Documented: Commentaries from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he espouses the Libertarian argument (put forward by people such as Thomas J. DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute) that Abraham Lincoln was a terrible president (was "majorily insane", committed "atrocities") who should have allowed the Southren states to succeed (as was their right); but did not due to him being a crony capitalist who needed tariff money (extracted from the South) to dole out to his northern industrialist cronies (to cement his power).
3/15/2014 at 2:44pm. Post.
A Seceding Idea.
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better". Abraham Lincoln, 1848.
3/15/2014 at 7:23pm. Post.
A Seceding Idea - Discussion.
So, why did Mr. Lincoln change his tune on this? It certainly couldn't have been because of slavery (numerous quotations from the man continued to indicate his willingness to maintain legalized slavery if in fact the union could be saved). My personal theory is that he just got so addicted to the tariff revenue which had fallen disproportionately on the Southern states and with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself.
P.S. And it wasn't as if there was any sort of huge groundswell coming from the North to halt the South from seceding, either. In fact, it was just the opposite in that public opinion (right along with many major newspapers and even abolitionists - William Lloyd Garrison had even stated that slavery was probably more secure in the union than it was outside of it - a lesser incentive, monetarily, to return runaway slaves) was strongly opposed to a war and the citizens certainly didn't want to fight in one (and hence the need for conscription). As much as I hate to say it here, this war was Abraham Lincoln's war.
[The Great Civil War Lie, a 6/5/2013 NYT article, says tariffs being the reason for succession is a myth. See: Delusional Free Trader Taken In By Myth That Civil War Was Fought Over Tariffs SWTD #241, 3/19/2014].
3/15/2014 at 10:45pm. Comment.
He [Lincoln] was against the South seceding but had no problem allowing (even encouraging) West Virginia from seceding from Virginia (even going as far as installing a puppet regime there).
3/17/2014 at 7:36pm. Post.
On the Civil War Having Been Fought Over Slavery 1.
"The sole object of the war is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side". Ulysses S. Grant, 1862.
3/17/2014 at 8:21pm. Post.
On Lincoln, Slavery, and the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is one of the biggest jokes in American history. a) It wasn't penned until the war was well into its second year and b) it didn't free a single solitary slave. Yep, that's right, folks, the document only claimed to emancipate slaves from the Confederate territories and, if anything, it codified the institution in other places (in the Northern and border slave states such as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, counties of West Virginia, and even in those parts of the Confederacy which at that point were under Union control; sections of Louisiana, for instance). And even in the Confederacy, those states and localities would have also been exempt if in fact they had returned to the Union by January 1, 1863!!!
So, if the document wasn't for a humanitarian cause, what then? A lot of (non-Lincoln worshiping) scholars have concluded that (especially being that the document was written when it looked like the South was winning) it was written essentially for two purposes, both quite inflammatory; a) to incite a series of slave revolts that would take a lot of the Confederate soldiers off the front and b) to replenish their own depleted forces with freed slaves. Now, obviously the slaves eventually were set free after the war but to say that this was the primary aim of Lincoln and this little document of his is false and I believe that I've proven that.
3/18/2014 at 8:32pm. Post.
On the Civil War Having Been Fought Over Slavery 2.
"There is a natural disgust to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races... A separation of the races (via a shipping of black people across the Atlantic to Liberia) is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation." Abraham Lincoln, 1857.
"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 have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people". Abraham Lincoln, 1858.
"I now assure you that I neither had, nor have, nor ever had any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution of slavery." Abraham Lincoln, 1859".
"...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so". Abraham Lincoln, 1861 (part of his first inaugural address).
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it". Abraham Lincoln, 1862.
3/19/2014 at 7:50pm. Comment.
BB, are you insinuating that Mr. Lincoln was not a hard-core protectionist who fully supported the draconian tariffs which by that time were disproportionately affecting the South (an interesting assertion in that most historians recognize that Lincoln could have never been elected without first having courting northern industrialists and getting these folks to believe that he was NOT a free-trader)?
3/19/2014 at 7:58pm. Comment.
And while it may be true that Lincoln might have had some personal ambivalence regarding slavery (though please keep in mind here that HIS version of a free black man was one of an inferior human being on a boat heading back to Africa), his political positions on the subject were totally UNambivalent (his first inaugural pledging support for both the Corwin Amendment - which codified slavery into the Constitution - and the Fugitive Slave Act) and an abolitionist he was not.
3/19/2014 at 9:26pm. Post.
A Very Simple Question for the Cult of Lincoln.
If Mr. Lincoln was so opposed to slavery, then why did he not abolish it in those places where he had the power to; the northern and border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland, numerous counties in West Virginia, and the northern occupied parts of the Confederacy (New Orleans and other sections of Louisiana)?
That, and why did the dude wait until it looked like the South was winning before he put forth this wonderful Emancipation Proclamation (which, again, only made slavery illegal in the Confederacy)? Da' ya' think that maybe it was because he was trying to stir up a little bit of trouble down there? That's my theory.
3/19/2014 at 9:38pm. Comment.
Shaw, have you read Lincoln's first inaugural address? In it he pledges to leave slavery alone, support the Corwin Amendment, and enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (which would not have been enforced at all after secession). Couple that with the fact that the Democrats continued to control Congress and still had the Supreme Court solidly in their hands and what you have here is essentially paranoia (on the South's part). And that's only half of the equation. Lincoln - he could have given a rat's ass about the slaves and fully intended to send them all back to Africa the very first chance afforded him.
3/20/2014 at 1:53pm. Comment.
The comments that I gave (and I'm pretty sure that I've read just as much history as you) are from 1857, 1856, 1859, 1861, and 1862, and the the topic was whether the Civil War was fought (at least from the North's perspective) over slavery. IT WAS NOT in that Lincoln supported both the Corwin Amendment and the Fugitive Slave Act and even a lot of the abolitionists (William Lloyd Garrison, for Christ!) had voiced a full-throated opposition to it.
3/20/2014 at 2:00pm. Comment.
And when did Lincoln precisely change his mind, Shaw? It sure wasn't when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation in that that document essentially codified slavery in the Northern and border states, most of West Virginia, and most of the conquered Confederacy. AND it said that the Confederate states could in fact have slavery again if they simply returned to the Union by 1/1/1863. I hate to say it, Shaw, but it sounds like most of the "history" that you've read had been from the pen of the court historians (idiots like Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc.) and not the actual scholars like Mr. Garraty who I quoted in the subsequent post.
3/20/2014 at 2:17pm. Post.
You Didn't Dig Deep Enough, Shaw.
1) http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/address-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/ 2) http://books.google.com/books?id=1xKD6b-w1JMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=georgia+secession+debate+stephens&hl=en&ei=VV5ETeOEC4ragQfI7M3_AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tariff&f=false 3) http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
4) "A protectionist tariff gives to one section (the North) the power of recharging (passing on the cost) while to the other (the South) it is a pure unmitigated burden". John C. Calhoun. 5) The tariff issue (which had been a major bone of contention between the northern and southern FOR DECADES) was was the main one in the hotly contested ballot for Speaker of the House in 1858 to the point where the ballot was deadlocked for over two months. 6) The Morrill Tariff was passed in 1860 on a strict North-South vote. 7) The secessionists in fact DID both contemplate and debate the tariff issue at length and the only reason that it wasn't more prominently put forth was because the central government had previously backed down (in 1828) on it.
3/20/2014 at 2:29pm. Comment.
And it's not entirely clear that Mr. Lincoln EVER gave up his notion of colonization, unless, of course, you're a mind-reader, Shaw - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/lincoln-colonization-and-the-sound-of-silence/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
3/20/2014 at 2:33pm. Comment.
And what's with this whole superimposition of LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE here? Conservatives support slavery and liberals can't be bigots (you're obviously unaware that a lot of the early PROGRESSIVES were actually some of the most virulent racists on the planet; Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Teddy Roosevelt, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, etc.)? Come on, Shaw!!
3/20/2014 at 4:00pm. Comment.
My sources, Shaw, are the Emancipation Proclamation (which essentially codified slavery in all of the territory controlled by the Union) and Lincoln's own inaugural address in which he promised to support the Corwin Amendment and even vowed to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Act. AND in which he threatened an invasion of the South if they didn't pay the tariff that his party MORE THAN DOUBLED!!
3/20/2014 at 4:04pm. Comment.
And if the vast British empire was able to get rid of slavery without a war I kinda think that we could done so as well eventually. 700,000 deaths, Shaw. Hundreds of thousands of amputees. That doesn't bother you?
3/20/2014 at 4:54pm. Post.
You Didn't Dig Deep Enough, Shaw, Continued.
"The South is an agricultural people whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country. Or true policy is peace and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is It is alike our interests, to all of those we would sell and from whom we would buy that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, 1861 (his inaugural address).
Now, compare that to this; "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against it, or among the people anywhere. There needs to be no bloodshed or violence and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority." Abraham Lincoln, 1861 (his inaugural address).
There it is, Shaw. Presidents Lincoln and Davis BOTH included tariffs in their inaugural addresses and the former actually went as far as to threaten the South with force if the tariffs were not secured. Pretty damn interesting, huh?
3/21/2014 at 9:41pm. Comment.
Yes, from 1832 to 1857, the tariff was actually quite low (Andy Jackson having caved in prior to Lincoln). But it was more than doubled by the Morrill Act and look at Lincoln's inaugural. He was 100% accommodating to slavery and then he threatened invasion if the South didn't pony up. To me, at least with Abe Lincoln, the economic factors were far more imperative. I would also add that free trade ideas didn't originate with the Austrians; Frederic Bastiat's "The Petition of the Candlemakers" being an obvious precursor. P.S. I appreciate your contention that there were many factors and causes. THAT I agree with.
3/20/2014 at 9:57pm. Comment.
Relax, Shaw, we're all against slavery. The debate here is whether Lincoln and the North went to to war with the Southern states over slavery and I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that they didn't, based on what Lincoln said in his inaugural, what he said in that now infamous letter to Horace Greeley, what the Congress said in 1861, and what the Emancipation DIDN'T do in terms of freeing those slaves that Lincoln had the power to free.
I'm also strongly of the opinion that we could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without 3% of the population being murdered (a substantial number of them being civilians as a part of Lincoln's "total war") and half of the country's total net worth being destroyed. Literally every other country in the world (Haiti being the exception) did it that way and so, why not us? I mean, everybody does have a price, right?
3/20/2014 at 9:59pm. Comment.
What can I say, Russ. I knew that I was going to touch a chord with this whole Lincoln thing (the Church of Lincoln a lot of people call it) and damned if I wasn't right.
3/21/2014 at 9:31pm. Post.
On Ending Slavery.
Of course slavery was an abominable institution (and certainly far worse than Lincoln considered it) and of course it had to end. But let me ask you a question here. Suppose I told you that we could totally wipe out all of the violence in Darfur or Syria, but that it would cost us $8 trillion and 7 million lives - would you still say, "Yeah, let's do it?" Probably not, huh? Well that's exactly what the Civil War cost this country in the 19th Century (extrapolating from wealth and population) and I continue to be fully convinced (as were a great many northerners; newspaper writers, the majority of the public, a lot of abolitionists even - William Lloyd Garrison amongst them) that it was unnecessary.
I mean, think about it here. Are the Civil War proponents and Lincoln Worshipers (The Church of Lincoln, Judge Napolitano calls them) really saying that American southerners were so much more virulent than the Brits who colonized and brutalized Asia, Africa, Australia, etc. that they absolutely, positively couldn't have been reasoned with, EVER? I just don't buy it. And, AND, if in fact the South did secede, the Fugitive Slave Act (which Mr. Lincoln fully supported and actually worked to strengthen via his pushing of a resolution in the Crittenden Amendment which would have made any state's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act totally NULL AND VOID) would have no longer been applicable. Once a slave crossed over into Ohio or Pennsylvania, that would have been it - no more a slave!
I don't know, folks, I think what we may have developed here (in addition to a cult of Lincoln) is a sort of time-tied lack of perspective on the matter; the fact that we are just so far removed from an event that caused 700,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands of amputees, the writ of habeas corpus having been flushed down the toilet, tens of thousands of civilians (the largest percentage of which having never once owned a slave) having been raped, tortured, and murdered, and half the country's resources having been obliterated that it's just about as real as a video game now. Holy shit, huh?
P.S. And as far the Civil War having gotten rid of slavery, yeah, it ultimately did. But, so, too, would have a solar flare, meteor, volcano - massive enough, and/or a return of the ice-age. I'm just sayin'.
3/22/2014 at 1:32pm. Comment.
Actual historians, those that write the textbooks and teach the classes, have always seen Mr. Lincoln in a very mixed light. It's only the celebrity historians who've recently (starting in the '60s) attempted to glorify the man and whitewash his atrocities.
3/22/2014 at 1:44pm. Comment.
Lincoln makes George W. Bush seem like a civil libertarian; jailing (and torturing) people WITHOUT CHARGES merely for speaking out against the war, establishing a secret police, intercepting telegraphs, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, closing down hundreds of newspapers, confiscating and destroying property, crushing the New York City draft riots, even deporting a Congressman. The fellow was a dictator, BB. I'm sorry but he was.
3/22/2014 at 2:44pm. Comment.
He's [Dervish Sanders] a total moron, Russ. Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's (as Professor Garraty eloquently stated, slavery wasn't even remotely in trouble and so it had to have been economic and nationalistic reasons for those states to secede). But, yes, he has to have narrative and anybody who challenges it he has to label as evil. The man is utterly grade-school, Russ.
[Re the "introductory history course" WTNPH thinks I haven't taken, see SWTD #256].
3/22/2014 at 7:17pm. Comment.
I'm not sure that that Constitutional proviso extends itself to simply having an opinion, BB. And especially not to simply remaining silent (something that the fascists Lincoln and Seward apparently thought of as tantamount to treason).
>3/22/2014 at 1:28pm. Post.
On "Historian", Doris Kearns Goodwin, Referring to Lincoln as a "Master Politician".
She meant it as a compliment. Need to know more?
3/22/2014 at 8:21pm. Post.
On the Concept of Lincoln Freeing the Slaves.
I really want the folks to think about this one. Lincoln EXPRESSLY told the South that they could continue to practice slavery and all that they had to do was stay in the union and pay the tariff, and that, even if he did want to end slavery, it probably would have been unconstitutional (HIS words). So (and, yes, this is where the absurdity comes to fore), if the South eventually did pull back and opted NOT to leave the Union, SLAVERY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED (possibly for decades - depending on the political will) and all of this talk about Lincoln as the "great emancipator" would have never happened!! The South, folks, made Lincoln!
3/22/2014 at 8:30pm. Comment.
The Emancipation Proclamation actually codified slavery in all of the territories where Mr. Lincoln COULD have ended it, and ended it only in the places where he couldn't. AND it promised to restore slavery in any of the states that returned to the Union by 1/1/1863. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing any greatness, courage, or anything there. I do appreciate your open-mindedness, though, and the fact that you're at least considering my points.
3/23/2014 at 7:22pm. Comment.
It was the 13th Amendment, Jerry [that freed the slaves]. The Senate passed it in 1864 and the House passed it in 1865 and then Lincoln had no choice but to sign it.
3/24/2014 at 3:48pm. Post.
On Lincoln's Imprisonment and Deportation of Congressman Clement Vallandigham Simply For Opposing His Policies, The War, The Administration's Legal Tender Act, Etc.
Can you even begin to imagine if George Bush Jr. had done something like this; throwing guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich into the brig and then shipping their asses off to Canada? Every frigging progressive AND libertarian in the country would have gone ballistic and he probably would have been impeached (especially after the Dems had taken control of the House) as well. Lincoln, on the other hand.
3/24/2014 ta 5:02pm. Comment.
What was he [Lincoln] going to do, not sign it [the 13th Amendment], after the House, the Senate, and 27 states ratified it, and after he had committed to supporting it? The man was as fucking racist, Jerry, and crediting him for emancipation is kind of like crediting the dew for the sun rising in the morn.
3/25/2014 at 7:36pm. Comment.
Lincoln certainly isn't alone in trashing the Constitution (Nixon and FDR both providing some stiff competition), BB, but he is in fact the champ of it. Just ask all of those political prisoners that he housed at McHenry and Lafayette, all of those poor Irish folks that he snuffed out during the New York City draft riots, those 38 Dakota Sioux that he hung (the largest mass execution in U.S. history) after giving them all a 5 minute trial, those 300 plus newspapers that he closed down simply for opposing his policies, those thousands of civilians that he ordered as a part of his "total war" (McClellan write a letter to Lincoln complaining about this strategy and Lincoln tossed it) to be slaughtered, all of those people who had their homes and cities burnt to a crisp and their property confiscated, etc. They'll tell ya'.
3/26/2014 at 8:39am. Post.
Slavery to a Theory.
The states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas all initially voted to stay in the Union. It was only after Lincoln invaded the south and wreaked havoc that they decided to secede. So, at least for those four states, slavery was NOT the major rationale.
3/26/2014 at 10:34pm. Comment.
a) Lincoln broke the truce first by sending down that war ship (his goal was to get the South to fire first so he could then go in and bludgeon them). b) Not a single person was killed by that bombardment. c) Lincoln immediately sent down 75,000 troops into South Carolina and the four states that I mention only seceded after that.
3/26/2014 at 10:53pm. Comment.
I would also add that there were numerous overtures to arrive at a negotiated settlement (Napoleon the 3rd even volunteered to act as an arbiter) prior to the war and Lincoln rebuffed them all.
3/28/2014 at 9:32pm.
BB, the naval blockade started on April 19th and by April 27th it had enveloped Virginia and North Carolina and this is the sequence according to John A. Garraty, "This attack (on Fort Sumter) precipitated a great outburst of patriotic indignation in the North. Lincoln promptly issued a call for 75,000 volunteers which in turn caused Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee to secede".
3/29/2014 at 9:02pm. Post.
How to Start a War and Not Get Blamed For It - Lincoln Style.
"The U.S. Steamers Powatan, Pawnee, Pochahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force under your command to be sent to Charleston. The object is to provision Sumter. Should the Confederates attempt to prevent resupply, YOU WILL OPEN THE WAY (my emphasis)." Naval Secretary, Gideon Welles to Captain Mercer, April 5th 1861.
"Proceed to Charleston and, if on arrival, the flag is still flying, procure interview with Governor Pickens and read him this, 'I am directed by the President to say an attempt will be made to supply Sumter with supplies only, but if such an attempt is resisted, MEN AND ARMS WILL BE THROWN IN (again, my emphasis)'". President Lincoln to Robert Chew, April 6th 1861.
Both of these telegraphs were intentionally transmitted in a manner that the South could easily intercept. The fact of the matter is that Lincoln never really intended to back either of these threats with actual force but that he wanted the South to think the just opposite in what was obviously a brazen attempt to get them to fire first. Pretty darn conniving, huh?
4/2/2014 at 9:41pm. Post.
Lincoln's First Inaugural - In a Nutshell.
Slavery forever and if you don't pay the tariffs you die.
4/3/2014 at 8:07pm. Comment.
"The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against it, or among the people anywhere. There needs to be no bloodshed or violence and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority". There it is, Lincoln's own words in 1861. If there's another way to interpret that, please let me know.
4/4/2014 at 8:03pm. Comment.
Context? Go check out the speech and if you can find me anything anywhere in that slavery friendly little ditty which tempers what seems to me to be an openly hostile threat of violence, I will be more than happy to reconsider. And one of the bones of contention between the North and the South was the fact that a handful of northern states were NULLIFYING the Fugitive Slave Act. Were they using it as a "weapon", too?
And I'm sorry but when you have a situation in which a region with 30% of the population is paying 80% of the taxes and seeing virtually bubkas in services on the other end, that is abuse (not to mention, cronyism).
4/19/2014 at 9:51am. Post.
A Devastating Indictment on the Policies of Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln (The Holy Trinity of Crony Capitalism).
"Henry Clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offers shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises. He was the beloved son (figuratively speaking) of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had no platform to announce, because its principles were plunder and nothing else". Edgar Lee Masters, "Lincoln the Man", 1931.
4/19/2014 at 1:29pm. Comment.
Hamilton led to Clay. Clay led to Lincoln. Lincoln led to TR and Wilson. TR and Wilson led to Hoover and FDR. Hoover and FDR led to LBJ and Nixon. And LBJ and Nixon led to Bush and Obama. And it isn't just domestic policy that I'm talking about here. You had Clay being one of the leading war hawks wanting us to invade Canada. You had Lincoln squandering half of the country's wealth and 5% of its population on the Civil War. You had TR pushing McKinley (and ultimately taking over himself) into a war with the Philippines. You had Wilson getting us involved in WW1. You had LBJ and Nixon getting us involved in Vietnam. And now we have the Bush/Obama foreign policy.
5/28/2014 at 9:46pm. Post.
On the Ludicrous Notion that the Civil War was Fought Over Slavery.
Let's just get the facts on the ground here (in 1861), OK? a) The U.S. Supreme Court was solidly behind the slave-holding states. b) The Constitution expressly protected slavery and mandated the return of fugitive slaves everywhere. c) Lincoln (in his inaugural) declared that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and that he had no right to interfere with slavery (and that he also had no personal inclination to). d) Lincoln also pledged to support a new constitutional amendment (the Corwin Amendment) which would have protected slavery FOREVER (an amendment literally made irrevocable) and another one that would have made nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act illegal. e) Wall Street and the other northern economic powers that be also supported slavery/the status quo. f) The vast majority of northern citizens either supported slavery or were exceedingly ambivalent to it (abolitionists probably representing less than 5% of the populace).
g) Yes, a lot of the southern states did emphasize slavery in their articles but that can quite readily be brushed aside by examining the politics. I cite this specifically from the North American Review (Boston, October 1862) - "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion. Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, to fire the Southern heart, and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced. Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation". So slavery was a political ploy, in other words, and damned if that doesn't make a hell of a lot more sense.
h) One could also logically argue that slavery would have probably been more secure IN the union, in that the Fugitive Slave Act would have no longer been applicable (once a slave had escaped and crossed into the North he would have been liberated, period) had the South seceded.
5/5/2014 at 9:35pm. Post.
On the American Civil War.
It wasn't a civil war. A civil war is when two participants vie for the control of one government and one piece of territory. All that the American South wanted to do was leave and start a new government (similar to what the New England states has contemplated in the early 19th Century and the Middle Atlantic states and New York City subsequent to that), a concept that even Abraham Lincoln himself had stated was fully constitutional as late as 1848. Big, big, difference, folks.
5/28/2014 at 7:28pm. Post.
Historian, Lee Kennett, On Lincoln and His Violations of International Law.
"Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up Lincoln and the entire Union command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants".
Oh, and if you think that the black people of the South fared any better under Union occupation, think again. This quote is from Mark Grimsley's 1995 book, "The Hard Hand of War" - "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked". That and there were literally hundreds of first hand accounts (many of which were ultimately put into letters and diaries and currently stored at the University of South Carolina) of black women being brutally raped by these very same soldiers (a large chunk of them having previously been thugs, big city criminals and immigrants recently released from European jails). Really nice, huh?
P.S. And I also want to point out here that professors Kennett and Grimsley are NOT libertarians and that they are both generally pro the North in their overall analysis. So, no, there isn't any sort of a southern bias period.
4/13/2015 at 3:59pm. Post (Mention of Lincoln Only).
On the Fact that FDR Genuinely Thought that Newspaper Writers, Robert McCormick, Joseph Patterson, and Cissy Patterson, Were Either Nazis or Nazi Sympathizers.
Yeah, we've had some majorly insane Presidents over the years; Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, Bush Jr. on a bad day - but this fellow may have been the most paranoiac and megalomaniacal of them all; the ill-fated court-packing scheme, the way that he and his thugs went after the poor Schecter brothers, the fact that he seemingly wanted war with Japan from day one, the fact that he once proposed a 100% top tax rate, the interning of Japanese-Americans, etc.. Of course, the fact that this dude is considered by many to be amongst our finest Presidents - that's the real scary part.
6/21/2015 at 5:21pm. Post.
On those Who Profited from Slavery.
Let's put it this way, folks. Those rich northern bankers and industrialists probably got a wee bit more out of it than the poor white trash from the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains did. Just ask the Mayor of New York in 1861.
6/24/2015 at 8:44am. Comment.
The Irish immigrants up north hated the draft, too. And the hundreds of newspapers that Lincoln closed down, HIS suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, his targeting of civilians, his jailing of people simply for free speech, etc. didn't exactly make him popular anywhere on the continent and a huge anti-war sentiment existed up north as well (Lincoln actually going as far as to deport Clement Vallandigham). And one could also easily say that "It was a war of aggression of the tariff addicted President, not of the people".
6/28/2014 at 9:15pm. Post (Mention of Lincoln Only).
On the Jackson, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush 2, and Obama Administrations.
Governments of men and not so much of laws.
7/18/2014 at 4:57pm.
The Battle Hymn of the Tax-Collectors.
According to tax historian, Charles Adams, the compromise tariffs of the 1830s and '40s represented approximately $107.5 million in total revenue; $90 million of which was paid by the South (just short of 84%). This was an extraordinary burden and when you also take into account the fact that a) the South had roughly half the population of the North and b) most of the revenue was being spent up North, it is exceeding easy to see why this was such a huge issue for the better part of 40 years (from the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 to the Black Tariff of 1846 to the Morrill Tariff of 1861) and a significant impetus for war (historian, Albert Bledsoe, quoting President Lincoln himself, "Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenue?").
7/23/2014 at 7:50pm. Post.
The Greatest Lie in American History.
You can take all of the lies of Bill Clinton, all of the lies of George W. Bush, and all of the lies of Barack Obama, put them together, and it still wouldn't add up to the one monumental lie that Abraham Lincoln (it was actually Daniel Webster's lie and Lincoln ran with it) told just prior to the Civil War; namely, that the Union preceded the States and that any State which attempted to secede from it was committing treason.
I mean, I know that Mr. Lincoln was a powerful persuader and all but on this particular issue he was either rewriting history to suit his own political purposes (lying through his teeth, in other words) or he was a total ignoramus when it came to the Constitution and/or American history. a) Literally every founding father (including the statist, Alexander Hamilton) had acknowledged the right of a state or states to secede. b) The New England states had threatened secession several times early in the 19th Century and on none of these occasions did the central government threaten invasion. c) James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated that, "not in the opinions or intentions of the body which planned and proposed it, but in those of the state conventions where it (the Constitution) received ALL THE AUTHORITY WHICH IT POSSESSES...". d) Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island all ultimately ratified the Constitution but only after they were given reassurances that they could exit it if they desired. e) The reason that the founding fathers approved of the right of secession was because they saw it as the ONLY check on a potentially tyrannical central government. f) Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, a treatise which unambiguously declared the supremacy of the individual states in the federal system (an act to which they received virtually zero criticism). g) The Declaration of Independence referred to the 13 colonies as "Free and Independent States". And h) the colonists had just fought a war to shed the repression of a powerful central government and so it is extremely unlikely that they would have willingly consented to yet another one.
Look, I get it. All Presidents lie (and, yes, the last three in particular have told some dandies). But when you get a lie that ultimately resulted in the killing or maiming of 5% of the population, a destruction of half the country's wealth, and a post-war occupation that thoroughly destroyed the possibility of healing between the races, you really gotta call the thing for what it is, and that I've tried to do.
7/31/2014 at 7:49pm. Post.
A Concise Deconstruction and Dismantling of President Lincoln's Cockamamie Negro Colonization Scheme.
"He (Lincoln) tries to accommodate himself to the vulgar prejudice of colour by taking for granted that the negroes must all go away somewhere. He openly declares that he hopes the free blacks will go away with the slaves, and he holds this out as the great recommendation of the (emancipation) plan to the citizens of the North. The people are, by Congress, to give money to buy a territory somewhere, outside of their own country; and there the four millions of the slaves are to be transported, with as many free blacks as can be induced or compelled to go with them. There they are to be colonised, at the expense, and by the care of the people of the United States. Such is Mr. Lincoln's pretended scheme. The four millions of negroes would be carried away from shelter and food, to be set down in a wilderness to starve. This looks like insanity".
The British periodical, "Once a Week", February 1862, piece entitled, "The Slave Difficulty in America". And this dude is the greatest President in American history? Really?
6/26/2015 at 10:00pm. Post.
On the Fact that Lincoln Killed More Southerners During the Civil War (AKA, the War for Southern Independence) than Hitler and Tojo Killed Americans All Throughout WW2.
This was such a senseless bloodbath that even the Europeans were shocked by it (and, yes, that is saying a lot).
6/27/2015 at 3:18pm. Post.
On the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
These debates are considered by many to be amongst the very best in U.S. history, and in a certain way they are. But they also unfortunately show just how unenlightened and bigoted that Lincoln was at this juncture; the fact that he was against blacks entering the territories, against citizenship for blacks, against any form of integration AND that he was in favor of colonization and the Illinois black codes. Look, I get it. Everyone was basically a bigot back then (including a large chunk of the abolition movement). But for folks to try and argue that Lincoln was any sort of great emancipator or an advocate of black people is absurd, and these debates prove it.
P.S. An excellent sampling of Lincoln's statements during these debates can be heard in this excellent lecture by Donald Livingston. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5wdfV-UaLI&list=PLkHxA43ZPRYKuvXJxla5V8EMhw5tj0dCT
7/7/2015 at 4:15pm. Post.
On the "Evolution" of Abe Lincoln.
Sorry but I just don't see it. a) His 1861 inaugural was essentially a slavery forever speech. b) He voiced well into the war that he would be willing to accept slavery if it meant saving the union. c) The Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a military strategy/document (the goal of it being a slave insurrection) in that it only freed slaves in the rebel territories (as opposed to those in the free and border states or occupied territories) and even there he promised that slavery could return if the South did likewise. And d) Lincoln continued (right up til his last breath) to plot ways that the U.S. could colonize Africans (Panama, Haiti, and Liberia being amongst the possible destinations) to the tune of getting them the hell out of America. Evolution smevolution, I say.
10/19/2015 at 4:29pm. Post.
On the Fact if Lincoln's Aim Was to "Resupply" Fort Sumter (Which in and of Itself Was Pure Bullshit in that the Fort Had Been Given Access to Charleston Markets Right on Up to the Crisis), He Could Have Done it with a Damned Rowboat and Certainly Didn't Need a Small Armada.
This is a common tactic of Presidents itching for a fight; provoking the other side to fire first. It's what Polk did when he paraded U.S. troops along the Rio Grand River (knowing fully well that nobody in Mexico considered that to be the border), what FDR did with his economic strangulation of Japan and his moving of troops and vessels closer and closer, what LBJ did with the first Gulf of Tonkin flash-point when he ordered the U.S destroyer Maddox into North Vietnamese waters as an aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuver and to act in synch with bellicose actions by the South (the second one being total fiction), what Bush senior did when he essentially waved Saddam Hussein into Kuwait to take the damned oil-fields, etc. I mean, I understand that a few of these Presidents are revered in certain quarters and all but in order to avoid these mistakes in the future, we at least have to acknowledge them and whatever else we do stop the hero-worship.
11/11/2015 at 8:38pm. Post.
On the Fact that Lincoln, Churchill, and Mandela Are the Three Leaders from History Who We Are Seemingly Not Allowed to Criticize.
Yes, I got the memo and, no, I will not follow it. The fact of the matter is that all three of these men were bloodthirsty statists whose ends (centralized power, taxation, empire, communism) were every bit as nasty as their means (targeting civilians, persecuting dissent, etc.) and the fact that we glorify them is as moronic as it is disturbing.
12/10/2015 at 2:58pm. Post.
The Emancipation Proclamation.
What would be my answer to the question, "So, what in your opinion is the most cynical, overrated, and meaningless document ever offered by a western leader (the fact that only "freed" slaves that were held in rebel territory, the fact that it allowed slavery to continue in the northern and border states and even in union-held rebel territory, the fact that it allowed a continuance of slavery in the southern states if the southern states stopped rebelling and returned to the union, the fact that it was essentially a military document in that its primary purpose was to foster a slave rebellion, etc.)?"
12/12/2015 at 9:32pm. Post.
On Lincoln Equating "Departing from" with "Destroying".
Delusional, illogical, and right up there with his contention that the Union preceded the states and his absolute ignoring of the 9th and 10th Amendments (where one could quite readily assert the right to self-determination) and replacing them with one of his own.
12/15/2015 at 9:54pm. Post.
On the Assertion that Abe Lincoln Was de Facto Less of a Racist than Jefferson Davis.
I don't have an absolute answer here. But the fact that a) Lincoln's '61 inaugural was basically a slavery in perpetuity speech (even going as far as to make nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act illegal), b) he never once opposed the virulently racist black codes of his own state of Illinois, and c) he was trying up til his dying breaths to figure out a way get black people out of the country (through "colonization" and as a contingency plan in lieu of emancipation) leads me to think that at the very minimum it's close.
2/12/2016 at 8:58pm. Post.
On Jon Stewart's Claim that Lincoln Didn't Emancipate the Slaves in the Border States Because He Didn't Want to Alienate the Inhabitants of Those States.
What an ignoramus. As anybody who knows anything about the Civil War will inform you, the Union occupations of Missouri, Tennessee, and Maryland were characterized by some of the most virulent cruelty and worst human rights violations in the country's history; forced expulsions, arrests and imprisonments with zero charges, murders, theft and plunder on a enormous scale, homes and churches burnt to the ground, free-speech and freedom of the press all but outlawed (numerous newspapers in the border states were either closed or taken over by Unionists), etc.. To even hypothesize that this one extra deprivation" (which if the North was truly motivated by racial justice should have been the first "property" taken) would have tipped the scales that had already been forced apart as far as possible is just plain ludicrous. Yeah, this Stewart fellow really needs to stick to pratfalls.
3/3/2016 at 4:03pm. Post.
On the Fact that Harry Jaffa and Other Members of the Lincoln Cult Actually Believe that Clement Vallandigham Was Not Only Responsible for the New York City Race Riots (and, Please, Keep in Mind Here that the Man Was Living in Exile in Canada at the Time) but Was Also Advising Robert E. Lee on War Strategy.
These people need to go on meds. They really do. And I ask you again, can you imagine if Barack Obama or George Bush had deported Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich simply for criticizing American military policy? They would have been impeached and all of us know it.
3/9/2016 at 8:51am. Post.
On the Warped Logic that, Since the South Fired the First Shot in the Civil War (the Truth Being that Lincoln Maneuvered Them Into this a la Polk with the Mexicans), this Gave Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler, etc. the Right to Ethnically-Cleanse and Dispossess Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Civilians and Starve to Death Three Year-Olds and the Elderly.
If any other nation or leader on earth had perpetrated these atrocities, it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror. But because it was us (and especially because it was Abe Lincoln), yeah, not so much. I really think that we need to start reexamining our history and, yes, especially those "good wars".
[Willis Hart Virulent Idiocy Has Him Referring To Civil War Atrocities As "Ethnic Cleansing" OST #118, 3/10/2016].
3/12/2016 at 3:20pm. Comment.
On the Fact that Lincoln's Heralded (Sarcasm, Yes) Emancipation Proclamation Didn't Even Apply to Union-Held New Orleans.
Because there wasn't a military upside to it, that's why... And, yes, please keep in mind here that Lincoln was even willing to let the rebel states resume slavery if they would only return to the Union by a certain time. Yeah he was some emancipator that Lincoln.
3/17/2016 at 3:26pm. Post.
The Truest Words Ever Spoken.
"Sir (in response to a blood-thirsty Federal thug proclaiming that 'niggers' were the cause of the Civil War), folks that are wanting war can always find a cause (a swift kick in the pants rapidly ensuing)". Blount Baker, a small North Carolina slave boy, "Slave Narratives", volume 11, part 1, page 65.
P.S. And, while, yes, the one positive thing from Lincoln's war was the end of slavery, let's not kid ourselves here. The fact of the matter is that this was the most bloody (unnecessarily so in my view - the casualty stats prorated to today's population being 7,000,000) and divisive emancipations in all of world history (making Haiti look like a vacation in the Adirondacks), and to say that this was a good war when the rest of planet got rid of this horrible institution with little to no bloodshed and that Lincoln was some sort of hero, sorry, cannot go there.
Posts that link here
[OST #118] Willis Hart Virulent Idiocy Has Him Referring To Civil War Atrocities As "Ethnic Cleansing", 3/10/2016.
[OST #126] Evolving Willis #2: Abraham Lincoln 180 Degree Flip-Flop, 4/9/2016. |
DSD #20
