What Was the Latter-day Saint View of Abraham Lincoln While He Was President?

Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States (1861 to 1865). Some believe that Lincoln was “a man inspired of God who invoked a covenant relationship between America and its maker” and that he played a “crucial role … to bring this nation closer to heaven.”

And because Lincoln checked out the Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress, some wonder, “Did it influence him? Was the Book of Mormon a key factor in Lincoln’s success and the healing of a nation?” But Lincoln didn’t just check out the Book of Mormon, he also checked out some anti-Mormon books such as: “Mormonism in All Ages” by J.B. Turner and “Mormonism; Its Leaders and Designs; Portraits and Views” by John Hyde, Jr.

Read the rest at LatterDayConservative.com

TLDR:
Lincoln was evil and was involved in the murder of the Prophet. Only orgs formed or supported by the conspiracy favor Lincoln. Why do you think the media, government schools and establishment politicians promote him so heavily?

5 thoughts on “What Was the Latter-day Saint View of Abraham Lincoln While He Was President?”

  1. I’ve read a lot about Lincoln and I’m not sure of my conclusion. I figured I’d just leave it up to the Lord and find out in the next life if he was good or bad.

    Certainly would like more information on Lincoln.

    1. Sir, have you had an opportunity to read ‘Lincoln Unmasked’ (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2007)? This book builds on Prof. DiLorenzo’s 2002 biography of Lincoln, ‘The Real Lincoln’, demonstrating beyond question that, not only was Awful Abe’s reputation as the “Great Emancipator” wholly undeserved, he was in fact the principal author of the Republic’s structured abandonment of Constitutional principles generally (and the rule of law more specifically) – a process that has only accelerated since his reign of terror (not too strong a term; read the book).

      Lincoln’s awful War on the Southern States (misnamed as “civil war”) was launched as those jurisdictions contemplated exercising their constitutional right to secede from the union as a last remedy for tariffs and onerous laws of commerce imposed by the North. Slavery was the wedge issue Lincoln used to demonize and subjugate the South – before, during, and after the war he launched to put citizens of the South in their place, discredit their institutions, and vacate their culture.

      I was raised on Lincoln mythology and fairy tales, but it was too good to be true. That Lincoln is today extolled and his presidency fondly regarded as an historically unifying influence is to me a near-obscenity. One can only wonder at how such propaganda and outright hagiography ossified into the so-called historical record now accepted as truth. More so, whose purpose is served by such a great lie capturing the imagination of an entire people? Americans remain almost entirely deceived about how Lincoln debauched their youthful nation and set it firmly on course for selecting war-as-solution. His choice of brute force and war over diplomacy and forbearance – bizarrely recast as virtue and fidelity to principle – established the American polity’s present-day reflex of answering justified condemnation with self-obsessed exceptionalist cant.

      1. Spencer Bingham

        Dilorenzo Lee Rockwell, Walter Williams are not the best sources on Lincoln. Libertarians that think war was states rights and Tariffs, victors right history.

        There lenses are wrong, victors write history, no keeping slavery legal is why they left and fired on ft Sumter. Mark E Peterson and other leaders spoke in favor of Lincoln. Even Brigham Young spoke favorably of him later on.

        Used him to keep Telegraph safe. If Brigham Young leaves us alone I’ll leave them alone.

        Lord raised him up to free the slaves. Tim Ballard wrote book about that.

        Could the Us have saved Britain and communist countries if the South won? Would slavery have ever ended? Union needed preserved to save the world from tyranny. Was there constitution better than the us constitution. And south secession was not the same as the Revolution, grievances of south were losing election.

        1. If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll have to do a better job of discrediting such as Thomas DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell Jr., Walter Williams (and, I would add, on the subject of Lincoln, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts) than you did here – dismissing scholars, eminent writers, and accomplished individuals in so offhand a manner as “not the best sources on Lincoln”. On what basis do you so profess?

          It can’t be from historical fact and source documentation. When those are viewed clearly – as in, not through a “lens” of the type you assert as impeding DiLorenzo et al, but dispassionately and with an open mind – the stark truth about Lincoln readily appears. And along the way, it is precisely those who have discovered truth in revisionist history who suddenly recognize the perfidy both revealed and ongoing that results from the “victors writ(ing) history”. I will confess that if you are intent on believing fairy tales about Lincoln, then these men will certainly not constitute the “best sources” for the purpose. Further, if libertarians they be, you should be reminded that aversion to war is a first principle of the libertarian creed.

          It seems you are contending that, for the South, it was all and only ever about slavery. If so, as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts asks, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/ , why didn’t the South embrace the Corwin Amendment, which proposed to constitutionally enshrine slavery by forbidding the federal government from ever outlawing the practice? Only the Northern states voted for it (not coincidentally, a mere two days before Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861).
          You can read about the reality and impact of tariffs imposed on the South here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/ .

          The tariffs represented real, substantial, and continuous economic oppression. As usual, the party about to make war on another presaged affairs to come by demonizing their opponent-to-be (as America has always done before launching its aggression).

          I hope you’re not serious about the Lincoln-called-by-God thing. For my part, I try to wait for God to let me know whom He has called and for what purpose. In the case of Lincoln, I’m still waiting. But what did Lincoln himself have to say on the subject of slavery? Let’s refer to a few quotations from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (CW), as related by Thomas DiLorenzo:
          “Free them [i.e. the slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals” (CW, vol. II, p. 256).
          “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, vol. II, p. 521).
          “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races… I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary” (CW, vol. III, p, 16). (Has there ever been a clearer definition of “white supremacist”?).
          “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races… I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (CW, vol. III, pp. 145-146).
          “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes” (CW, vol. III, p. 146).

          If Lincoln were truly “called of the Lord” to “free the slaves”, was it before or after he said these things? Was it before or after he tried to get the slaves “repatriated” to Liberia (might as well get deported, I suppose, if the Prez won’t let you have a full vote or even move out West without restrictions – another couple of tricks in Lincoln’s bag).

          Finally, you ask,

          “Could the Us have saved Britain and communist countries if the South won?”
          If you mean against the Nazis, the US didn’t save Britain or anyone else from the Nazi threat – Soviet Russia’s Red Army did that great work. By comparison, the Canadians, British, and Americans were minor factors. Cont’d…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.