Lincoln – Good or Evil?

This entry is part 9 of 31 in the series 2011B

Below is a compilation of dialog I had about Lincoln from the archives.

Feb 3, 2008
Blayne quoting JJ:
“Ron Paul sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this.”

Blayne:
“This is a very naive statement. Lincoln did not fight to free the slaves, in his own words he stated:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
You left off an important part of the quote. He added:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

I did not state the reason Lincoln went to war so you are not arguing against anything I said here. That said, yes Lincoln saw his prime “official duty” to save the union, but he also had an equally strong unofficial personal moral duty to free the slaves. He expressed a strong desire for this in many instances.

When he wrote this letter to Horace Greeley he was discouraged with the war to the extent that if there was some way he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would have done it for he was worried at the time that the war could be lost. As soon as the North began to see daylight he restored his attitude and ditched this momentary notion and added the freeing of the slaves to the agenda. This was a personal agenda of his throughout his life.

Blayne:
“He also rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.”

JJ:
He presented the highest concept of freeing the slaves that he felt the people could accept. Neither he or anyone else at that time thought the masses could accept racial equality. If he presented anything higher than he did then he would have been killed before Boothe got to him.

In actuality Lincoln took no steps to export the blacks after the war and seemed to have no intention of doing this though earlier in life he thought this may be the only acceptable solution.

Here is a good quote giving his views.

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.” (Abraham Lincoln — Source: April 4, 1864 – Letter to Albert Hodges)

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.”

JJ:
And you think this because…?

The facts reveal otherwise. During the war, when South was separate, the Northern industrial power increased — not decreased. The economy in the North boomed and the South suffered severe depression. If Lincoln merely wanted financial dominance he did not need the South to stay in the Union. The greatest amount of wealth was created for the North during the war than any other time in history to that date. On the other hand, the South suffered numerous internal rebellions because of poverty.

Blayne:
“Lincoln also destroyed the original republic, he suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft and income taxes.”

JJ:

Habeas Corpus:

These actions did not destroy the Republic, but possibly saved it. Concerning habeas corpus Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Because of the rebellion the supreme court never found Lincoln’s actions unconstitutional.

The Draft:

Yes, Lincoln instituted the draft, but they also had a draft during the Revolutionary War. Were they also destroying the Republic? No they were creating it. The South alas had a draft.

Only 2 percent of union soldiers were the result of a draft. The rest were volunteers.

Income Tax:

Desperate times require desperate measures. He did institute a temporary tax of 3 percent on higher incomes. After the war habeas corpus was restored, the draft cancelled and income tax discontinued. How could these things destroy the Republic when they ceased to exist?

Blayne:
“And unlawfully attacked sovereign states who had every right to secede from the Union via the 10th amendment to the constitution since secession was not addressed in the constitution.”

JJ:
But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumpter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.

Blayne:

“The congress was not legally in session since the southern representatives had left and on an on it goes.”

JJ:
Of course they were legally in session for the South was no longer part of the Union.

How about the Congress of the Southern States? Were they illegal also? Should neither side have any right to govern? That makes no sense for either side.

Confederate sympathizers often blast the North and Lincoln with criticism but neglect to mention that the South instituted a draft, suspended ex post facto law, nationalized industries, also started a income and profit tax, mandated hotels and railroads had to report to government offices who was staying at their hotel and riding the trains, the city of Richmond had a passport system in place for the coming and going of all citizens. See Jeffrey Hummel’s “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” for a balanced libertarian perspective.

The fact is these were desperate times and desperate measure are always taken during such times and both sides did it — the South perhaps more than the North.

Blayne:
“Ron Paul simply said there was no need to fight the civil war and kill 600,000 Americans to end slavery He could have ended it without fighting slavery by buying the slaves and freeing them Instead of going to war and violating the sovereignty of the southern states and our constitution. By so doing caused quite a resentment toward blacks and the north that is still with us today.”

JJ:
As I said Lincoln tried to purchase the slaves freedom and the South wasn’t about to cooperate.

Blayne:
“Every other country-ended slavery without a war can you give any reason why we couldn’t have done the same?”

JJ:
Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:40:55 -0600Subject: [Keysters] A Look at Lincoln

The Question:
What are the three ways that Lincoln altered the course of history for the better?

The first and obvious one is slavery. There are two groups that want to deny Lincoln any credit on this issue.

The first is the politically correct crowd who are rewriting texts books which teach the rising generation. Some of them only have a paragraph on Lincoln and give credit to the freeing of the slaves to anyone but him. If he is quoted they use a quote out of context that make it sound like his only goal was to save the union.

The second is a residual anti-Lincoln group which has never completely disappeared. These are joined by a few strong constitutionalists who adhere to states rights with little or no deviation. These also quote his few statements about saving the union as a prime goal and ignore his many arguments for freeing the slaves and making them equal with the whites.

Both if these groups judge Lincoln’s words with the politically correct standards of the present. As I said we could do this with any white person of more than a century ago and make him sound racist.

What is the truth?

Yes it is true that his prime goal was to save the union because he believed that if the union were not saved then we would wind up with a country that would not be free or worth living in for blacks or whites. Therefore, this was first in his mind.

Let me quote from a previous post: “Lincoln had publicly stated a number of times, even from his youth, that he had a desire to eliminate slavery and would do so if he ever had the opportunity. His most famous stance was made during the Lincoln Douglas debates where he stated that the United States was a house divided and as such cannot stand . It cannot exist half free and half slave. This famous debate brought him to national attention in a significant way for the first time.

“The South remembered his views when he became President and this was the main reason they seceded from the union, causing slavery to be a strong underlying cause of the war.

“During the war Lincoln made many comments , wrote many letters and had many debates with individuals about slavery and he definitely expressed a strong desire to eliminate the problem.

“As far as the Emaciation Proclamation goes. He took this step as far as was possible. He had the wisdom to realize that you can’t make major change in one giant leap so he always did what he could one step at a time.

“The next major step was taken in his second bid for the presidency, and keep in mind this was done during the heat of the war. At his urging the Republican platform supported the complete abolition of slavery and the introduction of the thirteenth Amendment.

“The platform stated that the President’s Proclamation aimed a “death blow at this gigantic evil,” and that a constitutional amendment was necessary to “terminate and forever prohibit it.”

“Lincoln was thus reelected on this platform making slavery a main issue of the continuance of the war during his second term.

“While Lincoln was still alive the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Ratification by the states was a sure thing at his death.”

So how about the argument that slavery would have naturally gone away if the civil war was not fought? After all other nations freed their slaves without war. What is left out of this idealism is that the majority of the states of the U.S. also freed their slaves without war. So why was the North and other nations able to do this? It is simple. The percentage of black slaves in the Northern States,. Britain, France and other nations was low compared to the Southern States. At the time of the Civil War there was a slave population of 3,500,000 out of a total of 9,000,000 people in the South. This was a total of about 39% of the population who were slaves. Unlike other nations who were considering the freeing of slaves the South sought to expand upon it and wanted slavery extended to western territories. The South was so dependent upon their slaves that without a war it could have existed another hundred years. Without the civil war I believe the civil rights era of the 1960’s would have been over slavery rather than the rights of the black man.

The second way Lincoln altered history for the better was in the preservation of the Union and holding intact the Country of the United States.

Now many think it would have been better to allows all states their right to secede and in normal times this may have been the right thing to do. But the reason the South wanted to secede was so they could practice slavery undisturbed (among other things). If therefore slavery was so perpetuated and secession was used for such a fowl purpose this would set a precedent for a further break up of the union for all kinds of lower purposes.

Consider the past and what happened to Rome when it started to break up. They lost all vestiges of good government and, even though Rome was not perfect, what followed was a period of the darkest hue with a loss of knowledge, education and technology unprecedented in history.

Could the break up of the union had been followed by a loss of the Constitution and all truths that were held self evident? Lincoln thought so and this was one reason he fought with all be had to preserve the union. Lincoln was an astute student of history and did not want to see it repeated in his country.

I personally believe he received a strong impression from the Hierarchy on the importance of preserving the union.

There is a time and place for all things. The time of Lincoln was the time to increase central control. Now is the time to work toward the opposite.

Civil War & More

Thu Feb 7, 2008 12:28 pm

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You left off an important part of the quote. He added: ‘I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'”

Blayne the writes:
“A bit contradictory of him wouldn’t you agree? He could care less about freeing the slaves but desires all men to be free…”

JJ:
This is simply not true. His words bear witness time and time again that he cared very much about freeing the slaves. He did not feel he had a mandate to officially express that goal as president during the first part of his administration, but he always personally desired it and pursued it. His view on slavery was one of the reasons seven states seceded after he was elected, even before he became president.

Blayne:
“The point is he did not go to war to free the slaves but to force the Southern states to remain a part of the Union, which he had no authority to do.”

JJ:
It looks to me like he had authority, used the authority and this authority was never challenged by the other branches of government.

If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.

Blayne:
“His actions speak much louder then his words. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy inaccessible to the union army. Union soldiers often were permitted to confiscate slaves in rebel territory and put them to work for the union army. In areas loyal to the union, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the former slaves; most of the land was parceled off to his constituent power-base, the railroad and mining companies.”

JJ:
The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.

“The economic reasons are well documented and give insight into Lincoln’s agenda. The South, which supplied 75 percent of exports, was on the verge of becoming a low tariff, free trade zone. Lincoln feared this would disadvantage the North, and in particular his rich industrialist supporters. So Lincoln imposed punitive tariffs as a means to distribute wealth from the South to northern manufacturers.”

JJ:
What have you been reading? Lincoln didn’t impose any tariffs.

There were tariffs passed that affected the South before Lincoln became president which had bipartisan support and was encouraged and signed by president James Buchanan, a Democrat. Lincoln couldn’t have imposed tariffs on the South if he wanted to because the secession had already began when he became president.

Blayne:
“Lincoln instead could have moved toward peaceful prosperity by joining with England, France, other European countries, and the Confederate states in which free trade was already going on.”

JJ:
I suppose Lincoln could have, but he wasn’t given a chance because he never had any power over the Confederacy. He never had a chance to preside over the whole Union. Let’s stick with what Lincoln did or said do rather than what you think was in his heart.

Blayne:
“Where was the rebellion? Where in the constitution is secession forbidden? NOWHERE! Thus leaving it up to the States via the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'”

JJ:
But how about the blacks? They were people too. Rebelling for the purpose of benefiting from the profits of enslaving an entire race goes against everything sacred in the Constitution. They were only big on states rights because they wanted to maintain slavery. They were happy to violate the Constitution in many other ways. I am surprised you are so eager to defend a slave state when you are such a supporter of liberty. States rights is not excuse enough to secede for the purpose of enslaving a race and benefiting from their labor at the point of a whip. You’ll note that all the rebel states were slave states. If slavery was not the main issue then some non slave states would have also seceded.

Blayne states the draft by Lincoln was illegal:

This is from Wikipedia:

“In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[14] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states’ rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.”

Note: The Confederacy also had a draft.

Blayne:
“So-called desperate times have been the refuge of dictators and tyrants through out history in suppressing freedom.”

JJ:

Desperate times befall the good and the bad. Desperate measures have been taken by many good guys such as Hannibal, Washington, Churchill, FDR, Reagan and both the North and South during the civil war.

Blayne:

“What was Lincoln’s desperation? The southern states peacefully succeeded from The Union.”

JJ:

I wouldn’t call taking federal property by force, a first aggression, as peaceful. Also the blacks were not allowed to live in peace. Confederate sympathizers try to take slavery out of the equation, but it was central to the whole conflict. Without slavery there would have been no division of the States.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hello — Fort Sumter was in So. Carolina, a southern state that had seceded. That aggression was an act of a sovereign nation protecting its territory. The confederacy seized all but four federal forts within their boundaries of which Sumter was one.”

JJ:
And the Confederacy had no right to do this because the fort was federal property and before the rebellion all the states agreed it was federal property. Lincoln said that Fort Sumter belonged to all of the people of the United States. He was correct in this and had the right to hold on to it.

Blayne:
“Lincoln provoked that attack by trying to send reinforcements to Sumter. Now are you going to tell me he didn’t have ulterior motives when he could have resolved this peacefully?”

JJ:
There was no way to solve it peacefully and keep that which belong to the federal government. The Confederacy was determined to possess it by any means necessary including drawing first blood.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress. He declared martial law, confiscated private property, imprisoning about 30,000 Northern citizens and 31 legislators without trial, censored telegraph lines, and shut down northern newspapers for opposing the war.”

JJ:
The number is usually given as 13,000. People were not put in jail for opposing the war. The New York Times and other papers as well as about a third of the Union ridiculed Lincoln mercilessly and opposed Lincoln as they now oppose Bush and Lincoln took no action. Action was taken toward those who sought to overthrow the government or to give aid to the enemy. If he hadn’t done this he would have probably lost the war.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hardly, only 15 percent of southerners owned slaves.”

JJ:
That’s a pretty big number.

Blayne:
“The South was attempting to just expand to the west period not necessarily to further slavery.”

JJ:
Where do you get this idea? It is historical fact that they attempted to expand slavery to Cuba, central America and other areas. Expanding slavery to even one new state would be too much.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If we hadn’t fought the Civil War it would have taken a hundred years to eliminate slavery. There’s no evidence that slavery could have been peacefully ended.”

Blayne then writes:
“Well this is simply your opinion but there is no evidence to support it. Every other country peacefully ended slavery around this same time. Which suggest the USA could have done so also.”

JJ:
There’s a lot of evidence. After the war the slave owners were surprised to discover that slaves were not happy being slaves. They thought that slaves needed masters to take care of them and were amazed at how they felt when they were free to express themselves. They still tried to treat them as slaves and many blacks were killed who did not conform. This had nothing to do with the actions of the North. Any slight study of the period will reveal that slavery was institutionalized in the South much more than it was in England and wasn’t about to end soon by normal means.

Confederate sympathizers try to preach otherwise to whitewash the history of slavery, but they have no case.

Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:25 pm

Blayne wrote:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JA wrote:
“What happened to the shining example or the Ensign America is to other nations? If the war would not have been fought America would not have become the example it is today if for no other reason then the time it would have taken to get to the level of freedom it is at today. Plus the actions America took during that time therefore setting an example. There is risk in all things or opposition in all things, I think that is a fact of life.

“So if people choose to break the law set by the government then it is justified because the people are the master of the government?

“That would be a journey into irresponsibility, is that what this is really about? The fear of that? What happened to the shining example?”

JJ:
Good point JA. This is indeed an amazing statement by Blayne and it reveals a potent path to many illusions.

Let’s see how this applies in different situations.

The Confederacy:

“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

It sounds like the Blacks are not considered people here. In fact a main point of debate in the Confederacy was whether or not they had souls.

How were the blacks who were definitely people masters of the government when the government was enslaving them?

If we apply this principle today then it would be OK if white people used government to their advantage and passed a law saying that all Chinese people had to be branded on the forehead and work for ten cents an hour.

If a black and white Ron Paul following of the Constitution leads to the support of slavery then we need to rebel against it and write it anew so human liberty is clearly enough defined so even Ron Paul followers can understand it and be lead away from their acquiescence of slavery and tyranny.

Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:55 am

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.”

Blayne then writes:
“So its ok to kill millions to preserve freedom, but not ok allow slavery for little longer to preserve the constitution, which illustrates that freedom?”

JJ:
They were NOT preserving the Constitution, the main purpose of which is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was a mockery for the South when over a third of their people had no liberty, no ability to pursue happiness and not even a right to, life if they left the plantation. The main states rights that concerned them was the right to own slaves.

Blayne:
“Once again your assuming Lincoln’s motive was to abolish slavery even though the evidence and Lincoln’s own words contradict that notion.”

JJ:
There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.

Here’s a dialog between Lincoln and one of his closest friends, Judge Gillespie, in the days before the inauguration:

“‘Gillespie,’ said he (Lincoln), ‘I would willingly take out of my life a period in years equal to the two months which intervene between now and my inauguration to take the oath of office now.’ ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘Because every hour adds to the difficulties I am called upon to meet, and the present administration does nothing to check the tendency toward dissolution. I, who have been called to meet this awful responsibility, am compelled to remain here, doing nothing to avert it or lessen its force when it comes to me.’

“I said that the condition of which he spoke was such as had never risen before, and that it might lead to the amendment of such an obvious defect in the federal Constitution.

“‘It is not of myself I complain,’ he said, with more bitterness than I have ever heard him speak, before, or after. ‘But every day adds to the difficulty of the situation, and makes the outlook more gloomy. Secession is being fostered rather than repressed, and if the [secession] doctrine meets with a general acceptance in the border states, it will be a great blow to the government.’

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states….’

“‘I see the duty revolving upon me. I have read, upon my knees, the story of Gethsemane, where the Son of God prayed in vain that the cup of bitterness might pass from him. I am in the Garden of Gethsemane now, and my cup of bitterness is full and overflowing….’

“I then told him that as Christ’s prayer was not answered and His crucifixion had redeemed the great part of the world from paganism to Christianity, so the sacrifice demanded of him might be a great beneficence. Little did I then think how prophetic were my words to be, or what a great sacrifice he was called upon to make.”

(The Life of Abraham Lincoln: Drawn from Original Sources, Vol II by Ida Minerva Tarbell – 1903, pg 200)

The key phrase here is:

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government TO THE ERECTION OF A FOREIGN SLAVE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PRESENT SLAVE STATES…. I see the duty revolving upon me.'”

In his Second Annual Address to Congress in 1862, he said:

“‘We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We even here — hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth….’

“‘If we do this we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it forever worthy of the saving.'”

He said here very plainly that to make the union worthy of saving the slaves had to be free.

He also made sure emancipation was in the Republican platform and then executed that desire and did free them. What more evidence do you want? This is historical fact you are arguing with, not my opinion. Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.”

Blayne the writes:
“So the many other countries that freed slaves around that same time without killing 600,000 of their countrymen don’t get any credit? You have a pretty narrow view of history my friend.”

JJ:
Perhaps you need to check your own view. The other nations that freed their slaves were in a similar situation to the Northern States that freed their slaves. Emancipation in the North was natural because there were so few slaves and the economy wasn’t dependent on them. Even so, England only had about 10,000 slaves and no strict law to dominate them. They were freed there because it was proven that slavery violated the law.

When England freed their slaves only about one in 800 persons was enslaved, In the South over one in three were slaves and draconian laws were in place to sustain Big Brother in making sure it continued.

To say that the Confederate States would drop this money making human machine like England and other nations is comparing apples and oranges. England and France who had basically freed their own handful of slaves wanted it to continue in the Confederate states. So much for their moral superiority.

In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.

You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

My personal belief is that if we had not fought the Civil War that the 1960’s would have been about ending slavery rather than civil rights. Please don’t say that is just my opinion as this is obvious to all. But it is a well thought out one.

Blayne:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s ‘The Real Lincoln’ for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time. It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

JJ:
If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.

First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396

The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.

When the secession began the rebel states cited Lincoln’s belief in emancipation as their cause for leaving above the tariffs from what I have read. Of course, slavery was not the only issue, but it was the core issue and without it we would not have had the war.

Blayne:
“Lincoln wanted to keep it (the tariff) since it favored the north and left the south at the mercy of the north in many ways. Bipartisan? Hardly, 137 representatives from the north and 87 from the south.”

JJ:
Bi-partisan means both Democrats and Republicans cooperated and this is a historical fact you are arguing with. Let me repeat. The tariffs you demonize were spearheaded by a Democratic president and passed by voting from both parties.

It can be argued that they were unfair to the South, but the tariffs some complained of had nothing to do with Lincoln who was not yet president. When Lincoln was elected the seceding states were more concerned with his views on emancipation than they were with his views on tariffs.

Blayne:
“Again there is ample evidence that the US Civil War was not about slavery albeit slavery was used as one of many excuses. It was about hanging on to the lucrative tariffs and taxes and expanding the north while limiting the south based on slavery.”

JJ:
If you read some books that give the whole picture rather than books trying to prove the South was right you would not come to this conclusion. Nothing enflamed the South more than the threat of emancipation or curtailing their “right” to own a human being as a piece of property.

“Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson is a good book that doesn’t have an agenda. It is very well written and fascinating reading.

Blayne:
“Also of note is the fact that the North was also benefiting from the slave labor as well and as Lincoln said he could care less about slavery his aim was to preserve the union, of course because it was lucrative to the north and his industrialist cronies.”

JJ:
You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The Confederacy also had a draft.”

Blayne then writes:
“I never said the draft it was illegal, It doesn’t matter what the Court ruled the simple fact is no draft is addressed in the constitution therefore it is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment. Colonial America had no constitution and it was up to the states then also. A federal draft is illegal. The courts ruling is a perfect example of the precedent Lincoln set of reading extra constitutional provisions into the constitution that are not there. What part of the 10th Amendment do they and you not understand?”

JJ:
But you only criticize Lincoln for the draft. The Confederacy, which you seem to think was the epitome of States Rights also had a national draft and executed it April 16, 1862, over a year before Lincoln did. Georgia’s governor Joseph Brown warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states’ rights and individual liberty.

About 25 percent of Confederate soldiers were drafted, but only 3 percent of the Union Army.

If the Confederacy did not start the national draft then Lincoln probably would not have felt the need to follow.

Blayne:
“As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'”

JJ:
Tell that to Jefferson Davis who forced Lincoln’s hand. Why do you only criticize the lesser of two evils?

Some Constitutional Scholars think a national draft is constitutional and others do not. It is a judgement call that a Constitutional Supreme Court has condoned.

Blayne:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JJ:
See my other comments on this. So you would approve of yourself being a slave as long as “the people” are abusing you and not the government. By the way the government is people.

Blayne:
“The federal government can only own property in the states with the consent of the sate and the legislature see Article One, Section 8, Clause 17. If the state withdraws its consent then the federal government has no right to property.”

JJ:
Sorry. The Constitution does not say the states can have the property back if they secede. There is not even a hint of such thing. The federal government had the approval from South Carolina and after that approval they owned the property and the state had no right to force them to sell or giver it back.

Blayne:
“The first aggression was when Lincoln sent reinforcements showing his hostile intent.”

JJ:
It is not an aggression to fortify your own property.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress.”

JJ:
His actions were ratified by Congress after the war started.

Lincoln and a lot of the country viewed the handling of an internal rebellion as a different Constitutional matter than war with another nation. Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion was not considered unconstitutional.

Blayne:
“Where do you get this idea? So the newspapers that were shut down were trying to overthrow the government, and the legislators?”

JJ:
Basically, yes. They were thrown in jail for encouraging sedition and desertion. They were not touched for mere disagreement. You ought to read some of the articles the New York Times wrote about Lincoln and the war as proof of this. Again, the South took similar action.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:29 am

Blayne:
“Lincoln was destroying the Constitution. The South had seceded; he destroyed the Constitution by going to war against a sovereign nation when he had no authority via to the Constitution.”

JJ:
He did have authority and he used that authority and he did not destroy the Constitution.

Blayne:
“And they were not threat to the US.”

JJ:
Because of slavery they were a threat to the entire world.

Blayne:
“Your argument is he had the moral right to ignore the Constitution because of slavery.”

JJ:
That is not my argument. He never ignored the Constitution.

Blayne:
“Even though he stated his aim was not to free the slaves therefore your moral argument is now gone because he did not go to war on moral grounds.”

JJ:
Not so. Just before the war he said that the only possible way to avoid war is “upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states…. I see the duty revolving upon me.”

He saw that the only way to prevent a slave state was to do what is necessary to prevent a slave state. I quoted this in my last post. Perhaps you missed it.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.”

Blayne then writes:
“Once again actions speak much louder then words although Lincoln’s own words that he could care less about the slaves also reveal his true motives.”

JJ:

You keep saying this over and over and I correct you over and over. Let me repeat. Lincoln NEVER said he could care less about the slaves. Why do you distort the words of a great man?

Blayne:
“That fact that he contradicts himself in other word only speaks to his being a slimy politician that changes his words to whichever way the wind is blowing.”

JJ:

I think he was the most consistent politician that ever lived. You have no case if you stick to quoting his actual words in context. If you just throw out “Lincoln said” and then add your own words you can make him or even Jesus sound like a villain.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.”

Blayne:
“Perhaps you could be more specific as to what books you are referring to and if so then you could refute their sources rather then labeling them southern supremacy books to try and discredit them without any evidence.”

JJ:
You mentioned “The Real Lincoln” by Tom DiLorenzo. That is certainly one. Most things you say about Lincoln mirrors some of the material I’ve read in Southern Supremacy material. You really sound like you are parroting what I have read in the past — almost to the extent that I can predict how you will answer next.

Blayne:
“I have and your not including the many slaves they had in the West Indies. You are also ignoring the fact that the law did not emancipate the slaves and that did not happen till later. Britain had been working on freeing slaves for 20 years already.

“http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html”

JJ:
That’s a good article, but nothing in the British empire mirrored the situation of the Confederacy.

JJ quoting himself:
“In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.”

JJ then writes:
You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

Blayne:
I in fact am the only one so far who had posted any reference. Why don’t you post a reference for your percentages of those enslaved in the confederacy?”

JJ:
Here is one of many I have come across:

“The South had a population of 9 million, including almost 4 million slaves.”

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_18/United_States_History.html

If you want a reference on the fact that The South had intent to expand slavery to Cuba, Mexico and South America read the first 120 pages of “The Battle Cry for Freedom” by James McPherson. The Boise Public Library should have the book as well as the audio of it.

Blayne:
“The evidence is that 14 other countries ended slavery peacefully. You can deny it or spin it all you want that does not make it any less evidence.”

JJ:
Yes, but let me repeat again (sigh) that slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than any of these countries or the Northern States. Instead of diminishing they were seeking to expand it. Many even thought they would lose their “freedom” if they lost their slaves. How ironic!

Blayne:
“The South wanted to expand to the West so of course they wanted to be able to have slavery there, as it was part of their economy and culture, which was agrarian. However your assertion that the soul reason they wanted to expand to the west was to preserve slavery is ridiculous.”

JJ:
I don’t believe I said this. I said they were seeking to expand slavery to the West. Slavery was not the reason they were going west, but in going west they wanted to have slaves. Please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say.

Blayne:
“One other thing not mentioned is law like the Fugitive Slave Act, which propped up slavery. Incidentally Lincoln strongly supported that law.”

JJ:
You keep accusing Lincoln of going against the Constitution, but the Constitution was the reason he supported this act. Even though he was personally opposed to it he recognized that we were legally bound by it.

Article 4, Section 23 reads:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

Thank God Lincoln paved the way for the 13th Amendment which superseded it.

Blayne:
“The abolition of that law would have reduced the profitability of slavery helping speed its demise.”

JJ:
But that would have been unconstitutional and you seem to be for a black and white support of the Constitution come hell or high water.

You are inconsistent here. You say the South had the right to hold slaves because of the states rights provision of the Constitution, yet you think Lincoln should have directly violated the Constitution by opposing the Fugitive Slave Act — which was basically already the law because of the Constitution.

Blayne:
“It has also been mentioned that the advent of the tractor and the cotton gin among other things would have greatly diminished the need for slaves in the South. The first tractors were steam engine and invented around 1868. The cotton gin as already invented about 1802 and later improved I believe.”

JJ:
It’s quite possible the Confederacy would have merely shifted the slaves from the fields to the tractors. I think slavery would have eventually been eliminated but it would have taken much longer than you think — in my opinion. I think Lincoln advanced the cause of human freedom a good 50 years or more. The sacrifice was great, but it was worth it.

One thing we do know for sure and that is right after his election Lincoln saw his choice as to fight or not fight the creation of a slave state. (See previous quote)

Blayne quoting himself:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.”

Blayne then writes:
“You are very good as subtly trying to change the subject and the argument.

“Your little label of ‘southern supremacy’ is meant to try and change the issue to bolster you false argument that it was about slavery and the moral failings of slavery. Some might fall for this sleight of hand type tactic as it is only meant to bias readers against any disagreement to your argument. It won’t work on me however.”

JJ:

I am accurately educating the readers to the fact that most literature portraying Lincoln as a tyrant or destroyer of the Constitution are people who hold on to the idea that the South was right in its view of Lincoln. These people, of course acknowledge that slavery was wrong but see it as a problem of small significance that would have just faded away without Lincoln.

Ron Paul who has a negative view of Lincoln is closely associated with many of this bent including the Ludwig von Mises Institute which publishes his books.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group. Paul enthusiastically endorsed Woods’s secessionist endorsing book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.”

Blayne:
“I am not arguing that slavery wasn’t wrong and morally repugnant, I agree it is and so do those you try to pin your false label on.”

JJ:
No one is saying this today, but you and the secessionist movements minimize the problem that slavery was. I am with Lincoln in not minimizing the loss of human freedom — no matter the place, the time or the race.

Blayne:
“The issue is did Lincoln need to go to war and kill 600,00 of his countrymen in what is known as the Civil War. The answer is clearly no. Your argument is there was no other way. I contend there was and there is plenty of evidence to support there was some of which I have pointed out.”

JJ:
I haven’t seen any evidence. To compare other countries that did not have institutionalized slavery with the South is fallacious. It is like saying that the Taliban will give equal rights to women soon because other nations have. It’s not likely because they have institutionalized their bias.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

“http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396”

Blayne then writes:

“Well the Claremont Institute crowd is not exactly the pillar of honesty, being a government subsidized think tank that shouldn’t be surprising. We could post articles back and forth but it would probably be best to read both sides and weigh the evidence. Here is an article where DiLorenzo responds to the Claremont Institute:
“http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html”

JJ:

I read it. He sounds like a bitter man.

The guy’s refuting people I did not quote and says nothing that effectively counters any of my arguments. He does make a lot of the same arguments you do.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.”

Blayne then writes:
“This is simply not true; can you post some evidence for this assertion? Non-slaves states had no bearing. The tariffs were also on imports and were especially high on the manufactured items the Southern states did not produce.”

JJ:
Yes, there were tariffs and taxes on both imports and exports and many in the South felt they were unfair but these alone was not enough to make the South secede.

Of the four states that issued a declaration of cause of secession only Georgia even mentioned the tariff. They all complained of slavery as the main cause:

Here is a statement from Georgia:
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”

Mississippi:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. THERE WAS NO CHOICE LEFT US BUT SUBMISSION TO THE MANDATES OF ABOLITION, OR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION,”

South Carolina complains:
“Those (Northern) States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Texas:
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color — a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

See full text at:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

How clear can the word be? How can one read these declarations and not realize that the problem of slavery was the paramount reason behind secession?

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.”

Blayne then writes:
“Amazing I posted a quote of him saying essentially that and now you are denying it? Here it is again:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
There is nothing in that quote about not caring about slavery. I already destroyed the potency of this quote by giving the rest of it. Let me repeat it again what you left out:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

Does his statement you keep leaving out sound like he couldn’t care less about slavery? An “oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free” certainly shows that he cares, but at the time he officially had to adhere to the publicly accepted objective of saving the union. He had to be careful to stress this in a letter to the most influential newspaper editor in the United States.

Lincoln did not have enough support in the North for abolition to appear to be promoting it too much so he had to be careful in his wording.

April 16, 2011
To compare Lincoln to Hitler doesn’t make any sense at all to me. When in a war fighting for survival extreme measures are always taken and the criticisms aimed toward Lincoln could be made as much or more toward Jefferson Davis. This is a point Dilorenzo seems to be mysteriously silent on.

If one had a grudge toward George Washington he could also make a case that he was a tyrant for he used strong authority when necessary.

Like Larry, I receive a great vibration from the man when I read anything about him, even from his enemies and especially from his own words. I am certainly in good company for DK calls him a “Racial Avatar” on the side of light coming forth “from the very soul of a people, and introducing and transmitting racial quality to be worked out later as the race unfolds.” White Magic Page 298

He also says “The power which the New Group of World Servers will eventually yield, will be drawn from two sources: first, from that inner centre or subjective world government, whose members are responsible for the spread of those ideals and ideas which have led humanity onwards from age to age. This inner centre has always existed and the great leaders of the race, in every field, have been connected with it. The great idealists and world workers, (such as the Christ and His great brother, the Buddha, and those lesser workers, such as Plato, Spinoza, Abraham Lincoln, or Florence Nightingale) have all been associated with this centre.”

If DK is truly a Master working under the direction of the Christ this would mean that even the greatest of us all sees Lincoln as a great initiate.

Jesus said that we can recognize true workers and teachers by their fruits. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Here are some of Lincoln’s fruits.

(1) He is the most quoted president or world leader of all time and many of his words stir the soul and almost have the ring of scripture.

Many quote Lincoln’s words. Who quotes Hitler or any other tyrant?

Next to Jesus he gave the most famous speech of all time, the Gettysburg Address.

Historians almost universally rate him as our greatest president.

He freed the slaves. This was one of the greatest accomplishments by any man in history. If we had not fought the Civil War I believe the slaves would not have been free until about the 1960’s. Instead of struggling for civil rights we would have still been dealing with the slavery issue.

He preserved the Union. If we were a divided nation during World War II it is quite possible Hitler would have won the war.

He supported the construction of the first transcontinental railroad.

He supported for the Homestead Act. This act allowed poor people in the East to obtain land in the West and greatly increased the wealth of the American people.

He defied the national and international bankers and refused to borrow money at high interest and issued greenbacks that cost us no interest.

He set an example of honesty and integrity that has inspired millions.

He initiated Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

He signed a proclamation for a day of national fasting and prayer.

There are many stories giving evidence of his kindness and compassion. He planned on being forgiving and compassionate in victory – not something a tyrant would have done.

He had a great sense of humor and told many funny as well as teaching stories.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Series NavigationTaking It With YouAlternative Currency

6 thoughts on “Lincoln – Good or Evil?

  1. JJ “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson is a good book that doesn’t have an agenda. It is very well written and fascinating reading.”

    LOL, You can’t be serious?

  2. I could not agree more with JJ here. Surprising that Blayne has taken this stance along with Dilorenzo. There is a reason why Lincoln is considered the greatest president. He ingeniously and even divinely, in my opinion, walked through the political minefields that beset him from all sides – even his own party. He did it and succeeded in preserving the Union, which is a big deal and more importantly, freed the slaves.

  3. Here is a rebuttal to some of the Critics to DiLorenzos books. http://mises.org/etexts/ostrowski.asp

    The Claremont institute is not credible in thier rebuttal.

    Some statements among others Lincoln has made:

    “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.? There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.? I . . . am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” [p. 11]

    What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”? (Springfield, July 17, 1858)
    I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”? (Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858)

    There are too many contradictory quotes by Lincoln which supports that he was just playing politician and saying what he figured his audience wanted to hear.

    There is evidence Slavery was declining in the south with the advent of the cotton gin and the tractor however to just stop it would have collapsed thier economy and that is the main reason they seceded. 14 other nations stopped it peacefully that is pretty good evidence it could have done the same in the US. Saying Lincoln had authority to wage war on the south is absurd. Please point out in the constitution where secession is prohibited much less mentioned or even implied? Thus it is left up to the States as illustrated in in the 10th amendment, That is beyond dispute.

    If the South had not right to exist because of slavery then the US had no right to exist since it’s inception for slavery was a part of it since the beginning. Justifying Lincoln’s actions and destruction of the republic because of slavery is also absurd in light of that.

    Also on the DK quote you made I could not find it in White Magic on the page you said, And I looked in my own copy as well as online, but found this similar one in Externalization of the Hierarchy:

    “1. Racial Avatars. These Appearances are evoked by the genius and destiny of a race, The typical man (in quality and consciousness, not necessarily physically) foreshadows [298] the nature of some race. Such a man was Abraham Lincoln, coming forth from the very soul of a people, and introducing and transmitting racial quality – a quality to be worked out later as the race unfolds. Coming forth correspondingly from the realm of cosmic evil, and responsible for the focus of materialism upon the planet today was Bismarck. Both men came forth within the same one hundred years, thus demonstrating the balance in nature and the constant interplay of the pairs of opposites. They are both types of the most powerful Avatars which humanity itself has as yet produced. They emerge along the lines of government, of the first ray and in the department of the Manu, and are very sensitive to Shamballa force. Such Avatars frequently emerge at the founding of a nation. This is true of both Bismarck and Lincoln.”
    http://www.light-weaver.com/externalisation/exte1127.html

    Here is the points De Lorenzo makes listed on the page I linked above.

    1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.

    2. Opposing racial equality.

    3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.

    4. Being a racist.

    5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.

    6. Supporting Clay?s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.

    7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.

    8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.

    9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.

    10. Never defending a runaway slave.

    11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.

    12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.?

    13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.

    14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that “free white people” can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.

    15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.

    16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere–Lincoln’s war was the only “war of emancipation” in the 19th century.

    17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

    18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.

    19. Supporting a conscription law.

    20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

    21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.

    22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.

    23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.

    24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.

    25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.

    26. Lying about re-supplying the fed?s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.

    27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.

    28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.

    29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.

    30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.

    31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

    32. Illegally declaring martial law.

    33. Illegally blockading ports.

    34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

    35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

    36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

    37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

    38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

    39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

    40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

    42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

    43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

    44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

    45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

    46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

    47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

    48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

    49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the “indestructible” state of Virginia.

    50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.

    51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.

    52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

    53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

    54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

    55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

    56. reating an enormous political patronage system.

    57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

    58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

    59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.

    60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.

    61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.

    62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

    63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.

    64. Using civilians as hostages.

    65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.

    66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln?s allies.

    67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.

    68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.

    69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.

    70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.

    71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.

    This is why I have a problem with Lincoln. A couple of other books are Lincoln Unmasked by Dilorenzo and there is also an older book by the same title of The Real Lincoln by Charles L.C. Minor. It is published by Sprinkle Publications, P.O. Box 1094, Harrisonburg, VA 22801.

    There is too much evidence to the contrary that Lincoln was a good guy to ignore despite what anyone including DK says. Who by the way only mentions Lincoln in two quotes. Each will have to do thier own due diligence if they are interested.

    JJ if you have some insight through soul I would like to hear It. There was a time I could say the I got a good vibe from Abe but since I don’t now I wonder if it was just a reinforcement of bias for some. Not saying it is for you but others perhaps. I didn’t just read the contrary evidence and change my mind I contemplated it for a long time. I am not sure if you have read DiLorenzos books or not. But it would do anyone well to read them. They are well researched.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code