    My only exception is email with my in-laws. They've learned to be quietly amused.

    I spend a lot of time in the company of slavegirls who learned Romanian as the native tongue of their master. It's taught me to do just about the same.

    I will note however that there is very substantial distinction between the intension of slavery as used above and the... practical, let's say, implementation you discuss. A difference of the approximate nature of the difference between the "business ideas" of excited adolescence and actual business, but of a more significant size.

  25. This is a fabulous idea, we could say that the difference between Old World and New is that the latter was enough of a backwater its Nazi party showed up early and actually prevailed. Roosevelt is then far from an inventor of "Progressism" Nazism, but merely a particularly successful continuator of that original brand of Nationalsozialismus incorporated at Gettysburg.

  26. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    26
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 29 October 2016

    I'd say that's quite exactly true. "Era nevoie de bani pentru popor, ce pula mea."

  27. "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN":

    Right or wrong. God judge me, not man. For be my motive good or bad, of one thing I am sure, the lasting condemnation of the North.

    I love peace more than life. Have loved the Union beyond expression. For four years have I waited, hoped and prayed for the dark clouds to break, and for a restoration of our former sunshine. To wait longer would be a crime. All hope for peace is dead. My prayers have proved as idle as my hopes. God's will be done. I go to see and share the bitter end.

    I have ever held the South were right. The very nomination of ABRAHAM LINCOLN, four years ago, spoke plainly, war -- war upon Southern rights and institutions. His election proved it. "Await an overt act." Yes, till you are bound and plundered. What folly! The South was wise. Who thinks of argument or patience when the finger of his enemy presses on the trigger? In a foreign war I, too, could say, "country, right or wrong." But in a struggle such as ours, (where the brother tries to pierce the brother's heart,) for God's sake, choose the right. When a country like this spurns justice from her side she forfeits the allegiance of every honest freeman, and should leave him, untrameled by any fealty soever, to act as his conscience may approve.

    People of the North, to hate tyranny, to love liberty and justice, to strike at wrong and oppression, was the teaching of our fathers. The study of our early history will not let me forget it, and may it never.

    This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And looking upon African Slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our constitution. I for one, have ever considered if one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us,) that God has ever bestowed upon a favored nation. Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere. I have lived among it most of my life, and have seen less harsh treatment from master to man than I have beheld in the North from father to son. Yet, Heaven knows, no one would be willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition.

    But LINCOLN's policy is only preparing the way for their total annihilation. The South are not, nor have they been fighting for the continuance of slavery. The first battle of Bull Run did away with that idea. Their causes since for war have been as noble and greater far than those that urged our fathers on Even should we allow they were wrong at the beginning of this contest, cruelty and injustice have made the wrong become the right, and they stand now (before the wonder and admiration of the world) as a noble band of patriotic heroes. Hereafter, reading of their deeds, Thermopylae will be forgotten.

    When I aided in the capture and execution of JOHN BROWN (who was a murderer on our Western border, and who was fairly tried and convicted, before an impartial judge and jury, of treason, and who, by the way, has since been made a god), I was proud of my little share in the transaction, for I deemed it my duty, and that I was helping our common country to perform an act of justice. But what was a crime in poor JOHN BROWN is now considered (by themselves) as the greatest and only virtue of the whole Republican party. Strange transmigration! Vice to become a virtue, simply because more indulge in it

    I thought men, as now, that the Abolitionists were the only traitors in the land, and that the entire party deserved the same fate of poor old BROWN, not because they wish to abolish slavery but on account of the means they have ever endeavored to use to effect that abolition. If BROWN were living I doubt whether he himself would set slavery against the Union. Most or many in the North do, and openly curse the Union, if the South are to return and retain a single right guarantied to them by every tie which we once revered as sacred. The South can make no choice. It is either extermination or slavery for themselves (worse than death) to draw from. I know my choice.

    I have also studied hard to discover upon what grounds the right of a State to secede has been denied, when our very name, United States, and the Declaration of Independence, both provide for secession. But there is no time for words. I write in haste. I know how foolish I shall be deemed for undertaking such a step as this, where, on the one side, I have many friends, and everything to make me happy, where my profession alone has gained me an income of more than twenty thousand dollars a year, and where my great personal ambition in my profession has such a great field for labor. On the other hand, the South have never bestowed upon me one kind word; a place now where I have no friends, except beneath the sod; a place where I must either become a private soldier or a beggar. To give up all of the former for the latter, besides my mother and sisters whom I love so dearly, (although they so widely differ with me in opinion,) seems insane; but God is my judge. I love justice more than I do a country that disowns it; more than fame and wealth; more (Heaven pardon me if wrong,) more than a happy home. I have never been upon a battle-field; but O, my countrymen, could you all but see the reality or effects of this horrid war, as I have seen them, (in every State save Virginia.) I know you would think like me, and would pray the Almighty to create in the Northern mind a sense of right and justice, (even should it possess no seasoning of mercy,) and that he would dry up this sea of blood between us, which is daily growing wider. Alas! poor country, is she to meet her threatened doom? Four years ago I would have given a thousand lives to see her remain (as I had always known her) powerful and unbroken. And even now, I would hold my life as naught to see her what she was. O, my friends, if the fearful scenes of the past four years had never been enacted, or if what has been had been but a frightful dream, from which we could now awake, with what overflowing hearts could we bless our God and pray for his continued favor. How I have loved the old flag, can never now be known. A few years since and the entire world could boast of none so pure and spotless. But I have of late been seeing and hearing of the bloody deeds of which she has been made the emblem, and would shudder to think how changed she had grown. O, how I have longed to see her break from the mist of blood and death that circles round her folds, spoiling her beauty and tarnishing her honor. But no, day by day has she been dragged deeper and deeper into cruelty and oppression, till now (in my eyes) her once bright red stripes look like bloody gashes on the face of Heaven. I look now upon my early admiration of her glories as a dream. My love (as things stand to-day) is for the South alone. Nor do I deem it a dishonor in attempting to make for her a prisoner of this man, to whom she owes so much of misery. If success attends me, I go penniless to her side. They say she has found that "last ditch" which the North have so long derided, and been endeavoring to force her in, forgetting they are our brothers, and that it's impolitic to goad an enemy to madness. Should I reach her in safety and find it true, I will proudly beg permission to triumph or die in that same "ditch" by her side.

    A Confederate doing duty upon his own responsibility. J. WILKES BOOTH.

    Now then. What exactly in the life of a 26 year old leading man of the stage, and more accomplished at his craft than Lincoln could ever have hoped to become at his, needs excusing?

  28. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    28
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 29 October 2016

    There is the episode of trying to cross the Potomac from Maryland to Virgina compass-in-pocket and ending up in Virginia still ; but more generally as #24 says - there isn't much there.

  29. Basically the USG's first Iraq was not Vietnam, but the Civil War. Fascinating.

  30. "trying to cross the Potomac from Maryland to Virgina compass-in-pocket and ending up in Virginia still"
    wut

  31. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    31
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 30 October 2016

    Eh I meant in Maryland still. Apparently these are hard!

  32. Asia - Booth writes the letter you render here sometime in 1864 in support of his failed kidnapping plot to take Lincoln. The plot failed. Nothing to admire there.

    Lincoln wins election, gives his famous 2nd inaugural address on March 4, 1865, offering a just peace to the South. Lee surrenders to Grant, effectively ending even the most optimistic dream of Confederate victory on April 9, 1865. Grant uncharacteristically permits Lee to keep sword and horse.

    The war was drawing to a conclusion and the idea that the peace would be a punitive one was clearly not actually in the cards. A hero, even a competent actor might revise a letter written under different circumstances but Booth decides to leave his increasingly inaccurate justifying letter as written.

    Five days after Lee's surrender Booth strikes, killing Lincoln on April 14, 1865. The nature of the peace imposed by the North clearly shifted towards punitive measures as a consequence of Booth's actions.

    Booth's actions did nothing but hurt the South. It did not extend the life of the CSA one day. It did nothing to improve the attractiveness of Booth's ideals to the general public, or to elite opinion. It ensured exactly the sort of punitive peace that Booth wrote that he feared would happen when prior to him acting it looked as if the South would be treated as wounded family to be reconciled with and healed.

    No, Booth did not succeed, but cast a pall over his ideals that still hurts the cause of states rights in the US to this day.

  33. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    33
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 1 November 2016

    I am not in favour of "an understanding" with the representative of "there's need of more money for the government and its pseudo-people" either. не шагу назад.

    Lincoln's blood is on him ; all the harm he did, in life as in death, is on him. Killing him attracts no guilt upon the killer, and all ill effects of the killing aggregate to Lincoln's guilt, not to another's. This is what it means to be hostis humani generis, ie, Lincoln.

    Booth's actions endeared him to the only people who matter, and that's really all there is to it.

  34. > This is what it means to be hostis humani generis, ie, Lincoln.

    This is a political choice.

  35. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    35
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 5 November 2016

    Yes it is. It's the political choice to point out that centralized government is evil without exception and without remainder ; and that whosoever raises arms against the Lords of the realm in support of the crown is thereby a scoundrel and his blood attaint.

  1. [...] Lincoln, tradator de neam si tara 15 3 2009 [...]

  2. [...] gãsit in ziarul miliardarului un citat din Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865 ; mã surprinde cât de tânãr a ajuns la putere). Iata [...]

  3. [...] catre angajatii administratiei. Conceptul a fost abuzat de primul tiran al locurilor acelora, Abraham Lincoln, si fara exceptie de-atunci incoace cam toate incalcarile libertatii, drepturilor omului, justitiei [...]

  4. [...] si asa mai departe au ajuns la final. Asta este. Saminta sadita de inamicii dinlauntru (Lincoln, Ford, destui altii) a rodit intr-un pom veninos de toata frumusetea, care i-a otravit cu totul. [...]

  5. [...] Ca sa ilustrez banalitatea falsitatii asteia va redau dinjos un cintecel popular mai vechi decit Lincoln (tradatorul de neam si tara) dupa toate [...]

  6. [...] cultivat in Sud din Anglia-n Nord. Ca era si asta o problema-n discutia aia transata violent de tradatorul Abraham Lincoln, toata teoria cu sclavii si libertatea e asa… o [...]

  7. [...] cattle, what will offend sensibilities is the showing of one particularly if inexplicably popular traitor without the official trappings and certifications indicating him to the mob as a proper object of [...]

  8. [...] which is rather apt. [↩]Κωνσταντίνος Μαυροκορδάτος, Romania's own Abraham Lincoln, exchanged the peasants' freedom arbitrarily dubbed "slavery" for the much more humane, democratic, [...]

  9. [...] He is plainly saying that if you allow what you have allowed, that if you put scum like Lincoln, and like Roosevelt into office, that if you permit misery like "civil rights" then the necessary [...]

  10. [...] mircea_popescu hey, at least they didn't shoot him amirite. asciilifeform aha! that was my 1st thought. they nervously smoke in the corner, in light of mr. booth. [...]

  11. [...] He is plainly saying that if you allow what you have allowed, that if you put scum like Lincoln, and like Roosevelt into office, that if you permit misery like "civil rights" then the necessary [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.