A Vile Attempt to Tarnish Lincoln

email Email

A group of students at University of Wisconsin used the recent Indigenous People’s Day to try to discredit Abraham Lincoln. They covered a monumental statue of the 16th President with derisive signs and staged a “Die-In” in front of it.

“Let’s be real,” said a protest leader. “He owned slaves, and ordered the execution of native men.” Actually, he stopped the execution of native men: in December, 1862, after military tribunals convicted 303 Sioux warriors of rape and murder for slaughtering more than 800 Minnesota civilians in the so-called “Dakota War”, Lincoln commuted sentences of 264 of them. He allowed punishment only for those who had brutalized non-combatants, not the fighters who killed 77 U.S. soldiers in the midst of the Civil War.

And as to the charge that Lincoln owned slaves: he never did, and from boyhood always hated the evil institution. It’s also evil for America-hating activists to deploy false, ignorant charges to tarnish the legacy of our greatest president.

email Email

Comments (36)

Leave a comment
  1. Ty  •  Oct 24, 2017 at 8:13 pm

    That's all well and good. But from what I can tell, most of the Lincoln haters in modern times come from the party of Lincoln. This is what republicans inherited from the south when they switched from democrats to republican.

    Not all, not most


    But a disturbing number of so called "conservatives" in the deep south have questionable views around the merits of the civil war, which many of them term the war of northern aggression. And Lincoln himself. Most of the people in the south that fly confederate flags vote with modern day republicans, not democrats, because the region still has a nasty case of a disease lingering from the days of slavery and jim crow, not so much in policy, but historical narrative of the noble south and lost cause.

    You saw it expressed in that rube at cpac, no liberal. I can almost hear him now. Are we not merciful?

  2. Rizzo  •  Oct 24, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    Name a single REAL CONSERVATIVE that has a questionable view on the merits of the Civil War.
    You are an absolute ASSCLOWN! Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll tax, etc.
    Pry yourself away from MediaMatters for 5min. and try to learn History you damn idiot!

  3. Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Speaking of slavery, wasn't it the Democratic South that nullified federal law and decided to secede from The The Union? Wow… and guess what… guess who is trying to repeat history TODAY?
    It's the libtard left, aka Democrats in California who are trying to implement the same tactic as they used prior to The Civil War. Coincidence? I think not…. that's from the leftists playbook, which just repeats itself over and over and over again.

    • Ty  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 5:43 pm

      I must have posted this a dozen times to highlight the point, maybe once more will get the idea into that thick conservative skull of yours.

      Who supported the 1964 civil rights law, who was opposed?

      Which was a larger determinant of support or opposition?

      Party or region?

      Now, since I know you will not answer like an honest man, I will do it for you. It was based mostly on REGION, if you were a representative from one of the old confederate states, the center of ROT and moral decay, you were probably AGAINST the 1964 civil rights bill, nearly everywhere else? Probably FOR it. This was almost entirely regional. And we know which way the regions vote now don't we? We know which regions still have a surprising number of people flailing confederate flags, we know which way most of those people vote.

      I do not even bring this up to indict most republicans. People like Michael and Arthur Brooks and even Nickey Haley from South Carolina are surely repulsed by this stuff, but that does not take away the source of most of the rot and mixed up thinking.

      Now I know, I am responding to Rizzo here, this would require some critical focus on southern voters, that are linked to the republican party. And because of that, he will turn a blind eye. I don't even think this is intrinsic to republican ideology, although, looking back to the Wendell Wilkie speech, he sounds more like a moderate democrat than a modern republican, perhaps that is the influence of a core of southern white identitarian conservatives who when broaching the notion that some social services and welfare would go to THOSE people, go ape sh*T. Just like they did when voted democrat in decades past before the switch.

      Just some observations outside the non self reflective circle jerk environment of the peanut gallery here.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 6:43 pm

        Hmmm…. Forgot this fact didn't ya? YOU Probably NEVER even knew it, ya historical illiterate.
        The filibuster that almost killed the Civil Rights Act
        On this day in 1964, the Senate was involved in an epic fight over the Civil Right Act, after a group of Democratic senators started a record-setting filibuster in March, lead by former Grand Wizard, aka Democrat IDOL, Robert Byrd.

        80% of House Republicans voted for its passage compared to only 63% of Democrats
        82% of Senate Republicans voted in favor versus only 69% of Democrats.

        Now try to twist and turn and manipulate, but those are the FACTS!
        Ask MediaMatters what the proper response/talking points are, ya MORON!

        Maybe Bull Conner can help ya out.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 7:32 pm

        Just like the uniformed LibTard morons on the campus of Wisconsin, Ty opens his mouth and removes all doubts regarding his ignorance of history.

      • Ty  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 7:52 pm

        Rizzo, more republicans voted for the 1964 civil rights act than democrats, but the south was more democrat at the time. If you look at the vote totals of republicans on congress in the southern former confederate states, and democrats, BOTH groups were almost unanimously opposed to the bill.

        This gives my analysis more credence, this was less about party, and more about region. Republican congressmen from former confederate states were even MORE opposed to the 1964 civil rights bill than democrats. Because they were republican? No, because they were from the south.

        Every time you try to link this to a party thing, I will link it to region, and I'm right Rizzo.

        That was the narrative of a lot of southerners, when they were democratic, and later republican. That is how they altered the history books.

        You want to paint this as a democrat thing, because you are a dishonest liar, and every SINGLE conservative not calling him out on this, abets his lies. You are why the right is such a mess, because you let trash pile up, and now you have Trump as your standard bearer. Never has a more deserved figure head been given to a movement.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 8:06 pm

        Just keep reframing the argument, ignoring the FACT that Democrats are the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow, Poll Tax, etc.
        Now, you are trying to repeat your Secession tactic in California.
        Some things NEVER change!

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 11:19 pm

        So which states exactly are inherently racist and which years does this absurd claim apply?
        Please refer to the presidential voting maps throughout the years.

      • Helping Ty  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 am

        Why do you have to use profanity and sexually explicit language? Your lies are enough. Using gutter language adds nothing.

      • Helping Ty  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 3:23 am

        Were the segregationists democrats or not? That is what matters. It does not matter that the non-southern democrats were different. Fighting desegregation was done in the name of the democrat party. That ALL that matters. The Republican Party has always been on the correct side of racial issues and it still is today. While the democrat party is attacking white people with the pseudo-academic theory of "white privilege" and supporting all sorts of racial set-asides, the Republican Party is still supporting color-blind policies.

        Ty's explanation: the democrat party wasn't the party of racism; it is just that a larger percentage of democrats were from the south. It was about geography.

        Well yeah, that is the party the southern racists used to fight desegregation. It isn't a coincidence that more democrats were from the south. Ty, you need help.

      • Ty  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 1:25 pm

        Most of the segregationists were democrats.


        Were they segregationists because they were democrats or because they were from the old confederate states? That is the question, and the data I linked fits the argument that the segregationists tendencies were MUCH more aligned with regional attitudes over party, the republicans in the old confederate states were just as if not more likely to be antagonistic to civil rights legislation, and that to me is a very useful bellwether.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 1:46 pm

        "but the south was more democrat at the time"

        So whether you want to say it was Southerners of that time or Democrats that were the party of Slavery, Jim Crow, Poll Tax. etc. It is essentially a difference without a distinction.
        They were one of the same.

        Now stop posting and get back to nullifying federal law and seceding from the union.
        Remember, secession, that thing you racist, slave-owning Democrats of old did?
        How'd that work out, you damn stupid, fool?

        Oh wait, I forgot…. History began the day you were born, and because of that, you can now rewrite everything that preceded you and pretend it's new and novel.

      • Helping TY  •  Oct 30, 2017 at 4:05 pm

        You are hilarious. The democrat party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, racial apartheid, and the KKK. But you ignore that because "it was a regional thing." You admit that most congressional democrats in 1964 were southerners who opposed ending segregation but it is okay because it was a southern thing, not a democrat thing. Ty, the obvious is right there staring you in the face. Most elected democrats were racists and segregationists. That was (and still is) the democrat party. How else do you define a party other than what a majority of the party believes? I didn't have much respect for you before this, but now, what little I had is gone. You are not honest.

      • Helping TY  •  Oct 30, 2017 at 4:21 pm

        And your use of the civil rights act of 1964 to make your poInt is weak. I probably would have opposed that even if I supported civil rights because it was a bad bill. You need to see if the person was for or against desegregation and other basic racial equality issues, NOT how they voted on any specific pierce of legislation.

  4. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 am

    One of the most ridiculous lies ever pushed by the Left and hurt their credibility is that Dixiecrats changed their name to Republicans. Good grief, they act as though people have no access to information. But truly what can one expect from a party that is built on twisting the definition of words?

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 10:57 am

      Great points! But, how can you expect libtards to know and understand history, when they don't even grasp the reality they live in today.
      For example, in Libtard-World:
      Killing Babies = Choice
      Man/Woman MARRIAGE = Same Sex marriage
      Boys = Girls
      Up = Down
      Right = Left
      Stupidity = Intelligence.

      These people are F'ed up!

      • Helping Ty  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 3:34 am

        Don't stop there …. Terrorism committed in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. American culture includes all cultures. The gender of parents is irrelevant to how kids turn out. We love science but hate scientifically improved foods. We love science but insist that cosmetic surgery makes a man a woman. We believe in free speech unless it is offensive "hate" speech. Donald Trump is an anti-Semite and a nazi even though he surrounds himself by Jewish people in business and family. ….

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 8:38 am

        Not only do they think cosmetic surgery can turn a man into a woman, they demand that we, THINKING PEOPLE, ignore reality and pretend that man is now a woman. Nevermind genetics, science be damned, just pretend and play along with the farce.

  5. Nani Tavares  •  Oct 25, 2017 at 10:10 am

    Michael appears disgusted by this latest example of liberal lies. He hasn’t twigged what I have painfully realized this year: most liberals are NOT nice or decent. Every lie they have pushed has corrupted their humanity. I’m not even sure anymore if the process can be reversed, but I do know it needs to be stopped.

    • Ty  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 8:49 pm

      Visions from Afar :

      Here is a model created by a bunch of liberals and evil UNIONS with partnerships with businesses in Sweden to NOT have an American style free for all and leaving people in a ditch to wither and die or languish.

      I know, different country, different culture, fewer conservatives asking why we should bother helping some LOSERS that lost their jobs, not OUR problem to help them out. But when there are fewer vicious attitudes like that spoiling society, people tend to get helped back up to their feet faster.

      Now, to the slow people reading this (let's call these people Schizzo), this does not imply Sweden does EVERYTHING better than the US, it's just a window into a different solution that might offer something useful to learn from. A window into a society that pushes in the opposite direction from a conservative vision of MORE of a free for all where everyone is on their own. Live, die, thrive, fail, what's it to me? As long as my taxes are lower, why would I care one way or the other about the fates of my fellow man?

      It's interesting, in that case in the article, it's not even a government program, it's a partnership between unions and companies that pay into a fund to help resettle layed off workers. There is something about the culture of the place, and the people, that are less… flippant about the fates of people that are tossed aside. Built into the basic structures of how their business and economy works.

      Some theories as to why are because they were more homogeneous societies, where there was less animus and looking at the visual "other" and not seeing a member of the same people. That must be part of it, and I think that is part of the reason conservatives are so much more hostile to these kinds of models.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 9:50 pm

        Do they kill babies there? If yes, Ty, you might have found your Utopian, Heaven-on-Earth.
        What's it cost to get there? Ty, I'm willing to buy you a one-way ticket.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 26, 2017 at 10:13 pm

        Ooooh ooh Ty, did you see this? Here's another exciting place you can relocate to.
        AP Exclusive: Doctors clash over euthanasia for mentally ill

      • Helping TY  •  Oct 30, 2017 at 4:09 pm

        Why don't you move to Sweden? If you will agree to officially renounce any claims to US citizenship and never come back to USA or try to influence this country, I will pay for a one-way plane ticket for you to Sweden. Let me know if you accept and I will start drafting up the terms.

      • Rizzo  •  Oct 30, 2017 at 7:15 pm

        When Ty gets there, he can report back with weekly updates.
        He can let us know if the cost of what he's lost is worth the price of what he has gained?
        With Ty gone, we as Americans, can count that as addition by subtraction.
        By that, I mean, we have gained as Americans by subtracting one more loon, hell-bent on destroying the greatest society to ever exist in world history.

        America can become the number one exporter of whacko, leftists.
        It's a win/win. Ty hates America, and we hate his leftist agenda.

  6. Gary Liniger  •  Oct 28, 2017 at 12:44 am

    Anyone with half a brain knows the Democratic and Republican parties are NOT the same as they were in the past. The Republicans use to have liberals and Democrats had conservatives. Conservatives started the KKK, conservatives used jim crow laws. Liberals voted for the civil rights act. Now liberals want to stop some instances of free speech. It is a mixed up world.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 28, 2017 at 8:24 am

      Gary… moron… Conservatives have NEVER had anything to do with the KKK, Jim Crow laws or anything of the sort.
      Please read a history book before you embarrass yourself again.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 28, 2017 at 8:59 am

      Here Gary… A little Cliff-Notes history lesson for ya.

      The first Klan flourished in the Southern United States in the late 1860s, then died out by the early 1870s. It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era, especially by using violence against African American leaders.
      Confederate veteran John W. Morton founded a chapter in Nashville, Tennessee. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmenand their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.
      After the Klan was suppressed, similar insurgent paramilitary groups arose that were explicitly directed at suppressing Republican voting and turning Republicans out of office: the White League, which started in Louisiana in 1874; and the Red Shirts, which started in Mississippi and developed chapters in the Carolinas. For instance, the Red Shirts are credited with helping elect Wade Hampton as governor in South Carolina. They were described as acting as the military arm of the Democratic Party and are attributed with helping white Democrats regain control of state legislatures throughout the South.

      Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965.
      Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of Democratic-dominated states until 1966. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws.
      These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation, achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

    • Rizzo  •  Oct 28, 2017 at 1:50 pm

      And, if you had half a brain, you didn't use your REAL name.
      It would be a shame if you just broadcasted to the world: "Look at me! I'm Gary Liniger, and I'm a certified moron."

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 29, 2017 at 1:02 am

      Greg, you actually think we don't have access to information outside of academia and MSM? Just because you don't bother doesn't the rest of us are too lazy to do research.

    • Helping TY  •  Oct 30, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      Medved has discussed this on his show. The segregationists were big government people. They were not conservatives. I think you don't understand the meanings of these terms.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Oct 31, 2017 at 2:25 pm

      Gary Liniger…so what happened to your other half of your brain?

  7. Truth hurts  •  Nov 2, 2017 at 3:04 am

    Our greatest president was George Washington.

  8. Fungah!  •  Nov 7, 2017 at 3:37 am

    It's hard to bestow the title of Greatest President on a man who presided of the most bloody conflict in the history of our nation. Lincoln was an idealist for sure, but his hatred of slavery allowed him to justify the violent death of over half a million Americans in a war that could have been avoided. Slavery would have ended without the civil war. The nation was already moving that direction peacefully after England abolished the practice.

    Not only did Lincoln lead the nation into civil war, he irreparably damaged the sovereignty of the states through unprecedented executive and federal power grabs. The southern states left the union because they agreed that Lincoln and his northern coalition were exceeding the constitutional parameters.

    He was a charismatic leader, but I hesitate to call him a great President given all the blood on his hands.

    I'm not defending slavery. It is a deplorable practice. We didn't have to sacrifice half a million lives to abolish it. That was poor leadership.

    • Rizzo  •  Nov 7, 2017 at 2:36 pm

      Whoa…Fungah, if you want to argue that Lincoln is not the greatest, I'm fine with that.
      However, you "hesitate to call him GREAT"? That's an entirely different paint-job.

    • Rizzo  •  Nov 7, 2017 at 3:09 pm

      And regarding your understanding of Lincoln, his leadership and The Civil War, I would just advise you to do a little more research.
      Read about the Battle of Fort Sumnter and more about The Civil War in general.
      Lincoln was indeed a GREAT leader, during perhaps the worst time in American history.
      Without his leadership, America would be a much different place… and not for the better.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn