View Full Version : The REAL Lincoln
DiLorenzo Is Right About Lincoln
by Walter E. Williams
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.
Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.
The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun – one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the people "the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."
If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional rights of the people and the states, what are their options? In a word, their right to secede. Most of today’s Americans believe, as did Abraham Lincoln, that states do not have a right to secession, but that is false. DiLorenzo marshals numerous proofs that from the very founding of our nation the right of secession was seen as a natural right of the people and a last check on abuse by the central government. For example, at Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free speech and of secession. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." The right to secession was popularly held as well. DiLorenzo lists newspaper after newspaper editorial arguing the right of secession. Most significantly, these were Northern newspapers. In fact, the first secession movement started in the North, long before shots were fired at Fort Sumter. The New England states debated the idea of secession during the Hartford Convention of 1814–1815.
Lincoln’s intentions, as well as those of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the senatorial debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that would "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
The War between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states’ rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer.
If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional rights of the people and the states, what are their options?
ah the southern argument in a nutshell
BUT
slavery is NOT A STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE
state constitutions MUST be at the same level as the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION when it comes to rights ... state's can go "Above and Beyond" ( New Jersey) but it can't recognize less rights
It is Unconstitutional to secede from the Union
The question of slavery extending into the territories and newly admitted states was a hot topic in the 3 compromises before the Civil War ... these compromises FAILED
The victory of the Republican Party in the election of 1860 as well as the overwhelming majority that the Northerners had in the House of Representatives made it clear to the South that Slavery was going to be outlawed eventually in the near future ... the South made a push in the Senate ( 3 compromises) but popular opinion was turning against them
Now, if you truly believe that Slavery is state's rights issue then you are ignorant of the Constitution
Jack, you are clueless.
I really blame it on the liberal public (*cough* government *cough*) schooling you've received.
Jack, you are clueless.
I really blame it on the liberal public (*cough* government *cough*) schooling you've received.
is that your response? lmao
explain to me how slavery is a state's right?
can Montana make child molestation legal? would that be a state's right
for the 4th time at least a state's constitution must be at least equal to that of the federal constitution
my government education was better than the charity one you received ... when the "little bus" came to pick you up in the morning
LMAO. You even act like a government student with your ad hominem reactive ways.
LMAO. You even act like a government student with your ad hominem reactive ways.
dude
do you want to debate me on the state's rights issue or are you just going to continue to run away from it
slavery is not a state's rights issue ... it is unconstitutional to leave the union
Jack, there's no point in debating you. You're argumentative.
Jack, there's point in debating you. You're argumentative.
dude what are you talking about
I challenged the author's claim that the civil war was about the "rights" of the southern states
slavery is not a state's right and it is unconsitutional to leave the union
if you continue to run away from this discussion I can only assume that you don't have any knowledge of the subject and just cut and paste what you see on the internet that supports the "claims" that Lincoln was a tyrant
The default logic of the Lincolnites is that if you call Lincoln a tyrant then you believe in slavery as part of your ideological make-up.
Pure.... bullshit.
The default logic of the Lincolnites is that if you call Lincoln a tyrant then you believe in slavery as part of your ideological make-up.
Pure.... bullshit.
Keep deflecting
is slavery a state's rights issue BJR?
does a state have the "Right" to have a constitution that recognizes LESS rights than the federal constitution ... NO
does a state have the right to leave the Union ... NO
run run run away
its okay to admit that you have no idea about the battles in Congress over this issue or basic constitutional law
Thank you for this discussion Jack.
I now know more about you than I ever wanted to know.
Thank you for this discussion Jack.
I now know more about you than I ever wanted to know.
Just think of all of the people that will look at this thread
and then think of all the people that will see your debating skills
thanks
So what have I learned from this thread?
Jack's hero is a dictator who ruled America the way Stalin ruled Europe.
This is what it comes down to. If you like Lincoln, you're for big government.
If you don't like Lincoln, you're for limited government.
'nuff said.
Basically, your position on Lincoln will determine for others whether or not you are a carpetbagger or a scallywag
This is what it comes down to. If you like Lincoln, you're for big government.
If you don't like Lincoln, you're for limited government.
'nuff said.
Basically, your position on Lincoln will determine for others whether or not you are a carpetbagger or a scallywag
you sound kind of like George Bush, " if you are this than you are this"
and why do you keep comparing people to other figures in history especially when the comparisons have no merit ... weak
you have yet to discuss why slavery is a state's right
since you have labeled anyone who takes Lincoln's "Side" in the the civil war as someone who likes "big government" ( even though your connection between "big government" and Lincoln is seriously flawed ) I guess I can say that anyone who is against Lincoln is a southern racist
only fair since you refuse to debate the constitutional side of the Civil War
SnarkyOracle!
12-27-2007, 09:15 PM
or are you just going to continue to run away from it
(...)
run run run away
God, how shamelessly pathetic.
God, how shamelessly pathetic.
can you refute anything I have said about the Constitution and state's rights
If you take a southern apologist view of the Civil War at least be able to discuss why slavery is a state's right
anyway ... do you search the forums for my posts or something
I mean you have pretty much called me a child, yet you seem to love to read what I have to say
they say you can learn so much from children
SnarkyOracle!
12-27-2007, 09:28 PM
can you refute anything I have said about the Constitution and state's rights
If you take a southern apologist view of the Civil War at least be able to discuss why slavery is a state's right
I only recall pointing out that you accuse everyone of "running away" on every topic on which you find disagreement.
I don't pretend to know all that much about the thread subject (something you'd never concede).
I mean you have pretty much called me a child, yet you seem to love to read what I have to say
God. I dare respond to your posts and I this is the thanks I get... :cool:
they say you can learn so much from children
Like why it's so important to change a diaper.
I only recall pointing out that you accuse everyone of "running away" on every topic on which you find disagreement.
I don't pretend to know all that much about the thread subject (something you'd never concede).
God. I dare respond to your posts and I this is the thanks I get... :cool:
Like why it's so important to change a diaper.
I only accuse people of running away when they bring up a topic and don't respond when someone challenges them
a great example would be Sonya claiming that Libby leaked the name and then not responding when someone corrects her on that claim ...
I never pretend to know everything about a subject
when I don't know everything I start with " I don't know much about this but ...." THEREFORE the following is my limited opinion on the matter
but in this case I am perfectly capable of discussing the history of the civil war, the Constitutional part of it and the battles that occurred in the Congress over it
SnarkyOracle!
12-27-2007, 09:35 PM
I only accuse people of running away when they bring up a topic and don't respond when someone challenges them
something BJR is doing in this thread
Which occurs on every thread with you.
I never pretend to know everything about a subject
Good. That's nice to hear.
when I don't know everything I start with " I don't know much about this but ...." THEREFORE the following is my opinion on the matter
I'll look for that in the future. If it's true, then that's nice of you.
but in this case I am perfectly capable of discussing the history of the civil war, the Constitutional part of it and the battles that occurred in the Congress over it
Oh, so this is a topic you're knowledgable about? So therefore anyone who disagrees with you is "running away" or "deflecting"...
How novel.
Which occurs on every thread with you.
Good. That's nice to hear.
I'll look for that in the future. If it's true, then that's nice of you.
Oh, so this is a topic you're knowledgable about? So therefore anyone who disagrees with you is "running away" or "deflecting"...
How novel.
um disagreement is fine
not responding to direct challenges to claims you have made is running away and deflecting
but do you respond to every post by breaking it down into little pieces and responding with sarcastic comments ?
leave me alone stalker
SnarkyOracle!
12-27-2007, 09:40 PM
um disagreement is fine
not responding to direct challenges to claims you have made is running away and deflecting
But that's EVERY time someone disagrees with your "expertise". You ALWAYS claim it's justified.
but do you respond to every post by breaking it down into little pieces and responding with sarcastic comments ?"Breaking it down to little pieces" is called getting caught up in the detail. And if you did that more often, you wouldn't be so ripe for every piece of propaganda that comes down the pyke.
leave me alone stalkerBut I'm afraid you'll accuse me of "running away".
But that's EVERY time someone disagrees with your "expertise". You ALWAYS claim it's justified.
"Breaking it down to little pieces" is called getting caught up in the detail. And if you did that more often, you wouldn't be so ripe for every piece of propaganda that comes down the pyke.
But I'm afraid you'll accuse me of "running away".
geez right again Marky
Wait a minute, wait a minute.... you're calling Marky a stalker? Yet you seem to hunt down my posts about conspiracies and such?
Marky, I know we don't agree on everything, but thanks.... :)
I'm very interested in getting this book, The Real Lincoln.
Sonya in Tx
12-28-2007, 02:02 AM
I only accuse people of running away when they bring up a topic and don't respond when someone challenges them
a great example would be Sonya claiming that Libby leaked the name and then not responding when someone corrects her on that claim ...
I never pretend to know everything about a subject
when I don't know everything I start with " I don't know much about this but ...." THEREFORE the following is my limited opinion on the matter
but in this case I am perfectly capable of discussing the history of the civil war, the Constitutional part of it and the battles that occurred in the Congress over it
<...Yawn....>:lolo:
There's also another book by the same author on the same subject called Lincoln Unmasked.
Garrison
12-28-2007, 06:27 PM
I've read the book, it's all true and supported by many sources.
SnarkyOracle!
12-28-2007, 06:31 PM
Is there also a LINCOLN EXPOSED, detailing his torrid romance with Ulysses Grant?
Is there also a LINCOLN EXPOSED, detailing his torrid romance with Ulysses Grant?
Oh, Marky.....
TJames03
12-28-2007, 07:56 PM
Actually....there have been a lot of rumors that Lincoln exposed himself to many statesmen....
The States certainly had and do have the RIGHT to secede, though the federal government has proven it will not respect that right. This is most certainly a case of two branches (Executive & Judicial) bullying the 3rd (Congress)... but primarily the Executive is the one declaring authority which it does not have.
It is the right of the People to dissolve any government over them and institute a new one for their prosperity. We find the premise of this within the Declaration of Independence.
The States certainly had and do have the RIGHT to secede, though the federal government has proven it will not respect that right. This is most certainly a case of two branches (Executive & Judicial) bullying the 3rd (Congress)... but primarily the Executive is the one declaring authority which it does not have.
It is the right of the People to dissolve any government over them and institute a new one for their prosperity. We find the premise of this within the Declaration of Independence.
um, the Declaration of Independence is not an official government document
the Constitution and before that Articles of the Confederation were the "law of the land"
but is slavery a state's right?
um, the Declaration of Independence is not an official government document
the Constitution and before that Articles of the Confederation were the "law of the land"
but is slavery a state's right?
the Declaration of Independence is not a defunct document. It is not obsolete.
If America became a full-blown in your face police state tomorrow (far worse than any police state ever seen on the face of this earth) would you still feel that the Declaration of Independence is still an obsolete document?
everything is a state's right issue. Do I agree with slavery? No!! It is against the foremost basic principle of the philosophy of liberty. And I do not endorse it.
By the time of the Civil War the industrial revolution was making slavery obsolete anyway.
All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves their freedom. He didn't have to murder 650,000 Americans to do it. And then of course pressure Congress into outlawing slavery in all of the states. AND, BTW I'll have you know, to fund the Civil War Lincoln had to take us off the gold standard.
You can't have a war with a currency anchored to a precious medal.
AND if it you study Lincoln carefully, you'll find that he was a racist who believed in the separation of the races. He believed that the whites and the blacks were sufferers of each other.
fireweaver
12-29-2007, 04:50 AM
<...Yawn....>:lolo:
Really.
In fact..... Lincoln personally wanted the blacks sent back to where they came from.
The Ignorant David Shuster on "Morning Joe"
by Thomas DiLorenzo
Joe Scarborough's stand-in on the "Morning Joe" television program, David Shuster, once again has tried to smear Ron Paul, and once again reveals his ignorance in doing so. This morning Ron called in to correct the lies that various neocons like Shuster have been spreading about what he said to Tim Russert about Lincoln and his war. Shuster adamantly claimed that Ron had "embarrassed himself" by claiming that Lincoln did not invade his own country to free the slaves. But it is Shuster who is embarrassingly ignorant of his own history. In fact, it would be hard to find a single American historian with any credibility who would argue that in 1861 an invasion of the Southern states was launched to free the slaves. Shuster is not only unaware of what is written in my book, The Real Lincoln, but also of what is in almost all other books on the war.
Slave owners in the border states occupied by the U.S. Army were allowed to keep their slaves. Whenever any of Lincoln's generals, such as Gen. Fremont, took it upon themselves to emancipate some slaves early in the war he rebuffed them, reversed their decisions, and demoted them. The Emancipation Proclamation itself very specifically exempted all areas of the country that were controlled by the U.S. Army, guaranteeing that no slaves would be emancipated by the Proclamation.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln referred to the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. He said that he already held the legality of slavery to be "implied constitutinal law," and "I have no objection to its being made express and irrovocable" by enshrining slavery explicitly in the Constitution.
Not only that, but it was Lincoln, working with William Seward, who orchestrated the passing of that amendment through the U.S. Senate. Even Lincoln worshipper Doris Kearns-Goodwin documents all of this in her book,Team of Rivals (p. 296). Shuster, of course, knows nothing at all about this, nor does anyone else in "the media," apparently.
In an August 22, 1862 letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln explained the purpose of the war:
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Of course, in reality he destroyed the voluntary union of the states that was established by the Founders.
The U.S. Congress concurred with Lincoln's statement. On July 22,1861, it issued a proclamation sayhing that the purpose of the war was not "interference with the rights or established institutions of those states" that had seceded (i.e., slavery), "but to preserve the Union with the rights of the several states [including slavery] unimpaired."
This is an ugly truth, but it is the truth. It is also something that David Shuster is totally unfamiliar with.
the Declaration of Independence is not a defunct document. It is not obsolete.
If America became a full-blown in your face police state tomorrow (far worse than any police state ever seen on the face of this earth) would you still feel that the Declaration of Independence is still an obsolete document?
everything is a state's right issue. Do I agree with slavery? No!! It is against the foremost basic principle of the philosophy of liberty. And I do not endorse it.
By the time of the Civil War the industrial revolution was making slavery obsolete anyway.
All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves their freedom. He didn't have to murder 650,000 Americans to do it. And then of course pressure Congress into outlawing slavery in all of the states. AND, BTW I'll have you know, to fund the Civil War Lincoln had to take us off the gold standard.
You can't have a war with a currency anchored to a precious medal.
AND if it you study Lincoln carefully, you'll find that he was a racist who believed in the separation of the races. He believed that the whites and the blacks were sufferers of each other.
thanks for answering my question that slavery is a state's right ... I don't recall asking about the gold standard but whatever
the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the REAL ISSUE facing the nation at the time ... what to do with new states entering the Union .. should the new state be able to decide for themselves? should it be a "free" state or should it be a slave state
Compromise after compromise ONLY DELAYED the civil war
There are 2 very wrong points that ignorant people try to make when defending the South
1. Slavery was eventually done away with in other nations
- Other nations don't have a Union like the United States ... they have a central government in which any "subdivisions" are simply adminstrative districts and the central government can dictate anything to these areas ... in a federal system like the one we have, this can not be done ... and how long would it be okay for slavery to "die off" 30 years? 50 years?
2. The industrial revolution would be the end of slavery
- This argument makes absolutely no sense because basic research will show that only in the North did the industrial revolution get a foothold ... in the South where slavery was still legal there was no need for the industrial revolution in a society dominated by agriculture in which slaves were the major labor force. Slavery actually delays the need for innovation and new ways of doing things
The Republic does not stand for much when a state can simply secede whenever they feel their culture is under attack
Here are Lincoln's words on the matter of saving the Union
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I'm not defending the South's position because I believe that it was okay for the Southern States to have slavery. The Northern states had slavery as well but that's besides the point.
Your argument against other governments purchasing slaves their freedom is weak. Your premise that somehow because our form of government is so far from what other governments were and are has nothing to do with our government's ability to be able to purchase slaves their rightful freedom.
Your quote by Lincoln proves that the Civil War was not about freeing slaves.
As he had said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
I'm not defending the South's position because I believe that it was okay for the Southern States to have slavery. The Northern states had slavery as well but that's besides the point.
Your argument against other governments purchasing slaves their freedom is weak. Your premise that somehow because our form of government is so far from what other governments were and are has nothing to do with our government's ability to be able to purchase slaves their rightful freedom.
Your quote by Lincoln proves that the Civil War was not about freeing slaves.
As he had said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
the Civil War may not have been about Slavery in itself but slavery wad the cause of the Civil War
had there been no slavery there would have been no congressional battles and compromises, had there been no congressional battles there would have been no war
Once upon a time (pre- Civil War), the United States was referred to in context like this... "The United States are a Republic." After the Civil War, this changed to... "The United States is a republic."
The change is merely in reference, as from a legal standpoint, based upon the U.S. Constitution, the United States ARE still member states of a union, each of which is guaranteed a republican form of government. This is because the U.S. Constitution itself is but a Trust, having each member (the states) agree to share a common defense, common foreign trade mechanisms, and of course a common snail mail system.
The simple answer, though, is that this Union is a Republic, made up of independent nation States which surrender their sovereignty ONLY with regard to that jurisdiction which has been surrendered. The 10th Article of the Bill of Rights explains how this is limited.
After the Civil War, we had disgusting crap like the 14th Amendment enacted, which proved to only weaken the 10th Article of the Bill of Rights. In the 30 years following the passing of the 14th Amendment, only a handful of the 100+ cases brought to the Supreme Court based upon the 14th Amendment were brought by minorities (or blacks, specifically). The overwhelming majority was brought by corporations claiming personhood. Thus we have the bastardization of our Republic that we have today.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.