Our Birthday Present to Abraham Lincoln: Excoriating Those Who Would Trash Him
February 12, 2025
In January, writer Margeaux Sippell published an article entitled “5 Ugly Abraham Lincoln Facts No One Likes to Talk About” in MovieMaker.
From a Guardians of History Team Member
Upon just reading the title of this article, I prepared myself for a salacious attack on Lincoln’s personal life, details that revealed his relationship with his wife and family as a result of a lifelong battle with depression. I was even ready to see some accusations that Lincoln was a closeted homosexual, alas the reason behind his depression. I am in no way giving credence to any of the stories that have circulated of late, I am just revealing I have heard just about every unfounded and slanderous thing that could be said about President Lincoln. I was pleasantly surprised to see the author steered clear of these accusations and attempted to frame Lincoln as fixated on saving the union after the southern states seceded and the Civil War broke out. Nothing newsworthy there despite the author’s determination to paint Lincoln as disinterested in ending slavery because it was a moral abomination. Her other talking points only show Lincoln, faced with slavery and a Civil War, attempted to grapple with the aftermath of the war and the freedom of the enslaved. Brainstorming, testing, or discussing various ideas in an attempt to win the war and deal with former slaves, was not a bad or ugly thing Lincoln did. In fact, we need more leaders focused on immediate problems, and correcting longstanding ones.
What I found in reviewing the comments left by other readers of the article renewed my faith and determination that in the war over our culture and history, the truth is not lost on the common men and women, outside of the intellectual elite establishment. The talking heads who push revisionist views of history and historic figures are losing!
The commenters overwhelmingly rejected the author’s attempt to judge Lincoln according to our present mores and “enlightened” humanity. I roared with laughter and air high-fived, reading comment after comment telling the author, she had unfairly judged Lincoln by attempting to view his actions through today’s eyes. Yes, common sense prevails, and the attempts to trash our nation’s history is coming up against resistance.
Sippell’s Revisionist Version of Lincoln Does Not Withstand Scrutiny
Perhaps we should investigate the particulars about the author of ‘Five Ugly Things’. According to IntelligentRelations.com, Margeaux Sippell “is a Film Reporter at MovieMaker Magazine. She focuses on various aspects of arts and entertainment, particularly film and cinema, while also exploring themes related to social issues, LGBTQ topics, and the intersection of culture and society.”
Like left-wing historians, the non-historian author, Ms. Margeaux Sippell, portrays Abraham Lincoln as a racist who did not care about the enslaved or about the abomination of the institution. She writes, “Lincoln’s main goal during his presidency, which began just before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, was to preserve the Union — not to free slaves. “
According to A Patriot’s History Of The United States, From Columbus’ Great Discovery To The War On Terror, the opposite is true. Abraham Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union AND free the slaves because without freeing the slaves we wouldn’t have a Union.
According to the book, Lincoln “intended to rip out the heart of the rebellion and destroy the institution that had torn the nation asunder.”
In A Patriot’s History..., real historians, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, wrote about Abraham Lincoln on racial issues. They conclude “on racial issues, Lincoln led; he did not follow.” He “marched far ahead” of most of his contemporaries when it came to race relations. Lincoln “embraced the moral and logical designation of slavery as an inherent evil.”
At his last debate with Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said that slavery was a “moral, social, and a political wrong” that must not be allowed to continue.
Ms. Sippell writes, “He Didn’t Always View People of Color as Equals.”
We’ll just let Lincoln’s words in his final debate with Douglas speak here. Lincoln declared that the black man was “entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.” These are not the words of a racist.
President Lincoln was livid when he learned that his friend, supporter, and editor, Frederick Douglass, had been banned from attending his second inaugural’s evening gala. Lincoln ordered his admission and “greeted him warmly and proudly,” with “here comes my friend Douglass!” Again, not a racist move.
On the rule of law, Lincoln was nearly alone in understanding that “the central threat to the Republic posed by slavery lay in the corruption of the law” by the slave states. Lincoln perceived that “slavery alone produced a giant contradiction that transcended all sectional issues: that it put at risk both liberty and equality for all races, not just equality as is often presumed.”
By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln insisted on paying black soldiers the same as white soldiers “despite hostile opposition from his own advisers” making him a proponent of equal justice under the law and not a racist.
As a Republican abolitionist, Lincoln intended, through his appointment power, to place federal judges in positions in the South where “they would rule in favor of runaway slaves, uphold slaves’ rights, and undermine the awful institution.”
In her defamation of President Lincoln, Ms. Sippell has proven to be yet another Democrat who hates Republicans for ending slavery. Clearly, she should stick with writing about rich, shallow, and arrogant people who pretend to be something they are not, the Hollywood-types covered in MovieMaker.
Our Conclusion
If you see other articles by this author, call her out, using comments, emails, or just alerting friends and family she is a revisionist. And in all cases speak out when you recognize a revisionist is at work. Doing this makes you a Guardian of History - welcome to the fight!
February 12, 2025
- We celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s 216th birthday today
In January, writer Margeaux Sippell published an article entitled “5 Ugly Abraham Lincoln Facts No One Likes to Talk About” in MovieMaker.
From a Guardians of History Team Member
Upon just reading the title of this article, I prepared myself for a salacious attack on Lincoln’s personal life, details that revealed his relationship with his wife and family as a result of a lifelong battle with depression. I was even ready to see some accusations that Lincoln was a closeted homosexual, alas the reason behind his depression. I am in no way giving credence to any of the stories that have circulated of late, I am just revealing I have heard just about every unfounded and slanderous thing that could be said about President Lincoln. I was pleasantly surprised to see the author steered clear of these accusations and attempted to frame Lincoln as fixated on saving the union after the southern states seceded and the Civil War broke out. Nothing newsworthy there despite the author’s determination to paint Lincoln as disinterested in ending slavery because it was a moral abomination. Her other talking points only show Lincoln, faced with slavery and a Civil War, attempted to grapple with the aftermath of the war and the freedom of the enslaved. Brainstorming, testing, or discussing various ideas in an attempt to win the war and deal with former slaves, was not a bad or ugly thing Lincoln did. In fact, we need more leaders focused on immediate problems, and correcting longstanding ones.
What I found in reviewing the comments left by other readers of the article renewed my faith and determination that in the war over our culture and history, the truth is not lost on the common men and women, outside of the intellectual elite establishment. The talking heads who push revisionist views of history and historic figures are losing!
The commenters overwhelmingly rejected the author’s attempt to judge Lincoln according to our present mores and “enlightened” humanity. I roared with laughter and air high-fived, reading comment after comment telling the author, she had unfairly judged Lincoln by attempting to view his actions through today’s eyes. Yes, common sense prevails, and the attempts to trash our nation’s history is coming up against resistance.
Sippell’s Revisionist Version of Lincoln Does Not Withstand Scrutiny
Perhaps we should investigate the particulars about the author of ‘Five Ugly Things’. According to IntelligentRelations.com, Margeaux Sippell “is a Film Reporter at MovieMaker Magazine. She focuses on various aspects of arts and entertainment, particularly film and cinema, while also exploring themes related to social issues, LGBTQ topics, and the intersection of culture and society.”
Like left-wing historians, the non-historian author, Ms. Margeaux Sippell, portrays Abraham Lincoln as a racist who did not care about the enslaved or about the abomination of the institution. She writes, “Lincoln’s main goal during his presidency, which began just before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, was to preserve the Union — not to free slaves. “
According to A Patriot’s History Of The United States, From Columbus’ Great Discovery To The War On Terror, the opposite is true. Abraham Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union AND free the slaves because without freeing the slaves we wouldn’t have a Union.
According to the book, Lincoln “intended to rip out the heart of the rebellion and destroy the institution that had torn the nation asunder.”
In A Patriot’s History..., real historians, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, wrote about Abraham Lincoln on racial issues. They conclude “on racial issues, Lincoln led; he did not follow.” He “marched far ahead” of most of his contemporaries when it came to race relations. Lincoln “embraced the moral and logical designation of slavery as an inherent evil.”
At his last debate with Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said that slavery was a “moral, social, and a political wrong” that must not be allowed to continue.
Ms. Sippell writes, “He Didn’t Always View People of Color as Equals.”
We’ll just let Lincoln’s words in his final debate with Douglas speak here. Lincoln declared that the black man was “entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.” These are not the words of a racist.
President Lincoln was livid when he learned that his friend, supporter, and editor, Frederick Douglass, had been banned from attending his second inaugural’s evening gala. Lincoln ordered his admission and “greeted him warmly and proudly,” with “here comes my friend Douglass!” Again, not a racist move.
On the rule of law, Lincoln was nearly alone in understanding that “the central threat to the Republic posed by slavery lay in the corruption of the law” by the slave states. Lincoln perceived that “slavery alone produced a giant contradiction that transcended all sectional issues: that it put at risk both liberty and equality for all races, not just equality as is often presumed.”
By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln insisted on paying black soldiers the same as white soldiers “despite hostile opposition from his own advisers” making him a proponent of equal justice under the law and not a racist.
As a Republican abolitionist, Lincoln intended, through his appointment power, to place federal judges in positions in the South where “they would rule in favor of runaway slaves, uphold slaves’ rights, and undermine the awful institution.”
In her defamation of President Lincoln, Ms. Sippell has proven to be yet another Democrat who hates Republicans for ending slavery. Clearly, she should stick with writing about rich, shallow, and arrogant people who pretend to be something they are not, the Hollywood-types covered in MovieMaker.
Our Conclusion
If you see other articles by this author, call her out, using comments, emails, or just alerting friends and family she is a revisionist. And in all cases speak out when you recognize a revisionist is at work. Doing this makes you a Guardian of History - welcome to the fight!