Washington Post Attacks Ron Paul's Federal Reserve Battle Over a Neo-Confedrate: Ignoring the Truth About Abraham Lincoln

Can we stop this rewrite of history that makes Abraham Lincoln out to be this wonderful man? He wasn't. He was a mean man who attacked the Constitution and honestly only cared about ending slavery when it meant winning the Civil War. Read Lincoln's inaugural address and his letter to Horace Greeley, and you will see the truth about what Lincoln thought of slavery. Read further into history and you will see how Lincoln threw his political enemies in jail and suspended Habeas Corpus while shutting down northern news papers that didn't print favorable news towards Lincoln. I bet you didn't know all these things about the 16th President did you. In fact, I often wonder what Thomas Jefferson thinks as he has to look at Lincoln from the corner of his eye on Mt. Rushmore.

So we have this piece in the Washington Post today written by Dana Milbank where he uses the confederacy to attack Ron Paul's fight against the Federal Reserve. Ignoring that Lincoln was a horrible tyrant, Milbank attempts to smear Congressman Paul for simply trying to establish transparency from the Federal Reserve.

The Republican takeover of the House put a chairman's gavel in the hands of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the gadfly GOP presidential candidate with a cult following. On Wednesday, he used that gavel for the first time - to remarkable effect.

The hearing itself was lively - based on Paul's desire to abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard - but what really stood out was Chairman Paul's leadoff witness: a Southern secessionist.

The "short bio" the witness provided with his testimony omitted salient pieces of his resume, including his 2006 book, "Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe." But the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, William Lacy Clay (Mo.) did some homework and learned more about the witness, Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola University Maryland.

DiLorenzo, the congressman told the committee, had called Lincoln "the first dictator" and a "mass murderer" and decreed that "Hitler was a Lincolnite." Worse, Clay charged, "you worked for a Southern nationalist organization." "The League of the South is a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second southern secession and a society dominated by European Americans."

At the witness table, DiLorenzo scoffed and waved his hand dismissively at Clay. But neither he nor Paul attempted to refute Clay's allegations.

Why should Paul refute these truths Mr. Milbank? It appears to me Congressman Clay knows little about American history--history that prompts up Lincoln as a great man when in fact he wasn't. Congressman Clay is a black man, and obviously a black man that has been duped to believe Lincoln was a friend to the slaves.

For the record Mr. Milbank and Congressman Clay, from Lincoln's Inaugural Address:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare 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.

Further more, as Lincoln is described as a mass murderer, considering his violation of the Tenth Amendment that sent union troops to Fort Sumter to instigate war with the South. Notice in his letter to Horace Greeley what Lincoln's goals were.

From the Letter to Horace Greeley:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

I don't see what the problem is with looking at real American history and exposing the truth about Lincoln rather than continue to build him up as some American hero. He wasn't a friend to the Constitution, and he did display the actions of a dictator.

However, Ron Paul scares many people because his movement continues to grow. Therefore, they have to take him out and discredit him much like they are doing with Sarah Palin. Therefore, the word neo-confederate is used to discredit Paul while ignoring that it's Congressman Clay that hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Once again Congressman Clay ignores history--no slave ship ever sailed under the Confederate flag. In fact, the Confederate Constitution stopped the importation of slaves into southern states.

Listen, this man's views on Lincoln, which tell the story more Americans need to hear, don't justify an attack to discredit Paul's efforts to return the power to mint money back to Congress like the Founding Father's intended.