makesliift union. Octavio Paz says much the same thing aboutrnSpain and Mexico: Spain will succeed because the King representsrnall the peoples of the nation, while Mexico must fail becausernno democracy can represent the tribes of Mexico.rnParadoxically, Americans might hae been better able to prescrrne their liberties under an inherited monarchy—where peoplernare expected to love the king, while protecting their privilegesrnagainst his usurpations—than under a democracy, wherernthe fiction of a majority can overturn all precedent and privilege.rnAsked what kind of government had been designed inrnPhiladelphia, Ben Franklin responded, “a republic, if you canrnkeep it.” Everyone understood what he meant. Despite all thernrhetoric of exporting democracy around the world, self-governmentrnis a rare and difficult accomplishment even for an independent-rnminded people. All the Framers understood thatrntvrannv and servilitv are natural phenomena; courage and independencernare the privileges of aristocracy. The dream of republicans,rnin ancient Greece as in 18th-century America, was torngive the majority—not everybody, mind you, but a majority—rnthe possibility of living like aristocrats who could, like John Randolph,rnloN’c liberty and hate equality, understanding that equalit’rnis the tool of evnical despots.rnThe American republic, which was an expression of thernAmerican character, rested on a set of simple assumptions. Inrnforeign affairs, we would mind our own business and ask othersrnto do the same. This policy was not only just but essential forrnthe surival of the republic. Conquests require standingrnarmies, which entail the militarization of the nation and thernelevation of the military hero into a demigod. An imperialrnrepublic is a contradiction in terms, as the examples of Athens,rnRome, and Venice show.rnAt home, the national government was severely constrainedrnb’ the Constitution. The states were semisovereign, and as thernonlv Federalist President, John Adams, observed. Congress wasrnnot a padiament representing the will of the nation: it was arndiplomatic body representing sovereign states. Most Americansrnwere farmers, and this federal republic was also an agrarianrnnation, north and south. Despite the efforts of Hamilton andrnlater the Whigs to sell off the nation to the bankers, thernJeffersonians were keen on paying off the debt, balancing thernbudget, and minimizing the corruption that is inevitable inrngocrnmcnt.rnThe experiment succeeded for sexcral generations, but inrnthe past 140 years, the republic slowly hardened into empire. Inrnthe more advanced phase—the presidencies of VVoodrow Wilson,rnFranklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson—the diagnosis ofrnimperial progression is complicated by world wars, depression,rnand the ideological millstones invented by the devil to temptrnmankind in its last stage of decadence—Nazism and communism.rnThe purpose of our imperial regime is revealed mostrnclead in its infancy, and even today it bears the features of thernpoliticians who presided at its birth in the 186()’s and 1870’s.rnIne itably, we are forced to examine the legacy of AbrahamrnLincoln. In the United States todav, it is as easy to speak honestlrnof Abraham Lincoln as it would hae been for a Russian tornattack the memory of Lenin in 1940. Eery other Americanrnhero has come in for a serious debunking—Washington, Jefferson,rnPatrick Henry—but it is still considered treason to speakrnplainly about Abraham Lincoln.rnThe reason for Lincoln’s canonization is simple: the Americanrnregime rests upon Lincoln’s accomplishment, because Lincolnrndestroyed the Old Republic of the Founding Fathers andrnlaid the foundation for a new order in which the go’ernmentrnexercises absolute power in the name of equality and humanrnrights. Lincoln’s personal ambition and political inexperiencernled to a war that devastated the wealthiest section of the UnitedrnStates and turned the peaceful republic of Jefferson andrnJackson into a plutocratic empire whose arm is stationed allrnover the worid. Worst of all, it was Lincoln who taught Americanrndemagogues to misappropriate the language of Scripturernand to turn practical political questions into holy crusades forrnhuman rights.rnIn the course of their great crusade, the President and hisrnchief generals concerted the first total war of modern times,rna war waged against the women and children of the South:rnhouses were burned, food and property stolen, women (mostlyrnblack) were raped—all on a grand scale and as part of a deliberaternpolie to starve and torture the Southern people into submission.rnLincoln’s innovations were recognized and condemnedrnas revolutionary by the European powers. ThernPresident, in his simplicity, could not understand what the fussrnwas about. In the event. Grant and Sherman were ])roved right,rnand with the partial exception of the Franco-Prussian War, everyrnmajor military conflict since the American “Civil War” hasrnbeen a total war waged against soldiers and civilians alike.rnIn 1997 American troops are quartered in a hundred differentrncountries, most prominently in Bosnia, which we ha’e conqueredrnin order to assist the anti-Christian jihad going on there.rnIn the eariy 19th ccntur’, we refused to go to war to help the republicsrnof Latin America or nations like Greece and Serbiarnfighting to liberate themselves from the Turks—it wasn’t ourrnfight, wc said. Today, we are doing everything in our power torngive those nations back to the Turks, as part of an imperialrngrand design whose origins lie in the Lincoln administration,rnwhich began our government’s policy of imperialism by conqueringrnand subjugating the once-free states of the South.rnPrevious empires have been more frank in describing theirrnactivities. The Athenians and Romans spoke of peace and civilization,rnbut also of glory and self-interest. We, however, arernnot by nature an imperial race and cloak our worst actions inrnthe mantle of religious language. We are in Bosnia to protectrnhuman rights and to reestablish demoeracv—as if Turks hadrnthe slightest idea of what that would mean. We went to Vietnamrnto stop the spread of godless communism. We have spentrnvirtually the entire century promoting wars to end all wars, wagingrnperpetual war for perpetual peace.rnLincoln’s admirers have said that he was motivated by arncommitment to equality and a respect for African-Americanrnslaves. However, the racial attitudes espoused bv Lincoln andrnhis colleagues are closer to those of the KKK than to those ofrnthe NAACP. As early as 1837 Lincoln argued that “ThernCongress of the Ihiited States has no power under the Constitutionrnto interfere with the institution of slavery in the differentrnstates.” I lis Emancipation Proclamation was a strictly politicalrnact designed to appeal to European liberals. In fact, it only appliedrnto sknes outside Lincoln’s jurisdiction, not to slaves heldrnin the slae states within the Union.rnIn the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln expressed hisrnracism with brutal frankness: “I am not, nor ever have been inrnfavor of bringing about in an)’ way the social and political equalityrnof the white and black races [applause] . . . I am not nor everrnhave been in faor of making voters or jurors of negroes, norrnof qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarr- with whiternOCTOBER 1997/11rnrnrn