If you Like RunToGold on Facebook then we will give you one of the $2-3 30 page Mini-Guides for free. Just send us a message on Facebook and let us know which one you want: (1) Financial, (2) Political or (3) Personal.

abraham lincoln

Abraham Lincoln Facts – America’s Reverenced & Bloodstained Sociopath

by Tom DiLorenzo, Ph.D on September 20, 2010 · 18 comments

Reading time: 13 – 21 minutes


A sociopath is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Nowhere are sociopaths better able to act out their extreme antisocial attitudes than with genocidal behavior through the instrumentality of government. Often times the most reprehensible are the most reverenced and the true facts about Abraham Lincoln are no different. For example, throngs flock to reverence and adore Chairmen Mao’s body in Tiananmen Square and Lenin’s embalmed body in the Red Square at the heart of Moscow.

With many Abraham Lincoln facts that point to unsavory behavior absent from revisionist history the worst genociders become the most reverenced sociopaths. After all, both per captia GDP increases and the unemployment rate decreases significantly when you reduce the denominator or numerator by 6, 20 or 40 million.

In California IOUs I mentioned the sacrosanct sociopaths, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton. I received quite a few emails and comments from apologists for the Church of Lincoln along with some questions such as ‘What possible evidence can you offer?’, ‘Should Lincoln have allowed the South to leave with slavery intact?’ and ‘Maybe you can explain what you were trying to point out by placing them in this category?’ To help answer those questions I have brought on the show one of the preeminent Lincoln scholars.


Lincoln responded by issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney.

Trace: In the episode 76 of the RunToGold.com podcast I brought on the Thomas DiLorenzo. He is an American economics professor at Loyola University in Maryland,  adheres to the Austrian School of Economics. He’s a senior faculty member at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech. He has authored quite a few books on this topic including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln; his agenda and an unnecessary civil war where 500,000 Americans were genocided, then we also have Lincoln Unmasked: What You are Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe, and is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch-Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution, and What it Means to Americans Today.

So, as we delve into these topics, I think you’ll find it very interesting to remove some of the false assumptions that we find in our revisionist history. So, without further ado, on to the interview with Dr. Tom DiLorenzo.

Trace: Welcome to the show, Dr. DiLorenzo.

Tom: I’m pleased to be with you today!

Thomas DiLorenzo

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo

Trace: Well, I have recently wrote an article about Lincoln and I mentioned Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton and some of the great injustices that they wrought on the American people, and I had quite a few questions about it, and I thought who better than the preeminent expert on Lincoln? You have written 2 books The Real Lincoln: A New Look at His Agenda and an Unnecessary War and also the book Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About to Know About Dishonest Abe. So when we’re talking about this great, revered American president, what are some of the things that are hidden about him? What are these true Abraham Lincoln facts that we are not supposed to know about?

Tom: Well, one of the things you are not supposed to know is what he said in his first inaugural address, where he pledge his support for a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery, and so in his first inaugural he was satisfied with enshrining slavery in the constitution explicitly. It had never been explicitly in the constitution. And in that same speech, he threatened a war over tax-collection. He said that it is my duty to collect the duties and impots – which is tariffs- but beyond that there would be no invasion of any state.

So he literally threatened a war, and carried out his threats, of course, by invading the Southern States over tax-collection, and that’s not taught in school. So, that’s one thing, he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern civilians, he shut down over 300 opposition newspapers, he deported an outspoken democratic party-member of Congress named Clement L. Vallandigham from Ohio and he confiscated firearms which violates the second amendment. And he basically started the war without the permission of Congress. So that’s why some historians call Lincoln a dictator, but they say he was a good dictator.

Lincoln promised iron-clad constitutional protection of slavery but of course slavery was already protected by the Constitution.

Trace: Oh yeah, because they are apologising, perhaps, for having a strong federal government and violating the 10th amendment, and a lot of those things. So when we are looking at Lincoln, and his… you know, you started with these gross violations of private property rights, really the Civil War was about collecting taxes, you say. It didn’t have anything to do with slavery.

Tom: Well, it did have something to do with slavery because Lincoln and the Republican party opposed only the extension of slavery into the new territories, it never opposed Southern slavery. In fact, as I just mentioned, Lincoln promised iron-clad constitutional protection of slavery but of course slavery was already protected by the Constitution, the Southern states did not have to secede to protect slavery, it was already constitutional, there were no challenges. The courts–the slavery — I wish there were, I wish we could have ended it peacefully, like all the other countries in the world did in time, but we did not.

And so, the basic cause of the war though was the Southern States thought that they were sovereign and they had the right to be in the union or not be in the union. Lincoln was the first American president ever to take the position that the federal government had the right to literally invade, pledge war on, his own country, to stop them from seceding. You have the New England federalists to secede in the early part of the 19th century they even have a convention in Hartford Connecticut in 1814 to vote up or down on succession and there was little discussion about whether it was illegal or not.

Just about everyone assumed that it certainly was legal because the States were sovereign. And so that was really what the war was about; are the States sovereign or is the government at Washington the master of us all? And of course when the North won the war, it proved that the government at Washington is our master, and no longer our servant.

Trace: Yeah, and I mean it was a very accepted doctrine that the States had a right to secede back then, especially Lysander Spooner was one of the people that argued quite a bit in favour of these states-rights or nullification, because how else can you have a government that governs with the consent of the governed, unless the people have a right to leave, or the states in this case. But these are Abraham Lincoln facts kept out of revisionist history.

Tom: That’s right. All you have to do to convince yourself of that is read article 7 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the constitution will be ratified by 5/13 states at the time. It didn’t say the U.S. government will ratify the states; it says the states ratify the constitution, granting delegated powers to the U.S. government, and those powers were supposed to be used to the benefit of the people of the states. The original system was that if the people were ever to be in charge for sovereign control of their own government, the way in which they would do it would be through political communities organized at the state and local level, that’s how we were supposed to be the masters rather than the servants of our own government, our own central government, and that was understood by everybody.

Like I said there was a group of federalists talked about secession, there was a secession movement in the middle Atlantic states in the 1850’s and even some of the famous abolitionists of the North proposed that New England secede from the South because they did not want to be apart of a country that still had slavery. Although I think we need to keep in mind that there were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853, so that’s not too far off of the Civil War era.

Trace: Yeah, so when we look at Lincoln it appears that ironically he extended slavery to all people in the Americas instead of actually abolishing it. In his erosion of these essential checks and balances in the political machinery that we have been talking about, you hit on it in the beginning, his gross violations in the beginning of the Great Writ, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, can you explain a little what the writ of Habeas Corpus is, and then delve in to what he did with his interference with the federal courts. This is one of the most important Abraham Lincoln facts.

Tom: Well, see, it’s the one thing in the Constitution that guarantees our personal liberty and whenever the government accuses us of a crime we have the right to due process, we have the right to confront our accusers, we have a right to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, and so forth, so that when Lincoln listed that he had the army literally break down the doors of houses of people and dragged them out to some dungeon somewhere in a gulag. And there were tens of thousands of people, including the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner, he was a newspaper editor who was opposing all of this, and a lot of prominent citizens.

Lincoln essentially redefined treason to mean anyone who disagreed with him.

These weren’t spies, these weren’t confederate spies, they were just Northern state citizens who were criticising the Lincoln administration. And they were imprisoned by the tens of thousands, and as far ex-parte Milligan goes, after the Civil War in 1866, Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court slyly had a great ruling where they said that it was illegal for either Lincoln or the Congress to have suspended Habeas Corpus as long as the civil courts were operating the North, which they were. And they said that it is especially during wartime that we need to guard liberties because that is when they are most threatened, when it is some kind of an emergency.

And so they took the exact opposite tactic of what Lincoln himself said, and essentially suspending the constitution, is that it is most important during an emergency like war, to protect the constitution. And I think that’s one of the finest statements ever made by a supreme court in terms of constitutional liberty.

Trace: Yeah, so you have these Abraham Lincoln facts, and I think…what was his argument? You said “you know, if we have to cut off the arm to save the body then it’s good”. So the Supreme Court battled with Lincoln over the great Writ of Habeas Corpus, and what is this about Lincoln issuing an arrest warrant for the chief justice?

Tom: Yes, in my book Lincoln Unmasked I wrote about the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, issued an opinion that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was illegal because the government can’t do it but the Congress has to do it, and Lincoln responded by issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney, and I site several sources on that, including a former Supreme Court Justice among other people.

And so he did that. It’s really an act of tyranny, it’s an attack on the separation of power, and also documented in my book “Lincoln Unmasked” that Lincoln also trenched soldiers to arrest other federal judges, not just Taney but other judges who were about to writ the Habeas Corpus, that is, that would give people accused of a crime their day in court. And so this was not just an intimidation of Roger. B. Taney, it was intimidation of a lot of other federal judges as well that went on during the Lincoln administration.

Trace: Oh yeah, because he would actually station troops outside of their homes to prevent them from going to meet in session, right?

Tom: Yes, I got out of the National Archives a letter from a federal judge explaining to his fellow federal judges why he did not show up in court that day. He said he got home and his home was surrounded by armed soldiers who kept him essentially kidnapped in his own home, they kept him from going to court to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus, and I have to believe that this was a not a lone incidence of that sort. Lincoln essentially redefined treason to mean anyone who disagreed with him. So if you read article 3 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which defines treason, it says waging war against the states or giving aid and comfort to their enemy, and so literally Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states was the very definition of treason under the U.S. constitution. Anyone can ready article 3, section 3 and they will know that I am right about this.

Standardised for today’s population, that would be the equivalent 6 million Americans dying in 4 years.

Trace: And so, it’s kind of like terrorism. When I was in law school, I took a counter-terrorism class, and of course the law can’t define terrorism, and it seems to be terrorism is any opposition or dissent. And so Lincoln, who is engaged in perhaps the bloodiest episode of terrorism in the U.S., he did it definitely in violation of the constitution, and it’s great that you have done a lot of the research on these things, to expose a little bit about the revisionist’s history surrounding this historical figure because it appears that every country loves their dictators. Stalin is pickled, and you’ve got Mao, and he’s pickled. And last time I was in Beijing, you had lines of people to go and see Chairman Mao who, like Lincoln, definitely increased the per capita GDP by reducing the denominator, so we see the same thing with these Abraham Lincoln facts, we have this giant Lincoln temple in Washington D.C.; to this person who really didn’t do nice things to the people of the United States.

Tom: One of the things that Americans don’t know is that all of the other countries in the world who ended slavery did it peacefully. And that includes the Northern states. There were no wars of emancipation in Pennsylvania, or Illinois or Massachusetts. Everyone in the world found a way pragmatically to get rid of slavery without mass murder and mass killing, there were over 650 thousand people died, including some 50 thousand Southern civilians during the Civil War and that, if you standardised for today’s population, that would be the equivalent 6 million Americans dying today in 4 years. If you put it that way, why didn’t we end slavery peacefully?

Well, the main reason was that the war wasn’t about ending slavery. I don’t think you’d find an historian who would tell you that Lincoln invaded to free the enslaved; he didn’t. He very clearly said, in fact, that his purpose was to save the union, not to do anything about the slaves. Although, of course I argued that he actually destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with a Soviet-style mandatory union.

Trace: Well, thank you very much. This has been an enlightening interview that helps clear away some of the lies found in the revisionist American history and I am sure we will have you again on the RunToGold.com Podcast to discuss more Abraham Lincoln facts. Perhaps to discuss Alexander Hamilton. Thank you.

So please do your civic and patriotic duty by leaving your comments about the reverenced Abraham Lincoln and sharing this with your friends and family!

No tips yet.
Be the first to tip!

Support Run To Gold - Tip With Bitcoin


Find this post helpful? Please consider tipping with Bitcoin. Each article gets a unique Bitcoin address so by tipping you help make Run To Gold sustainable and give valuable feedback on which content is most appreciated!

19,219 random numbersEmail Email Print Print


ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Tom DiLorenzo holds a doctorate in economics from Virginia Tech, is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland, adheres to the Austrian School of Economics and is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He authored Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know About Dishonest Abe, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – and What It Means for Americans Today. This is merely one article of 1 by .
Free Free Great Credit Contraction Sample

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Jim September 20, 2010 at 10:53 pm

To anyone who thought differently, you can grow up now.

2 John Seaforth September 21, 2010 at 1:44 am

Ahhhh, Screech, Yammer, yammer, yammer! You, you Revisionist you! Six million??? Where have I heard that number figure before?
Only joking Trace, keep up the good work. ;)

3 David Hawkins September 21, 2010 at 11:28 am

Do you see a connection between monetary science and Lincoln?

4 Steve September 21, 2010 at 7:37 pm

Love the history lesson Trace. Keep up the good work. Love your website. Love Goldmoney.

5 Jsay September 22, 2010 at 5:00 am

Trace, what happens to rest of the bullies who try to ram their illegal laws up our poopers when the taxpayer has had enough? Do we see a Paris circa 1789 revisited?
(Casey Daily Dispatch “Throwing Rocks” oughta rile those soccer fans !)

It’s amazing how a man can go his whole life believing a lie (Lincoln the Emancipator) and not know history.Thanks to Tom and you for bringing the truth to light.I’ll be looking at the local library for Tom’s books.
When # 1 goes, you better be have #2 to exercise with lead.
Maybe it really goes “Those with the Lead (Gold) make the rules”

6 Daivd Hughes September 23, 2010 at 7:05 pm

I just knew that something was wrong with the history of Lincoln taught in public schools when I understood the fallacy that the war was fought in order to free the slaves. I grew up in Ohio and never set foot in the South till I was 27 years old. I have lived in the South now for over 20 years…and I have had first-hand experience of the old adage “the ones who win the war get to write the history of the war.” True Federalism is not at all what we have today, and this sad fact started in earnest with A. Lincoln’s crimes against the united States of America. I did not capitalize the word “united” because it is not capitalized when referenced by the Declaration of Independence, showing that the founders saw this wonderful country to be a union of sovereign States. My, my, but these truths are embarrassing and sickening!!

7 Trace Mayer, J.D. September 23, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Yes. We did not have time to get into it but to hit on a couple major points. First are the legal tender cases that arose under Lincoln. Chase actually argued for the fiat and then a year later voted against it on the Court. The inflation, like most sociopaths because the general population will generally not voluntarily agree to taxation for such purposes, was how Lincoln financed his genocidal escapade. Then there is the National Bank Act which consolidated the federal government’s power tremendously in this realm. As mentioned in the interview there was the taxation issue for the war. Would love to go more in-depth but only have my iPad and am traveling to Republic of Texas which, interestingly, explicitly retained the right to secede in it’s first Constitution. But those major issues should make for some good reading on Wikipedia so long as it isn’t too full of revisionist history.

8 Jay September 24, 2010 at 7:23 am

That’s right Trace,
I moved back to Texas where my guns and religion and sacrosanct.
We fly the Flag of the Republic EVEN with the US Flag for a reason.
we can.
The World’s friendliest people are here in San Antonio and don’t leave Texas without a bellyfull of Mexican Food and BBQ.
Even Lorena Ochoa is planning on buying here.

9 Steve September 24, 2010 at 8:06 pm

The Only State, Texas, where we fought and died for our independence!
Remember the Alamo!

10 Kevin September 30, 2010 at 8:12 am

I also live in Texas right now after 38 years in CA, and no it is not a bastion of freedom and individualism!
There are a few advantages of Texas vs. the rest of the union, such as no state income tax, but overall things are pretty much the same here in terms of freedom quotient. No income tax just means you get raped in every other way possible by the local government mafia. Property taxes are some of the highest in the country, sales taxes are insane when it comes to visitors, they have toll roads all over, and they are not even looking at legalizing the weed. I guess on the bright side gas is about $.50/gallon less than CA, and beer at bars is typically $3 or $4 compared to $5-6 in CA.

Otherwise, the idea that Texas is more free than other states is as big a myth as Lincoln the emancipator. And secession won’t happen until people realize that the next authoritarian sociopath politician to come along with all of his or her promises to improve your life will be equally as bad or worse than the last one.

11 Al Barrs January 13, 2011 at 1:08 pm

I think we best tread lightly and keep a wary eye on our Central Government, aka, Federal Government, the President, Congress and the Federal Courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It appears the three branches of government created and envisioned to keep politicians honest has failed. They now are the core of a conspiracy to overthrow our constitutional guaranteed republican form of government as was the case in the early 1800s.

With the current president and the liberal politicians pushing to deny all kinds of services and benefits to our elderly and sick population, which will ultimately result in early death for many, a little domestic war would rapidly reduce the numbers of citizens within the United States thereby making even more money available for political bribes and payoffs with taxpayer money…Abraham Lincoln and his political supporters, the elite industrialists did it, why can’t it happen again?

12 Richard Hartness December 28, 2011 at 6:51 pm

Thanks for the real story, I get so tired of the movies etc. potraying the south as racist, and lincoln as hero.

13 billgreenjeans April 21, 2012 at 8:26 am

As mentioned early on in the interview “Lincoln and the Republican party opposed only the extension of slavery into the new territories” even the mischievous Lincoln and his power grabing Republicans knew that the Congress had no power over the states only the territories. This power is the bases for the usurpation’s today, in particular the income tax.
The Confederacies president elect Jefferson Davis sent a peace commission to negotiate a peace treaty which Lincoln ignored while he made his preparation for war. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_peace_commission
It is good that they made a Temple for Lincoln because he may not be entering any other Temple.
However God is just and benevolent to all that will repent. 6 million is a lot of repenting.

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: