Have you ever heard or read the Gettysburg Address?

[JungleBoy]

Lincoln was this countries worst president he is responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans, and raping of the US Constitution. He shut down papers, did not defend the 10th amendment, instituted martial law, illegaly created West Virgina, deported his main political enemy in the Senate, and encouraged blacks that were free to re-colonize to places like Haiti, and south America.

Lincoln was not some great Christian man who was a morally superior person as he is made out to children in text books. he was simply a tyrant and more than likely atheist. Great deals are made about the Gettysburg Address, and his second inaugural address, but look no further than his first inaugural address and see that the main cookie cutter arguments of why we "had" to fight the civil war are false.

I would encourage everyone to read Thomas J. DiLorenzo books on Lincoln they are very insightful, now enjoy the links below.


YouTube - Why Abraham Lincoln Sucked
YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Lincoln

 

[saread]

If you doubt the war was over slavery, you need to study up a little bit:

South Carolina Declaration of Secession
Mississippi Declaration of Secession
Georgia Declaration of Secession
Texas Declaration of Secession

From Lincoln's standpoint, he abhorred slavery. However, more important to him than abolition was a whole Union. He would have gladly traded a whole Union for slavery and said so many times. Initially, from the Union standpoint, the war was about preserving the country. From the Confederate view, it was always about preserving their most valued economic possession - slavery. Only when Lincoln was able to put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, did abolition become a Union cause and a rallying cry for a country that was severely torn about continuing a badly prosecuted war.

 

[trainsktg]

Mike, I must differ with you on a point. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, blacks were no more legally considered American citizens than were Native Americans, who by the way did not receive that status until 1924 with the passing of the Indian Citizenship Act. To purchase them and repatriate them to their ancestral land might have been considered compassionate in the context of thinking at the time. I think it is rather harsh to call it racist. Otherwise I agree with your points, and which is why I will never refer to the War Between the States as the War of Northern Aggression.

Edit: "Only when Lincoln was able to put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, did abolition become a Union cause and a rallying cry for a country that was severely torn about continuing a badly prosecuted war." Exactly right. Slavery was an issue even before the ratification of the Constitution. Of interest to note, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation applied only to enslaved Southern blacks. Shouldn't it have applied to ALL, if the war was indeed solely about slavery?

Good topic folks! Let's keep it up.

BTW: I'll be visiting Gettysburg with my family in early May.

Keith

 

[JungleBoy]

If you doubt the war was over slavery, you need to study up a little bit:

South Carolina Declaration of Secession
Mississippi Declaration of Secession
Georgia Declaration of Secession
Texas Declaration of Secession

From Lincoln's standpoint, he abhorred slavery. However, more important to him than abolition was a whole Union. He would have gladly traded a whole Union for slavery and said so many times. Initially, from the Union standpoint, the war was about preserving the country. From the Confederate view, it was always about preserving their most valued economic possession - slavery. Only when Lincoln was able to put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, did abolition become a Union cause and a rallying cry for a country that was severely torn about continuing a badly prosecuted war.

For you and others to continue to ignore Lincolns Hamiltonian mercantilism of high protectionist tariffs, other forms of corporate welfare, a central bank modeled after the Bank of England to pay for it all, and political patronage, and think that had nothing to do with the war is just plain silly.

To Quote Tom DiLorenzo

In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration — along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.

 

[MikeE]

Mike, I must differ with you on a point. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1898, blacks were no more legally considered American citizens than were Native Americans, who by the way did not receive that status until 1924 with the passing of the Indian Citizenship Act. To purchase them and repatriate them to their ancestral land might have been considered compassionate in the context of thinking at the time. I think it is rather harsh to call it racist. Otherwise I agree with your points, and which is why I will never refer to the War Between the States as the War of Northern Aggression.


Keith

I apologize for being harsh - always a danger for me. African Americans were always Americans - if the legal system did not recognize this, it was immoral (as Jefferson knew when he said " I fear for my country when I recognize that God is just."). They definitely made themselves citizens when they picked up the gun and fought for their freedom, which they did by the tens of thousands, and when they engaged in a South-wide general strike, leaving plantations and following behind Union forces. They themselves decided that being shipped back to Africa was a no-go. During the war, black POW's were sold back into slavery - if they were lucky. The amount of atrocities committed on black Union prisoners became so alarming that many people urged Lincoln to reply in kind, which he refused to do, although Union troops certainly committed their share of atrocities in the field.

 

[trainsktg]

For you and others to continue to ignore Lincolns Hamiltonian mercantilism of high protectionist tariffs, other forms of corporate welfare, a central bank modeled after the Bank of England to pay for it all, and political patronage, and think that had nothing to do with the war is just plain silly.

To Quote Tom DiLorenzo

I need to study up more on this aspect, but I must ask: Were the economic difficulties imposed on the South by the Fed'l Gov't in response to their continued adherence to slavery, which in turn prompted the South's attack on the North? If so, was the attack on Pearl Harbor justified because of the United States' economic embargoes on the Empire of Japan because of the murderous war they were waging on the Chinese?

Keith

 

[ejmpnu92]

I need to study up more on this aspect, but I must ask: Were the economic difficulties imposed on the South by the Fed'l Gov't in response to their continued adherence to slavery, which in turn prompted the South's attack on the North? If so, was the attack on Pearl Harbor justified because of the United States' economic embargoes on the Empire of Japan because of the murderous war they were waging on the Chinese?

Keith

It depends on your perspective. To the Japanese hierarchy, it was justified. Who was this USA to tell them where and what to do? Well, we will just show them, attack them, destroy their Pacific fleet and army, soon they will sue for peace. (It was widely believed by many in the Japanese military structure that the US would seek peace with them because it was inconceivable to them that a two ocean war could be conducted by the USA.)
Just as the South felt justified in attacking the North for the economic difficulties. Who was the Federal government to stick its nose into a states issue?
The Federal government was never really intended to be a strong, all powerful centralized government, but the emphasis was supposed to be with the states to govern themselves. This is what I believe the South wanted, to govern themselves.

 

[trainsktg]

It depends on your perspective. To the Japanese hierarchy, it was justified. Who was this USA to tell them where and what to do? Well, we will just show them, attack them, destroy their Pacific fleet and army, soon they will sue for peace. (It was widely believed by many in the Japanese military structure that the US would seek peace with them because it was inconceivable to them that a two ocean war could be conducted by the USA.)
Just as the South felt justified in attacking the North for the economic difficulties. Who was the Federal government to stick its nose into a states issue?
The Federal government was never really intended to be a strong, all powerful centralized government, but the emphasis was supposed to be with the states to govern themselves. This is what I believe the South wanted, to govern themselves.

I can see the Japanese point of view as well as the South's point of view. (From Germany's point of view, the Treaty of Versailles justified that country's military buildup and aggression on its neighbors during WWII too). However, the Japanese were conducting a near-genocidal war on the Chinese people and the slave states were unfairly undercutting the economy of the non-slave states by the use of free slave labor. Morally, none of these positions were justified. Economically, the states' rights issue is no longer necessarily valid, as the economies of all the states were being affected, and interstate commerce is certainly in the jurisdiction of the Fed'l Gov't Constitutionally.

Back to my original point, I'm not sure war was the answer. The USA and CSA would have eventually put their differences behind them and become close military allies and trade partners, much like the USA and Britain today. But, since the South did strike first, we'll never know what the North would have done or how history would have turned out. Perhaps the USA would have again attacked Canada in the 1870s in an effort to regain a semblance of the territory lost after the South's sucession? Perhaps the CSA would have sided with Germany during WWI and brought the war to American soil?

Keith

 

[MikeE]

To Quote Tom DiLorenzo
In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration — along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.


The above paragraph is one of the lowest examples of taking things out of context I have ever seen. Remember, there's something called the Internet, and people can actually Google Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and read it for themselves here:

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The whole speech is conciliatory in the extreme. The only place where he mentions 'invasion' is when he says that the Federal Government will protect states from invasions (John Brown had just invaded Virginia to try to free slaves). He mentions 'bloodshed' only to say that there is no reason for any bloodshed.
Lincoln is basically cedeing to the South virtually all their arguments. He even assures them that no out-of -state tax collectors will bother them. Tariffs were enacted on foreign products, not on Southern exports. If this was a problem for a few very wealthy plantation land barons, it was because they were more pro-British (their chief export customers) than pro-American. It had nothing to do with the average southern white worker or small farmer - except that the plantation bosses had them in hock. The only line Lincoln drew was about leaving the Union, but he did it in the most eloquent and open handed way - as this quote from the end of his speech will show (and remember, Lincoln wrote his own speeches):

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

 

[trainsktg]

You got that right, Mike,

Keith

 

[ejmpnu92]

Thanks Mike, was trying to figure out how I was going to say what you said. I read both the first and second inaugural speeches and was trying to figure out the context of the DilLorenzo quote.

 

[mattg521]

Memorized it for oral regurgitation in 5th grade. Mr. Schawa's class.

 

[ejmpnu92]

I can see the Japanese point of view as well as the South's point of view. (From Germany's point of view, the Treaty of Versailles justified that country's military buildup and aggression on its neighbors during WWII too). However, the Japanese were conducting a near-genocidal war on the Chinese people and the slave states were unfairly undercutting the economy of the non-slave states by the use of free slave labor. Morally, none of these positions were justified. Economically, the states' rights issue is no longer necessarily valid, as the economies of all the states were being affected, and interstate commerce is certainly in the jurisdiction of the Fed'l Gov't Constitutionally.

Back to my original point, I'm not sure war was the answer. The USA and CSA would have eventually put their differences behind them and become close military allies and trade partners, much like the USA and Britain today. But, since the South did strike first, we'll never know what the North would have done or how history would have turned out. Perhaps the USA would have again attacked Canada in the 1870s in an effort to regain a semblance of the territory lost after the South's sucession? Perhaps the CSA would have sided with Germany during WWI and brought the war to American soil?

Keith

I agree with you.

However, different cultures have different moral standards. What you may see as immoral, may be completely moral to someone else.

But I don't believe the Northern states would have attacked Canada. I believe that westward expansion would have continued, only with renewed vigor, in order to keep the South from gaining more territory.

 

[Artilleryman]

no....the south lost because they failed to achieve air superiority

 

[deen_ad]

They taught this to us when I was in school. Shame they don't teach American History in school anymore.

They do, it just doesn't include the 2nd Amendment and the reasons it's there!! After all, the "elitists" run the school system now so they can rewrite history to suit them!

8 US Presidents have been NRA members
80 MILLION gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

 

[trainsktg]

no....the south lost because they failed to achieve air superiority

Ha ha! I need to remember that one.

Segue: This thread has inspired me to select for reread a book called Black Valor, Buffalo Soldiers and the Medal of Honor Winners 1870-1898.

Another segue: Anyone interested in reading about the badassest lawman of the frontier West needs to check out the story of Bass Reeves.

Keith

 

[JungleBoy]

To Quote Tom DiLorenzo
In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration — along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.


The above paragraph is one of the lowest examples of taking things out of context I have ever seen. Remember, there's something called the Internet, and people can actually Google Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and read it for themselves here:

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

The whole speech is conciliatory in the extreme. The only place where he mentions 'invasion' is when he says that the Federal Government will protect states from invasions (John Brown had just invaded Virginia to try to free slaves). He mentions 'bloodshed' only to say that there is no reason for any bloodshed.
Lincoln is basically cedeing to the South virtually all their arguments. He even assures them that no out-of -state tax collectors will bother them. Tariffs were enacted on foreign products, not on Southern exports. If this was a problem for a few very wealthy plantation land barons, it was because they were more pro-British (their chief export customers) than pro-American. It had nothing to do with the average southern white worker or small farmer - except that the plantation bosses had them in hock. The only line Lincoln drew was about leaving the Union, but he did it in the most eloquent and open handed way - as this quote from the end of his speech will show (and remember, Lincoln wrote his own speeches):

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Read it again and past all of Lincoln political speak.

Lincoln was a protectionist for all of his political life; he owed his nomination to Pennsylvania protectionists; told a Pittsburgh audience two weeks before his inaugural that no issue — none — is more important to Congress than raising the tariff rate; and would further raise the tariff rate ten times during his administration. He was also aware that the last time the Whigs — which by then had been politically morphed into Republicans — attempted to double the average tariff rates, South Carolinians nullified the tariff, refused to collect it, and forced President Andrew Jackson to compromise and lower the hated 1828 "Tariff of Abominations." Lincoln, however, was not about to back down as Andrew Jackson did. On the issue of slavery, he was one hundred percent accommodating, even going so far as to support the enshrinement of southern slavery explicitly in the Constitution. But on the issue of tax collection he was one hundred percent uncompromising. "Pay up or die," he essentially told the South. Not in these exact words, of course, but in the weasel words of a skilled trial lawyer/politician.

Here's what he actually said: "[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority." And how might it be "forced"? Failure on the part of any state to collect the newly-doubled tariff, that's how. After stating that he assumed the power to "possess the property and places belonging to the Government," he said he was also obligated "to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere."

The Confederates had offered to pay for any federal property on southern soil (federal forts were there for their protection anyway), as well as their share of the federal debt. Lincoln refused to even discuss this with them. Fully 95 percent of all federal revenue came from tariffs in 1860, and with the southern states seceding a large portion of that amount would go uncollected. The seceded states were not about to send any checks to Washington, D.C. Fail to pay the newly-doubled tariff tax, Lincoln said, and there will be an invasion. He would not back down to the South Carolina tax resisters, as Andrew Jackson did. (Two weeks after Fort Sumter, where no one was wounded or killed, Lincoln announced a naval blockade of the southern ports and gave only one reason for it: tariff collection).

This would be the equivalent of President Bush saying, "My fellow Americans, we have decided to double everyone's federal income tax rate. And if you refuse to pay, federal soldiers will be sent en masse to make you pay, burning out your homes and destroying your cities, towns, business and farms if necessary." The south refused to pay, and Lincoln kept his word, launching a full-scale invasion of all the southern states and waging total war on them for four years, eventually killing 300,000 of them out of a population of approximately 9 million. This was three percent of the southern population. Standardizing for today's population of roughly 280 million, that would be the equivalent of 8,400,000 American deaths.

<broken link removed>

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Lincoln was this countries worst president he is responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans, and raping of the US Constitution. He shut down papers, did not defend the 10th amendment, instituted martial law, illegaly created West Virgina, deported his main political enemy in the Senate, and encouraged blacks that were free to re-colonize to places like Haiti, and south America.

Lincoln was not some great Christian man who was a morally superior person as he is made out to children in text books. he was simply a tyrant and more than likely atheist. Great deals are made about the Gettysburg Address, and his second inaugural address, but look no further than his first inaugural address and see that the main cookie cutter arguments of why we "had" to fight the civil war are false.

I would encourage everyone to read Thomas J. DiLorenzo books on Lincoln they are very insightful, now enjoy the links below.


YouTube - Why Abraham Lincoln Sucked
YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Lincoln

+1

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I can see the Japanese point of view as well as the South's point of view. (From Germany's point of view, the Treaty of Versailles justified that country's military buildup and aggression on its neighbors during WWII too). However, the Japanese were conducting a near-genocidal war on the Chinese people and the slave states were unfairly undercutting the economy of the non-slave states by the use of free slave labor. Morally, none of these positions were justified. Economically, the states' rights issue is no longer necessarily valid, as the economies of all the states were being affected, and interstate commerce is certainly in the jurisdiction of the Fed'l Gov't Constitutionally.

Back to my original point, I'm not sure war was the answer. The USA and CSA would have eventually put their differences behind them and become close military allies and trade partners, much like the USA and Britain today. But, since the South did strike first, we'll never know what the North would have done or how history would have turned out. Perhaps the USA would have again attacked Canada in the 1870s in an effort to regain a semblance of the territory lost after the South's sucession? Perhaps the CSA would have sided with Germany during WWI and brought the war to American soil?

Keith

The South may have "visibly" struck first, but only after massive naval blockades and interference by the North and it's allies

 

[Jamie6.5]

Daily Bell: Was it difficult to write a revisionist history about Lincoln?

Thomas DiLorenzo: As a libertarian, I saw it as my duty to spread the truth about what a horrific tyrant Lincoln was, with his illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of political dissenters in the North; his shutting down of over 300 opposition newspapers; his deportation of the leader of the congressional opposition, Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio; and his purposeful waging of total war on civilians. He destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and destroyed the system of federalism that was the hallmark of the original constitution by using military force to "prove" that nullification and secession were illegal. Might makes right. Unlike England, Spain, France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and other countries that ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century, Lincoln used the slaves as political pawns in a war that both he and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 was being waged for one reason only: to "save the union." But as I said, he really destroyed the voluntary union of the founders.

Pretty damning evidence there.

Yes I was taught and even had to memorize the GA. It's too bad schools neglect a more in-depth discussion where Lincoln is concerned though.

Fer cryin' out loud, anybody'd think he was an Illinois lawyer!