By Allan Stevo

If you thought the case fatality rate of 1-in-1000 from Covaids was bad, you should have seen what the case fatality rate of having Abraham Lincoln as a President was like. 

About 3% of Americans died in the 4-year period from 1861 to 1865. 

They weren’t just any Americans who died. It was often the most capable members of society — young and male. 

They died because 1.) Washington DC could not play nice, 2.) Washington DC was very arrogant, 3.) Washington DC refused to allow states to dissolve a dissolvable compact. 

Sound familiar ? 

Abraham Lincoln Was The Antithesis of July 4

Monday, July 4, some bozo will inevitably put on an Abraham Lincoln costume. 

In fact, approximately 10,000 bozos will do that across the country. 

In a bozo’s head, it is all one patriotic brou-ha-ha: Constitution, July 4, the Air Force, and hot dogs. And who can blame him because that is what the schools teach, but truthfully, Abraham Lincoln was not George Washington 2.0; he was King George 2.0. 

Lincoln was holding the central government intact, rather than letting the thing devolve into its appropriate component parts. He was a centralizer, not a decentralizer. He held people captive by force rather than letting them make choices through their state governments. He was more of the spirit of 1787, rather than the spirit of 1776 — a lot more about the controlling and centralizing spirit of the US Constitution than the freeing and decentralizing spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which is commemorated on July 4th. 

But What About Fighting Slavery — That Is Freedom

And was slavery the central issue that motivated the war? No. That might make for a pretty romantic story, though. Surely that topic played a role for some, but fifteen percent of American fighting age men did not perish in the first half of the 1860s for the purpose of squabbling over slavery. There were lots of prickly issues — taxes among them, which makes for a lot less sexy of a story. Unfair legislation was a big issue — boring. Agricultural versus mercantile interest was a repeated theme — YAWN-fest!!! 

Some even considered it to be a Second American Revolution, more local autonomy from a far-off, out-of-touch, practically foreign, and corrupt central government.

You can imagine how even the most well-intentioned school teachers, historians, authors, and film-makers, trying to convince future generations to care about the Civil War from the victorious Union perspective, might make it about slavery to simplify the issue and make it more appealing. Within twenty years, that was taking place. 

It was hard to convince someone born in 1866 why he should give two hoots about some old dead guy with a squeaky voice named Abe Lincoln, or why he should care about a war he never had a thing to do with. 

The World War Two Narrative Contains Similar Lies 

World War Two, we are told, was about saving the Jews. In reality, there might have been more decision-makers in Washington DC in the 1940s than in Berlin who were happy to see the Jews go bye-bye. 

Literally. 

Literally. 

Do you get that? 

Being Jewish was not pop culturally cool in 1940 the way it is in 2022. 

That part of the story somehow got appended way later. And truthfully, it is an easy to dramatize part of the story. The salvation of the Jewish people was not at the top of the casus belli for Americans in the 1940s. 

Two Fun Source Texts For Your Fourth of July Enjoyment 

See the rest here

Be seeing you