Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

More On Dishonest Abe’s Liberty-Destroying Legacy

July 18, 2012 by  

More On Dishonest Abe’s Liberty-Destroying Legacy
PHOTOS.COM
Abraham Lincoln did not wage the Civil War to liberate the slaves.

In response to the spirited and colorful comments that my article Dishonest Abe’s Legacy And The 2012 Election generated, I’ve decided to expound further upon Abraham Lincoln’s sordid Administration and the consequences it had for our Constitutional republic. Let’s re-examine the contested facts, shall we?

Lincoln did not wage the Civil War to liberate the slaves.

As I said before, the cartoonish version of American history portraying Lincoln as the storied “Great Emancipator” is nothing but a combination of wishful thinking and willful propaganda. Lincoln laid bare his intentions in waging war on the peacefully seceded Southern States in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862:

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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (Emphasis added)

Furthermore, as noted Lincoln critic Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo has documented exhaustively and repeatedly, the celebrated Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. It applied only to Confederate-held territory (where it could not be enforced); allowed the “peculiar institution” to continue in Washington, D.C.; and allowed all slaveholders in the Border States of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri to keep their slaves.

Lincoln himself acknowledged the fact that the Proclamation was only a war measure, not a genuine attempt to emancipate the slaves. William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state and one of his closest political confidants, had the following to say about the nature of the Proclamation: “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.”

In addition, many Northern newspapers (which were subsequently censored by Lincoln and closed down by Federal troops) excoriated the Proclamation as nothing more than a political sham. An editorial in the New York World thoroughly mocked Lincoln’s supposed act of liberation:

The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.

Not only that, but the slaves who were “freed” by Union troops in Federally controlled portions of the South were essentially pressed back into servitude as manual laborers. As described by DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln:

Many slaves who ended up in the hands of the Federal army were not set free but were put to work doing the most unpleasant tasks in and around army encampments. Others were sent back to their owners. Congress passed several “confiscation acts” in the early years of the war that allowed Federal troops to confiscate the slaves (and other property) in conquered rebel territory. As one Illinois lieutenant wrote, “I have 11 Negroes in my company now. They do every particle of the dirty work. Two women among them do the washing for the company.”

Due to his sly political gamesmanship regarding the issue of slavery, Lincoln was despised by several prominent abolitionists. Among them was the great 19th century libertarian abolitionist and philosopher Lysander Spooner, who viciously attacked the actions of the Lincoln Administration and supported the right of the Southern States to secede from the Union. Spooner, unlike a good deal of his abolitionist colleagues who later became supportive of Lincoln’s war, saw through the Administration’s flowery rhetoric. He declared, “All of these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor,’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats.”

Spooner also lambasted Lincoln and the Republicans for their insincerity over the issue of Emancipation. Slavery was not abolished, he wrote, “as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only as ‘a war measure,’ and because they wanted his assistance… in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery…” He also cut through Lincoln’s laughable assertion that he was also waging the war to defend the principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The only type of “consent” Lincoln upheld, Spooner said, was that by force of arms: “Everybody must consent, or be shot.” Great Emancipator, indeed.

In spite of the plethora of evidence to the contrary available both online and in print, many Lincoln worshipers maintain that Lincoln miraculously “changed his views” on race. “In his heart,” they cry, “Lincoln cherished racial equality!” First of all, how do they know what was in the heart and mind of a man who has been dead for more than 150 years? Do they possess powers of clairvoyance? Can they commune with the dead? What scholarly, academic evidence rooted here on planet Earth do they have to back up their claims? Everything that I have cited and quoted regarding Lincoln’s views on race comes from the man’s own recorded words and deeds, as well as the testimony of those who knew him both before and during the Civil War.

One revealing story comes from Benjamin Butler, the Massachusetts Congressman who was appointed a Union Army General by Lincoln (who kept him in command despite his gross incompetence on the battlefield, which lead to needless Union casualties). Butler, as the military dictator of occupied New Orleans, sentenced a Confederate sympathizer to death for tearing down the American flag, confiscated the private property (including firearms) of suspected Rebels and censored the press. After all, he was just taking his cue from Lincoln, but I’ve digressed.

After the war, Butler recounted a “colonization interview” that he had attended with Lincoln shortly before the President’s death, during which Lincoln asked, “What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?” According to Butler, Lincoln continued, saying “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.” After the dumpy General proposed deporting the newly freed slaves to Panama to act as slave labor for a planned canal (which would come to fruition during Teddy Roosevelt’s Presidency), Lincoln responded, “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that.” For more information on this exchange and Lincoln’s record on “racial equality,” I highly recommend the book Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by historians Philip Magness and Sebastian Page. (Butler’s dialogue with Lincoln is described in detail on page 109 of the book.)

Last but not least Lincoln, in his first Inaugural Address, unequivocally stated the reason he would wage war on the South:

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. (Emphasis added)

Get that folks? It was all about taxes for Lincoln and company. The chief reason Lincoln wanted to “save the Union” was so that he could force the Southern States to continue to pay the bulk of his program of protectionist tariffs. In a nutshell, Lincoln essentially told the South, “Your money or your life,” just as King George III told the colonists in 1776. In this light, the Southern States were only emulating their patriot forebears in seceding from a government to which they no longer consented. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a document of secession from the British Empire, and it codified the right of a people to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” as an unalienable right.

Lastly as far Lincoln’s “late life conversion” to Christianity is concerned, some Christian he must have been if he supposedly waged a war to free slaves that resulted in 750,000 deaths when every other Western nation on Earth (including the British Empire and the Northern United States) ended slavery peacefullyNo genuine Christian who claimed Jesus the Prince of Peace as Lord and Savior would have violated both the Constitution and the principles of Natural Law (both of which protect human life and dignity as preached in the Sermon on the Mount). If Christian Republicans hail Lincoln as a paragon of Christian virtue, the Vatican might as well go ahead and make Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin saints. As Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16, NKJV)

Think about these things long and hard before you rush headlong into the voting booth to pull the lever for the party of Lincoln this November, the alleged “lesser of two evils.” Remember: By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

–Conor MacCormack

Conor MacCormack

is a freelance writer/blogger who runs Providential Publications, which offers writing/editing/media services. His blog, Brushfires of Freedom, addresses the current political and spiritual turmoil gripping our nation and how a return to America's founding principles will lead to lasting liberty and prosperity. He has also served as an intern for Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. in Washington, D.C.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “More On Dishonest Abe’s Liberty-Destroying Legacy”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • DaveH

    It’s always about taxes. The biggest gang in the land needs copious amounts of money to sustain themselves.

    • GALT

      So “also served” as…………..not you DaveH

      Bob gotta new co-conspirator…….in the business is for profit…..I found freedom world….

      Mr. Conor Mc…….the common law and equity court thing ever come up while you YOU were “serving” with Ron Paul?

      Ring a bell with YOU?

      • GALT

        Special Note for DavidH: You came first……..I didn’t actually want to respond to one of your posts………sometimes you just get lucky………..and by that I didn’t mean YOU personally……..BTW you fired anyone yet? ( you are out of sat provider’s, what next? )

      • duane

        What the hell is your point! Oh you are just another liberal shill trying to make us mad. Go wallow in your own puke. That is about all you are good for and you sure as hell don’t make a bit of sense with your so called intellect.

    • Vigilant

      Neoconfederate Conor MacCormack ignores history with his “As I said before, the cartoonish version of American history portraying Lincoln as the storied “Great Emancipator” is nothing but a combination of wishful thinking and willful propaganda.”

      What’s “wishful thinking and willful propaganda” is to studiously ignore the 13th Amendment, supported and pushed by Abraham Lincoln before his death. The term “Great Emancipator” comes from this action, not the Emancipation Proclamation..

      Tell me, sir, why Lincoln does not deserve the apellation, after working to free the slaves in ALL of the states?

      Intellectual dishonesty and propaganda of the worst kind.

      • Vigilant

        In a particularly flippant and dishonest paragraph, MacCormack gives us the following (wordy) rant:

        “In spite of the plethora of evidence to the contrary available both online and in print, many Lincoln worshipers maintain that Lincoln miraculously “changed his views” on race. “In his heart,” they cry, “Lincoln cherished racial equality!” First of all, how do they know what was in the heart and mind of a man who has been dead for more than 150 years? Do they possess powers of clairvoyance? Can they commune with the dead? What scholarly, academic evidence rooted here on planet Earth do they have to back up their claims? Everything that I have cited and quoted regarding Lincoln’s views on race comes from the man’s own recorded words and deeds, as well as the testimony of those who knew him both before and during the Civil War.”

        Mr. MacCormack, you’d do well to consult with the author and publishers of neoconfederate pseudohistory before you make charges like that. “How do they know what was in the heart and mind of a man who has been dead for more than 150 years? Do they possess powers of clairvoyance? Can they commune with the dead?”

        No sir, they simply have the power of literacy, and they have read Lincoln’s very last speech, the one that got him assassinated for that very reason (advocating black suffrage)…or haven’t you read it?

        That, sir, is the “scholarly, academic evidence rooted here on planet Earth…to back up their claims.” And, it just happens to come “from the man’s own recorded words and deeds.”

        • baldmurph

          “For everything under the sun there is a time: a time to reap, and a time to sow . . . ” It looks like Lincoln was determined to preserve the full Union, and everything in his way was to be worked over or around any way he could. What he thought about the status of the American Negro when he was growing up I do not know; some of us change as we grow older and our minds accept different visions: it may be so with Lincoln, or he may have just held his tongue until his primary task, preservation of the Union, was successful. Some of MY ideas from before surviving VietNam were certainly different after; perhaps so with Lincoln.

      • Scott Todd

        Doubtless his friendship with Frederick Douglass did much to change his views.

      • Vigilant

        MacCormack continues with more unsubstantiated and highly questionable propaganda with “After the war, Butler recounted a “colonization interview” that he had attended with Lincoln shortly before the President’s death, during which Lincoln asked, “What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?” According to Butler, Lincoln continued, saying ”I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.”

        How convenient that Lincoln was killed soon after this supposed conversation against which he could not defend himself. Moreover, and most importantly, that “conversation” took place on April 11, 1865. That very evening Lincoln publicly unveiled his hopes for Negro suffrage! It was his last public speech.

        He lauded the efforts of Louisiana as follows: “Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.”

        This, in addition to his own endorsement of Negro suffrage for black soldiers and the “very intelligent” blacks in the same speech, this conclusively puts the lie to Butler’s assertions.

        But that makes no difference to the neoconfederates and DiLorenzo sycophants. You will find scant mention of Lincoln’s second inaugural address and his last public speech amongst the writings of these mentally imbalanced “true believers” because it contradicts with hard historical evidence their scurrilous attempts to assassinate Lincoln’s character.

        • Charlie Tall

          Lincoln, like Obama, said whatever he thought was politically expedient at the time. Anyone who believes his speeches (or those of any other politician, for that matter) is a fool.

      • Eddie Sutton

        He did not free the slaves in federal lands after he freed the slaves in the confedrate
        states, which he had no authority to do so….but his dictatorship ways. The slaves in the
        north were freed later. By the way, Grant was a slave-owner…Robert E. Lee wasn’t!

      • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.sutton.3304 Jerry Sutton

        And look what we have now…a nation of welfare recipients…mostly black and yet they are
        only 18% or less of the population. Funny, Idaho has about 3% blacks and yet
        their prisons have about 90% blacks….does that tell you anything. I’m not racist, but a
        fact is a fact. Without the south, the union would have never made it on their own.
        That is why fuzzy-face waged war on the south. He used God in a lot of his speeches,
        yet he actually admitted once he was an atheist…kinda like Obama and him trying to
        make us believe he’s a christian, when he isn’t.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    With all due respect I have to say this of Lincoln.

    He did ultimately wage war to free the slaves. Initially he only wanted to restore the union as it had been. Only later did he come to the understanding that so long as slavery existed the country would always be divided. Only then did Lincoln finally understand the true responsibility that came with his presidency.

    Actually the proclamation did free slaves. Once Union armies entered an area under the emancipation proclamation they were declared free where before they were classified as contraband or stolen property. Also Lincoln did intend the proclamation only as a war measure. He ultimately supported the 13th amendment when he realized all he had fought for would be undone unless he pushed for the constitution to outlaw slavery forever. No one said the emancipation proclamation ended discrimination. It was wrong but sadly many northerners had racial prejudice as bad as any in the south. Lincoln himself was a prejudiced man. He however was able to change by interacting with African American soldiers and spokesmen like Fredrick Douglas who Lincoln called his friend.

    Actually Lincoln was not saying your money or your life. As Lincoln said his object was to preserve the union and to The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government. Lincoln was being nice and essentially saying all he was going to do was hold on to territory the government still had control of. Also in wanting to collect duties from the south Lincoln was doing what was expected of a president. He was the commander in chief and his responsibility was to lead the nations armed forces as a civilian. Since the regular police forces of seceded states were not going to enforce the nations laws or collect taxes he and the army had no choice but to regain control of states which were still part of the union no matter what they said. Also there was a SLIGHT difference between the colonies in 1776 and the southern states in 1861. For one the colonies were not equal members of the British empire and had ” Taxation without representation”. The southern states were states within the union had had their own elected representatives as they always had. They were upset that they no longer had majorities and would have to accept laws they disagreed with. Another difference is the British empire which oppressed the colonies was lead by an unelected absolute monarch. The United States was being lead as it always had been by a democratically elected president who had not even taken office, in fact had barely been elected when the first southern states seceded. Lincoln had no time and no power to implement any agenda against the south. The south seceded based on assumptions made about Lincoln and the Republican party.

    First of all the Civil War even by the most liberal estimates only killed 650000 not 750000. Second the other countries of the word like Britain did not suffer secession by slave states when they tried to abolish slavery. Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners to give up slavery willingly. He also developed ludacris plans to send freed slaves to Africa. Lincoln ultimately learned he was wrong to make such plans but at the time he thought it was a way to keep the peace but still end slavery. Lincoln wanted to destroy slavery by letting it die slowly by containing it and letting it wither on the vine. The souths more extremist leaders took this to mean Lincoln the “Black Republican” was going to declare the slaves equal human beings and arm them and set them loose on their former owners. That was no where near what Lincoln wanted. But the threat convinced enough state leaders and southern citizens along with arguments about states rights to vote for seceding from the union and forming their own country rather then work with the new president. Lincoln wanted peace. He went to great lengths to gain it. So much that many northern newspapers declared him a coward and unfit to be leader. Lincoln wanted no war. It was forced on the nation by both sides refusing to make peace and by the fact the south fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Had Lincoln not responded with military force it would have legitimized secession as a viable option. Secession is a last desperate resort tactic to be used should a president or other leader declare themselves the dictator of America. It is a safe guard when normal circumstances and laws cannot be appealed to. This did not characterize the situation in 1861. Lincoln was no dictator and had done nor was he going to do anything tyrannical to the south. The south seceded because they did not like the guy who won. That is not a reason to secede. If Lincoln had not acted it would have taught state leaders that they can secede whenever they strongly disagree with the president or with the results of an election. Had Lincoln not acted secession would have become popular and would have spread to other states whose leaders were at odds with the national government. This would have lead to total anarchy. That is why Lincoln waged the war. Not taxes, Union was what he was fighting for. As you said at the beginning of your article Mr. MacCormack Lincoln said so himself that Union was what he was fighting for.

    • Vigilant

      Jeremy says, “Also Lincoln did intend the proclamation only as a war measure. He ultimately supported the 13th amendment when he realized all he had fought for would be undone unless he pushed for the constitution to outlaw slavery forever.”

      You are correct. Lincoln understood the shaky Constitutional grounds he was on, as the Constitution at that point still legitimized slavery. For that reason, he was careful to phrase the Proclamation as an exceptional wartime measure and, against the advice of his Cabinet, issued it.

      Excerpt: “Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary WAR MEASURE (Caps mine) for suppressing said rebellion…” etc.

    • Vigilant

      Jeremy says, “The south seceded because they did not like the guy who won. That is not a reason to secede. If Lincoln had not acted it would have taught state leaders that they can secede whenever they strongly disagree with the president or with the results of an election.”

      Another correct statement. In a childish and malevolent manner, the South said, in effect, “we’ll vote in the general election of 1860, but if we don’t like the results, we’ll pick up our marbles and leave.” Several states seceded before Lincoln even took office.

      Andrew Jackson summed it up quite nicely some 27 years earlier when he predicted the proximate cause of the Civil War: On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, “the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.”.

      He also said, “If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.”

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        The constitution gave the states the right to secede. It is not up to the federal government to decide if their reason was valid!

      • Nightrider

        After this, I will have more thought and respect every time I take a $20 bill from my wallet.

      • DaveH
      • TML

        Vigilant says, “Another correct statement. In a childish and malevolent manner, the South said, in effect, “we’ll vote in the general election of 1860, but if we don’t like the results, we’ll pick up our marbles and leave.”

        His intentions were well known. When the result is a president who was known to have said this…

        “The Union, in any event, won’t be dissolved. We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn’t do it…. We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” ~ Lincoln, in a campaign speech in Galena, Illinois, Aug. 1 1856.

        … among many other things like it, I hardly think its reasonable to say it was childish and malevolent. In fact I think it’s pretty ignorant to think so.
        Compare such words with a prominent founder….

        “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.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address 1801

      • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.sutton.3304 Jerry Sutton

        Believe it or not…it was one of the reasons. Most southerns did not want succession.
        But with Lincoln elected, they did. Also, there were more southerns against slavery than
        there were in the north, and thats a fact. With less than 10% (high figure) slave owners,
        why did so many southerns fight so hard. It was against northern invaders MIster
        Know-it-all. The south lost, therefore their story could never be told until recent years.
        Also, the KKK had the biggest clans in northern states. Wise up and did you ever
        wonder why there are more conservatives in the south…because they work for what
        they earned and ain’t about to sit by and let liberals and Obama take it from them
        and give it to those who didn’t earn it. For God sake, man, wake up!

    • Jim Austin

      Libertarians have retroactively taken up the cause of the Confederacy. Efforts of Thomas J. DiLorenzo fall into this category. Double checking sources indicates DiLorenzo has quoted Lincoln out of context to defend the Confederacy’s right to enslave.

      Libertarianism is not about freedom, not about liberty, not about rights. Libertarianism is about opposition to government. The focus of their rage is the U.S. government, and they are ready to side with the most tyrannical of governments or factions at war against the U.S. government. Libertarians sided with communist countries during the Cold War. They now side with terrorists. And, of course, they retroactively sided the the Confederacy.

      Libertarians readily sacrifice liberty, freedom, rights in their opposition to the U.S. government.

      • Ted Crawford

        It’s been my experience with the Libertarians that they love to play the game of Semantics, Humorously enough, they often accuse others of that when attempting to discredit any opposing viewpoints . Noninterventionalist not Isolationist, Libertarian not Anarchist, ETC. ! What they fail to realize is that Anarchy isn’t a better form of governance, just a different one.
        It seem to stem from Idealism, and it’s been a problem for centuries! Many have tried to define it and it’s lack of any realistic value ” An Idealist is one who, on noticing that a Rose smells better than a Cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup !” H.L. Mencken
        ” Cynics regard everyone as equally corrupt….Idealists regard everyone as equally corrupt, except themselves ” Robert Wilson

      • Nightrider

        Libertarians believe in less government, to a minimum necessary for this nation to function, not no government. Laissez-faire is the key, let the markets be free to run, individual freedoms ‘guaranteed’ by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to reign and
        be applied. No twisting of an encroachment of personal freedom/choice through fear
        of a ‘tax’ to purchase health insurance. And no erosion of due process as opposed
        to a ‘law’ that says the fed can lock up anyone (citizen included) for an indetermined
        amount of time without being formally charged as long as they are suspected of
        ‘terroristic activities’ or even the possibility thereof. You get the idea.

      • DaveH

        Jim Austin says — “Double checking sources indicates DiLorenzo has quoted Lincoln out of context to defend the Confederacy’s right to enslave”.
        Is that right, Jim? Then perhaps you could show us those sources that prove your point?

      • DaveH

        Jim says — “Libertarianism is not about freedom, not about liberty, not about rights. Libertarianism is about opposition to government. The focus of their rage is the U.S. government, and they are ready to side with the most tyrannical of governments or factions at war against the U.S. government. Libertarians sided with communist countries during the Cold War. They now side with terrorists. And, of course, they retroactively sided the the Confederacy”.
        DaveH says — “You’re a liar, Jim. We are the antithesis of Communists. We take no sides except to champion the rights of people to control their own bodies and property free from meddlesome and immoral creeps such as yourself who will fabricate whatever facts necessary to excuse their interference with the lives of others”.
        For those who want to truly understand the Libertarian philosophy, read this:
        http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf

      • http://personalliberty DEAN

        ??????? do they even teach history in school any more or did they do away with that ??????? there are lot of clueless people out there.

    • phideaux

      “First of all the Civil War even by the most liberal estimates only killed 650000 not 750000.”

      Wrong, a recent article proved that at least 750,000 died in the War of Northern Agression and possibly more. The article appeared on MSNBC abd also other places.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I respect Mr Williams. He is a great news man. I will look into this more. However a single study does not uncontestable fact make.

      • phideaux

        nevermind

    • mark

      Mr. Leochner you’re absolutely right on Lincoln – a great though a flawed leader. But the neo-Confederates on this site like the neo-Conservatives on others are so deeply imbedded in their own version of ideology that they will never make the slightest concession to Lincoln’s important and nation-saving contribution to our history. They have such a deep and abiding love for the Slave South – and later the Segregationist South – that they can never brook the slightest criticism of either.

      • DaveH

        As usual, the Liberal course of action is to manipulate with nefarious accusations.
        Exposing the man Lincoln for what he really was has nothing at all to do with being or not being a “neo confederate”.
        Only ignorant people, who are afraid of truth, need to stoop to such machinations.
        For those who want to understand the intense amount of Propaganda that we’ve all been subjected to by those who wish to foist Big Central Government on us regardless of the Constitutionality of it:
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826219098?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0826219098

        Lincoln was nothing more than a lying Power-hungry Railroad Lawyer turned President who aspired to the teachings of Henry Clay who advocated the same Big Government Mercantilism that spurred our Founders on to a revolution.
        The South simply wanted to secede from the Unholy Union that took advantage of them, much like a woman might want to get away from a cheating abusive husband. Who among you would advocate forcing that women to stay in such a relationship? Probably a few, but it’s doubtful they would admit it.

      • cwipaulk

        NORTHERN BLACK CODES

        Seen as a threat to white laborers, blacks were widely disenfranchised in Northern States, especially during the 1850s and 60s. It was not until after the War that these so-called “black codes” showed up in the South. Free blacks not only had restrictions placed on opportunities to earn a living, but also upon opportunities for education, for the privilege to vote, and even whether they could legally reside in a given State (JRK p. 55-57, 77; CA p. 130; BBM p. 170-72).
        In 1851, the Indiana constitution was changed to state that “no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state [...]” (JRK p. 55; BBM p. 171).
        1853 Illinois law prevented “the immigration of free negroes into this State.” In 1862 the citizens of Illinois amended their State constitution to say that “No Negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state [...]” (JRK p. 55, 77; CA p. 130; BBM p. 171).
        Oregon’s constitution, adopted on November 9, 1857, stated that “[n]o free negroe or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state [...]” (JRK p. 55; BBM p. 172).
        New Jersey and Massachusetts had also placed similar restrictions on blacks (JRK p. 55).

        “Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from someone else’s eye”.

      • Kevin Beck

        Mark,

        Maybe you could enlighten us on how the United States is better today because of a war that allowed the Federal government to interfere in our daily lives in unlimited fashion? At the same time, you might want to teach us how your cartoonish neo-naming of everything you don’t like bolsters your flimsy position statements that you believe are arguments?

    • cwipaulk

      It Freed Whose Slaves?

      by Al Benson, Jr.
      It amazes me how often conservative and patriotic people, who should know better, have so little a grasp of accurate history. I recently saw comments on a patriotic web site by a well-intentioned columnist commenting about how all the slaves were freed upon the first reading of the Emancipation Proclamation. My first thought was rather unprintable. My second thought was “you’ve got to be kidding!”
      How many people, even good-hearted and well-meaning ones, have been fooled by bogus history. They have heard the old fables repeated so often since they were youngsters that they automatically parrot those same falsehoods as adults, never knowing the difference. Most have heard these carefully crafted stories about Lincoln, the ‘Great Emancipator,’ so often they seldom bother to question them. They have become part of our national mythology.
      Should one have any lingering doubts about just who the Emancipation Proclamation really freed, one thorough reading of it should dispel them. This document freed exactly NO ONE. That’s right, folks, not one single slave was freed by Lincoln’s infamous document, contrary to what your ‘history’ books have been feeding you for generations.
      Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.”
      The Kennedy Brothers, in their book The South Was Right wrote of the proclamation that “Its purpose was to drape the invasion of the Southern nation in the robes of morality. It was an effective propaganda ploy to influence England and France not to recognize the Southern nation and also an attempt to encourage slave insurrection in the South. The truth is that Lincoln’s so-called Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free slaves.” Anyone who has troubled to read the thing can’t argue with that assessment.
      What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction. Kind of like having your cake and eating it too!
      Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.”
      Jay Monaghan, author of Diplomat in Carpet Slippers has observed: “Although many of the meetings were directed solely against slavery, the implication to the social order in Europe was obvious. Trade union leaders hailed Lincoln as ‘a benefactor of mankind.’ His name was linked with Karl Marx as the hope of the world.” Lincoln and Marx, an altogether fitting comparison – two minds that traveled in the same groove. It is interesting that those who profess a hatred for Marx seem to love Lincoln – and they never even begin to grasp the monstrous contradiction in that position. As the man says, “no wonder we’re losing!”
      Christians, conservatives, and patriotic people, more than anyone else, should be concerned with getting their history straight. If we mess up on important events and principles, what can we expect of others? Accurate history is the record of a sovereign God’s dealing with men in all ages and in all places. As such, we had better strive to make sure we try to get it right.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Copyright ©, Al Benson Jr.
      ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
      P.O. Box 1883
      Arlington Heights, IL 60006
      Al Benson, Jr. is also the Editor of the Copperhead Chronicle, and can be reached at cpprhd10@aol.com

      The Annals of America,” Vol. 9, published by Encyclopedia Brittannica, Inc. : “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were under Confederate control, and in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized.“

    • cwipaulk

      The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors. Those who make claims that “the war was over slavery” or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.
      The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting.
      Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme’s contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes’ assessment of yankee motives – the creation of “Empire”!
      Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”
      Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question.”
      Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
      It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.”
      The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America, which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote ” I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had ” tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.
      Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated ” I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance” . Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated ” Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption”.
      James W. King

    • gunsrule

      What happened is the Federal government smashed the states rights and our constitution and they are still doing it and wimps like you condone it.Sun shines in,You have awoken!!!

    • Jim L.Adrian III

      Lincoln was called a Republican, whatever that was back then and the other side was the Democrats whatever that was, probably different sides of the same coin as now.
      About 15 decades have come and gone and guess what, the tables have flipped. What was a Republican then is a Democrat now. Same with the then Democrats, as they are Republicans now.
      Whatever that means, I do not know except now no matter what your color, if you have worked your whole life and saved for a retirement-you are losing everyday some of your life, liberty, property and happiness. to a lumbering bureaucracy of ever increasing porportions which needs more and more of each and everyone, the money and property saved by your toil and wits.
      Republicans or Democrats, still of the opposite coin sides!!!
      Obama, like him or not, has screwed the pooch enough. If he stays in, forget keeping anything. Give it all up to the government and settle for a stipend.
      Romney, like him or not, he made it like you have made it. Only for most, probably better.
      If you will give him a chance, I believe you as well as myself will have a chance to keep our possessions and may even grow some. At least no foot will be on your neck and hands in both pockets, as it is evolving now!!!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      This is interesting:
      “He did ultimately wage war to free the slaves. Initially he only wanted to restore the union as it had been.”

      You can only “wage war ” ONCE, you can’t “ultimately” change your mind and wage it for that reason.

      And the Union was VOLUNTARY, so obviously he didn’t want that either.
      He wanted an EMPIRE– and he got it. Heil Lincoln!

  • Vigilant

    Methinks Herr MacCormack doth protest too much. Hypocritically, he says, “No genuine Christian who claimed Jesus the Prince of Peace as Lord and Savior would have violated both the Constitution and the principles of Natural Law (both of which protect human life and dignity as preached in the Sermon on the Mount).”

    By implication you have just condemned every Southerner who believed in the institution of slavery. Please advise us which “principle of Natural Law” was preserved by slaveholders.

    Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.sutton.3304 Jerry Sutton

      This is for Flashy….its true you couldn’t import slaves into the interior of the northern
      states in 1801…but Boston and other sea-ports were “open or free ports” You could
      sell and buy slaves as long as they were eventually shipped to the slave states. Boston
      had one of the biggest slave trades in 1863 and most slave ships were built up north.
      The south never built a slave-carrying ship and that is a fact. The civil war was all
      about the United States failing, which it would have done without the south.

  • MAP

    Well, with this article you have set loose the statist left. The dictatorial Lincoln is bread and butter for their whole oppressive ideology. Lincoln proclaimed his only interest was preserving the union, but what type of union was he talking about? Certainly not one that the Declaration of Independence described as ‘consent of the governed’. And certainly not one based on the free and voluntary basis that had been the basis of the ratification. There is NOTHING free about Lincoln’s union. His union is a union of force, where states are to chained to the union in totalitarian fashion. As an aside, I believe that the real culprit was Andrew Jackson. His action during the Nullification crisis was the precedent that Lincoln used as an excuse for his dictatorial powers.

    It should be pointed out that the South was not the monster that the court historians would have us believe. The South was opposed to slavery from the ratification convention onward. It was not a system they had created; they were born into it. And they could find no way out. As someone said, they had the wolf by the ears. This was the reason for Lincoln’s decision to move the slaves elsewhere. It seemed a reasonable solution for something which defied solution. It was the irrational and deluded abolitionists that caused the problems. They were as impractical, illogical, and obtuse as the modern day liberal. Their answer to the problem: turn them loose. Southerners dumbfounded and perplexed asked from a humanitarian aspect, who is to provide for them? This absurd demand was the equivalent of throwing millions of people out of work and home. How would they eat? Who would clothe them? Where would they find shelter? The abolitionist was as obstinate and dictatorial as the unreasoning modern liberal. The people of the South were very quick to point out that the catastrophic consequences of this would only affect their section alone. Those clamoring for this lunacy were isolated and would not be affected by it any way whatsoever. The result was for the Southerners to get their back up and refuse to listen to anything regarding the issue.

    Much can be learned from the history of this era. Much of it still plays out today. Many of our problems today stem from the idiotic way in which the issues were handled. My own opinion is that the two sections should never have attempted a union together to begin with. Their differences are too great and remain so today. The Southern leaders should have heeded the advice of Patrick Henry, George Mason and others when they advised the forming of a Southern Confederacy, instead of a union of all the colonies. This would have prevented Lincoln’s War and would have provided the South with the freedom that they thought they were getting when they ratified the Constitution. Today the South is little more than a conquered and subjugated province, under the total tyranny of a foreign culture that constantly speaks of freedom, but offers none.

    • james

      I’m with Jeremy and Vigilant. Conar has some sort of chip on his shoulder. Everything you cite, for the most part, is common knowledge about Lincoln, Conor. Not a perfect guy, by his own admission, but he had a rebellion which led to full blown war. This is and was the US. People did travel freely even at that time. Agents and spies were everywhere. He unfortunately had to enact harsh measures. You can question his tactics, but they were successful. Half hearted measures would not have won that war.

      As far as forming two separate countries at the beginning. You think that would have prevented war!? You gotta be kidding! We still had half the country to settle. You think two countries trying to settle vast areas when one has slavery and one doesn’t, would have been peaceful. It would be constant conflict.

      It would have made very interesting history. Revisionist writers could have fun with that one.

      Unfortunately, The civil war, it can be argued, kickstarted the growth of the federal govt. Even without the war, the federal govt would have started getting bigger. Academia, and the PTB were loaded with progressives at the time and forward. They would have gotten hold regardless.

      • Vigilant

        “You think two countries trying to settle vast areas when one has slavery and one doesn’t, would have been peaceful. It would be constant conflict.”

        james, that’s an accurate assessment. Re Article IV, Section 3 of the CSA Constitution:

        “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

        Once again, it was not the institution of slavery in the existing states that preciptated the war, it was all about the extension of slavery into the new territories/states.

      • DaveH

        James says — “but he had a rebellion which led to full blown war”.
        What rebellion? The South simply did not want to be part of the Union any longer and they seceded to form their own nation. All they asked was to be left alone to determine their own destiny. Who here doesn’t want to determine their own destiny?
        Lincoln didn’t want to give up his breadbasket, that is all. It is the usual case when a people want to split off from those who want to take advantage of them. Of course, those taking advantage don’t want to lose their cash cows.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

        Ok, there was no “civil war.” Lincoln invaded sovereign nations, and they defended, but Lincoln eventually occupied them– and his regime continues thus to this day.
        Once that truth comes out, then we can get started repairing the damage.

    • Vigilant

      “Well, with this article you have set loose the statist left.”

      MAP, I think you know that is not true in my case. I am neither a member of the “Lincoln Cult” nor the Lincoln haters. My concern is for the truth, and nothing but the truth.

      The Lincoln cult may be populated by the ignorant, but so are the Thomas DiLorenzo devotees. Neither one is correct, and neither one feels it has the time or energy to investigate the source documents of the time. And that’s why BOTH positions are based on political agenda and outright lies. DiLorenzo’s not even an historian, he’s an economist. True historians are unbiased; neither the fawning cultists nor the Lincoln character assassins are true historians but are political hacks.

      Legitimate historians have over the last decades, corrected much about the general impression of Lincoln we were taught in school, and the true cultists are disappearing every day. Lincoln is revealed as neither saint nor demon, but a man who was handed the absolutely most critical situation in US history.and did what he thought was necessary to preserve the Union.

      One thing is for certain: Slavery was the proximate cause for the war. No one, Lincoln included, wanted to abolish slavery in the South. The secession was precipitated over the doctrine of extension of slavery to the territories. The House representation of the Southern states was slipping badly as new states came on board, and they saw the beginning of the end to their political power. From the Lincoln-Douglas debates upward, it was all about slavery and only a passing nod was given to tariffs.

      Anyone who thinks Lincoln engaged in war to abolish slavery should read the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, endorsed by Lincoln and passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861:

      “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

      By endorsing that amendment, does it sound to ANYONE that Lincoln was using the slavery issue as a pretext for war? A person of normal intelligence must conclude that Lincoln was doing everything in his power to PREVENT a war by appeasing the South.

      I can’t emphasize too much: PLEASE read the source documents of the time before you believe the hearsay and half truths of BOTH sides of the argument.

      • Flashy

        “And that’s why BOTH positions are based on political agenda and outright lies.” <= Vigilant

        Hear ! hear ! Good points vig…

      • MAP

        Expansion to the territories had to do with seats in the Senate. The House had been lost to the South as a result of massive immigration into the north as cheap labor. During the Mo controversy, objections ceased as people began to suspect the Federalists were behind the whole issue. The Federalists had been permanently ousted with the election of Jefferson and people did not want their return. In fact, the Federalists involvement in the entire slavery issue is suspect from the beginning.

      • http://gravatar.com/cwipaulk cwipaulk

        On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:

        “Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”

        This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery. The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous. It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern industrialists.

        This resolution specifically states that the war was NOT about slavery.

        Charles Dickens- English author 1861 – “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

        Karl Marx-European Socialist-1861 – “The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty. ”

        “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith…” Abraham Lincoln

        “I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency, in the wish to preserve the peace of my own native State, Kentucky; but it is with regret I search, and can not find, in your not very short letter, any declaration, or intimation, that you entertain any desire for the preservation of the Federal Union.” — Abraham Lincoln to Kentucky’s Governor Magoffin on the latter’s request to have Kentucky remain neutral. (Why does Lincoln address the “preservation of the Union” and not the abolition of slavery if this is truly the burning question of the hour?)

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Initially the prevailing view was the war was about restoring the union and in some cases ,”the radical republicans”, it was about punishing the south. Lincoln however changed. He came to see that the war and slavery were intrinsically tied and could not be finished while the other went on.
        Charles Dickens and Karl Marx had no love lost for the union or its government. They both detested the leaders of the United States. So its not all that surprising for them to condemn the United States.
        When Lincoln made his statement to the governor it was out of genuine desire for neutrality on Kentuckys part. Lincoln had not yet understood how important a role slavery played. Lincoln thought slavery was wrong but he did not want to make it any issue for fear of pushing border states into the Confederacy. That’s the key thing to understand about Lincoln and the Civil War. Both changed over time. Initially the war was not fought to free slaves. Lincoln thought the Union was the issue to fight over. But after Lincoln saw how important slavery was the south he began to understand that slavery would forever divide the country. Lincoln finally understood how true his “House Divided” speech had been. This revelation lead him to issue the emancipation proclamation and eventually to support the 13th amendment to end slavery forever.

      • DaveH

        Vigilant blows his whole case right here — “True historians are unbiased”.
        Yeah right, Vigilant. Nobody is unbiased, and that is especially true of the court historians who write most of our history books.
        Isn’t it odd that it took an “economist” to bring some reality to the heavily propagandized people of the modern world? One would have thought that those “True Historians” would have revealed those facts long ago, and people would have known long ago who Lincoln really was — a deceptive, negro-hating, Constitution-trampling, murderous Dictator.
        Don’t take my word for it. Read this book by black historian Lerone Bennet Jr:
        http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850029/lewrockwell/

      • cj

        During the Civil War, the Republican party WAS THE LEFT! Democrats were conservative until around the turn of the 20th century. In typical leftist fassion, Lincoln nullified any opposition vote from Tennessee when they were returned to the union. Jackson was sent to Tennessee to get support and ANYBODY who voted against Lincoln in the presidential election was NOT allowed a say to return to the union. Today, the Democrats continue this type of nullification by allowing dead people to vote, among other ways.

      • Vigilant

        cj says, “Lincoln nullified any opposition vote from Tennessee when they were returned to the union. Jackson was sent to Tennessee to get support and ANYBODY who voted against Lincoln in the presidential election was NOT allowed a say to return to the union.”

        Uh, I think you need to get your facts straight. That allegation is not only historically false, it’s physically impossible.

        “After the war, Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment forbidding human property February 22, 1865; ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 18, 1866; and was the first state readmitted to the Union on July 24, 1866.”

        You might want to explain how Lincoln, who had been dead for over a year when Tennessee rejoined the Union, could have nullified ANYTHING. In the election of 1860, there were NO Republican ballots even allowed in TN. IN 1864, Tenessee was still a member of the confederacy and obviously Lincoln was not on the ballot for them.

        Care to retract your ridiculous statement?

  • Flashy

    Well…history is meant to be reviewed and reexamined as the years go by. However, making the past into a work of fiction is taking it a bit too far. Everyone has their own perspective and elements which deserve weighting…doesn’t mean it is accurate nor has to be taken seriously.

    • phideaux

      ” However, making the past into a work of fiction is taking it a bit too far. ”

      And this comes from someone who was proven to create a work of fiction (lie) in the last discussion of Lincoln and the War of Northern Agression>

    • cj

      The only review of history is to twist the record because how things were are no longer remembered, and people want to view it with modern perception. They look back and take the situation out of context because they don’t KNOW how things were back then. So they try to rewrite the history, a typical leftist ideal.

  • Wayne C.

    I feel this continued attacks on one of the most beloved Presidents in US History needs to stop and the author should focus his columns on the current occupant of the White House
    Talk about someone that is dishonest and alive and not someone who been dead for 150+ yrs. His latest whopper of a lie regarding we business owner did not build it what a joke he become He has convince himself that he and only he can solve a America problems if that not being dishonest then what is ?

    • Flashy

      Wayne…if in your last sentence you refer to Pres. Obama, please listen to his comment in its entire context and not a snippet taken out of context because of a sound bite misrepresenting his comments and meaning.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        We heard correctly what O said. Do not compound O’s lies by lying for him.

    • Ted Crawford

      Flashy
      His comment, no matter which context, is dishonest, delusional and insulting !
      To claim that the reason for anyones success is the Infrastructure provided by the wonderful Federal Government, ignores some important facts.
      Firstly; The revenues used to create the infrastructure was generated in no small part from the taxes paid into the Treasury by these same people!
      Secondly and more importantly, this same infrastructure was and is available to everyone not just those successful ones. The Child molester, the murder, the bank robber, the mugger, ETC. also had ” A good Teacher in their lives” , they also used the same system of highways to get to and get away from , the location of their crimes, the same internet, the same phone systems ! Therefore if the Infrastructure was responsible for the successful, it must equally be said that it is also responsible for the criminals !
      That is nothing if not complete idiocy !

  • Vigilant

    “The chief reason Lincoln wanted to “save the Union” was so that he could force the Southern States to continue to pay the bulk of his program of protectionist tariffs.”

    Absolute falsehood. As always, I’ve said “read the source documents,” something the Lincoln haters are loathe to do. Tariffs were NOT a casus belli for the South. Compromise on the “Tariff of Abominations” had occurred 27 years earlier and was not an issue.

    Had tariffs been a major problem, don’t you think the secession declarations would have prominently reflected that? They didn’t. Those documents continually and liberally refer to slavery and there is scant mention of them in the declarations. The Democrat platforms (both Breckinridge and Douglas) don’t mention it ONCE. And the Constitution of the CSA repeatedly refers to preserving the institution of slavery.

    MacCormack quotes Lincoln’s first inaugural address and hopes you don’t notice that Lincoln is talking about the “property and places belonging to the government” when he mentions collection of imposts and duties.

    As I said, READ THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION!

    • MAP

      The tarriff returned as the Morrill Tarriff, more demanding than even the Tarriff of Abominations. And for your information, I read very little recent writings. The bulk of my reading dates from the early 1900′s back. I go straight to the era and those involved.

      • Flashy
      • Vigilant

        “The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered “Civil War” legislation.

        In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.”

        (Wikipedia)

        The tariff was signed into law by James Buchanan, a Democrat, before Lincoln took office.

        If you care to peruse the declarations of causes of secession of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, go to http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

        You won’t find ONE reference to “tariff” or “Imposts” and only two to “duties” in the taxation sense (Georgia). There are 82 matches for the word “slave.” Now tell me again that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.

      • Vigilant

        MAP, you say “The tarriff returned as the Morrill Tarriff, more demanding than even the Tarriff of Abominations.”

        Not so. The Tariff of Abominations levied dutiable tariff rates of 61.7%. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Not quite 61.7%, I’d say.

        Moreover, with regard to the 1830 tariff, “the Democratic Party had miscalculated: despite the insertion of import duties by Democrats calculated to be unpalatable to New England industries, most specifically on raw wool imports, essential to the wool textile industry, the New Englanders failed to sink the legislation, and their plan backfired. (Wikipedia)

        Thus, it was the Southern democrats who added the “abominable” rates to quash the bill. They made their bed, and then refused to lie in it. The Nullification Crisis could have been sidestepped if southern politicians had stopped playing a game of chicken with the North.

      • DaveH

        It doesn’t matter why the citizens of the Confederacy no longer wanted to be in the Union. What matters is that they didn’t want to be.
        And nobody had a right to Force them to be part of it.

      • cwipaulk

        Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
        Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I would always recommend reading Throes of Democracy By Walter Mcdougall and Battle Cry of Freedom By James McPherson. Both go in depth to the political, social, economic and religious debates that took place before the Civil War. Everything from the Nullification Crisis to the Dred Scott Case.

    • cwipaulk

      “The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”
      -Democratic Speaker’s Handbook,p. 33

      But, when Lincoln was asked by his own men if he would let the South go in peace, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln loudly exclaimed, “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?!” So he did not agree to the South nation’s freedom and independence, and we all know how that story ended.

      THE SECESSION DECLARATIONS

      From the book “The Un-Civil War”, by Leonard M. Scruggs, pages 27-28.

      “Four seceding Southern states published some form of declaration of their reasons for secession. These were South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Many modern academic allies of the Northern War to Prevent Southern Independence have recently taken up the cry that because these declarations have many references to slavery that they are proof that the war was all about slavery. First of all, however, there is a difference between the cause of the war and the causes for secession. The cause of the war was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern states. This invasion immediately triggered four more states secessions – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – in addition to protests from the governors of Kentucky and Missouri, and unrest in Maryland.
      In addition, the substance of the secession declarations must be interpreted in their political/economic and constitutional contexts. The Northern Union had become an oppressive government dedicated to Northern regional dominance and almost exclusively Northern economic prosperity. States Rights were the primary bulwark against this Northern regionalism. Many modern apologists for the Union cause also fail to recognize that these declarations, following South Carolina’s example, were building a legal case against Northern breaches of the Constitution. Moreover, much of the language of these declarations was a protest against the constant inflammatory distortions and repeated attacks on Southern honor by radical abolitionists in Congress and in the Northern press.
      The Mississippi declaration included an admission of its economic dependence on slave labor. However, over-dramatizing this admission in accusatory terms fails to recognize a genuine dilemma. Many Southerners, probably a majority, would have gladly rid themselves of slavery. But how could it be done without destroying the economies of the major cotton producing states and severely damaging New York banking and shipping interests? Many also saw the necessity of preparing the slaves to compete in a free economy before emancipation. Many would have followed the British model of gradual emancipation with compensation to slave owners.
      What the secession declarations prove is that Southerners had strong reasons to believe that their political rights and economic welfare were unsafe under Northern political dominance.”

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Grant had his own views. They do not determine the war for the union or the war against slavery. Also Grant did not resign. He changed his opinions.
        I do not know where Lincoln said that. My guess is it was either a joke or a serious mention of the fact that southerns like all Americans had to pay taxes and simply not wanting to did not give them the right to secede.
        Actually the reason so much is made of the slavery references is because they were chief reasons for secession. Fear of losing slavery was what pushed southern states to secede. Also secession caused the Civil War. The war started at Fort Sumter. If Lincoln had not responded with force and tried to make peace after Fort Sumter it would have been the same as acceptance of the legitimacy of the Confederacy. The south started the war.
        First the Union was not a northern one, it was the American Union in which the southern states were still equal members. Second if all the south was opposing was northern abuses of the constitution why did they make the Confederate Constitution fundamentally different from the Constitution by legalizing slavery and changing the rules of majorities and citizenship for African Americans. More to the point if the Confederates were fighting out of a desire to preserve the constitution why did they form a separate country and try to split the United States in two. If the constitution was what they cared about they should have used it instead of trying to abolish it.

        As to gradual emancipation that is what Lincoln wanted. He said so quite often even after the war started. The south assumed Lincoln was going to take their slaves. Also its hard to believe the south wanted to gradually get rid of slavery when their constitution expressly forbid the congress by stating “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”. If the confederate congress ever tried to outlaw or prohibit slavery it would have been unconstitutional.

      • Vigilant

        Jeremy, you say, ” If the confederate congress ever tried to outlaw or prohibit slavery it would have been unconstitutional.”

        As with the Congress of the United States and the Constitution. Slavery was perfectly legal in the United States, and Lincoln perfectly understood this.

        Much has been made out of Chief Justice Taney’s decision supporting the Fugitive Slave Law in the Dred Scott Case. Had he ruled against the Law, he would have been an activist judge writing law where he had no Constitutional authority to do so. Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly covered the return of fugitive slaves to their rightful owners. Taney’s decision was Constitutionally correct.

        Ironically, it was the principle of nullification so highly honored by the South that was used against them when Northern states refused to enforce the law and return fugitive slaves. Poetic justice?.

        Lincoln fully understood that he could not free the slaves in the absence of a Constitutional amendment. For that reason, he carefully worded the Emancipation Proclamation as an emergency war measure. The measure never reached the Supreme Court for consideration, and Lincoln pushed for the passage of the 13th Amendment to prevent such judicial scrutiny, and to solve the slavery issue forever, both in the existing states and the territories that would become states.

      • Vigilant

        Historical note, Jeremy: Grant’s wife’s family were slaveowners.

        cwipaulk and others are beating a dead horse with that well known fact that the North did not fight to free the slaves. That’s been stipulated a number of times here by historical reference.

        The fact remains that the south seceded and engaged in war to preserve the abominable institution of slavery. The north fought to preserve the Union.

    • DaveH

      Feel free, Vigilant, to provide those “source documents” which prove your case.
      Meanwhile people should read this:
      http://mises.org/daily/952

      • Vigilant

        DaveH, I’ve BEEN providing source documents and direct quotations therefrom for a long time. That you choose not to educate yourself by reading them is your problem, not mine. I daresday I’ve provided MORE source references and quotations over time than ANYONE else on this site. Care to challenge that?

        You also choose to ignore Jeremy’s thorough knowledge on the subject.

        One of the more amusing aspects of the DiLorenzo sycophants is that they are incapable of seeing the world in other than black and white terms. They also attempt to redefine the center, much like the leftists. In their “my way or the highway” one-dimensional mentality, they brook absolutely no hard and documented evidence that Lincoln was other than the Devil incarnate. It’s “I don’t care what volume of facts you throw at me, I’m going to believe what I believe.”

        They redefine “Lincoln cultist” as anyone who doesn’t share their myopic and patently false view of Lincoln. They simply can’t come to terms with the reality the vast majority of us see, i.e., that Lincoln was no saint, had the faults and foibles that any human being has, that he did what he thought was right, that he indeed took actions under war powers that were perceived to be unconstitutional, that he was racist but not pro-slavery (13th Amendment), that he is NOT to be blamed for the excesses of Reconstruction (second inaugural address).

        It is heresy to these neoconfederates to state that Lincoln indeed suffered terribly over the costs of war in human life, that he did everything in his power to prevent the war from occurring (Corwin Amendment), that he told the South on several occasions he had no business or Constitutional right to outlaw slavery where it existed, or that his last speech advocating Negro suffrage most likely resulted in his death.

        And, it appears, no matter how many source documents are furnished to substantiate the human and humane facets of Lincoln’s nature, the groupies will NEVER abandon the cherry-picked, one-sided half truths and lies of of that neoconfederate DiLorenzo. For them, Lincoln was worse than Hitler.

        • Charlie Tall

          Lincoln supported the following proposed amendment to the Constitution while he was still president-elect:

          “Article Thirteen.

          “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

          Internet source: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

          Lincoln, it seems, was FOR IT before he was against it.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie, that’s precisely what I mentioned above. It was called the Corwin Amendment, and it is the best example of the lengths Lincoln was prepared to go through to prevent a war. Far from the neoconfederate description of him as a warmonger, he would have done anything, up to and including a Constitutional amendment to placate the South.

        This is a perfect example of my contention that DiLorenzo & Co. actually argue AGAINST themselves without even realizing it. In trying to show him as calloused when it came to slavery, they defeat their own argument that he was a dictator and itching for war with the South.

        Once again, the Lincoln did NOT wage war to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union.

    • cwipaulk

      : “Five Myths about Why the South Seceded” by James W. Loewen
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.html

      The only thing worse than a historian who calls himself a “Lincoln scholar” is a sociologist who does the same. This truth was on display recently in a January 9 Washington Post article entitled “Five Myths about Why the South Seceded” by one James W. Loewen.

      Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, “Protection for Home Industry.” (That is, high tariff rates to “protect home industry” from international competition).

      (I)n his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty “to collect the duties and imposts,” and then threatened “force,” “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier.

      (T)he notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax.

      It was the Morrill Tariff that Lincoln referred to in his first inaugural address, not the much lower 1857 tariff, as Loewen falsely claims.

      Jefferson Davis, like Lincoln, highlighted the tariff issue in his February 18, 1861 inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama (The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 7, pp. 45–51). Davis proclaimed here that the economy of the Confederacy would be based on free trade. Indeed, the Confederate Constitution of 1861 outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, and only allowed for a modest “revenue tariff.”

      Contrary to Loewen’s ignorant diatribe, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis announced to the world in 1861 that tariff policy was indeed a paramount political issue: In their respective inaugural addresses, Lincoln threatened “invasion” of any state(s) that failed to collect his tariff, while Davis promised to defend against any such invasion.

      The tariff controversy was not the only cause of the war, and I have never argued that it was (despite lies to the contrary told about me by such people as historian Jeffrey Hummel). But it was obviously an important cause of the decades-long conflict between North and South.

      The rest of Loewen’s Washington Post article is about as accurate as his uninformed rantings about tariff policy. This was the Post’s second attempt to “correct the record” of the “Civil War,” which began 150 years ago this year, in the first nine days of 2011. The government’s company newspaper is apparently terrified that the public will get wind of the truth and begin questioning the foundational myth of the federal Leviathan state.

      Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

      http://www.confederatedigest.com/

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

        There was only ONE cause of the war:

        LINCOLN INVADED SOVEREIGN NATIONS, AND THEY DEFENDED.

        That answers everything.

  • David Krueger

    And all this time I thought Lincoln freed the slaves. I wonder if the South had won would we still have slavery?

    • Vigilant

      Lincoln DID free the slaves, in all states, with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.

      The Constitution of the Confederate States of America advocated the perpetuation of slavery in all states. It prohibited any law “impairing the right of property in negro slaves”

      No doubt, slavery would have eventually died out, but the CSA was purporting to hold on to it for as long as possible.

      Alexander Stephens, the CSA Vice President, called slavery the cornerstone of the new Confederacy.

      • MAP

        The Confederate Consitution outlawed the importation of slaves The slave trade was operated out of the north with northern ships, bearing the Union flag.

      • Flashy

        MAP….you realize that in 1808, the importation of slaves was banned by federal law …

        I suggest you get an education before spouting off…you’ll be impressed by how people start listening to you…

      • MAP

        Flashy, I suggest you lay aside your communist primers and get some real education. Like all Leftist and communist, you are a liar. With or without federal consent, the slave trade was run out of the north on norhern ships.

      • walter77777

        MAP is quite wrong. The slave trade had been stopped log before there was a Confederacy. The owners of the ships involved in the three cornered trade routes were a very diverse group including British and American owners.

        Since the majority of Americans who owned ships lived in New England and New York we may be certain that they owned the ships involved in the three-cornered trade routes, but
        there also were shipowners in Charleston whose ships had been involved in the slve trde which did indeed end in 1808.

        W

      • Vigilant

        walter77777, the slave importation did not stop in 1808. Plank 9 of the Republican Party Platform of 1860 says, “That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.”

        So much for Southern respect for the Constitution.

      • DaveH

        That is pure speculation, Vigilant. Lincoln was dead before the 13th Amendment was ratified. Nobody can say what he would have thought of it.
        According to General Benjamin Butler (appointed by Lincoln) Lincoln said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes” (p. 109). Butler then proposed deporting the freed slaves to Panama to dig a canal, decades before the actual Panama Canal was dug. “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that,” Lincoln reportedly said.
        From “Colonization after Emancipation” by Phillip W. Magness of American University and Sebastian N. Page of Oxford University.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually Dave Lincoln was still alive when it first came up. He was actually a strong force in favor of it. It passed after he died but we know that he did support it wholeheartedly.

      • Vigilant

        DaveH says, “That is pure speculation, Vigilant. Lincoln was dead before the 13th Amendment was ratified. Nobody can say what he would have thought of it.”

        A little lesson in history for you, Dave: Lincoln’s support for the 13th Amendment is well documented.

        From http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm

        “…President Abraham Lincoln took an active role in pushing it through congress. He insisted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the Republican party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. He used all of his political skill and influence to convince additional democrats to support the amendments’ passage. His efforts finally met with success, when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. Finally, Lincoln supported those congressmen that insisted southern state legislatures must adopt the Thirteenth Amendment before their states would be allowed to return with full rights to Congress.”

        I’m afraid YOUR take on the subject is “pure speculation,” and faulty at that.

      • Charlie Tall

        Vigilant and other Northern apologists rely on political party campaign platforms for much of their supporting information.

        Would anyone today rely on Obama’s campaign platform as any indication of either what he planned to do once he was elected or what he actually did?

        For example, the DNC wrote, “In regard to the economy – manufacturing must be reinvigorated, tax reform must be attained to create jobs, free and fair trade must be in place, our transportation system must be enhanced, small businesses must be promoted, fiscal relief must exist in a time of economic downturn, free markets and honest competition must be apparent, and workers require protection and education.”

        None of this has come to fruition.

        The same accuracy and honest, or lack of same, can be attributed to the party platforms of 1860.

        So Vigilant, your argument is largely based on campaign rhetoric, which is, at best, questionable, at worst, just plain garbage.

      • Vigilant

        DaveH also said “According to General Benjamin Butler (appointed by Lincoln) Lincoln said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes” (p. 109). Butler then proposed deporting the freed slaves to Panama to dig a canal, decades before the actual Panama Canal was dug. “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that,” Lincoln reportedly said.
        From “Colonization after Emancipation” by Phillip W. Magness of American University and Sebastian N. Page of Oxford University.

        Aside from the fact that Lincoln’s support for the 13th Amendment contextually has nothing to do with this excerpt, Butler’s narrative is highy problematic. First, Lincoln never lived long enough to confirm or deny that account. Secondly, it’s second hand (hearsay) evidence. I’m sure that Butler didn’t have a scribe present to put down every word verbatim. Thirdly, the freed slaves were not remade into slavery again; the ones being dfiscussed were military members, they were paid, fed and clothed by the Federal Government. Fourthly, and most damaging to Butyler’s account, is found at http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/do-you-trust-ben-butler/ as follows:

        Lincoln supposedly said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.”

        “Really? Magness argues that the Lincoln/Butler meeting took place on April 11, 1865. That same evening Lincoln for the first time offered in public his suggestion to extend the right to vote to those blacks who had served in the military or who were literate. How could he have entertained such contrary perspectives?”

        And what were the two sentences in Lincoln’s very last speech on April 11, 1865 that resulted in his death? As follows:

        “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.”

        “For the first time in a public setting, Lincoln expressed his support for black suffrage. This statement incensed John Wilkes Booth, a member of the audience, who vowed, “That is the last speech he will make.” A white supremacist and Confederate activist, Booth made good on his threat three days later.” (showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm)

      • Vigilant

        Charlie Tall says, “So Vigilant, your argument is largely based on campaign rhetoric, which is, at best, questionable, at worst, just plain garbage.”

        Once again you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. Campaign rhetoric is one thing, were it not backed up by the Congressional transcripts of the day, numerous speeches by southern officials, contemporary newspapers, pamphlets circulated by the rebels, the Lincoln Douglas debates, the accounts of “bleeding Kansas,” letters between correspondents on both sides of the question, the Northwest Ordinance, Missouri Compromise, the “King Cotton” speech by James Henry Hammond, etc. I could go on.

        Moreover, the South itself most definitely believed the “campagn rhetoric” and party platforms, or they never would have gone to war over it. Is that too profound for you?

        Sorry, dude, you’re not going to get off the hook with a feeble argument like that. Continue to believe (it’s your right) in the one-sided, groupie thinking of neoconfederates and ignore the historical record at your intellectual peril.

    • Nobody’s Fool

      No, David, we would not still have slaves (of the genre that you speak of, at least). Owning slaves was becoming an increasing burden to the farming industry, and so they would have been freed in a few years anyway, without government intervention. And they probably would have fared much better, too. Now to the subject of slavery, do you not realize that we are all slaves today? Slaves to the federal government, for which we toil over half the year to support the criminal wastrels in Washington and the “programs” they force us to pay for. Those who do not work but receive government checks are also slaves, because their lot will never improve as long as they remain on that side of the plantation. Sad thing is, if they “gut up” and get themselves out of the ghetto, they will then be on our side, that of paying for the other deadbeats. America is lost. The old American Dream of working hard, saving your money and retiring with plenty is no more. Retirement is something most people can’t even think about these days, because of the uncertainly of SS and what oBlamer will do next. Whatever he does, you can count on this: It will not be good for you, it will only be good for oBlamer and his crony thugs.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Slavery would have phased itself out without government intervention. Slavery was an expensive situation and it cost the people who owned slaves more than if they hired all families in our country who needed jobs.

  • Dwight Mann

    This article makes the Lincoln=Øbama argument credible. The only difference is that Ole’ Honest Abe. is a heck of a lot different than the Liar in Chief we have today.
    The war was about taxes, and slavery was a tool.
    The war today is about taxes]inflation and racism is the tool.
    That is why I am still voting for Ron Paul, come hell or high water.
    I am also locked and loaded, especially if they are coming to take my arms, per the UN Agenda 21 BS. We will not give up our arms peacefully. Look what has happened to every other nation that has done so. Tyranny and murder by the millions. . .
    Wanna be dictator Øbamaanus needs to be removed from office by any means possible, he is a traitor IMHO!

  • Craig

    Another interesting bit of history is that the European Marxists and socialists of the failed revolutions of 1848 fled to the US. They helped support, recruit and fought for Lincoln because they believed in a centralized government that they thought he was fighting for. Read ‘Lincoln’s Marxists’ for more details about them.

    • Flashy

      LOL .. well read on your history eh?

      • MAP

        How would you know, Flashy. You are communist and a liar.

      • cwipaulk

        If you would get your history from authors such as Al Benson, Jr. (Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists) instead of the rewritten Yankee mythology which is taught in the public/communist schools, you would be much more enlightened. Also, I recommend “The Real Lincoln”, by Charles L.C. Minor, “The South Was Right”, by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, ”The Un-Civil War” by Leonard M. Scruggs, and “Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865”, by George Edmunds. The “Official Records: War of the Rebellion”, containing numerous letters and journals of union officers, does not mention one word about slavery as the cause of the war. It would seem that in 143 volumes of text there would be something there to support the theory of slavery as the cause, if it had actually been the cause.

      • 45caliber

        cwip:

        I’m impressed. You are assuming that Flashy will read when it’s been proven many times here that he simply won’t. It is too hard for him to comprehend things that he wasnt’ indoctrinated to believe.

  • Lawrence

    The south did not ceceed slavery. It was not even an issue. The north was smothering the south with high taxes and tariffs destroying their economy. And they had a right constitutionally to ceceed under the 9th & 1oth amendments. Lincoln broke his oath to uphold the constitution by making war on the south.

    • Flashy

      Errr…you do realize that the South fired the first shot and began the first hostilities…right? And in his First inaugural, Lincoln specifically stated if war came, it would be the South that began it..and Lincoln held out the olive branch on every occasion. And that throughout the South, in the debates for seceding, slavery was always mentioned as a primary reason. And if the Southern supporters really thought they had a Right of Secession…ever think they might well have tried the court system first before resorting to violence?

      Minor issues conflicting with your statement…i’m sure you have the answers

      • MAP

        Fort Sumter was on South Carolina property. They had been in negotiations with Washington repeadedly for the US troops to remove themselves. The Confederacy sent diplomats to Washinton about the issue. They waited for hours without being seen. The next thing that happened, Lincoln sent ships into the harbor to obviously reinforce it, an act of war. The bombardment on the fort that followed this act was rather rash. No one was injured, but Lincoln used it to decalre war, his intent from the start. The border states remained neutral till Lincoln began assembling an army to invade the lower South. The border states seceded, as they viewed it as a violation of the Constitution against sovereign states.

      • Flashy

        MAP…pray tell..do you have these spells of illusion often?

      • cwipaulk

        Lincoln Provoked the War

        Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln’s coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was “inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln.” Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard’s troops fired the “first gun.” But, he argued, the larger truth is that “in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict.” Rather, the true aggressor is “the first who renders force necessary.”
        Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln’s order sending a “hostile fleet, styled the ‘Relief Squadron’,” to reinforce Fort Sumter. “The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time– one in front, and the other in the rear.” The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in “self-defence,” rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.
        Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina’s property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great “forbearance” in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending “a hostile fleet” to Sumter. “The attempt to represent us as the aggressors,” Davis argued, “is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun.”
        From Davis’s point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of “defense.” To have acquiesced in the fort’s relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, “would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one’s breast, until he has actually fired.”
        In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln’s actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.
        Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, “to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world.” By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this “astute strategy,” Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
        ________________________________________
        Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, “Lincoln and Fort Sumter,”pp. 259-88.

      • phideaux

        “Errr…you do realize that the South fired the first shot and began the first hostilities…right?”

        And this comes from Flashy who in a previous discussion tried to claim the South started the War of Northern Agression by attacking the north at Bull Run. When proven wrong he backtracked and said the war started when the South fired on Ft Sunter. Ft Sumter was an unoccupied and incomplete fort at the entrance to the harbor. The northern officer took his troops there in a failed attempt to avoid surrender to the Southern troops.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Its hard to believe the south dd not secede over slavery when the ordinances of secession of all the southern states that did secede mention slavery as a cause. The Mississippi ordinance even says at the very beginning “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”. The ordinance of South Carolina states “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” as a grievance of the state, it further states “The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.” South Carolina thought the original constitution meant slaves not persons. Finally they say “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of
      President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.” If slavery was not an issue why was the election of a president opposed to it and who wished it to ultimately go extinct considered a worthy cause of secession to be mentioned in the ordinance. And finally there is the words of Alexander Stephens the Vice President of the Confederacy who said in 1861:

      “But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other
      though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

      Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

      Bear in mind Alexander Stephens was considered a moderate who opposed secession. So my problem is if slavery wasn’t the cause of secession you would not know by asking the south.

      • phideaux

        “Its hard to believe the south dd not secede over slavery when the ordinances of secession of all the southern states that did secede mention slavery as a cause.”

        A proven LIE. Some states did mention slavery but others made NO mention of slavery when they seceded.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I apologize. I was incorrect on that.

      • cwipaulk

        THE SECESSION DECLARATIONS

        From the book “The Un-Civil War”, by Leonard M. Scruggs, pages 27-28.

        “Four seceding Southern states published some form of declaration of their reasons for secession. These were South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Many modern academic allies of the Northern War to Prevent Southern Independence have recently taken up the cry that because these declarations have many references to slavery that they are proof that the war was all about slavery. First of all, however, there is a difference between the cause of the war and the causes for secession. The cause of the war was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern states. This invasion immediately triggered four more states secessions – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – in addition to protests from the governors of Kentucky and Missouri, and unrest in Maryland.
        In addition, the substance of the secession declarations must be interpreted in their political/economic and constitutional contexts. The Northern Union had become an oppressive government dedicated to Northern regional dominance and almost exclusively Northern economic prosperity. States Rights were the primary bulwark against this Northern regionalism. Many modern apologists for the Union cause also fail to recognize that these declarations, following South Carolina’s example, were building a legal case against Northern breaches of the Constitution. Moreover, much of the language of these declarations was a protest against the constant inflammatory distortions and repeated attacks on Southern honor by radical abolitionists in Congress and in the Northern press.
        The Mississippi declaration included an admission of its economic dependence on slave labor. However, over-dramatizing this admission in accusatory terms fails to recognize a genuine dilemma. Many Southerners, probably a majority, would have gladly rid themselves of slavery. But how could it be done without destroying the economies of the major cotton producing states and severely damaging New York banking and shipping interests? Many also saw the necessity of preparing the slaves to compete in a free economy before emancipation. Many would have followed the British model of gradual emancipation with compensation to slave owners.
        What the secession declarations prove is that Southerners had strong reasons to believe that their political rights and economic welfare were unsafe under Northern political dominance.”

  • Johnny Hiott

    I’ve read a lot of nonsensical comments here this morning. I’ll say only this. lincoln was America’s FIRST IMPOSTER president. He was not of the father he claimed.He was a dishonest murdering thug who was directly responsible for the rape (yes , thousands of yankee troops raped both white and black women) murder and pillaging of the south. They burned and stole anything of any value and left the peoples of the south starving and living under tyranny which has become America’s legacy. Thanks to the federal government lincoln built the entire nation of America now lives in tyranny. I am certainly not fond of republican politicians. They are dirty , corrupt self serving asses for the most part. I think even less of democrats as they are pure socialist and have been since 1944 and for the most part before that. The south fought for one reason. The preservation of America’s Constitution. Those brave true Americans lost and America has suffered for their lose ever since. Now America has yet another imposter president hellbent on enslaving everyone in this nation. Good luck to anyone living in America today as soon the citizens of this nation will realize the true cost of the South’s having lost that war.

    • swampfox

      Amen.
      truth!

    • cwipaulk

      Exactly right, but these brainwashed sheeple who worship Lincoln will not believe it because it was not taught in the public/communist schools. Tens of thousands of Southern civilians, black and white, were murdered and raped. One entire town in Georgia, New Manchester (I think), had its population loaded on trains and sent north to be slaves in factories. Most were never reunited with their families after the war. The Yankee atrocities are quite numerous.

  • davejakes

    What is the author’s point here? To not vote for a candidate with an actual chance of winning? To what purpose? Losing even more of our liberty? Haven’t we been through enough now to understand that turning the ship is going to come in increments?

    • DaveH

      Because we can never get to Freedom, if we don’t vote for people that believe in Freedom. I really don’t understand why that very simple concept eludes so many people?

  • Average Joe

    God, I love the irony of leftists taking up the mantle for a Republican (Lincoln)…too funny.
    It just shows how deluded they really are….Up is down, black is white, yes is no and truth is a lie.
    It’s amazing what Government sponsored education can produce …given enough time and apathy by the people.

    Best Wishes,
    AJ

    • moe

      Who really cares? Let’s deal with today’s problems and the future for our kids! I think your article is about a lot of wasted ink and time. Cheers

      • Nadzieja Batki

        We are living the consequences of Lincoln’s actions and the mess of the Constitution he made.

      • Average Joe

        moe says:

        “I think your article is about a lot of wasted ink and time. ”

        Which article would that be? I don’t seem to recal writing an article. I did however write an observation that I noticed.

        “Let’s deal with today’s problems and the future for our kids!”

        Precisely the point. If we want our children truly educated…then we must put forth the effort to educate them properly…and stop allowying someone else to feed them whatever they choose to feed them. Just because something is taught in Government sponsored schools, doesn’t nessesarily make it true. Getting the Feds out of the education/propaganda business would go a long way toward fixing our educational woes.
        Home schooling is the answer….but the average American can’t be bothered…so they instead, send their children off to be babysat and TAUGHT…someone else’s “truths”.
        Those who are not constantly involved in their childs’ education are the problem…which amounts to about 95% of the nation. When you only learn what someone else wants you to learn….truth is limited… to thier truth alone.

        Case in point, this discussion. It is apparrent that some of these folks only learned one side of the story and now disregard anything that is outside of thier scope of “learned” history ( if it wasn’t taught in school, it can’t possibly be correct) As a liberal friend (in college) pointed out to me, “It says so right here in my history book…issued by the Government for education purposes…it therefore must be correct!” ( yes, some folks still believe that the government wouldn’t lie to us, believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and Unicorns).

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • 45caliber

        moe:

        The reason we study history (and try to learn what REALLY went on) is because we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Every time I hear a politician say “Look to the future!” I’m convinced he is planning to do the same thing that was done before and it didn’t work then. He just doesn’t want anyone to know it since it won’t work now either. You are falling into that same falicy that the politicians want you to do … don’t study and ignore it so they can repeat all those things that enslave you.

      • 45caliber

        AJ:

        I don’t believe that the lack of homeschooling is because the average person can’t be bothered. In most cases it is because the average person (family, actually) requires both parents to work just to make ends meet. No one can afford to be home to home-school the kids. And with the government requiring all wage earners to finance the schools whether their kids go or not, they can’t afford to send the kids to a good private school. Why do you believe the government is so against school vouchers? It is because the parents might be able to afford to send their kids somewhere that the won’t get the government indoctrinations.

      • Average Joe

        45caliber says:

        “I don’t believe that the lack of homeschooling is because the average person can’t be bothered. In most cases it is because the average person (family, actually) requires both parents to work just to make ends meet. No one can afford to be home to home-school the kids. And with the government requiring all wage earners to finance the schools whether their kids go or not, they can’t afford to send the kids to a good private school. ”

        From my post above:

        “Getting the Feds out of the education/propaganda business would go a long way toward fixing our educational woes.”

        and

        “Those who are not constantly involved in their childs’ education are the problem…which amounts to about 95% of the nation. When you only learn what someone else wants you to learn….truth is limited… to thier truth alone.”

        I am in no way disagreeing with your premise, because unfortunately our general (self involved) apathy has allowed the government to create the the chain of events that have lead us here….by design…. However, it is up to us to change these things ( by what ever means nessesary) and return our education and moral values back to what our founders envisioned for this nation. We must teach our children to be more than our government wants them to be. We must teach our children to think for themselves, to separate fact from fiction…because no one else will do so.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • 45caliber

        AJ:

        I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said … I simply was saying it wasn’t really possible for many in the US. Actually, I made a point of teaching my kids to question what they were taught and think for themselves when we sat around the table for supper. All three do now, to my relief. And all three do research on the net and in libraries when they hear something they aren’t sure about.

        One joined the Young Democrats’ Club in college to my surprise. When I asked why, he said, “I wanted to see what their arguments were so I’d be better prepared later.” I did get a laugh. One of his classmates in that club was a lib. The question came up about gun control. Even the teacher tried to point out to her that a law banning guns would not affect those the criminals owned. “Yes, it would,” she insisted. “I know they won’t obey other laws but they would this one.” They all decided that she was a nitwit.

      • DaveH

        You are a fortunate man indeed, 45. It took me 20 years to finally awaken my heavily propagandized son.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I went to public or government inspired school. My political views and my understanding of Lincoln do not come from what I was taught in school. It helped shape my views but my beliefs were born from my own viewing of the world. I am someone on the left so I believe your argument is wrong.

      • Average Joe

        Jeremy Leochner says:

        “I went to public or government inspired school. My political views and my understanding of Lincoln do not come from what I was taught in school.”

        I find that to be funny. I have read your views and they echo what the public school system teaches mixed with your personal opinions and biases…but not much else.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I have been told that. Again I ask. What is the public school supposedly peddling students. What did the school teach me. Cause apparently I do not know what I was taught. My understanding of Lincoln and The Civil War is not based on information given in public schools. Its more to do with the more then 100 books I have read and own about the Civil War and Lincoln, numerous documentary’s, visiting Civil War sites, being a civil war reenactor myself, meeting numerous historians such as James McPherson, Gary Gallagher and Harold Holzer and just generally having an interest in the subject and wanting to learn more and thinking about it as I am learning it.. By the way the most common lesson I was taught in public school was to think things out for myself. Critical thinking were the by words and that was constantly encouraged. Hard to imagine public school pushing propaganda when they are also encouraging us to think things out for ourselves. Seems contradictory.

      • DaveH

        Jeremy,
        You have been proven to be a Flashman personality. Why do you persist in your masquerade?
        Read this whole thread, Folks:
        http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341930

      • DaveH

        Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Hard to imagine public school pushing propaganda”.
        Maybe for ignorant Liberals. But the rest of us know that public schools are the first choice of Big Government propagandizers, no matter their belief system:
        http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_3.pdf

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Because there is no masquerade. I am Jeremy Leochner, not flashman or anyone else. Why do you believe there is some trick Dave. What evidence do you have beyond assuming that I and Flashman are the same person. We are not. I am only me. I give you my solemn promise. When I come on Bob Livingstons page I use my name and my name only. Why is that so hard for you to believe.
        As to public education give me something that is being taught in every public school then maybe I will believe you.

      • Average Joe

        Jeremy Leochner says:

        “As to public education give me something that is being taught in every public school then maybe I will believe you.”

        It isn’t so much what IS being taught, but rather what ISN”T being taught, the other side of the stories. Everything is is told from a single point of view and even if you can prove thier text wrong…as far as most teachers are concerned,,,you are wrong, because thier STATE issued textbooks say otherwise and teaching outside of state approved ciriculum is not allowed.. Thinking outside of the BOX is niether encouraged nor tolerated…stay within the lines…

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Jeremy Leochner

        What is taught from only one viewpoint.

      • Average Joe

        Jeremy Leochner says:

        “What is taught from only one viewpoint.”

        Gee, what was it that we were discussing here?Short attention span Jeremy?
        I believe we were discussing history…as told by the government approved textbooks.
        in the future, try to keep up with the conversation.
        I grow weary of your incessant silliness….yawn….

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps I do have a short attention span. Except in school we also heard Lincolns If I could save the union by freeing no slaves I would do it. And in college, often considered to have a liberal agenda we often discussed the contradictions in Lincoln and the textbooks mention things said by Lincoln that do not paint him as the great emancipator. Lincoln was not the great emancipator but he did become the great emancipator. I can respect the need to reveal more about historical leaders. My only concern is making sure the students learn about history and that they develop a deep interest in it.

      • Vigilant

        Jeremy, I have no doubt that you have a great wealth of knowledge about the Civil War. More than I, to be certain, and more than anyone currently posting on this site. I would venture to say your knowledge and grasp of events are greater than even DiLorenzo’s, and certainly Mr. MacCormack’s, who merely parrots DiLorenzo as if he is the guru of the Civil War.

        Reasoned argument, logic and presentation of facts to anyone who calls it the “War of Northern Aggression” is fruitless. It’s obvious they’re “true believers,” programmed by their parents and teachers from youth to believe in a warped version of events merely to assuage the ego of Southern pride.

        You can always tell the true believers by the methods they employ. You provide them with indisputable facts from the source documents themselves, and they will inevitably fail to address the accuracy of those documents. Instead, they will employ the Alinsky technique of attacking you personally or changing the subject because they are frustrated and have no argument.

        Most have never read but a few, if any, honest works about the Civil War and Lincoln. They are readily available on the market, and they are neither fawning nor blindly derogatory. The believers are afraid to read anything that offers an objective treatment of the subject. They prefer the comfort of a pure character assassination because they are not forced to think.

        What DiLorenzo does is not cutting edge; it’s a simple rehash of confederate propaganda that’s been around for over 150 years. He cherry picks his references and ignores a wealth of conflicting information His presentation alone is evidence that it’s not legitimate history but rather an agenda-based hatred that employs the sensationalistic yellow journalism techniques of the tabloids.

        Further, his arguments take the line that is so blind to objectivity that he and his followers laughably argue against themselves without even realizing it. For example, they “disclose” that he was a racist, as if it wasn’t already widely known, and then expect that you will make the leap of faith that he was also pro-slavery. He was not, they are two different things.

        He certainly doth protest too much. He fights a phantom and claims victory! Here in this age of historical disclosure about the details of Lincoln’s life, an age that has for decades revealed the warts and moles of his character, DiLorenzo still thinks the Lincoln “cultists” hold sway. They don’t.

        DiLorenzo and the neoconfederates are telling you a dirty joke, which like all dirty jokes, require you to suspend disbelief. You are required to ignore the fact that slavery was THE burning issue, when the Kansas/Nebraska turmoil, Lincoln-Douglas debates, Party platforms, secession declarations, letters, speeches, pamphlets, and the CSA constitution itself virtually ignore tariff issues while voluminously treating the subject of slavery. This makes no difference to the neoconfederates as it merely confuses them with facts.

        Anyone who thinks that DiLorenzo’s views are sacrosanct should go to Amazon.com and read the one star reviews posted there for his execrable works. They’ll find more documentary evidence in those reviews to refute him than they will find in the fawning, baseless comments of the five star reviewers.

        So Jeremy, I don’t know where your political sympathies lie, and it makes no difference. Between the two of us, I’m guessing we have more knowledge on the subject than most who are posting here.

        Pay no attention to the insults.

      • cwipaulk

        How much are we aligned today with the following?:
        The Ten Planks of the
        Communist Manifesto
        1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
        How “Marxist” Has
        the United States
        Become?

        ——————————————————————————–

        Although Marx advocated the use of any means, especially including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, he suggested ten political goals for developed countries such as the United States. How far has the United States — traditionally the bastion of freedom, free markets, and private property — gone down the Marxist road to fulfill these socialist aims? You be the judge. The following are Marx’s ten planks from his Communist Manifesto.
        1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

        The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

        2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

        The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

        3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

        Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .

        4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

        We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

        5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

        The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

        6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

        In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enteprrise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industiral complex.

        7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

        While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

        8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

        We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920′s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

        9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

        We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.

        10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

        People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .

  • JR

    Good article. Except for the part about Lincoln’s “late life conversion” to Christianity. This is non sequitur. The war started BEFORE his conversion, which occurred just before his death.

  • Steve E

    Exactly 150 years ago from this summer, the Peninsula campaign to take over Richmond was taking place. The Richmond Time Dispatch newspaper prints articles of the newspaper exactly 150 years ago from that day. Today they will have an article in this morning’s paper dated July 18, 1862. At this particular time the Confederates are pushing back the Army of the Potomac and taking prisoners and armaments. The seven days battle was very bloddy. When you read it, it ls like you are there, There has been no mention of slavery in the paper so far. The fact is that if Lincoln was successful in taking Richmond, he would still allow slavery in Richmond. Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation right after he was defeated in the Peninsula Campaign, but did not enact it until 1863.

  • Steve E

    correction: battle was bloody, not bloddy

  • mtnmantn

    My opinion of Lincoln changed after reading “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War”. The way Lincoln circumvented the Constitution, it’s no wonder he’s Obama’s hero!

    • 45caliber

      mtn:

      Even when I was in high school and they talked about how Lincoln “saved” the union and freed the slaves, I was puzzled. Later on I learned that he was a Federalist. At that time, the Federal government had NO authority over the states. He and others wanted the Federal government to be the ruling authority in the US rather than the states. When the Civil War was lost (from my standpoint) they seized the authority and have never reliquished it.

      Incidently, there was a revision to the Constitution in 1814 that made it illegal for lawyers to serve in the Executive and Legislative branches of government (since by profession they were members of the Judicial branch) and banned any office holder from benefits not also given to their voters. It simply disappeared at the start of the Civil War and was over-written by the anti-slave amendment. That was discovered about 1970. After some arguments, the federal courts ruled that since they couldn’t find the original paperwork from VA in their vaults (even though they did find a copy of it along with a letter to Washington signed by the VA governor at that time in Richmond that stated that it had been approved) that it had never been property approved and therefore was not legal.

  • Hey you

    There have been a lot of crumbs in the executive office of the USA government. Lincoln was one of the crummiest as noted in this essay.

  • http://gravatar.com/dockywocky dockywocky

    If Penn State can dishonor Joe Paterno by removing his statue from the campus, we sure as hell ought to take a vote on dishonoring Honest Abe by tearing down the Lincoln Memorial. Imagine, that man was almost as sinister as Obama.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear dockywocky,

      You write: “If Penn State can dishonor Joe Paterno by removing his statue from the campus…” Paterno dishonored himself.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • 45caliber

        You are correct. Lincoln dishonored himself too – it is just that a lot of men don’t want to admit it. Lincoln was one who wanted Washington to have absolute power over the states. He got it too.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Lincoln did not want absolute power of federal government over the states. He wanted federal to be recognized over state which is the proper course. Its the United States is, not the United States are. This is not a collection of sovereign states. It may have begun as a collection of separate colonies but it became one nation. As Lincoln said “That this nation, under god shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”. Had the confederacy won its independence then that government would have perished from the earth. We still live in a government of by and for the people, even if some politicians don’t understand what that means. Lincoln understood it and that’s why he fought so hard to preserve it.

      • 45caliber

        Jeremy:

        Go study the more obscure history of that period. Many of the original documents still exist. Lincoln was a Federalist – as were most of the rich in New England. They controlled Congress and they wanted to use it to control the rest of the country. At that time the US was restricted to “regulating Commerce” and to dealing with foreign governments. The ONLY reason it was established in the first place was to force all states to help defend one of them if they were attacked by the British – as the British did in the War of 1812. Lincoln made no bones about being a Federalist – he was proud of it. Yes, he was instrumental in the formation of today’s government. You may consider it a plus – I don’t. However it is a fact that it now exists. I simply do not honor him for doing it.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Lincoln was not a federalist. The federalist party was long gone. He may have shared certain views but he was not a federalist. Lincoln did not want to control the country. He wanted it to modernize with things like trains and steam boats and other internal improvements. He knew it would mean spending more money so I will grant you he was a spending type. But internal improvements are necessary to expand and progress.

        As for the US I disagree. I believe it was created to ensure the liberty and equality of all citizens and people. It was not just created as a defense against foreign imperialism. If it was it would not have lasted. As Lincoln said “our fathers brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”.

      • 45caliber

        Jeremy:

        You are trying to change the whole thing – and it won’t work. I did NOT say he belonged to the Federalist Party – I said he was a Federalist. And he was. He believed that the Federal government should be the supreme authority in the country. He had the authority to push for railroads and roads as part of the Commerce section of the Costitution. He didn’t need to have a unified country under the federal government. He believed, and you can find references to back me up, that the federal government through Congress and the President should run the country.

        And I’m right about the early role of the federal government. The first issue the colonies wanted was independent countries. But all realized that no single state could withstand an attack by England, France, or Spain – all enemies at that time. Then they decided on a Confederation but that depended upon the good will of the various states to support each other if one was attacked. The original federal government had three Departments – the Department of State, to deal with other countries in peace – the Department of WAR (note that it was NOT the Department of Defense) to deal with other countries when the State Department failed – and the Department of Treasury to pay the expenses of the other two Departments. Commerce didn’t even have a department – it was expected that any complaint would be tried through the SCOTUS.

        Yes, this country was set up to recognize that all men were created equal. Unfortunately (like in Animal Farm) some men were considered more equal than others. All such things have problems. But Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War to free the slaves. Even he admitted that slaves were bad. One of his “black solutions” was to round up all of them and ship them back to Africa. Another was to send them – or even sell them – to some of the South and Central American countries.

        Do some REAL study – not just what the government issued history books have to say.

      • DaveH

        Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “He [Lincoln] wanted it to modernize with things like trains and steam boats and other internal improvements. But internal improvements are necessary to expand and progress”.
        What Lincoln (former Railroad Lawyer) wanted was to feather the nests of the Railroad owners with taxpayer money. The only successful railroad of the time was the Great Northern and it was privately funded:
        http://mises.org/daily/152

        When Government spends money on “improvements”, that money had to be taken from the taxpayers, most of whom would have had much more productive uses for their money.

      • DaveH

        For more on the Great Northern Railroad:
        http://mises.org/daily/2317#_ftnref2

      • DaveH

        Politicians and their Crony Capitalists work hand-in-hand to feather each other’s nests. Most of what Government does is devoted to that relationship. The Politicians win, the Crony Capitalists win, the rest of us lose.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I have only ever read in history books of the term federalist applied to members of the federalist party. I apologize.

        I will grant the early role of the federal government.

        First Lincoln did not start the Civil War at all. The south did by seceding and firing on Fort Sumter. Second Lincoln wanted to send African Americans back to Africa because he initially believed that that would help keep the peace. He came to realize such ideas were folly and he changed.

        Finally. With all due respect 45 I have personally read and own more than 100 books on the Civil War and Lincoln. Authors such as Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton and James McPherson. Hardly your government history books. I have also had the privilege of meeting Mr McPherson in person and had him sign my cop of Tried By War Lincoln as Commander in Chief. I have also read Mr. McPhersons book Battle Cry of Freedom which I recommend to everyone. I am a Civil War Reenactor and frequently meet and discuss the war and Lincoln with others. And I have watched more documentaries then I can count including Mr Burns Civil War. Finally I have visited Civil War sites as well as where Lincoln was shot and where he died. I consider my understanding of the Civil War to be rather reasonable and hardly built from simply reading government history textbooks. The beliefs I have were forged by what I have read and seen. I believe what I say is backed up by a large amount of evidence.

      • Average Joe

        Jeremy Leochner says:

        “Its the United States is, not the United States are.”

        Actually the “united States” is a corporation and not a country The (u)nited (s)tates of America is a nation, a conglomerrate of individuals states, banded together in a common cause against English Crown.

        I, as well as the authors invite you to read this and disprove any of thier assertions:

        Historical Outline

        1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.

        2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. Follow this link to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871.

        3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.

        4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.’ assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

        5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name “Federal Reserve Bank”. Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

        6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.

        7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation’s Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.

        8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.

        9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government’s seats were vacated because the people didn’t seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.
        (See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)

        10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.

        11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with “legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.

        12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.

        13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.

        14th: In 1962, considering the states were forced to carry out their business dealings in terms of Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, out of the necessity the states began protecting themselves from the people by forming corporations like Corp. U.S. Accordingly, those newly formed corporate state administrations began adopting Corp. U.S. suggested uniform codes and licensing structures that allowed better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.

        15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.

        Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.

        When you find there is no error in this historical outline, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.

        The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.

        Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That’s why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery.

        That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF ‘X’ as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.

        It’s time to wake up and follow the truth, time to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Piety while we stand guilty of:
        a) not knowing the truth;
        b) not living the truth;
        c) believing God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.

        The biggest problem with that get all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. is that they are blind to the truth having no remedy so they bail out of “the system” hell bent for a rebellion even the scripture says cannot be won with conventional weapons of war. Would that we could instead follow the admonition of the King of Kings and unite with truth to legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government thereby taking back the control our nation in accord with law.

        http://teamlaw.org/

        Good luck disproving these facts.
        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Vigilant

        Daveh says, “What Lincoln (former Railroad Lawyer) wanted was to feather the nests of the Railroad owners with taxpayer money. The only successful railroad of the time was the Great Northern and it was privately funded:

        When Government spends money on “improvements”, that money had to be taken from the taxpayers, most of whom would have had much more productive uses for their money.”

        I didn’t suppose DiLorenzo would tell you that BOTH the North and the South advocated the building of a transcontinental railroad. Now how do you suppose the South intended to fund it, Dave?

      • Vigilant

        1860 Democrat Platform (Breckinridge): “Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment.”

        Now how do you suppose they intended to fund that, Dave? Donations?

  • http://gravatar.com/roninmaximus RM

    One has to wonder what history will be hotly defended and debated regarding the period in which we live now, and the 50 years that preceded it. Their are apologists for the commonly held beliefs of Lincoln’s administration that continue to persist. He was no hero, to be sure. The fact is the state’s had every right to secede, as is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. There was never any desire on the part of Lincoln to free the slaves, as it were. The Civil War was NOT about the abolition of slavery; those who choose to cling to the well crafted image of him are mistaken, in my view. While discovering the history of the period is interesting, and very sad, indeed. it was a period that reflected a symptom of a larger threat to the republic, which continued from the very founding on through for the decades that followed the war.
    I do not desire to begin an endless debate with my remarks…simply thought I’d commit to writing down what strikes me after reading some of the comments. We, Americans that is, seem to miss a great deal as we argue this point or that, the context of events, or the mistaken belief on the part of some to know the heart of a man they did not know. I wonder what might have happened had the south successfully defeated the union army – something they could have done easily in the very beginning. My personal view is that we lost either way, as the symptoms thus manifested themselves into what they were: the slow moving metastasizing cancer that afflicts us, and increasingly the world, even to this very day. It is, however, no longer a slow moving disease. Rather, it is a galloping cancer now.

    • Rob

      After reading all these posts regarding the South’s right to secede, I’ve only seen the Constitution mentioned, primarily the 10th Amendment. Never forget that the Declaration of Independence had alot to do with it as well. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Also, don’t forget that South Carolina was not the only state to be invaded by the North. Maryland was invaded, and Martial Law was declared by the Union Army without a shot being fired, and no secession legislation had even taken place yet. I’m not quite sure, but I believe the same thing happened in both Kentucky and Deleware as well if I’m not mistaken.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The key words are “becomes destructive of these ends”. That was not the government in 1861. The south seceded based on assumptions, not evidence or fact. And martial law was imposed because there was evidence that a secession conference was being planned. Lincoln was wrong in this case. But I would point out the act of suspending Habeas Corpus came when the nation was falling apart. A rather frightening time. I think we can begrudge a little paranoia.

      • DaveH

        So, Jeremy, if a woman believed a man to be abusive and undesirable to live with, you’d make her prove that he was detrimental to her well-being before allowing her to end the relationship?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        There is a slight difference between two individuals ending a marriage and a nation falling apart. I consider secession to be akin to a person cutting of their lower extremities. Rather costly decision if you ask me. Also it kind of helps a person to be telling the truth. Abuse is bad. But it has to be real to accuse someone of it and to act accordingly. People have a right to divorce but it has to be on actually grounds. You cannot accuse someone of abuse who has not abused you. Lincoln was not in office and had no power when the south seceded and yet they called him a tyrant because he opposed the spread of slavery. Secession is an extremist move and should only be done in extreme circumstances. The situation in 1861 was hardly extreme. A president the south disagreed with winning an election does not tyranny make.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        slight typo there. It has to be based on actual grounds.

      • DaveH

        Jeremy says “the act of suspending Habeas Corpus came when the nation was falling apart. A rather frightening time. I think we can begrudge a little paranoia”.
        So, if the Government causes the problem, and the victims react by leaving the association, it’s then okay for the Government to suspend the rights of the people in their own country? Hardly.

        Jeremy (aka Flashman), the regular readers know that you are simply an Administration Shill. Your comments back that up. Who do you think you are kidding?

      • DaveH

        Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “There is a slight difference between two individuals ending a marriage and a nation falling apart”.
        The difference is only in size, Jeremy (aka Flashman). The Principles are the same, but then you are a Liberal, so I don’t expect you to understand the concept of Principles.
        Here I am arguing with a schizophrenic, sheesh.

      • DaveH

        More Jeremy (aka Flashman) nonsense — “Lincoln was not in office and had no power when the south seceded and yet they called him a tyrant because he opposed the spread of slavery”.
        The problem with that statement is that it was well documented that Lincoln was a fervent advocate of the American Colonization Society which advocated deporting black people to Liberia, Haiti, Jamaica, Central America, the West Indies – anywhere but the U.S.
        The readers can see from the various articles that I linked to, and from this book:
        https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=172
        that Lincoln was indeed a Dictator.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No when a few extremists take control of the states and cause them to secede threatening the breakup of the country and when the capital of the country is surrounded by people sympathetic to said extremists its natural for the government acting to keep the government alive and thus keep the country united to have some degree of free and to go for suspects trying to hurt the country since many local police forces were sympathetic to the desires of the more extreme southern people.
        Also I never said everything Lincoln and the administration did was good. I believe and said I disagree with the length to which Lincoln went in the direction but since I am not there to oppose it I begrudgingly accept it with a why did you have to do that Lincoln. At the same time with the administration supporting them does not equal absolute support. I tend to support President Obama does not mean I am all for everything he says. Believing someone is not the devil incarnate does not equal making them a messiah.

        Also there is a difference between a nation of over 300 million people and a person aside from just the size. And even us liberals do understand the concept of principles. Otherwise I would not care what you said about the 16th president who I believe was a good man who gave his life to keep the country alive.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I know Lincoln supported sending African Americans to Africa after freeing them. Many do.
        And again Lincoln had not taken office when the south seceded. He had no power and had done nothing. The fact is the south seceded based on assumption, not reality.

  • Tom Cook

    George Carlin says it very clearly in his skit, “religion is (expletive deleted)”; they always need money! Government is just like the various religions–always needs money. Both of these bad ideas need to be diminished and reduced in their effect on our lives and we’ll be better off.

  • Charlie Tall

    At the time the Second War of Independence (a.k.a. Civil War) started, import tariffs and liquor taxes were the main sources of the federal revenues. Tariffs could be placed on imports, not exports, so the areas of the country importing the most goods paid the most tariffs.

    The South imported the majority of its manufactured goods, mostly from England and France. The North, with its nascent but growing industrial segment, filled most of it own needs, imported relatively little from Europe, and coveted the Southern market. Unfortunately, northern goods at that time were famous for their poor quality, so the South could only be forced to buy northern goods by imposition of the tariff on import. See protective tariff.

    Liquor taxes, which were the source of 70% of the federal revenues after the South was nearly destroyed in the war, also came largely from the Southern states where the manufacture of liquor was disproportionately located. Prior to the war, the exact figures are not available, but one can presume that at the very least half the federal liquor taxes were collected from the southern distilleries.

    After the CSA was formed, tariffs on goods arriving in southern ports was dropped to half that levied in the north (10% vs 20% charged by the Union). As a result, New Orleans quickly became the port of entry for foreign goods destined for, not only the Southern states, but also all the states of the Midwest served by Mississippi and Missouri River steamboats.

    The Union was forced to either charge full tariffs on goods coming north from CSA states or to drop the tariff to 10%. The first choice imposed an unacceptable burden of 30% (total) on the Midwest states; the second diminished the federal revenues by half.
    So the immediate result of the secession of the southern states is that, at best, federal revenues were cut in half. In reality, the South took nearly 70% of federal revenues with them when they left the union.

    In addition, because of carefully worded Federal legislation that favored the transportation of Southern cotton in American hulls, the north’s maritime industries were almost totally based upon Southern exports to Europe. When the South seceded, they took this business with them. Most went to English bottoms at first, but the South quickly began to develop their own shipping industry, once the bias of federal legislation was removed.

    In his book, “Memoirs of Service Afloat”, Raphael Semmes recounts these words, “No wonder that Mr. Lincoln, when asked, ‘Why not let the South go?’ replied, “Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenue?’”

    People, the war was about money. Slavery came later, but only then as a political issue.

    • Vigilant

      “The Union was forced to either charge full tariffs on goods coming north from CSA states or to drop the tariff to 10%. ”

      Tariffs are on imports of goods from foreign countries. “Goods coming north from CSA states” had no tariffs levied on them.

      • Charlie Tall

        Yes, Vigilant, this is true, but in the event the North elected war, instead.

        During the period between secession and the opening of hostilities, the Union collected absolutely no tariffs or liquor taxes at all from the South. Had the North let the South go, it would have been forced to pick one of the choices as I stated them: the North would have eventually had to match the lower Southern rate in order to compete, or they could have imposed the existing 20% on the trans-shipments which already bore a 10% burden imposed by the Southern duties.

        Remember that not only did New Orleans take tariff revenue from the North, but it also took shipping business from northern ports. The news papers of the period, both north and south, were full of notices advertising lower duties in the South. Even Yankee-owned ships preferred to use New Orleans, if only to be competitive.

        Point of interest: the South did not levy duties on northern products arriving in Southern ports in Yankee bottoms.

        Vigilant, I apologize for not spelling out every nuance of the situation. I assumed that you and others like you would be able to fill in the details without my help. My mistake.

        By the way, since you elected to question only a minor detail that you simply misunderstood, may I presume that you agree with the essential point of my post, which was that the South took the vast majority of federal revenues with them when they seceded?

      • cwipaulk

        HISTORIAN ADMITS THE TARIFF WAS A HUGE ISSUE

        Susan Dunn is very liberal, yet, her book, Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison, and the Decline of Virginia (New York: Basic Books, 2007), documents in great detail that the South complained loudly and repeatedly about how tariff laws favored the North and hurt the South (pp. 171-184).

        Among many other things, Dunn notes that “the outrage over tariffs would set Virginia and other Southern states on a long and ultimately lethal collision with the national government” (p. 171). Dunn also notes that “there is little evidence that they [tariffs] stimulated American industry or that they had more than negligible effects” (p. 174).

        “Southerners objected to tariffs not only for economic reasons but also for ideological ones: Tariffs intruded on the autonomy and rights of the states as well as on the freedom of the individual.” (pp. 173-174)

        “The uproar over tariffs, especially over the tariff of abominations, proved to be far more than a banal dispute over expensive imports.” (p. 176)

      • Vigilant

        Charlie Tall says, “By the way, since you elected to question only a minor detail that you simply misunderstood, may I presume that you agree with the essential point of my post, which was that the South took the vast majority of federal revenues with them when they seceded?”

        Shall I quote Alexander Stephens at the Georgia secession meeting in 1861?

        “”Again, look at another item…it is that of the revenue,or the means of supporting the government. From official documents we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected has uniformly been raised at the North…”

        That from the mouth of the man who would later become the vice president of the CSA.

      • Charlie Tall

        Stephens was obviously mistaken or you are misquoting him.

        Lincoln admitted to many, and I’ve quoted Semmes, that the issue was revenue and only revenue.

        Let me quote at length from Senator Benton’s (Missouri) speech of 1828:

        “…the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing…Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue. Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures.”

        The South was compelled to purchase from the North, being excluded by Northern tariffs, from all other markets.

        The absence of something from a political platform proves nothing except, perhaps, that the subject is politically too divisive to include.

        Slavery, at the time, was an economic issue. Indeed, slaves were the single largest category of personal property in the South, and even rivaled the value of real property. Uncompensated emancipation would have destroyed the South economically, just as the tariffs were doing, but much faster.

        Vigilant, my sources are not latter day historians, but contemporary authorities.

        It is apparent that you wish to believe that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Okay. Believe that.

        I know better.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie Tall says, “Vigilant, my sources are not latter day historians, but contemporary authorities.” Then what does he do? He quotes a speech by a man concerning the Tariff of Abominations of 1828! Contemporary? I hardly think so. The tariff dispute was resolved in 1833, some 28 YEARS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR!

        The Morrill Tariff of 1861with rates considerably LOWER than the 1828 tariff played but little part in fomenting the crisis.

        Then, unbelievably, he makes the desperate assertion that “the absence of something from a political platform proves nothing except, perhaps, that the subject is politically too divisive to include.”

        “Politically too divisive to include?” You are, of course, either daft or joking. You expect us to believe that the South would go to war without expressing the most volatile cause of its discontent in the political platform for election? That’s a suspension of logic even a child can see through!

        Then, putting words in my mouth, you misrepresent my position with “It is apparent that you wish to believe that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Okay. Believe that.”

        Cite ANY of my numerous postings on the subject on this site over the years that says that, and I’ll kiss your a$$! My God, you haven’t even read my postings on this thread if you believe that.

        OK, let me assert for your benefit and edification ONE MORE TIME what history bears witness to: EVERY source document available from the period indicates CLEARLY that the South seceded over the issue of the extension of slavery in the new territories and states. They saw it as an erosion of power in the House and Senate (a power, incidentally, that was distorted to their advantage by supposedly “representing” 3/5 of slaves who had no vote).

        The North NEVER went to war to free the slaves. Lincoln never would have had the popular or political support to execute a war on that pretext. Lincon’s actions were clearly a move to preserve the Union, and nothing else.. .

        Care to revise your false assertions?.

      • Vigilant

        “Stephens was obviously mistaken or you are misquoting him.”

        The quote from Stephens is from “England, the United States and the Southern Confederacy,” by F.W. Sargent, 1864. The title page has another quote from Stephens: “Slavery is the natural and moral condition of the negro. Our new Government is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

        Misquoting I am not. If Stephens, who became vice president of the confederacy, minimized the importance of the federal revenues, mistaken or not, it shows that the tariff was NOT the cause of secession.

        Or do you believe a speech made some 33 years earlier about a tariff issue that was later resolved is more representative?

        • Charlie Tall

          I believe what I have read in nearly ever contemporary document of the pre-Civil War era. Yours is the first and only one to contradict the fact that tariffs and the related question of the territories were the main causes of secession.

          I spent nearly a week while in New Orleans several years ago reading old newspapers from that era. I have searched archives in Nashville and Charleston.

          I found that tariffs and territories were mentioned over and over. The two main Southern feelings were that the North was using tariffs to plunder the South, and that by excluding Southerners from Missouri Compromise territories – territories which were acquired, defended, and developed with Northern and Southern money alike – the North would soon acquire absolute power over the South.

          Slavery was also discussed, but it was considered to be a property rights issue for the South vice a political issue for the North. One writer commented, “I think it safe to affirm that if the question [of slavery] had stood upon moral, and religious grounds alone, the institution would never have been interfered with.”

          The South also saw slavery as a political tool being used by the North to further divide the nation. One of the planks of the Republican platform of 1860 was to exclude slavery from all of the territories.

          Having gained control of the House by virtue of its burgeoning population, the North then took careful aim at the Senate. By prohibiting slavery in any new state, the North could soon look to total control of the Federal government.

          Daniel Webster, in 1833, when speaking of the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by the North, said, “…the South would be no longer bound to keep the compact (i.e., the Constitution). A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides.”

          The question of the causes of the Civil War is far more complicated than we have so far discussed. Semmes wrote that, “It so happened, that the slavery question was the issue which finally tore [the Union] asunder, but, as the reader has seen, this question was a mere means, to an end. The end was empire, and we were about to repeat, in this hemisphere, the drama which had so often been enacted in the other, of a more powerful nation crushing out a weaker.”

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “I believe what I have read in nearly ever [sic] contemporary document of the pre-Civil War era. Yours is the first and only one to contradict the fact that tariffs and the related question of the territories were the main causes of secession.”

        Then it’s obvious you have clearly NOT read what you claim to have read. You have read that which bolsters your prejudices only. Moreover, your limited scope of “education” causes you to deny that it is even a controversial issue. How superficial and disingenuous!

        It most certainly IS a controversial issue, which means to the average intelligence that there are differing points of view. If you have NEVER read anything to contradict your point of view, then indeed your search has been severely limited, and you have found ONLY what you wished to find..

        It’s transparent to me, and should be to everyone, that you have never read the Lincoln Douglas debates, the Northwest Ordinance, the Missouri Compromise, the King Cotton speech, the secession declarations, and a wealth of contemporary documentation that barely mentions tariffs but gives long and impassioned discourse on the subject of slavery. It’s all there, but somehow you feel compelled to disregard it.

        Then again, you may have searched the same library that DiLorenzo did.

    • Vigilant

      Charlie Tall says, “People, the war was about money. Slavery came later, but only then as a political issue.”

      You might want to check out the Democratic Party Platform of 1856, which states “that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.”

      The Democrat Platforms of 1860 (both Breckinridge and Douglas) mention nothing about tariffs or duties, but have ample space for slavery related issues.

      The South threatened to “endanger the stability and permanency of the Union” over slavery and nothing else.

      • Charlie Tall

        Vigilant says: “The South threatened to “endanger the stability and permanency of the Union” over slavery and nothing else.”

        When you added the words, “and nothing else,” you simply proved that you have swallowed the Lincoln myth hook, line, and sinker.

        “There are none so positive as those who are but half right.” William McDonnell

      • 45caliber

        I keep hearing that comment. However, as a decendent of one who fought in that war, I can tell you that the South did NOT fight to retain slavery. There were about 1200 slave owners in the South (and far more in the North). Over 350,000 men in the South died in that war – and I can guarantee you that few of them cared if those 1200 owners kept their slaves or not. They fought for state rights and to prevent the North from conquering the South as they did. My great grandfather had never even SEEN a slave before going off to war. He certainly had no interest in fighting to keep them as slaves. Keep in mind that the present history books are slanted to that goal but the real goal wasn’t that. You can do some research to find out the truth, but it isn’t easy to find. Too many people over the years have tried to destory most of it.

      • Vigilant

        “When you added the words, “and nothing else,” you simply proved that you have swallowed the Lincoln myth hook, line, and sinker.”

        I quote documented sources where you make baldfaced, unsubstantiated assertions..

        Tell me how I swallow a “myth” when I stipulate Lincoln’s well-documented racism, when I admit that the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure and on Constitutionally shaky grounds, when I grant the Constitutionality of the Dred Scott decision. No sir, if and when I ever misquote a reference or glorify Lincoln beyond the record of history, THEN you may call me a sucker.

        I use the words of the prime movers and shakers up to and including the war. You use the second and third hand calumnies of pseudohistorians like DiLorenzo and other neoconfederates.

        I tried to engage you in intelligent discourse, and you insult me?

      • cwipaulk

        The 10 Causes of the War Between the States
        by James W. King
        Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.
        Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.
        I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence ( 1775-1783 ) and the War for Southern Independence.
        There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) —one of which was slavery– which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources ( land-cotton- coal-timber- minerals ) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.
        A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed –period–or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.
        On a human level there were 4 causes of the war–New England Greed–New England Fanatics–New England Zealots–and New England Hypocrites. During “So Called Reconstruction” ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years–THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.
        1. TARIFF–Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states–Virginia- North Carolina–South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%–20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia’s remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the “Tariff of Abominations” 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.
        2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS—The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).
        3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM–The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists ( atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians ). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege 1830-2000.”
        4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES- -Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons),Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD –516 AD ). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had existed for 1500 years or more.
        5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES- -The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control–slavery was a scapegoat.
        6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South’s resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.
        7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day ( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.
        8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist activities.. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.
        9.. SLAVERY. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, “THE DESIRE”, was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that “he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery”. If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant’s wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution and court action. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated ” the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states.”
        10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V. Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln’s act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
        On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: ” I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.”
        The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that “the war was over slavery” or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.
        The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting.
        Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme’s contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes’ assessment of yankee motives – the creation of “Empire”!
        Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”
        Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question.”
        Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
        It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.”
        The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America, which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote ” I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had ” tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.
        Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated ” I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance” . Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated ” Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption”.
        James W. King

    • 45caliber

      Charlie:

      I agree with you. At the time all government expenses were paid for by tarriffs. Cotton and tobacco were shipped to Europe primarily from Southern ports. The ships brought in goods to these southern ports so they would have cargo going both directions.

      The northern merchants tried to shift this to the north by insisting that all such goods had to go through their hands, which would have required all cotton and tobacco to be sold to northern merchants (at congress-controlled low prices) so they could sell to the Europeans at inflated prices. That would shift all profits to the north instead of the plantation owners in the south. It would transfer all tarriffs to the north and all shipping to the north. The south refused to allow that.

      If the south had been able to peacefully secede, the South would have received most of the tarriffs and therefore the federal government wouldn’t have had as much to spend. The north only had manufactured goods to sell – which Europe didn’t need. The north needed the south to buy those but if the south was allowed to go its way, they would have bought from Europe instead. The northern merchants would have gone broke.

  • Mountain Saint

    American Blacks are still not free. They are depended on a different master now and living on a different plantation but the Welfare State is just as insidious as the early 19th Centruy model. …Conor MacCormack is 100% right about Lincoln being a tyrant and hateful of the Blacks. There has been a mythology developed about our third-rate president, Ronald Reagan, and he should be exposed in the future by a MacComack.

  • RalphNader

    the question is now as it was for the first sent message message- “what hath GOD wrot?” Before that information exchange was a good gdeal slower We proclaime the Erie Canal’s activation via the mouths of cannon!
    Radios first message was “You aint SEEN nothing yet!” Interesting becaiuse seeing is not an aspect of Radio transmission imagination is!” Another few years would pass before seeing on those invisible waves would occur and then a little later in color!” Is this a great country or what Give thanks for the fact its flawed but better than anything anywhere else! You can always pack up an go to Easter Island Rapa Nui and starve to death more slowly!

  • Gill O’Teen

    The choice we are facing this November is not between two evils. It is between certain and total tyranny and what little remains of our liberty. At least, if we have some liberty remaining, we have a chance to restore the rest without Civil War II. Under an unleashed aconstitutional o’bummer monarchy all hope will be squashed. mitzy rummy is indeed a squishy warrior, but he is not o’bummer’s white identical ideological twin.

  • 45caliber

    The war was all about money. The Northern states controlled the Congress by population (in fact the South tried to get the blacks counted as people but the North resisted for fear the Southern population would transfer that strength to the South.) They also controlled the Senate by number since there were far more states in the North than in the South even though the South had more territory. So they voted in the laws they wanted.

    One early thing they had done was to set limits on the price of agricultural products sold. The north was primarily industrialized so much of their food came from the south. They didn’t want to pay that much for it. The only cash crops the south had were cotton and tobacco. These were primarily sold to Europe. Congress passed a law that forbid the South from selling directly to Europe. They were to sell to the northern merchants (at low prices set by Congress) and then the merchants would sell to Europe.

    To cap it off, coal and iron ore were discovered at Mobile, AL. There was a push by some in the South to build a steel foundry there. The north were upset since they sold all the goods the south needed at prices that helped the north. They could see their profits disappear if the south began to make their own products. So another law was passed that banned the south from industrializing. They were to remain agricultural.

    The south objected and seceded. The northern merchants immediatley appealed to Lincoln about their lost markets and he declared war.

    The south did not fight for slavery. There were 1200 slave owners (approx) in the south at the time. The rest could care less about slaves. They simply didn’t like the north dictating where they could sell and stealing all their profits. The main reason the south lost was due to a lack of industrial base to make weapons, among other things.

    Slaves, as stated above, were forced to remain on the plantations after the war by the northern carpetbaggers who took them over … for not paying taxes to the Federal government during the Civil War. (Later the blacks became share-croppers.) It was over ten years later than slavery was ended when the northern men who had fought to end slavery (which was a claim made to appeal to the northern youth – after all, who wants to fight to make someone else richer) found out it hadn’t ended. There were actually more slaves in the north than the south anyway. That began the biggest move westward as the freed slaves (both black and white) tried to get away from their old masters.

    • Rob

      I don’t remember the number, but the percentage of slave owners, or those who benefited from the institution was about 4 to 6 % of the population. More than 1200, though, because there were more black slave owners than that. It still goes to show that if slavery was the primary reason, then 1. Why did the other 94% of the population support the war? and 2. Why were there more than 40,000 black Confederate soldiers who actually took up arms against the Union, and another 40,000 to 60,000 who served the Confedeacy as soldiers in other capacities?

      • 45caliber

        I used to know where the 1200 owners came from – but I forgot. However, it is apparently close. A good horse cost about $10. A working man during that time earned about $20 a month. A slave cost about $1200 each. In fact, they were worth so much that owners didn’t dare let them get seriously ill if possible to stop it. Many owners were already looking at freeing the slaves since it was cheaper to pay them $20 (or whatever) a month and let them keep themselves.

        But the rest I agree with. In fact, there was a prison for black soldiers who fought for the South in (if I remember correctly) Illinois. All a prisoner had to do was sign a statement that they had been forced to fight for the South and they were freed. Over 300 prisoners refused to do it and spent the rest of the war there. When Sherman marched to the sea, he was burning all buildings, particularly on plantations. Many blacks tried to protect those plantations with guns and many also were able to save the women and children (white as well as black) who where there from Sherman’s soldiers.

      • independant thinker

        I found the following information.

        “Less than one-quarter of white Southerners held slaves, with half of these holding fewer than five and fewer than 1 percent owning more than one hundred. In 1860, the average number of slaves residing together was about ten.” from Slavery in the United States | Economic History Services

        Here is an article on Negro slave owners in the South.

        http://southernloyalists.tripod.com/documents/id12.html

  • cwipaulk

    Where is the logic?

    IF slavery was the cause of the War For Southern Independence, and IF the North fought to free the slaves, why then:

    1. Was a 13th amendment presented in the U.S. Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1861, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state? (Corwin Amendment, 2 March, 1861)
    2. Was West Virginia allowed to accede to the union as a “Slave” state after 1863? (West Virginia was illegally and unconstitutionally formed)
    3. Was slave labor used to build the Capitol building in Washington D.C.?
    4. Was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, applicable only in areas not under the control of the Union?
    (The Emancipation Proclamation freed not one solitary person, but was a war measure meant to cause a slave uprising, which did not happen)
    5.Was Union Gen. Fremont’s order emancipating slaves in Missouri countermanded by Lincoln and the slaves sent back to their masters?
    6. Why did New Jersey uphold its “Lifetime apprentices” rule until 1866?
    7. Why were there six slave states in the union (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska – 1860 Census) during the War For Southern Independence?
    8. Was there a U.S. Resolution stating that the war had nothing to do with slavery? (July 22, 1861)

  • Louis Lemieux

    “Think about these things long and hard before you rush headlong into the voting booth to pull the lever for the party of Lincoln this November, the alleged ”lesser of two evils.” Remember: By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.“
    –Conor MacCormack

    Why in the world shouldn’t I vote for the Republican Party in 2012 just because of Lincoln who was living in the 1860′s? As if nothing much has changed and improved since then! Ludicrous, laughable and hilarious!!!

    • 45caliber

      It is like saying that you can’t say anything bad about Oblama – they want you and everyone else to vote for Oblama and can’t stand it if anyone might show that he has a mind of his own. You aren’t supposed to vote for the “lesser of two evils” … you are supposed to vote for the other choice – the GREATER of two evils.

      • Louis Lemieux

        Many people, including I, don’t view the Republican Party or the Democratic Party as evil. Imperfect, yes, but not evil. Extreme right and extreme left are way too dogmatic. Don’t we all have a left and right eye to determine how to proceed forward? It’s by consciously making an effort to understand those who do not think the same way we do that we can become a better citizen and move the country forward. When the time comes I will be voting for the party that is the best to the best of my knowledge.

      • 45caliber

        Louis:

        I never vote for the party – the parties are simply wrong. I vote for the person I think is best for the position. It is far harder to do since you have to look up info on all persons but I think you get a better government that way.

  • cwipaulk

    REVENUES

    As for sources for President Lincoln’s thoughts on collecting tariff revenues, there are two sources from the time (April 1861) that address the issue:

    From the Baltimore Exchange, 23d ult. (i.e. April 23, 1861)
    Interview between Messengers of Peace and Mr. Lincoln

    The Baltimore Sun has the following in relation to the interview between the President and a committee of the “Young Men’s Christian Association of Baltimore,” it says:

    We learn that a delegation from five of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of Baltimore, consisting of six members of each, yesterday proceeded to Washington for an interview with the President, the purpose being to intercede with him in behalf a peaceful policy, and to entreat him not to pass troops through Baltimore or Maryland. The Rev. Dr. Fuller, of the Baptist church, accompanied the party, by invitation, as chairman, and the conversation was conducted mainly between him and Mr. Lincoln, and was not heard entire by all the members of the Convention.

    Our informant, however, vouches for what we now write. He states that upon the introduction, they were received very cordially by Mr. Lincoln?aa sort of rude familiarity of manner ? and the conversation opened by Dr. Fulller seeking to impress upon Mr. Lincoln the vast responsibility of the position he occupied, and that upon him depended the issues, of peace or war?on one hand aa terrible, fratricidal conflict, and on the other peace.
    “But” said Mr. Lincoln, what am I to do?”

    “Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a Government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may he averted.” “AND WHAT SHALL BECOME OF THE REVENUE? I SHALL HAVE NO GOVERNMENT?NO RESOURCES?” (Emphasis added, not in the original)

    Dr. Fuller expressed the opinion that the Northern States would constitute an imposing government and furnish revenue, but our informant could not follow the exact terms of the remark.

    (Reprinted in the Memphis Daily Avalanche May 8th 1861, pg.1, col. 4.)

    Tariffs, Not slavery
    by: Jack McMillan, Ph.D.
    Contrary to what is now taught, slavery was not the primary issue. Sorry, Julian, Jesse, and victims of public indoctrination everywhere, but here are the inconvenient facts.
    The American educational system continues perpetuating a myth regarding the War for Southern Independence [often mistakenly called 'The Civil War,' a misnomer.] Teachers using government-mandated, Northern-produced texts inform students the conflict centered solely on slavery, with Abraham Lincoln ‘The Great Emancipator’ sending Union troops to ‘make men free.’ Nothing could be more untrue. We realize the wisdom in the adages that history-books are written by the victors and that truth is war’s first casualty. Like other complex human activities, wars often have a number of underlying causes. In this article, I shall provide the reader with an overview of the primary causi belli of the War for Southern Independence, the issue of tariffs.

    Far from being a mundane topic, taxation has been at the heart of the American political spirit. The original thirteen American colonies formally dissolved ties with the British Empire due to the issue of taxation without representation. Penned by that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence stands out as this nation’s first Article of Secession. In it, the colonies’ grievances are listed. Amongst the litany of injustices committed by King George III, Jefferson mentions ‘For imposing Taxes upon us without our Consent.’ This split over taxation is a recurring theme in American history.
    The precursor to Southern secession in fact occurred 30 years before the hostilities of 1861-1865. In 1828 and again in 1832, Congress passed tariffs legislation benefiting northern mercantile interests but injuring the South’s agricultural economy. Heavy protectionist tariffs gave northern manufacturers an advantage by decreasing foreign competition, but forced the South to pay the bulk of federal taxes, as the South was a net exporter of raw goods and a net importer of manufactured products. These ‘Tariffs of Abominations’ led Senator John C. Calhoun to declare the law unjust and a convention was held in South Carolina to nullify the federal tariff law. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops to enforce the tariff, but eventually the Compromise of 1833 was reached and taxes were lowered over a four-year period. As Professor Charles Adams states in his book For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, “…the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.”
    The election of 1860 was perhaps the most contentious in American history. The Democratic Party split, with the northern faction voting for Stephen Douglass and the southern faction for John Breckinridge. Additionally the Constitutional Unionist Party [the renamed Whig Party] ran John Bell as a candidate and carried three states [Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.] Lincoln won with a mere 39% of the popular and not a single electoral vote from the South. As Salomon DeRothschild, a visitor to America at the time wrote, “This state of affairs could have continued … if the two divisions, South and North, of the Democratic party had not split at the last electoral convention. Since each of them carried a different candidate, they surrendered power to a third thief, Lincoln, the Republican choice.”
    The secession of Southern States began with South Carolina, where tax issues had been at the forefront 30 years earlier. Contrary to what is now taught, slavery was not the primary issue. While it is unfortunate slavery existed, the blame cannot placed solely on the South; slavery existed in the North as well [it is interesting to note Delaware, a Northern slave state, refused to ratify the 13th Amendment abolishing the institution.] Further, New England slavers from their homeports in Massachusetts and New York brought slaves to America in the first place.
    With the election of Lincoln, the South realized northern manufacturers and bankers would have their puppet in the White House. Again Professor Adams states, “…Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer… No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history.” Adams also notes, “Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical… The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and new Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes.” Note the Confederacy lowered taxes! To the charge often leveled that the newly formed Confederacy started the hostilities, Adams correctly points out “…with the import taxes, he [Lincoln] was threatening. Fort Sumter was at the entrance to the Charleston Harbor, filled with federal troops to support U.S. Customs officers. It wasn’t too difficult for angry South Carolinians to fire the first shot.” Again, Rothschild writing to his cousin in London in 1861 notes, “I’ll come back later to the ‘slavery’ question, which was the first pretext for secession, but which was just a pretext and is now secondary. The true reason which impelled the Southern states to secede is the question of tariffs.”
    Lincoln’s election guaranteed a return of past disastrous policies and forced the Southern States to secede. Writers of the day confirm this. In Great Britain, many intellectuals and political leaders saw Lincoln’s War for exactly what it was – a dispute over taxation. Charles Dickens writes, “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States.” Dickens goes on to say “…Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils… The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” Let us quote a passage from the Northern British Review, Edinburgh, 1862, “…All Northern products are now protected: and the Morrill Tariff is a very masterpiece of folly and injustice. No wonder then that the citizens of the seceding States should feel for half a century they have sacrificed to enhance the powers and profits of the North; and should conclude, after much futile remonstrance, that only in secession could they hope to find redress.”
    I shall conclude this article with a passage written by John Reagan, Postmaster General of the Confederacy. “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, and your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights.”
    © 2002 by Connie Ward, 180 Degrees True South 180dts@bellsouth.net

    • Vigilant

      There are a number of issues calling for an answer, but the first one that caught my eye was in the article by Jack McMillan, where he says, ” No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history.” Adams also notes, “Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical…”

      It doesn’t wash, and is FACTUALLY incorrect. The first Morrill Tariff was signed into law by Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office. The important Southern states had already seceded. The second tariff bill, with higher rates, was signed by Lincoln later to pay for the war, but in either case there was no impact on the South since it was no longer part of the Union.

      “Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.” (Wikipedia)

      “Neoconfederate economist Thomas DiLorenzo asserts that the tariff was the primary cause of the Civil War. NEARLY ALL CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS DISAGREE (Caps mine).. Allan Nevins and James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff dispute, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that SLAVERY DOMINATED THE SECESSIONIST DECLARATIONS, SPEECHES AND PAMPHLETS (Caps mine). Nevins also points to the argument of Alexander Stephens, who disputed Toombs’ claims about the severity of the Morrill tariff. Though initially a unionist, Stephens would later cite slavery as the “cornerstone” reason behind his support of the secessionist cause.” (Wikipedia)

      Moreover, tell me what Constitutional priciple was overturned by the passage of ANY tariff measure, no matter how high. Tariffs, including even the Tariff of Abominations, were passed by Congress, in Constitutionally presribed manner. If this were the primary cause of the trouble, all that would be required would be nullification, not secession.

      ONLY SLAVERY rose to the level of importance significant enough to make the South believe that secession was warranted, not tariffs, especially a tariff that was considerably lower than the tariff of 1828. And, importantly but roundly disregarded by the Neoconfederate revisionists, a tariff that was so insignificant that the scant mention of it in “secessionist declarations, speeches and pamphlets” was boldly overshadowed by the issue of slavery as the casus belli.

      • cwipaulk

        But, when Lincoln was asked by his own men if he would let the South go in peace, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln loudly exclaimed, “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?!” So he did not agree to the South nation’s freedom and independence, and we all know how that story ended.

        From Lincoln’s own mouth. He wanted revenues from the South. Period.

      • Vigilant

        cwipaulk, you want to know where that spurious statement cane from? See http://vernerable.wordpress.com/the-civil-war/against-neo-confederates/

        “Now Lincoln was sometimes given to making jokes, and it could very well have been an attempt at humor. Or it might have meant only that the South did have obligations to the country to pay its fair share of taxes. But did Lincoln actually say it? I checked the footnote for these statements, and the Kennedy brothers cite as an authority, not Lincoln’s writings or speeches, but a book by Confederate captain Ralph Semmes. In his book, however, Semmes did not provide any source for the statements.[38]

        The quotation was also used by Assistant Secretary of War for the Confederacy, Albert Taylor Bledsoe. He too provided no source for the statements.[39] The earliest that I could find was from an editor of the Southern Literary Messenger named Frank Heath Alfriend, who was also a biographer of Jefferson Davis.[40] As we might have expected, Alfriend did not cite any source for the statements attributed to Lincoln.

        I also “googled” the statements and noticed they were quoted frequently by neo-confederates, but again no sources were given from Lincoln’s writings or speeches, or even from newspaper articles. Finally, I used the search engine at the Abraham Lincoln Papers hosted by the Library of Congress. The query for “Let the South go?” came back with zero (0) items. Similarly, the query for “Where then shall we get our revenues!” came back with zero (0) results.

        In other words, Lincoln never said the words attributed to him. If neo-confederates still want to use this as proof that Lincoln went to war out of greed, they need to provide proof he actually said it, and provide context as well.”

        Of course, the above means nothing to you. Perhaps you can find an authoritative source for it. Anyone?

  • Mike Tull

    John C. Fremont, who was the son-in-law of Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, and Union Army Commander in Missouri was relieved of command by President Lincoln for freeing or emancipating the slaves in Missouri.

  • Rasta

    You all can do your rewrite as much as you want. The South lost we’s free. Game set and match!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Actually from reading your posts, they tell that you are not free.

    • 45caliber

      You are indeed free – but not due to the Civil War that killed over 700,000 people. It was done peacefully as it would have been done anyway.

      • Rasta

        I don’t care if it was due to humpty dumpty falling off a wall. Your little rewrite or attempted revisionist agenda would be hilarious if I didn’t think you were serious We are not going back in that box. No never. Unfortunately true change sometimes costs lives as was the case in the Civil War. The Great Emancipator was just that .His reasons can be debated forever, but what can’t be debated is that the Confederate States of America were defeated and the Union was preserved. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued putting the question of slavery to bed in the US. I know there are those who wished it had turned out differently, but those people are no friends of liberty although they try to cloak themselves in the garb of patriots they are scoundrels of the worst sort. We do not know how history would have turned out without the Civil War. It is all speculation. I am glad it turned out like it did. Glory Glory Hallelujah!

      • 45caliber

        Rasta:

        If you check, slavery wasn’t ended until well after the Civil War ended. And it was done peacefully. As stated by others above, the Emancipation Proclamation was never intended to end slavery and didn’t. It was meant to cause a slave rebellion in the South which didn’t happen. I agree that slavery is wrong and I believe that any person found forcing others to be slaves today (and it happenes even in the US) should be convicted in court and executed the same day.

        But the courts seem to consider it a minor crime. They recently found a couple in Houston that were sneaking girls across the border from Mexico and forcing them to be prostitutes at a bar they owned that catered to illegals. This was the third or fourth time they had caught them enslaving those girls! The girls were beaten, raped, forced to sleep on pallets on the floor, half starved, etc. but the previous times they let the offenders walk and keep their bar. Now they sentenced them to jail – for about 10 years each. A mear slap on the hand as far as I’m concerned!

        Incidently, you should do some further checking. The Democrats were the ones who were trying to keep all of them slaves. Not the Republicans. So … why do you vote for Democrats?

    • cwipaulk

      LINCOLN QUOTES

      Union President Abraham Lincoln— (Racist,Destroyer of the Republic and Constitution) when asked “Why not let the South go in peace?” Lincoln replied: “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”

      Abraham Lincoln, claimed that— “The people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white.”

      Union President Abraham Lincoln, In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks— “I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.”

      Abraham Lincoln— “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right a right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.”

      Abraham Lincoln, Campaign Speech— “I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office.”

      Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address— “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery.”

      Abraham Lincoln, to Horace Greeley— “I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District (of Columbia).”

      Abraham Lincoln, to Horace Greeley— “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”

      Abraham Lincoln— “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” September 18, 1858 in a speech in
      Charleston, Illinois

      Abraham Lincoln— “Negro equality, Fudge!! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?”

      Union President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress; 1 December 1862— “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization…in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.”
      “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith…” Abraham Lincoln

      “I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency, in the wish to preserve the peace of my own native State, Kentucky; but it is with regret I search, and can not find, in your not very short letter, any declaration, or intimation, that you entertain any desire for the preservation of the Federal Union.” — Abraham Lincoln to Kentucky’s Governor Magoffin on the latter’s request to have Kentucky remain neutral. (Why does Lincoln address the “preservation of the Union” and not the abolition of slavery if this is truly the burning question of the hour?)
      Lincoln said: ” … in saving the union, I have destroyed the Republic. Before me I have the Confederacy, which I loath. *But behind me I have the bankers, which I fear
      “The [Emancipation] proclamation has no constitutional or legal
      justification except as a war measure.”
      Letter to Sec. of Treas. Salmon P. Chase; 3 Sep 1863

      In order to coalesce the forces in the North, Lincoln had to stage an
      incident to inflame the populace, which he did. The firing on Sumter was
      by his own admission a setup for just such action. Lincoln was aware
      that provisioning Sumter could provoke a war.
      Lincoln’s letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861, makes it clear that he
      was pleased by the result of the firing on Ft Sumter…” You and I both
      anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making
      the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no
      small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the
      result. “

      • Vigilant

        cwipaulk,

        You’ve posted more than one false quotation, which I will address later, but one comment caught my eye:

        “I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency, in the wish to preserve the peace of my own native State, Kentucky; but it is with regret I search, and can not find, in your not very short letter, any declaration, or intimation, that you entertain any desire for the preservation of the Federal Union.” — Abraham Lincoln to Kentucky’s Governor Magoffin on the latter’s request to have Kentucky remain neutral. (Why does Lincoln address the “preservation of the Union” and not the abolition of slavery if this is truly the burning question of the hour?).”

        To answer your last question, which has already been answered numerous times, he doesn’t address the question of slavery becuase Lincoln was not concerned with that question, nor did he advocate the abolishment of slavery at that time. That letter was written on August 25, 1861.

        Why do you and others INSIST on repeating something that no one is arguing about? The historians agree, and no one has claimed otherwise in recent history, that Lincoln engaged in war NOT to free the slaves but to preserve the Union.

      • Vigilant

        “Why not let the South go in peace?” Lincoln replied: “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”

        YOUR VERY FIRST QUOTE has already been shown to be a false one. See my comment regarding that elsewhere in this thread.

      • Vigilant

        ““Negro equality, Fudge!! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?”

        Another quote for which you fail to give a date. It was made in 1859.

        AND, another of your references for which no one is arguing against. ONE MORE TIME: YES! LINCOLN DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE EQUALITY OF BLACKS, NOR DID THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH BELIEVE IN IT. No abolitionist would ever have been elected president by the voters of the North, let alone the South.

        So, other than trying to make Lincoln look bad by modern standards of morality, what is your point? He was no friend of the abolitionists at that time, as the correspondence amply indicates, BUT HE DID NOT ADVOCATE SLAVERY. His often-quoted letter to Horace Greeley about keeping the blacks in chains, or emancipating them if it would help preserve the Union, does in no way indicate that he wanted slavery to continue. The thrust of his comment is that he would do ANYTHING to preserve the Union, not that he was pro-slavery.

        Another technique you neoconfederates use is to cite quotations out of sequence, or to not date them. Contrary to Conor MacCormack’s patently false statement that no one can prove Lincoln’s changed views on race, we need only to fast forward to the last speech Lincoln ever made, in which he called for voting rights for freed slaves who were literate and who had fought on the side of the Union. You won’t find that in the jaundiced works of the neoconfederates like DiLorenzo because it contradicts their assertions.

        It was that last statement where Lincoln proposed suffrage to blacks that got him killed by John Wilkes Booth.

      • Vigilant

        cwipaulk says, “Abraham Lincoln, to Horace Greeley— “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”

        Just lovely! And you guys accuse the leftists of taking statements out of context!

        How ’bout the entire quote, as follows:

        “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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

        That passage just so happens to lend a COMPLETELY different perspective, and is further evidence that Lincoln was prepared to do almost anything to save the Union.

        • baldmurph

          Context IS important.

  • GregS

    If by some miracle Ron Paul should pick up enough delegates to win the Republican nomination at the Convention, I’ll gladly vote for him. Otherwise, I’m voting for Romney.

    This election is NOT about the “lesser of two evils,” and I couldn’t care less about what Abraham Lincoln did or did not do. The all-or-nothing mentality has NEVER worked in the election of a President, and it NEVER will.

    All conservatives, regardless of their differences, need to unite as a single force to defeat Obama, so that ObamaTAXCare can be repealed. Once it becomes a full-blown ENTITLEMENT in 2014, all chances of repealing it will be lost, and the Country will fall over the cliff into the abyss of socialism.

    This is NOT the year to be fooling around with 3rd-party candidates, or to not vote at all. That’s an all-or-nothing mentality, and it will NEVER work.

    ___________________________________________________________________
    Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! ObamaTAXCare’s got to go! Defeat the Dems to make it so!

    • cwipaulk

      Write in Ron Paul. The only way to do it in many states is to vote absentee. Why vote for the “lesser of two evils”? You still get evil.

      • GregS

        This is NOT about the “lesser of two evils.” It’s all about who can undo the damage that’s been done to this Country, while, at the same time, having the best chance of winning the election. That person would be the Republican nominee. A write-in has NO chance of winning!

        Besides, every human being on this earth has some evil within him/her, because NO ONE is perfect. Therefore, if we were all to follow the logic of you all-or-nothing purists, NO ONE should vote any of the evils, not even Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, because, “evil is evil.”

      • GregS

        …and “you still get evil.”

  • Charlie Tall

    The underlying premise held by everyone that feels that the Civil War was beneficial is that somehow the Union is sacred.

    Stop and think instead of vomiting the nonsense taught to you in public schools.

    The Union is not sacred.

    What is sacred are the natural rights of man as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

    The statement of these concepts begins with the following:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    The government no longer represents these concepts.

    The Union, the Constitution, are merely artifacts created by men to serve themselves and can be misused by men very easily. They are neither sacred nor worthy of unquestioning loyalty.

    Thomas Paine quite succinctly and correctly stated, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

    • Rasta

      That’s true the Union is not sacred, but we have been through this once. What do you propose?

    • Jeremy Leochner

      As the declaration says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. The sacredness of the Union is that it is a framework to secure and protect the natural rights of man. A nation founded on the principles of equality and liberty, The government of 1861 was not destructive of liberty. The destruction of the union however would have been destructive of liberty. Because it would have lead to the continuing of slavery and could have lead to total anarchy within the former United States. The sacredness of the Union is it helps make ideals real. It enshrines them in laws and in institutions. If the Union is not sacred what are we to say of any law or any institution. Just because something can be misused does not mean it is evil itself.

      • DaveH

        It’s odd to hear an Immoral Liberal arguing about the importance of honoring the “sacredness” of a Union. Why does Jeremy (aka Flashman) not then hold the sacredness of the Commandments such as “Thou shalt nor Steal”, or “Thou shalt not Kill”, both time-honored edicts of morality, and both usurped by that Big Central Government that Jeremy honors as “sacred”?
        Flashman you are as inconsistent as your multiple personalities.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do honor those commandments. I disagree with the government disregards them. I disagree when anyone disregards them. I do not know what is the right thing to do in all situations. My only thought is that like the Union such things can only be risked in extreme times and then should still be honored to the best ability as possible. If ever there was a tyrant in America I might be willing to accept secession as necessary. But I would prefer that the old flag and constitution be maintained. I would perhaps not begrudge the south so much if that is what they had done when they seceded. Instead they formed a different country and fundamentally altered the constitution to fit their needs. If I ever violate the commandments I accept it and try to make amends for it. And I admit I was in the wrong when I did it. Lincoln did not think that violating the constitution was the right thing but the necessary thing. And he planned to end the suspension of Habeas Corpus come peace time. It does not excuse the length to which he went with it. But no human being is perfect and I do not judge someone in a single broad brush based on one thing or one statement. Call me crazy if you will.

      • Charlie Tall

        Jeremy,

        While the union, in your opinion, may have been established as a framework to secure and protect the natural rights of man, it has long since ceased to accomplish those purposes.

        The Union was conceived as a servant to the sovereign states, not their master. It was given only a very few enumerated powers, all the rest being reserved to the states. However, it now sees itself as being superior to the states, and has since 1861 when it began killing its citizens. It has usurped the powers rightfully reserved to the states, and has in turn punished the states for not recognizing those illegal powers.

        If the government of 1861 was not destructive of liberty, what was it? The slaves were not entitled to liberty. They should have been, but they weren’t. The only legal way for them to have secured liberty would have been through the passage of laws establishing their freedom. That wasn’t done. What was done was the invasion and subjugation of the South by the rapacious and greedy North.

        “The destruction of the union however would have been destructive of liberty. Because it would have lead to the continuing of slavery…”

        Slavery was a Constitutionally protected property right. Slaves were property, just as were horses, cows, and chickens. Property is protected by the Constitution. The 13th Amendment came after the war. Therefore, the war, if it was to end slavery, was unconstitutional.

        “…and could have lead to total anarchy within the former United States.”

        It could have lead to a lot of things. Maybe it would have lead to a freer society. You don’t know, and thus you are trying to justify killing people on the basis of a possibility, your personal judgement.

        “The sacredness of the Union is it helps make ideals real. It enshrines them in laws and in institutions. If the Union is not sacred what are we to say of any law or any institution. ”

        Slavery was enshrined in laws, yet you are saying that ending slavery was justification for keeping the Union together. Contradiction.

        “Just because something can be misused does not mean it is evil itself.”

        Not “can be misused,” is being misused. But government is universally evil; that’s its nature. Some government are more evil than others, but they are all evil. If our government had conformed to the Constitution, the Civil War never would have been fought and we would not be having this discussion today.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        If the union is servant to the states then we are all statesmen before we are Americans. I consider myself an American not a californian.

        The government of 1861 was destructive because it allowed slavery. Lincoln wanted to pass laws to give slaves their freedom gradually. The south refused to accept this and seceded. The war did not start to free the slaves but it became the objective of the union. Slavery was a right but it was an immoral one that contradicted the very heart of what it means to be an American.
        I use could because it is based on speculation. What is clear is many states and factions other then the south were also debating secession when the Civil War took place. The successful secession of the south would have served as a green light to these other factions to go ahead and attempt it themselves. Republics die from internal collapse. The Civil War was when America could have been lost forever.

        Its not a contradiction. Slavery caused the Civil War. It forever divided the nation. Perhaps had things gone more smoothly slavery could have died out peacefully. But because the south seceded war came. Lincoln wanted only to preserve the union which itself was enough justification for war. But because Lincoln understood the role slavery played in the conflict he came to understand that the only way to truly end the war was to destroy its root cause. The south caused the war by seceding and forcing Lincoln to act to preserve the country and the republic. Is war ever justified who knows. However as Lincoln said “On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the
        inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”

        Government is being misused but that very fact is proof it is not inherently evil. If government is inherently evil then all laws, all regulations all rules are inherently evil because any tyrant can misuse any law to their advantage. Governments that are good are given power by people like ours. Ours is still a republic of by and for the people. Though it may be misused it is not evil. Unless liberty equality and the inherent rights of man have no purpose.

        • Charlie Tall

          Lincoln was not in favor of gradual emancipation. He supported perpetuation of slavery by Constitutional amendment. http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

          Whether or not slavery was moral is irrelevant. We are talking government, and government is about, as you say, laws, not feelings or morals. To abolish slavery by government action it was necessary to first change the laws, and this was not done.

          The South knew its negroes, and also knew that they could not simply be turned loose to fend for themselves. That would have resulted in chaos, hardship, and violence, as proven by the events after the war.

          Most Southern states had very strict laws in regard to the responsibilities of the slave owner AFTER he freed his slaves. The former owners were required to ensure that the newly freedmen could support themselves by either educating them, providing a trade, or posting a sum of money for their support.

          Following the end of hostilities in the South, the North did exactly what the South knew would be disastrous: it cast the slaves out on their own without either support or training. In addition, many Northern states not only refused to assist these newly freed persons, but barred them from entering Northern states.

          The South, having been virtually destroyed by the war, was completely unable to provide for the freedmen.

          Emancipation should have included provisions for their survival after slavery, not just freedom. In the event, that did not happen, and we are still paying the price of the North’s incompetence.

          The only moral justification for war is self-defense; that is pretty much the only unambiguous casus belli. Since the South was no threat to the North, Lincoln had NO JUSTIFICATION for waging war on the South., and sending a warship into the port of Charleston was an intentional and calculated provocation.

          “If government is inherently evil then all laws, all regulations all rules are inherently evil because any tyrant can misuse any law to their advantage.” This makes no sense.

          The Ten Commandments are obviously not evil, yet they have been perverted by men. Men create governments, therefore governments are evil, some more than others. Yes, many rules and laws are evil, but there is no way you can make the argument that all are evil, so your argument fails.

          “Governments that are good are given power by people like ours. Ours is still a republic of by and for the people.” Do you also believe that out government is functioning in accordance with the Constitution? In other words, is it behaving in obedience to the law that created it?

          The answer to that is a resounding No!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Lincoln did support gradual emancipation. He said so all his life.

        The south I admit did have a paternal system for caring for free slaves. However this system was based on the idea that African Americans were inferior human beings who could not care for themselves. And this system was often ignored out of bigotry and racism. You are right about the north. The north suffered far worse racism then the south. Lincoln wanted to help the freed slaves after the war. He planned to give them the vote and would have done more had he not been shot and killed. Without him radical republicans concerned more with their own political power focused on punishing the south and did little to help the freed slaves.

        In regards to the war I would point out. 1: The threat to the north was never the issue. The south posed a threat to the nation as a whole. If the south had gotten what they wanted there would have been two countries instead of one and the American Republic would have been destroyed. 2: It wasn’t a warship Lincoln sent. It was a ship containing provisions for the army soldiers stationed in a United States military fort. He contacted the governor of South Carolina and informed hi, the ship was being sent. It was sent with orders not to fire unless fired upon. The South Carolina forces with permission from the confederate government fired on Fort Sumter to prevent this ship form bringing food to hungry soldiers. The south was under no threat. They fired the first shot and brought on the war.

        The ten commandments were created by man. Like the constitution and the declaration they were the living embodiments of high ideals. Something created by man is not inherently evil. Like man it is inherently in conflict between the good and bad aspects of itself. It is a fight between its ideals and its realities.

        I believe at times the government does step outside the boundaries of the constitution. Such things need to be monitored and stopped. However I will point out stepping outside constitutional boundaries does not automatically equal evil. After all Lincoln stepped outside constitutional boundaries when he issued the emancipation proclamation to challenge slavery. However I would hardly consider a proclamation to free slaves something evil.

        • Charlie Tall

          Jeremy says:
          “1: The threat to the north was never the issue. The south posed a threat to the nation as a whole. If the south had gotten what they wanted there would have been two countries instead of one and the American Republic would have been destroyed.”

          Well, not quite true. The American Republic would have been smaller, but it wouldn’t have been destroyed unless you are willing to admit that it was based upon Southern revenues.

          How do you feel, Jeremy, about the break-up of the Soviet Union? Do you bemoan the destruction of the “Evil Empire”?

          “2: It wasn’t a warship Lincoln sent. It was a ship containing provisions for the army soldiers stationed in a United States military fort. He contacted the governor of South Carolina and informed hi, the ship was being sent. It was sent with orders not to fire unless fired upon.”

          Jeremy, all vessels of any navy are warships. You might try reading a little maritime law. Only hospital ships, which did not exist in 1861, are considered exceptions to this basic definition.

          “The South Carolina forces with permission from the confederate government fired on Fort Sumter to prevent this ship form bringing food to hungry soldiers. The south was under no threat. They fired the first shot and brought on the war.”

          Are you serious. US soldiers, hungry or not, stationed in the port of another nation are no threat to that nation? A US Navy vessel sails into that port without permission, and no act of war was committed?

          Hey, Jeremy, what do you think would happen if a US Navy vessel steamed into the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas? Do you think maybe the Iranians would consider that an act of war? You bet your sweet ass they would!

          “The ten commandments were created by man.”

          Oh, really? You think? But the question was are they evil? You had previously asserted the opinion that all laws and rules had to be evil if man, per se, was evil. Now you’re admitting that they are not, as I pointed out, necessarily evil.

          “I believe at times the government does step outside the boundaries of the constitution. Such things need to be monitored and stopped. However I will point out stepping outside constitutional boundaries does not automatically equal evil. After all Lincoln stepped outside constitutional boundaries when he issued the emancipation proclamation to challenge slavery. However I would hardly consider a proclamation to free slaves something evil.”

          So as long as the government is doing something YOU approve of, it’s okay if their actions violate the Constitution. But if you don’t approve, then it’s evil and has to be stopped

          I am vacillating between laughter at your naivete and nausea from your bigotry.

          Listen carefully, Jeremy. If the Constitution and the Union are so damned sacred, then they are much too sacred to be disregarded for whatever the reason. If the Declaration of Independence is sacred, then all of it is sacred; all of it must be regarded, not just the parts that you and those of your ilk think are right and proper at the moment.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “Listen carefully, Jeremy. If the Constitution and the Union are so damned sacred, then they are much too sacred to be disregarded for whatever the reason. If the Declaration of Independence is sacred, then all of it is sacred; all of it must be regarded, not just the parts that you and those of your ilk think are right and proper at the moment.”

        I say, read carefully, Charlie: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        Was it “all men” or was it just white men? Most of the rest of the civilized world had already dispensed with the evil institution of slavery except the US.

        On March 21st 1861, Alexander Stephens gave a speech on why the Confederacy wanted to secede. These were his exact words.

        “The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth”

        What was it you said, Charlie? “If the Declaration of Independence is sacred, then all of it is sacred; all of it must be regarded, not just the parts that you and those of your ilk think are right and proper at the moment.”

        Looks like you just painted yourself into a corner, son.

        • Charlie Tall

          That was then, and this is now, Vigilant, and you’ve made one of the most elementary errors of a wannabe historian: the anachronism.

          The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. Either you obey the law or you disobey it.You do not get to choose what parts you like and don’t like, and you cannot judge the country of 200 years ago by the standards (and political correctness) of today.

          Vigilant says, “Most of the rest of the civilized world had already dispensed with the evil institution of slavery…”

          I don’t give a flying rusty red rat’s ass what the rest of the civilized world had done. The rest of the world is not the United States of America. It is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The rest of the world can offer guidance and examples of other ways of doing things, but it is not an authority.

          As far as I am concerned the rest of the world can go to Hell; I could care less about it and its opinions.

          And I think it especially significant that you carefully qualified your statement with “civilized” rather than including the entire world where slavery existed legally in one venue or another until 2012 CE.

          Hell’s bells, Vigilant, the United States was formed by an act that literally thumbed its nose at the rest of the damned world, civilized or not, in 1776

          I agree with you about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, but that does not mean Americans of September 17, 1787 believed the same things or anything close to them. Obviously, they did not because the Constitution clearly institutionalized and protected slavery.

          Here are some facts that were valid in 1861 and are still valid today: the Constitution does not specify a solution for every contingency. The Constitution includes a specific means for its own modification. Neither the Supreme Court, liberal-progressive politicians, Mr. Abraham Lincoln, or your over-rated opinion is a legal way to change the Constitution, and those same examples do not, in any way, stand above the Constitution.

          The Civil War was not a legal way of either preserving the Union or ending slavery, and the experiences of your precious “rest of the civilized world” bear witness to the existence of alternatives, peaceful and legal alternatives.

          There’s your corner. Squirm out of it if you can.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “That was then, and this is now, Vigilant, and you’ve made one of the most elementary errors of a wannabe historian: the anachronism.

        “The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. Either you obey the law or you disobey it.You do not get to choose what parts you like and don’t like, and you cannot judge the country of 200 years ago by the standards (and political correctness) of today.”

        Aside from giving me a good laugh, thank you for making my job easier here, although you didn’t realize it when you penned that falsehood about anachronism..

        Had you an ounce of comprehension, you’d perceive the absolute duplicity of one of the neoconfederates’ main (and anachronistic) mantras, that Lincoln was a racist. .In an era when the overwheming majority of Americans, both north and south, were racist in their views about the slaves, the neoconfederates are indeed attempting to denigrate Lincoln by overlaying a template of “standards (and political correctness) of today.” As you’ve made it obvious you are a “true believer,” I doubt you will ever see that particular hypocrisy.

        As for anachronisms, you obviously didn’t read the first three sentences in the speech by Alexander Stephens that I so generously afforded. To repeat those sentences,

        “The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.”

        For a neoconfederate, you certainly have little respect for the man who became the vice president of the confederacy, when he gives voice to the Founders’ recognition of slavery as an “evil.” It’s right there for the reading, and it ain’t judging by today’s standards,

        • Charlie Tall

          July 20, 2012 at 11:01 pm -Vigilant wrote, “.In [sic] an era when the overwheming majority of Americans, both north and south, were racist in their views about the slaves, the neoconfederates are indeed attempting to denigrate Lincoln by overlaying a template of “standards (and political correctness) of today.” As you’ve made it obvious you are a “true believer,” I doubt you will ever see that particular hypocrisy.”

          Two paragraphs after that, in the same post, Vigilant, quoting Stephens, wrote, “The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature.”

          Vigilant, you certainly jump from one side of an argument to the other with alacrity.

          Additionally, you assign your unfortunate tendency to engage in anachronistic logic to the non-establishment historians such as DiLorenzo. They are not attempting to prove that Lincoln was a racist, that’s an easily demonstrated fact, as you have repeatedly pointed out.

          No, DiLorenzo and others ares debunking the Lincoln Myth, as promulgated by our educational system, that Abraham Lincoln was the Negro messiah, the savior of the black race, the ultimate non-racist.

          That myth is a fact of TODAY”S educational system. They are countering the (erroneous as usual) conventional wisdom of TODAY with facts from the past, and that’s an entirely different proposition than you tried to assert.

          Hint: that’s also not an anachronism. It’s simple research.

          But once again, as usual, you ignored the import of my post, that for any government action to be legal, the Constitution must be obeyed. You chose instead to make a poorly conceived and misdirected attack on a minor detail.

          You also overlooked the consideration that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are separate and different documents intended for and employed originally in entirely different circumstances.

          The Declaration of Independence, in addition to declaring the colonies independent of Great Britain, set forth a statement of human rights which the subsequently established US of A is purported to be founded upon.

          The Constitution established a federal government to serve the separate and sovereign States, and established precise rules for the operation of that government. It was and is assumed that the Federal government will remain cognizant of and abide by the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, although that’s largely a false assumption today.

          In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln’s War, the War for SOuthern Independence, that system and those assumptions were disonored.

          Vigilant, it is apparent to me that you’ve lost sight of the discussion here, so let me restate it:

          “The Constitution includes a specific means for its own modification. Neither the Supreme Court, liberal-progressive politicians, Mr. Abraham Lincoln, or your over-rated opinion is a legal way to change the Constitution, and those same examples do not, in any way, stand above the Constitution.

          The Civil War was not a legal way of either preserving the Union or ending slavery, and the experiences of your precious ‘rest of the civilized world’ bear witness to the existence of alternatives, peaceful and legal alternatives.”

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “Vigilant, you certainly jump from one side of an argument to the other with alacrity.”

        Apparently you need a dictionary to discover the definition of “anachronism.” There is absolutely no lack of consistency or logic in my statements.

        Stephens was as well making a statement of his historical “take” on the opinions and motives of the Founders. He does this in a manner which is definitely in the form of a condemnation, especially of Jefferson, by stating that they were wrong. Why? Because he’s overlaying a template of “standards (and confederate “political correctness”) of the southern pro-slavery stance of his day.

        • Charlie Tall

          Your argument is falling apart, dad. You’ve jumped back and forth so many times that you’re forgetting what you said.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “No, DiLorenzo and others are debunking the Lincoln Myth, as promulgated by our educational system, that Abraham Lincoln was the Negro messiah, the savior of the black race, the ultimate non-racist.”

        AND SO AM I, IF YOU CARE TO READ MY POSTINGS!

        I have no beef with a “debunking” of the system, but I have a GREAT deal of disdain for those who attempt to create new opposing myths for the simple motive of character assassination. DiLorenzo, his MacCormack parrot, Tom Woods and others go WAY beyond a simple debunking to employ half-truths, lies, out-of-context statements, doubtful or unattributed quotes, cherry-picking and outright disregard for the source documents of the day. In short, they are not just guilty but DAMNED guilty of promulgating the same sort of subjective and one-sided view of Lincoln as the Lincoln worshippers and the schools.

        And why? Solely to make Lincoln look bad because it assuages southern guilt about the real causes of the Civil War. Because it attempts to rationalize the conflict as a noble war for independence rather than the dying gasp of a sectional economy that saw its political power challenged by reductions in Congressional representation. Because it seeks to legitimize a distorted view of the Civil War as taught in Southern schools for over a hundred years.

        No, it’s much more than simple debunking. It’s attempting to replace a distorted and positively biased view of Lincoln with an equally distorted and negatively biased view of Lincoln.

        Tell me, Charlie, do truly honest and dispassionate historical works contain words such as “bigot,” “tyrant,” “dictator,” “tool of the banking interests,” “liar,” etc.? No, these intentionally inflammatory words belie any pure academic interest in their subject. They are not calculated to present objective analysis, but all too transparently to vent a hatred.

        Here’s the difference: a review of my postings makes it obvious that I do not subscribe, hook, line and sinker to the myths of the Lincoln “cultists.” On the other hand, I’ve NEVER seen any Dilorenzo devotee doubt a SINGLE word of his writings. Something’s rotten in Denmark.

        • Charlie Tall

          In one of our previous posting, you accused DiLorenzo of an anachronism. I replied to that, and you have addressed that reply in your previous post where you are admitting that you indeed knew better.

          That doesn’t reflect well on either your honesty or sincerity.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie says, “But once again, as usual, you ignored the import of my post, that for any government action to be legal, the Constitution must be obeyed. You chose instead to make a poorly conceived and misdirected attack on a minor detail.”

        How very interesting, and indicative once again of the blindness of the neoconfederates. The Constitution certainly must be obeyed, no argument there.

        The laws brought into being through legislative process that are deemed Constitutional must also be obeyed. As are the free election processes and judicial decisions.

        Tell me how sacred were those concepts to a Southern aristocracy that had re-opened the African slave trade after 1808. Try to explain how duly legislated tariff regulations, entirely Constitutional, could be violated, ignored or nullified by a section of the nation? Advise us on the legitimacy of fighting election results, not because they are fraudulent, but because the South didn’t like the results of the democratic vote of US citizens.

        You might also wish to explain how the Constitution was honored by state-sponsored pro-slavery factions in “Bloody Kansas,” a state where the majority were anti-slavery but where the “Border Ruffians” fraudulently influenced the election which led to a pro-slavery Constitution.

        And lastly, tell me why secession was effected rather than sectional nullification of tariff laws, if, as so many neoconfederates say, the tariff was the main cause (which it was not). Such nullification, by the way, would have been as unconstitutional as the several northern states’ nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law.

        Let me rephrase your statement as follows: “For any FEDERAL OR STATE government action to be legal, the Constitution must be obeyed.”

        I’m not going to entertain the Constitutional considerations of secession at this time. To be honest, I was read up on it long ago but have to refresh my knowledge before I engage in a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say at this time that under the Articles of Confederation, such a move was not out of bounds. It is not so clear that the option was allowable under the Constitution (It is, after all, “We the People,” not “We, the States”).

        • Charlie Tall

          In 1861, before the Civil War, the States were not subject to the Constitution. They did not become subordinate to the Federal government until the 14th Amendment was allegedly ratified in 1868.

          Jeez, Vigilant, I thought every scholar knew that.

          By the way, the actions of criminals do not necessarily represent official government policy of the country in which they live. Very few Southerners engaged in slave importation after 1808, and some of those that did were hung.

          Do you agree that the war crimes perpetrated by the Union forces during the Civil War were official policy of the Union government? There is far more evidence to support that indictment than to support your slanderous charges of Southern slave importation.

          Unless you’re talking about the South importing slaves from the Northern states that abolished slavery in their territories. That did indeed happen, but it’s merely another example of Yankee duplicity and greed.

          The reasons for which the South decided to secede from the Union are none of your concern. What matters is that the South did, legally (10th Amendment), leave the Union, and the North did, illegally (Article IV, Section 4), invade the South, destroy its property, kill its citizens, commit multitudinous crimes against humanity, and then plunder the defeated States for nearly half a century.

          Neither secession nor nullification are illegal. Neither secession nor nullification are mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, they fall under the following clauses:

          “Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          This includes nullification and secession.

          and

          “Amendment X: 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.”

          This includes nullification and secession.

      • Vigilant

        Says Charlie, “You also overlooked the consideration that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are separate and different documents intended for and employed originally in entirely different circumstances.”

        And I daresay, Charlie, that you misunderstand the inextricable relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration is the very foundation upon which the Constitution rests. Without it, the Constitution is an empty shell.

        Jefferson did so much more than you credit him. It was not a simple declaration of “human rights,” as the UN did, it was a revolutionary and dangerous view of government the world had never seen before. It expressed Locke’s idea of “individual sovereignty,” a radically new concept of governance. Much more than “human rights,” it was a recognition of the unalienable rights of human beings endowed by The Creator.

        Natural Law is the basis of our freedoms, not a plan of government

        The “US of A is PURPORTED to be founded upon?” No, Charlie, the word “purported” is not within bounds here. The USA was indeed founded upon that Natural Law. What it has become since is irrelevant to your argument.

        Lincoln expressed it best with his writings in response to a letter from Alexander Stephens, as follows:

        “All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” – the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprize (sic), and industry to all.

        The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters. The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken, which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple – not the apple for the picture.”
        So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.

        That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”

        The word “fitly spoken” originates in the Bible in Proverbs 25:11.

        • Charlie Tall

          After reading that long-winded drone about the Declaration of Independence, the term pompous blowhard comes to mind.

          Give us a break, Vigilant. You are long past becoming a bore.

      • Vigilant

        So it comes down to that, eh Charlie?

        You can’t argue fact for fact, so you retreat to a childish insult.

        A word to the wise, sonny: don’t test the depth of the water with both feet at the same time. I can outargue you and outclass you with facts every time. I provide source documentation and you provide…what?

        Consider this discussion finished. I’m tired of talking to an ignoramus.

  • Ted Crawford

    It seems clear, regardless of his motivation that Lincoln did put the first major dent in the fabric of our Republic, the usurpation of the Tenth Amendment and the failure to include a time componant to the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    He was followed just two decades later by our first truly Socialist President Wilson, Federal Reserve, UN( League of Nations), the 16th. & 17th. Amendments!
    There have been lessor dents since then.
    We now stand, I believe, at the point where, if we fail to defeat Obama, weither through a mistaken belief of the entitlement class that they will be further enriched, or petulant behavior( I didn’t get my way, so I’ll throw a tantrum), the Founding Document will recieve the fatal blow! Granted a second term, unfettered by the need to appease any voters, Obama will proceed to make it appear that Wilson was a rank amature as a Socialist !

  • Hey you

    To Bob Livingstone:
    Seems that in a few cases here, there are people with too much time on their hands, resulting in there being a number of off subject, personally directed posts. To somewhat alleviate what seems to be a waste of time for most readers, perhaps limiting a person’s posts to 3 per article will clean-up sloppy, unintelligent postings.

    Anyway, if a point can’t be made in 3 postings, it is probably unintelligible.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      With Freedom of Speech, the good has to be taken along with the bad. You have heard it said that in our time period the weeds will grow alongside the wheat and if you try to pull up the weeds you may damage the wheat.

  • Suzanne

    Lincoln was, apparently, a liar and a bigot who went to war to save Federal tax revenue that was being paid by the South. Southern states seceded to maintain their way of life, a life that was almost totally dependent on slave labor. It appears that neither side could claim the moral high ground and the only good to come out of the conflict was emancipation.
    Having the benefit of hindsight allows us to see that all human beings are flawed and will use power for their own purposes without regard to the rights of others. Nothing has changed and today’s political nightmare is simply the latest example of mans sinful nature.

  • Chief Boring

    Whatever the truth of the past may be, a vote this year for anyone besides Romney, with all due respect to Ron Paul, is a vote for Obama. Do you really want to suffer through four more years, without the restraint of re-electibility?

    • DaveH

      A vote for Romney is a vote for the continued growth of Big Government, in which case we may as well have voted for Obama.
      Will Romney join the newly refreshed House and Senate to rid us finally of Obamacare? Not likely, since he was the Father of Romneycare.
      Those who would vote for Romney need to read this book (and many others) which reveal the true nature of Politicians, that of feathering their own nests and those of their Crony Capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. They are simply parasites living on the sweat of Mainstream Americans:
      https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=172

      And Romney will certainly not change that.

      • GregS

        Dave, in as much as I’ve agreed with most of what you say in your posts, this is one area where I strongly disagree. I truly believe that Romney WILL repeal ObamaTAXCare, as well as undo much of the damage that Obama has done to this Country in the last three (almost four) years. That’s assuming that the Democrats will be a minority in BOTH the House and the Senate. Otherwise, if he doesn’t keep his promise, I’ll vote him out in the NEXT election.

        This is NOT the year to be fooling around with third-party candidates. Regardless of how much you want Gary Johnson to garner more support for the Libertarian Party by running, the reality is that he won’t win, and there’s too much at stake to allow Obama to get another term. If ObamaTAXCare becomes a full-blown entitlement in 2014, the damage done to our healthcare system, as well as to the economy, will be irreversible. I’m truly amazed that you would risk that happening, after coming out so vehemently against it in your previous posts, while it was still being debated in (rammed through) Congress almost three years ago.

  • Mountain Saint

    When you think about it, the South left the union because of states rights. In the 21st Century, the states are leaving Obamacare because of states rights. Once again, we have a dictator and this time someone who isn’t even an American citizen and someone who is an agent of some foreign cabal.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Then as now we do not have a dictator. A dictator in power means no public opposition, no elections, no free speech or expression or free press. That neither characterizes 1861 or 2012.
      Second Obama is an American Citizen, he satisfied the legal requirement to obtain a passport, and he is not an agent of a foreign cabal.

      • 45caliber

        Jeremy:

        You really need to work on your definition of a dictator. Trust me, there is a LOT of opposition to any dictator in his country. That’s why he tends to torture and kill so many of his own people. He wants to find and kill any that might cause him trouble. There may or may not be elections – they had them even in Russia to mold world opinion. They were just very careful who got onto the ballot and were willing to keep recounting until they got the result they wanted. Stalin, I think it was, said that it didn’t matter who ran, it only mattered who controlled the ballot boxes. So far, Oblama fits many of the characteristics of a dictator. One of the marks of one is to ignore or bypass any group (like Congress) who disagrees with him and certainly to ignore the people.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        There is no public opposition. I would say Obama has hardly faced no public opposition. Obama has not bypassed congress. Perhaps more recently but his executive orders are hardly the measure of a Joseph Stalin. And again as everyone knows Obama had no control over who the republicans choose to run. And Obama has no control over the ballots of the people. We live in a country founded on liberty with a liberal tradition. He could not scam the votes in his favor without notice. With all the opposition to Obama its hard to imagine him doing something the likes a tyrant would do. Also in terms of false and staged elections under dictators.They usually result in the dictator or his chosen people receiving anywhere from 80-95% of the vote. And dictators no matter how concerned with public opinion did not rule through metaphors and legal quirks. They did it through brute force. Obama is not doing that or else anyone who criticized him would be disappearing to the secret camps that everyone has heard of but no one dares mention for fear of going there. Obama is not Stalin or Hitler and we are not living under Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Having someone in power who you disagree with does not equal tyranny. I should know. I despised George Bush and thought he had not legitimately won the presidency. But never once did I believe or suggest we were living under tyranny. I just believed we were living under an idiot. There is a big difference between an idiot and a tyrant.

      • DaveH

        Jeremy says — “There is no public opposition”.
        Wow! That’s bold even for a lying, multi-personality, administration shill.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        What I said was in reference to a world under a dictator. Under a dictator there is no public opposition. My point was that that does not reflect the situation we find ourselves in. I am no administration shill. I just do not believe Obama is a tyrant on the level with Hitler. But apparently not believing that automatically makes me an administration shill. Did not realize my only options were 1: Obama is perfect or 2:Obama is always wrong.

        I always thought there was a third option 3: Obama is not perfect but is not always wrong.

      • Mountain Saint

        Jeremy, according to Obama’s half sister, Barry Soetoro was adopted by her dad and made an Indonesian citizen. …Some dictators allow elections and, in 1864, Lincoln didn’t have to worry about defeat (southerners couldn’t vote)….Obama isn’t through. If it looks like a defeat in November, he will create a crisis and use his executive powers to cancel the election…Mike Savage calls him a dictator.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Obama presented a long and short form birth certificate in addition to the newspaper announcement of his birth. That is far more evidence then the hear say of one person.

        Also dictators do allow elections. But they are shames where the candidates have no chance and no influence. In 1864 many suggested the elections be cancelled for fear of dividing the union. Lincoln insisted it go ahead. And his victory was hardly a foregone conclusion. Had the great union victories at Atlanta. Mobile and the Shenandoah Valley not taken place when they did its hard to say what the result could have been.

        I believe everyone should get out and vote. I have no doubt Obama wants to win and will try to. But that is what happens in elections. Trying to be reelected does no make him a dictator.

  • http://yahoo marc lizotte

    Thank you, the majority of you who contributed to the posts on the official reasons for the civil war! Iam an 13 th generation North American ,7th generation American and can proudly state that Iam impressed with your much hard work it must have taken to find the real truth on something as important as how we got into a mess we do NOT want to repeat! Dang good reading !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    Conor MacCormack should have ended his article with : “And now these United States of America are Reaping what they have sown”

    • cwipaulk

      Amen.

  • Rick Caston

    Two quick points. First, “conservatives” in those times were Democrats and the more liberal wing were Republicans. Today this is obviously reversed although the lines are so blurred its hard to tell them apart. Second, and you really need to grasp the significance of this, under The Constitution, the southern states, or ANY state for that matter, had the right to secede. History shows that this right was confirmed over and over again as our Republic grew older. It was ONLY with this understanding that The Constitution was ever agreed to in the first place. This was a huge sticking point. Anyone, who tells you that this right was not embedded in The Constitution is at best ill-informed and at worst just plain wrong and is simply promoting a lie. What Lincoln did was to ignore The Constitution that was supposed to be protected and defended. In essence he was traitor since he subverted, rather than defended, The Constitution.

    • cwipaulk

      That is exactly right. Some states would not even ratify the Constitution without the understanding that they had the right to withdraw from the union. The South seceded for the same reasons the 13 colonies seceded from England. After the American Revolution, the 13 states were recognized as 13 sovereign nations. The federal government did not create the states, the states created the federal government, with very limited and specific powers. What we have today does not even remotely resemble what the Founders established.

      • 45caliber

        You are correct. That is one reason that Civics is no longer taught in this country. They don’t want the students to know what happened then or why.

      • TIME

        Dear Cwipaulk,

        Thank you for your post, its so good to see someone else gets it!

        Peace and Love

    • DaveH

      Very good, Rick. It’s refreshing to read a comment from somebody who has been doing his studying.

  • boyscout

    Some excellent points made on the lunacies surrounding Lincoln worship/hatred and much use of historical documentation (so what some quite out of context). Not much of which, however, should be taken at face value. Statements were made and recorded in the arena of American politics by American POLITICIANS, who in their greed had already pre-concieved the notion of Manifest Destiny and who’s greed was most likely comparable to today’s corporatist elite and crony government officials. I can easily remember how we got involved in Viet Nam and and the more recent debacles in the Near East, and exactly how much honesty (truthieness) was involvedin getting us there.

  • Butch

    This writer is a bigoted biased hack. He bends over backwards to excuse the Confederacy and lambaste Lincoln. He asks if we could read Lincoln’s mind or know hos heart? Well, how could MacCormack??? He says that he gets his info from sources close to lincoln but do those sources know Lincoln’s heart, thoughts or innermost feelings??? NO, so this Ahole is just reaching to attack a man who’s been dead for almost 150 yrs! Yes, Lincoln made mistakes but IMO, I don’t think he made them to be a tyrant. This nation was still young and had not faced such a threat before. Lincoln was acting to save the country. Its easy for this jackass to sit back and critique everything after the fact. I stil think Lincoln was a great President who did the best he could, even if he did make mistakes along the way. Someone says that in the Constitution it says that states can secede. Where?

    • DaveH

      You’re the “ahole”, Butch, and an ignorant one at best. Read this book if you dare to learn just how ignorant you are:
      http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear Butch,

      Ad hominems, logical fallacies and non sequiturs does not a cogent argument make.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • cwipaulk

      10th 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.

      It does not specifically spell out, word for word, that a state can secede, but it was understood at the time that the states had that right.
      Union of Willing States, Not Conquered Provinces:

      “Many [Northerners]…saw the Union in more conditional terms, as an agreed-upon relationship, not one resting upon coercion or compulsion. Millions of Northern Democrats, for example, denied the validity or value of a Union held together by force. Many felt so strongly about the invalidity of a coercive Union that they resisted and defied the Lincoln government during the Civil War in order to proclaim their views.

      Even nationalists of an antislavery point of view could have doubts about a Union maintained by force. In 1801 when John Quincy Adams feared that Aaron Burr might break up the recently-created union he was not sure that it ought to held together by force. “If they break us up – in God’s name, let the Union go,” he wrote. “I love the Union as I love my wife. But if my wife should ask and insist upon a separation, she should have it though it broke my heart.”

      Sixty years later another son of Massachusetts and an abolitionist, Wendell Phillips, used the wifely metaphor again – this time in confronting an actual breakup of the Union. Phillips spoke after secession had taken place. “A Union is made up of willing States, not of conquered provinces,” he said. “There are some rights, quite perfect, yet wholly incapable of being enforced. A husband or wife who can only keep the other partner within the bond by locking the doors and standing armed before the door had better submit to peaceable separation.”

      (The Other South, Southern Dissenters in the Nineteenth Century, Carl N. Degler, Harper & Row, 1974, page 121)

      The North Believed in Secession

      From “The Un-Civil War”, by Leonard M. Scruggs – page 82

      “In late 1860, most of the people of the North believed that secession was a natural right based on the consent of the governed and that the Southern states should be allowed to secede peaceably. Historian Howard Cecil Perkins compiled 495 Northern newspaper editorials dated from late 1860 to mid-1861 and concluded that the great majority of them assumed secession was a constitutional right and opposed the use of force against seceding states. The “Bangor Daily Union” stated on November 12, 1860, that:

      ‘Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone. A state coerced to remain in the Union is ‘a subject province’ and can never be a co-equal member of the American Union.’ ”

      The arguments for the right of secession are powerful and convincing. There is the constitutional right, based on the Constitution as a legal compact – the Compact Theory – and there is the revolutionary right, premised on the idea that a free people have the right to change their government any time they see fit. The constitutional right is based largely on the aforementioned 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while the revolutionary right is based on the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, that

      whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . .

      These words come directly from the Declaration of Independence. This passage was also used, verbatim, in South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. A similar sentiment was expressed by Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:

      “Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

    • cwipaulk

      “I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
      President Jefferson Davis, CSA

      “When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag,
      it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
      Confederate General John B. Gordon

      Confederate Col. Richard Henry Lee – “We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes”.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      Lincoln invaded and conquered sovereign states under total war and mass-slaughter, torture, murder terror and censorship.
      That’s as tyrannical as one can get.

  • JDL

    Excellent, historically accurate article. No “if, ands, or buts”. FINALLY somebody tells the truth!

  • Alex

    Remember what Bob says, folks, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil”. Most of the PLD readers would help the country move forward by staying home or by voting for Ron Paul as a Third Party—or, rather, a Third RAIL, kkkandidate.

    We scary people on the Left will sleep better at night….

  • gangbuster@2012

    Its easy to throw stones at some one!!Ijust like to know what the hell any one else would had done;if they had been in President Lincoln’s shoes!!!People who likes to flip Lincoln off;Should look at what we have in the”white”house today.If you are looking for applause because of this article;you’ll won’t be getting any from me!!!!!!!I think your article on Lincoln is very degrading,Any more such Articles in the future like this one,you can feel “Free” to put this web site where the sun doesn’t shine!!!

    • cwipaulk

      Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when it reveals things one wishes to deny. Nobody is “bashing” Lincoln, just telling accurate history as opposed to the mythology and rewritten “history” that has been brainwashing millions in the public/communist schools for well over 100 years. The truth is out there, but many of you want to sit in your little cozy rooms of denial and believe the fairytales fed you by the establishment. Learn to think for yourselves instead of swallowing the government Kool-Aide. You need to pull your head out of “where the sun don’t shine” and get into the real world.

      “Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.”Jefferson Davis

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

        They don’t WANT the truth coming out, it “harshes their mellow.,” i.e. upsets their fantasy-world as they vote for Obama and occupy Wall Street.

        • Rick Caston

          Chris, good luck with the re-education campaign. Our lovely progressive schools have all but erased actual history but thank goodness a few of us are left that care enough to learn the truth. I have read your replies and smile with joy as you attempt to open the indoctrinated minds of those that chose to believe what “the state” taught them. After all, our government run schools have no desire to tow the officially approved government line do they? Meanwhile Rome burns as our government educated sheeple continues to allow our protector and provider to dispense useless drivel to our eyes and ears. Freedom and liberty are under attack from within and it is this war that enabled it all. This is the war that turned We The People to We The Sheeple. God help us!

  • Oldbutnotadumbutt@2012

    T Agree,Gangbuster!!!!!!!There is a hell of alot more going on in Washington today,than they were back then.besides this Great President Had a lot more to deal with then What O”bomb”a has!!!I’ll take Mr.Lincoln over Obomb”a any day!!!!!

  • Baldmurph

    Crook or farsighted patriot or just grasping for whatever he could to keep the boat from breaking up while he was in charge depends on your viewpoint and what papers you are trying to peddle. Possession is nine tenths of the law and the point that frontier lawyer established was that you may have the right to secede but the rest have the right to stop you. Or you could say conquer your new nation and reabsorb you – - like Obamacare is legal if we call it a tax. Or Hawaii. Or the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794. Lincoln was a laborer and a self-educated lawyer and a politician and able to stay focused enough on his primary goal to achieve it regardless of costs, which eventually included his own life. He left a great story, with moving speeches. As to voting for the lesser evil still being voting for evil, is not failing to vote against the greater evil the same as passive support of the greater evil? Focus!

    • Charlie Tall

      Baldmurph wrote, “…you may have the right to secede but the rest have the right to stop you. Or you could say conquer your new nation and reabsorb you…”

      Murph, are you not saying that might makes right?

      The right to stop you? Without laws? Just do what you want to do because you can?

      Where do these rights to oppress others end?

      Baldmurph, there is no limit to the evil justified by your philosophy.

      • baldmurph

        I am observing what is reported to have happened and attempting to explain to myself possible rationale for actions and effects. My opinion of what is right and just may be influenced by what will avoid my hide being shredded, but I expect it to affect to affect only what I say and do, and hope to have some influence on the mindset of my offspring and extended family and friends. We can observe the reported effects of the actions of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or William McKinley or Franklin Delano Roosevelt and try to ascribe motives or intents, but we cannot change them. We can change only our thoughts and intended course action. If I see lightning in the heights I move my camp out of the draw. Might does not make right, but it has a great effect on what happens. And try to remember always, Murphy’s Law rules!

        • Charlie Tall

          Murphy’s Law is nothing but a statement of probability.

          Generally, Murphy’s Law is stated as, “If anything can go wrong, it will, at the worst possible time.”

          Looked at objectively, it can be stated thus: While there are an infinite number of “wrong” outcomes, there are a finite number of “right” outcomes. Therefore, it is probable that any outcome taken at random will be “wrong.”

          Since a “wrong” outcome is not “wrong” unless it has an effect on events, every “wrong” outcome is seen as having occurred at the worst possible time.

          • baldmurph

            (Grin) There are bad and there are worse. Most of us tend to remember the bad and forget the good: bad news, or news about bad things, sell a lot more papers than about good. Monkey curiosity? Engineers have a lot of focus on avoiding/preventing bad outcomes, so most of our structures continue to stand most of the time. Some of us survive by cracking jokes (Murphy’s Law) and getting back up and trying to make it better, some focus almost totally on bad outcomes and get ulcers. My father had ulcers; I have no desire to be like him in that respect. Back to bad to worst: you could say that if it wasn’t the worst possible outcome, then it was better, and so . . . (unreal conclusion)

  • http://www.facebook.com/joelscopeland Joel Copeland

    What is all this crap about Lincoln? Like you said, he’s been dead for 150 years. He changed the face of America. What have you done lately?

    • Charlie Tall

      Right!

      Let’s not discuss anyone in the past.

      Let’s not discuss history.

      Let’s not question “conventional wisdom.”

      Joel doesn’t like any of that.

      By the way, what have you done lately, Joel? Written any good articles?

    • cwipaulk

      You are 100% correct, he “changed the face of America”, by being the first socialist president. He illegally invaded a sovereign nation, waged “total war” by having Southern civilians murdered and raped (black and white), shut down Northern newspapers, and imprisoned thousands of Northerners who spoke against his war. He got us on the socialist road and what he started has been built upon for over 150 years. Ovomit is just finishing up the job. Keep admiring the tyrant who was admired by Karl Marx and Hitler. You are in good company. If you are such a fan of socialism you should move to a country that has it, though we are almost there ourselves. This nation was not founded by socialists, but by men who wanted to be out from under the heavy hand of oppressive government. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; nothing socialist there. Why do so many today, including our politicians, disregard the Constitution as if it did not exist? Our Confederate ancestors saw this coming, the mess we are in today due to an overbearing government violating the Constitution, and withdrew to get back to the Constitution and self government. But they were forced back into the union and pinned to it with a bayonet. That is like mixing water and oil. So, yes, you can thank Lincoln because he “changed the face of America”. Sadly, it was for the worse.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

        One point of fact: Lincoln did not “invade a legally sovereign nation;” he invaded 37 legally sovereign nations, i.e. the individual states, by claiming sovereign national authority over all of them– when in reality that authority belonged rightfully belonged strictly to the PEOPLE of each respective separate individual state.

        So Lincoln was just like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Hussein, or any of the other rulers that conquered sovereign nations under false claims by revising history; the difference is, Lincoln was the one who started it all.

        • Stephen

          The South was not the first states or state to talk seceding from the so call “union.” Massachusetts had threatened to secede earlier if they did not get their way. And Congress back down and gave into them. So one of the states that pushed (or their greedy merchants and businesses did) forcing the south back into the union did an about face on the right to secede. We call that two-faced!! Which actually was the whole north and still is today. How many bills have been aimed at the north over busing or education or voting rights. Practically none, because they are so perfect. My a–, in some place in the north they are a lot worse than the south ever thought about being.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      Maybe it’s time for the TRUTH to be established, that each state is a popularly sovereign nation unto itself.
      Lincoln SUPPRESSED that truth, and it’s been suppressed by his empire for 150 years.
      Get it right, or go in circles.

  • Charlie Tall

    To everyone:

    There are two questions here, and they are being horribly confused.

    The first question is why did the South secede? The answer is obviously the threat the Republican administration posed to slavery.

    The second question is why did the Union go to war against the South? The answer to this is also obvious: to recover its lost revenues.

    The combined estimated value of slaves in the South was about $3,000,000,000 when the war started. This from a speech given by Alexander H. Stephens. The combined value of all the real estate in the South at that time was only slightly more than that. Obviously, slavery was a very real economic issue to the South.

    The question of slavery in the territories was political in that by excluding slavery the North was able to make control of the Senate an eventuality. They already had the House of Representatives.

    Whatever and however, the bottom line for both the cause of secession and the cause of hostilities was money.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      You ask rhetorical questions, and furnish incorrect answers.

      “1) why did the South secede?”

      Their sovereign people willed it, perceiving it to be in their best itnerests.
      Their motives for doing so are irrelevant, since secession is the absolute prerogative of any sovereign nation.

      “2) why did the Union go to war against the South? The answer to this is also obvious: to recover its lost revenues.”

      This may be true, however the Union had no right to the revenue of separate sovereign nations.
      Therefore Lincoln revised history in order to claim that the states were not sovereign individually, but collectively; in doing this he borrowed from the works of Jackson, Webster and Joseph Story, three prior revisionists who told similar lies.

      This was repeated by Hitler in “Mein Kampf,” who drew from Lincoln as precedent in his similar invasions of Eastern Europe:

      ——————-
      “Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.”
      —————————

      In reality, however, Lincoln had NO sovereign national authority over the individual American states, than Hitler had over Poland or the rest.
      But hypocrisy is the hallmark of the hagiographer.

  • Tommy

    A great article…about time someone told the truth about the Great Emancipator!
    A Southerner and Proud of It!

  • cwipaulk

    American Stalin:
    Abraham Lincoln
    The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Real Abraham Lincoln
    They didn’t teach you this in school…

    A published economist’s comments on Abraham Lincoln…
    “Lincoln was a master politician, which means he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar.” — Economist Murray Rothbard, “America’s Two Just Wars: 1776 and 1861,” in “The Costs of War: American’s Pyrrhic Victories,” ed. John Denson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1997), p. 131

    The Editor of Ebony Magazine comments on Abraham Lincoln…
    “On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race. In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.’ Who were ‘the inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called ‘mongrels,” and probably all colored people.” — Lerone Bennett, Jr., Editor of Ebony Magazine, “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream” (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 2000), p. 132

    How Honest Abe really felt about slavery… which begs the question: Was the Civil War really fought because Honest Abe was sympathetic to slaves, and wanted to free slaves? Let’s see what Honest Abe himself says about the subject…
    “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.” — Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854
    “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; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” — Abraham Lincoln, “Lincoln’s Reply to Douglas, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858,” in “Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy P. Basler (New York: Da Capo Press, 1990), p. 445
    “I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.” — Abraham Lincoln, “Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois,” in “Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings” (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 636, and in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, page 371
    “Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…. We cannot, then, make them equals.” — Abraham Lincoln, “Lincoln’s Reply to Douglas,” p. 444
    “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” — Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273
    “We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter.” — Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
    “I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States � not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” — Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
    “The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. ” — Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
    “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln’s Inaugural Address
    Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. — Letter from Abraham Lincoln to A.H. Stephens, Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150

    My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union. — Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Greeley
    Mr. Wendell Phillips said that Lincoln was badgered into issuing the emancipation proclamation, and that after it was issued, Lincoln said it was the greatest folly of his life. President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation evidently had in mind to colonize or segregate the slaves if freed:
    “It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there.”
    He later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina:
    “If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of.”
    Ben Butler responded to this by saying: “Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?” Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward.
    Actually, Honest Abe brought up the slavery issue to gain sympathy only after he was losing the war. It worked, and the tide turned. However his true character is revealed in his words.
    How Honest Abe really felt about Christianity:
    “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” — 1862 letter from Abraham Lincoln to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln
    Comments made by Abraham Lincoln’s friend and former law partner, William H. Herndon, shortly after Lincoln’s death:
    “Mr. Lincoln was an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism.”
    “He never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception.”
    “He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake.”
    In 1834, while still living in New Salem and before he became a lawyer, he was surrounded by a class of people exceedingly liberal in matters of religion. Volney’s Ruins and Paine’s Age of Reason passed from hand to hand, and furnished food for the evening’s discussion in the tavern and village store. Lincoln read both these books and thus assimilated them into his own being. He prepared an extended essay–called by many a book–in which he made an argument against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not inspired, and therefore not God’s revelation and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. The manuscript containing these audacious and comprehensive propositions he intended to have published or given a wide circulation in some other way. He carried it to the store, where it was read and freely discussed. His friend and employer, Samuel Hill, was among the listeners and, seriously questioning the propriety of a promising young man like Lincoln fathering such unpopular notions, he snatched the manuscript from his hands and thrust it into the stove. The book went up in flames, and Lincoln’s political future was secure. But his infidelity and his skeptical views were not diminished. — Herndon’s biography of Abraham Lincoln titled The True Story of a Great Life.
    How Honest Abe really felt about secession:
    “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.” — Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, January 12, 1848, Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94
    Did you know that Abraham Lincoln practically imposed a dictatorship on the Northern states, closed down nearly 300 Northern newspapers, had thousands of Northerners arrested, invaded the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri and took over their legislatures, all because those three sovereign states didn’t want to participate in his war which they considered unconstitutional?
    Habeas Corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, during which tens of thousands of antiwar Northerners were imprisoned for voicing their views. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Chief Justice when he ruled that according to Article I of the Constitution, only Congress, not the president, could suspend the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.
    Most Americans do not know that the American Civil War started out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still revered in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending their treatment of Tibet, use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports that interesting twist over here.
    It is rare to find a military officer, especially a Yankee that knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the professional historians. It has something to do with hurting book sales.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      As William Feather wrote, “a single fact will often destroy a most interesting argument.”

      Here, that fact is that each state is nationally sovereign, by law.

      Once you establish that, nothing else matters; not slavery, not Northern plutocratic interests, nothing. Lincoln simply becomes Hitler invading the nation of Eastern Europe.

      Similarly, if you DON’T establish that fact, then your silence accepts the counter-claim that Lincoln was exercising national authority over rebelling factions.

      Thus it all comes down to that one single fact– use it, or lose it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

    I’d still like to know why Lincoln was assassinated. I was under the impression it was because he threatened to print Greenbacks.

    • Vigilant

      Lincoln was killed because John Wilkes Booth and his cohorts couldn’t accept Lincoln’s idea of giving the vote to blacks.

      “The speech tackled the complex topic of reconstruction, especially as it related to the state of Louisiana. For the first time in a public setting, Lincoln expressed his support for black suffrage. This statement incensed John Wilkes Booth, a member of the audience, who vowed, “That is the last speech he will make.” A white supremacist and Confederate activist, Booth made good on his threat three days later.” (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm)

      The text that bothered Booth was “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.”

  • GlennS

    “I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
    — Abraham Lincoln

    • Vigilant

      That quote was from the 4th Lincoln/Douglas Debate, 1858.

      Seven years later, at the end of war he did not want, he said in his last speech before he was assassinated, “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.”

      “This statement incensed John Wilkes Booth, a member of the audience, who vowed, “That is the last speech he will make.” A white supremacist and Confederate activist, Booth made good on his threat three days later.”

      (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm)

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • bothsidesnow

    Ok Folks…Lets cut to the chase…..

    When Lincoln wanted to issue constitutional money he was violently opposed by the Bullion Brokers, as the international bankers were called in those days. Listen to his
    following statement…

    “As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people untill wealth is aggregated
    in the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war.”

    The International Bankers assassinated Lincoln when he told Chase to issue money by
    going around the Banks and their interest and pay the money directly into circulation.

    John F. Kennedy who attended the London School of Economics was going to do the
    same thing by getting rid of the Federal Reserve power 5 months before going to Dallas.

    Figure it our…………

  • Homer

    re you unsubscribe form the site and get all mad becuase you may or may not know or understand what is said: do me a favor..please. Se a book by William p. Grady Called How Satan Turned America Against God. i KNOW the guy and he is a good writer! This is a documentary of American history from the beginning!!

  • Homer

    This is truth as it has been shown: It was NOT Abe lincoln, it was Satan using a man to destroy this nation and destruction can take a lot of time, and because of God’s Providence, it has been coming for a while….it is sooon to hit the fan for this nation that has forgotten GOD!!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

      The United States is not a nation. It was a union of nations, like the UN.

      We need to stop arguing with idiots who claim that the USA is a nation. It isn’t. Never was.

      For the US to become a nation, there needs to be a treaty among nations recognizing it as such. That never happened. It didn’t happen before the war, and it obviously couldn’t happen after.

      The states never formed themselves into a single nation; those who claim such, merely expose their ignorance of fact, history and law.

  • joeee

    The government has used public service as a employment tool to gain political power now the government has almost overtaken the private sector hence socialists, Marxists, ect. When the government condones irresponsibility the enslavement begins.

  • Mountain Saint

    At last, Lincoln is being exposed as the tyrant and racist that he was. Now we have to tear down the mythology surrounding our third-rate president, Ronald Reagan….Reagan started the deficit spending craze of today and tripled the national debt. He changed America from a trade surplus nation into the world’s largest trade deficit nation, costing us tens of millions Middle Class jobs that we desperately need today. And, third, he gave us thirty-eight million illegal aliens and the domestic problems that are bankrupting us economically and socially in the 21st Century…Good report, Conor..

  • Wyatt

    Mr McCormack ; At no time did Abraham Lincoln ever state that he entered the office of President wit the intention of freeing the slaves . This concept was promoted by the Pro-Slavery faction of the south and the Democrat of the day . He also did not start or cause the civil war . This was a result again of southern Democrats propaganda in telling the people that Lincoln was intending to force the end of slavery .

    In truth , Lincoln was adverse to slavery and found it morally wrong . However he felt that as President he did not have the Constitutional Power or Authority to end slavery . His hope and suggestion was only that new states coming into the union come in as Free States , and that the current slave states be permitted to retain the practice . Lincolns only goal was to preserve the Union . He knew that to divide was to invite trouble and intervention of other Nations in effort to further their own agendas .

    Attempts to re-write history and or to be-little and negate the efforts and work of a man considered by most scholars as one of the greatest of American Presidents serves no-one but the writers own ego . And incase you missed it , The Civil War is over , the South Lost . It was in all the newspapers .

  • JT

    Very interesting to read all these comments. I actually got through a lot of them. Many fine, intellectual points from all sides. But there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room that has been ignored by EVERYONE, since way before the Civil War. And it has also been ignored in this discussion, at least as far as I’ve read through them. It has to do with one of Man’s baser instincts. (And I mean “Man” with the reference to “Male”, not to “Mankind” in general.) It is NOT an intellectual point of “philosophy” or “freedom” or “liberty” or what have you. What I am talking about is SEX. What no one will bring up is the issue of “Sex” with regards to slavery. American Slavery, predominately in the South, but I’m sure in the North as well, allowed for rather “intimate” relations between the slave owners and his legal, female property. (However, sex between male slaves, and later “free” Black men, and white women, was, until very recently, punishable by a quick death by hanging!). So to fully understand the deep roots of the Civil War, and indeed American Slavery itself, one must address the issue of sex between the slave owner and his properety. Now in the olden days, before Christianity, this was not a hidden issue. Conquerors throughtout history made no attempt to hide the fact that they went to war to capture females slaves for the purpose of sex and inter-mating. And I cited “American Slavery” above because it seems that in the various British (and French, ie. Haiti) colonies in the Caribbean for example, sex between the races and slave-owner and slave was much less common. (However in Brazil, like the USA, it was also rather common.) This situation has been proven because of the fact that most African-Americans today (whose ancestry is American Slavery, as opposed to the rather recent influx of Blacks from the Caribbean) have white heritage somewhere in their DNA. The latest studies show that 60% – 70% of American Afro-Americans have mixed blood. Now since Whites couldn’t “marry” Blacks until rather recently, where did all this mixed-blood come from? Hmmm? So in order to fully understand the roots of American Slavery and the Civil War itself, one has only to look at what any teenage boy will tell you is the most improtant thing in the world: SEX. I have yet to find any scholarly work addressing this rather obvious issue, and its importance in understanding our history. The closest I have found is observations about Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress Ms. Hemmings (who Mr. Jefferson seemed to actually loved and respected, as well!) or Strom Thurman’s “youthful indisgresions”. Anyone have any comments?

  • Eddie Sutton

    Some don’t want to believe it, but if the United States lost the south, the United States
    would have never become what it has. The south was the breadbasket of the US and
    when they were taxed for being prosper…and losing their freedom, they wanted out.
    Just like a lot of us do now….only this time, we want a government for the people..
    BY the people…and I don’t mean the god damn parasites. I love my country, but
    I’m also a southern and the real truth about the so-call civil war has never been fully
    told because the south had no say-so in that since they were the losers. For one thing,
    the Confedrate prison in Andersonville GA was hell on the yankess….why…because
    the union refuse to exchange prisoners, leaving their own to die. Also, the union
    prisoners at Andersonvill got the same rations as the Confedrate soldiers. It was
    yankess inside the walls that were taking from the weaker yankess, plus it was so
    over-crowded (thanks to the union’s no prisoner exchange) that created the mess.
    Confedrate soldiers were treated just as bad….as a matter-a-fact, any black confedrate
    soldier entering Camp Donald at Chciago were shot on the spot, and thats a fact.
    Also, black confedrate soldiers were intergrated with white confedrate soldiers
    whereas in the union, they were put in all black units…and many times send into battle
    first….naturally getting wiped out so the white union forces wouldn’t loose so many
    coming in behind the black unit. Wake up America.

  • Bob

    And Obama compares himself to Abe Lincoln? Lincoln was probably the best president we’ve ever had.

  • Rocketman

    Bob: Apparently you haven’t read this article if you think that Lincoln is the best president that we have ever had. Conor just got through explaining exactly why Lincoln fought the civil war and his real feelings on slavery. Makes sense he was a racist because Lincoln was a well known Indian hater having said a number of racist things about them in the past. One of his grandfathers was shot in the back and killed by an indian so that probably has something to do with it.

  • Lowell

    Lincoln stole from the states the power given by the constitution. Article IV sec.4 and forever set the stage for the thret of government power.By his words he had no intention
    to free blacks!!Government take over sound like anyone WE MIGHT KNOW

  • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    America has been living a lie ever since Women were burned at the stake as witches in Salem, followed by Pillaging and murdering native americans for their land, then using slaves to create a booming economy to invading countries for Resources and now the “chickens have finally come home to roost”

    • swampfox

      Been listening to jerimiah wright much?
      You sound just like him.

  • swampfox

    VEO-VINDICE!
    Never forget our southern heroes,
    We lost so many honorable southern patriots,
    Lee,Jackson,hood,pettigrew,moseby,forrest,and a host of others.

    Yall have to remember Lincoln was a lawyer,he knew how to twist and
    Manipulate things so to make it look as if the south was in the wrong.
    Like Obama,Lincoln was a manipulative deceiving liar.

    96% of southerners did NOT own a single slave.
    Matter of fact,blacks themselves owned more slaves than whites,
    look it up,this IS a fact!

    Another fact folks out of many,just to show how
    Much of a tyrant Lincoln was…
    Lincoln illegally SEIZED Robert e lee’s ancestral family estate and buried
    Buried Yankee dead on his property AFTER kicking his wife out of her home,
    Lee’s estate is now known as Arlington NATIONAL cemitary.

    I could list fact after fact about that power mad tyrant.

    at the battle of the crater at Petersburg,black regiments were sent in first,
    The union commanders KNEW damn well the casualties we would
    Inflict on the vanguard of the assault.
    Who did they send in first?
    Black troops,that’s who,they sent those poor men who were barley trained to their deaths,like lambs to the slaughter,
    They did not care,only that white trained troops would not be riddled with lead.

    At fort Wagner the same thing happened.
    Lincoln’s FEDERAL troops burned and shelled Atlanta has,
    While it was filled with civilians,
    Those blueclad scum burned and looted darion ga,and NOT ONE sothern soldier
    Was in it or nearby,yet they looted and burned the town.

    When the army of northern Virginia went into Maryland,not one incident of looting took place.
    Lincoln was a tyrant….period!
    The south fought with honor,
    the same cannot EVER be said ANY federal force!
    What Lincoln did would bring him up for war crimes in our age,
    as well as his generals.

    • swampfox

      Yeah,I know some of those southern commanders survived
      Lincolns war,just meant we should honor their memory.

  • Mountain Saint

    The plantation system continues today. This time the majority of the Blacks are on the welfare plantation and they don’t have to work a day in their lives, except, maybe, filling out forms…. Unfortunately, in some states, like California, the majority of the welfare recipients are now families of illegal aliens and they are the ones bankrupting our government, hospitals and schools. At the same time, their shack jobs are working in the “underground economy” at “slave wages” .

  • John OConnor

    As Obama, Lincoln was just a figurehead. The big money in the north and Europe were afraid of the south. The south had the raw materials, great ports and cheap labor. They were starting to build their own factories. They were also independant thinkers that the status quo could not tolerate. The wrong side won.

    • Eddie Sutton

      I couldn’t agree with you more. The south was rising and getting tired of higher taxes
      forced on them by the north where there were 3 times the people….but out-numbered,
      the south chose to leave the union…which was their right….after all they were a part
      of a repubic and could leave the union by law. It was a war of northern aggression,
      just like the war against the American Indians. Take from them by force.

  • Stephen

    Actually the War of Southern Independence was waged against the south for one reason GREED by the northern businesses pushing the political band wagon. The north started the slave trade, particulary the merchants of Boston. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize slavery, not in the south, as they have tried to education the nation. At the same time Massachusetts was legalizing slavery, Virginia (the South) was passing legislation to protect it’s Native American population and to stop the importation of slaves into the state. If fact the Virginia said that if you moved into Virginia and brought slaves with you, once they crossed the state line they were free Blacks.

    Getting back to Lincoln, he jailed hundreds of people that spoke out against him and the war. But you never heard that taught in school. The northern government, politicians and publishers have always wanted to paint the Southern states as ignorant, devils, etc. Which was totally wrong, and today they still was everyone to believe the South if dumb, backwards, and need the federal government to enlighten them and give them guidance. We don’t need the federal government to teach us anything. Look at the shape this country is in after 150 years of the Democrats and Republicans being in control.

  • Dukeye

    I agree with Charlie Tall. Imagine future historians trying to unravel Obama’s true intentions through his recorded speeches…

  • Strighttothepoint 2012

    Interesting Subject!!! Anyone that says Slavery wasn’t an issue,doesn’t know what he talking about!!!Of course,it would have had to end,because of the advancement in science. In later years,It would have become unporfitable for the south to have Slaves!!!I’m sure a lot of people,on this web-site , know more about this,than I!!!!But we shouldn’t Get down on Lincoln ,He was a man That had a lot of crap to deal with,and in my opinion ,Did the best he knew how to do!!!!In the polls,Lincoln is one of the most beloved Presidents this Nation has ever had!!!”TUFF” times ,calls for “TuFF” decisions,and god only knows,Mr.Lincoln Had to had to make more than his share,thats for sure!!!!nt he may have made some mistakes,But then of course,doesn’t every body?????

    • Stephen

      Lincoln abused the Constitution more than Obama has. He imprisoned or jailed people who spoke out against the war and closed down newspapers that did not espouse his views. That’s in the governments own records.

      • JT

        I’ve read a lot here about what Abe Lincoln did to surpress rights, etc. Just curious, but how did Pres. Jefferson Davis stack up on the same issues? Did he jail Southerners who spoke out against slavery or the war, or close down newspapers, etc., etc. What was the CSA’s record on civil rights and liberty? Aside from Blacks, of course, they didn’t seem to have many liberties at all. But let’s start with White Southerns’ rights, if they were against the secession and war and all what was the CSA’s response? But it seems to me that regardless of Lincoln’s many faults, I don’t read anyone questioning the historical fact (?) that Lincoln did indeed seem to be accepting of the idea of “malice towards none” [etc.] and that even General Lee was surprised at the fair treatment that Lincoln showed towards the surrending Army of Northern Virginia. That’s what I remember Lincoln for most: The fact that he sincerely seemed to be interested in treating the South with fairness and forgiveness. Unfortunately, when after he was assinated, the carpetbaggers took over and then the KKK arose and all hell broke loose. I’ve ofter wondered what the outcome would have been if Booth never shot Lincoln, and would the country have fared better.

  • swampfox

    It ain’t over folks,
    Its just half-time!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.sutton.3304 Jerry Sutton

    Oh, by the way. The south wasn’t the first that wanted to sucede…it was a bunch
    of northern states…but they didn’t have the balls to do so. They’re called the
    New England States. So, get off my back about my southern states. Lincoln was
    another Obama….only earlier and uglier…not that monkey-man is all that good
    looking. His wife beats him on uglyness…..but Hillary runs close behind. Wonder
    why so many democrat women are so ugly whereas GOP women are actually very
    attractive and sexy.

    • swampfox

      Same reason yankee music from the war of northern aggression sound like
      Funeral durges and southern tunes are all toe tappers and
      Uplifting,
      While yankee music makes you want to go hang yourself.
      The damn yankees were flimflammed that they were on some kind of
      Hallowed crusade and were killed in their thousands by southerners
      Who were fighting for their rights as put forth in the constitution.

      If you REALLY listen to the music from both sides,it reflects this.
      Southern songs talk of states rights,fighting tyranny and oppression,
      honor,right,freedom,etc.

      The music itself will teach you who beleived what.

      VEOH-VINDICE!

  • Fairplay 2012

    I Agree100% Strighttothepoint,I don;t understand why all of a sudden,everybody is trashing PRESIDENT LINCOLN!!!!!.!!!!!!! This Man Had one hell of a job cut out for him!!!Of course,it like someone else said on this web-site,”its easy to throw stones at somebody!!!!”

  • black

    great article. you have to wonder if lincoln didn’t do what he did. trying to quash states rights , w/ the right secede. if he would be suffering the abuse from the federal gov’t now. lincoln was the original progressive.

  • Suarez

    Vigilant – There are several problemms with your own argument here. Let us dissect:

    “Aside from the fact that Lincoln’s support for the 13th Amendment contextually has nothing to do with this excerpt, Butler’s narrative is highy problematic. First, Lincoln never lived long enough to confirm or deny that account.”

    Why would Lincoln have any reason to deny it happened? If anything all we know about Lincoln’s views on the matter suggest he would have approved of it. There is not one single scintilla of evidence in any of Lincoln’s voluminous writings, speeches, or letters even remotely suggesting that he ever repudiated his belief in the colonization of slaves. But there is plenty of Lincoln affirming it in clear and specific terms. What reason do you have to assert that he ever changed his mind on the issue? Barring that, Butler’s account is consistent with every known statement Lincoln ever made.

    “Secondly, it’s second hand (hearsay) evidence.”

    No it isn’t. Hearsay is a third party recollection of another’s conversation to which that third party was not a witness. But General Butler was a participant in the conversation itself, and therefore an eyewitness. Also, this is a matter of history – not a court of law in which statements are admitted or disqualified by technical rules.

    “Thirdly, the freed slaves were not remade into slavery again”

    What does that have to do with anything? Lincoln saw colonization as part of the emancipation package – the exact opposite of what you say.

    “Fourthly, and most damaging to Butyler’s account, is found at http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/do-you-trust-ben-butler/ as follows: Lincoln supposedly said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.” “Really? Magness argues that the Lincoln/Butler meeting took place on April 11, 1865. That same evening Lincoln for the first time offered in public his suggestion to extend the right to vote to those blacks who had served in the military or who were literate. How could he have entertained such contrary perspectives?””

    Again, exactly what is big the inconsistency here? Lincoln made a VERY limited and passive endorsement of black voting rights for only a few “highly intelligent” ones. So what? That doesn’t mean he couldn’t also advocate their relocation to another country. That he held both views possibly makes him a hypocrite and it definitely makes him racially unenlightened, but neither one contradicts or disproves the other.

  • http://yahoo.es ted

    The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah! Thank God for Abe Lincoln. We’re aq nation today, thanks to him, but I can’t say how long we’ve got..

  • Middlemant@2012

    thats Okay Ted,At least some of us has great respect for a Great President(Lincoln,)

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXwlDt6VU Chris Miller

    Each state was made a sovereign nation unto itself by the 1783 Treaty of Paris– ignorance to the contrary notwithstanding.

    End of story.

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE, MY PROBLEM IS REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY. WHETHER OR NOT President Abraham Lincoln FREED THE SLAVES, I DO NOT CARE.

    CONTEMPORARY REPUBLICANS ENJOY SAYING THE GOP IS THE “Party of Lincoln.” WHEN REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS GIVE SPEECHES TO NEGRO AUDIENCES, THEY A-L-W-A-Y-S UTILIZE THE CLAIM Lincoln D-I-D FREE THE SLAVES IN ORDER TO CONVINCE CONTEMPORARY-NEGRO DEMOCRATS TO SWITCH PARTY AFFILIATION.

    SO, THIS ARTICLE SUGGESTS REPUBLICANS ARE LYING.

  • Pingback: Abraham Lincoln’s Execution .: Knowledge Base « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • Pingback: 20 Historical Facts That Republicans Distort Or Just Get Plain Wrong « The Fifth Column

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.