Reconsidering Abraham Lincoln

[MachineGhost]

Long-story-short, if Lincoln was a brutal racist (arguably was by today's standards and some of the things he said), and the South hated him for being a slave-sympathizer abolitionist (they did), then how horribly racist must the people of the Southern states been?  I definitely agree with losing a bit of our hero-worship with Lincoln, but let's do that only after losing this obsession with the idiocy of prioritizing states rights and property rights (in terms of people being property) over individual rights.

Gee, maybe abolishing the Electoral College would be inconsequential after all.  It certainly is a minorweight issue in the grand scheme of our tragic history.

Lets not forget states rights allowed de facto slavery continuation via Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.  It is just shameful.

That's why I'm no longer a strict Libertarian, but a public policy libertarian.  Some things just have to be forced upon society for the good of all.

[arizonafan1]

Moda-

To put my instructor's comments succinctly, state's rights and commerce (tariffs and property rights) were the driving factors.

[Pointedstick]

I think your instructor was probably right, but he left out that the commerce was in slaves, and states' rights was to keep it that way.

[arizonafan1]

concur.

[MediumTex]

I think your instructor was probably right, but he left out that the commerce was in slaves, and states' rights was to keep it that way.

That's a very compact way of saying a LOT.

[Pointedstick]

I think your instructor was probably right, but he left out that the commerce was in slaves, and states' rights was to keep it that way.

That's a very compact way of saying a LOT.

Thanks! I'm actually working on cultivating that skill. You and Melveyr are inspirational in that regard, so the compliment feels good. 

[MachineGhost]

To put my instructor's comments succinctly, state's rights and commerce (tariffs and property rights) were the driving factors.

I thought the driving factor was the North's abhorrence about the feared collusion between the South and England?

Why should we take at face value what was politically expedient to propagandize at the time?  Why should politics have been any more honest back then than now?  It may not have been slavery per se, but the "useful idiots" justification for the real agenda.

But there seems to be too much darn historical revision around ol' Abe.  I still think he was the first NeoCon and set us on our present path of American Empire hegemony, but that admittedly could be one economic professor's biased interpretation.

". . .the War Between the States so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government. Before the war, government in America was the highly decentralized, limited government established by the founding fathers. The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today. The purpose of American government was transformed from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire. . . . Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money by the central government. . . . It was Lincoln’s real agenda. . . . Henry Clay’s “American System.”? For his entire political life Lincoln was devoted to Clay and Clay’s economic agenda. The debate over this economic agenda was arguably the most important political debate during the first seventy years of the nation’s existence. It involved the nation’s most prominent statesmen and pitted the states’ rights Jeffersonians against the centralizing Hamiltonians (who became Whigs and, later, Republicans). The violence of war finally ended the debate in 1861. . . . A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession." -- Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

[moda0306]

So how does Thomas think the slaves could have been freed?  It seems to me the main concern of the South was slavery.  Just the mere election of a man who sounded too much like an abolitionist at times had them seceding.

I don't really believe this guy's conspiracy theory. If the north wanted to retain the South for purposes of American hegemony.  And it was the Jacksonian democrats that really stood behind Manifest Destiny, so I have trouble seeing Lincoln as the first neo-con.  We had been violently stabbing westward for decades.  Further, if that's all Lincoln really cared about, he could have given into southern demands to expand slavery to preserve the union.  He must have had some goals outside some evil expansion of federal power, because all the South seemed to care about was holding on to their greatest asset... Slaves.

No doubt Abe was put on a pedestal, but I think there's a lot of straw manning going on around Abe by states-rights advocates.  Further, the only states rights the South seemed to care about was the right to own slaves, and the right to secede if the North didn't oblige their requests to expand slavery westward and into new territories south of the US.

As PS pointed out, once the early 20th century came, they could have cared less about the expansion of federal government powers.

[moda0306]

Slaveowners were hardly "useful idiots," we're they??  Didn't they basically control the South?  I think the "useful idiots" we're probably the poor whites that would give their lives willingly for an institution that served to impoverished them.

[hpowders]

Meanwhile I can't get past Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, but I intend to see the film.

[moda0306]

What do you have against DDL??  The guy is one of the best actors ever, IMO.

His depiction of Bill the Butcher was amazing, and In The Name Of The Father was phenomenal. 

[hpowders]

That's the reason! I can't get past him portraying a thug in "Gangs of New York". Lincoln is quite a switch. He's one of my favorite actors, though; Lewis, not Lincoln.

[hpowders]

Meanwhile, there's this huge confederate flag near where I live strategically placed at the merger of 2 main interstate highways. Can't miss it. So many folks have complained, and want it removed, but nothing ever happens. The powers that be claim it is "private property" and they can't remove it.

[hpowders]

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Tauck Tours, but they run a 10 day Civil War Tour, with input by Ken Burns called "Most Hallowed Ground". Sounds interesting.

[MediumTex]

Meanwhile, there's this huge confederate flag near where I live strategically placed at the merger of 2 main interstate highways. Can't miss it. So many folks have complained, and want it removed, but nothing ever happens. The powers that be claim it is "private property" and they can't remove it.

I assume you're talking about the battle flag and not the other national flags used by the Confederacy.

The various Confederate flags makes for an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_t ... of_America

Wouldn't it be funny if the British were as offended by the U.S. flag as some people in the U.S. seem to be by the Confederate battle flag?  It's very true that history is written by the winners.

It doesn't help that the Confederate battle flag seems to find its strongest enthusiasts in a certain class of southern whites who are easy to make fun of.  OTOH, any time I see someone displaying a Confederate battle flag I want to ask them what they're trying to accomplish, since it's basically a meaningless symbol that for whatever reason seems to bug a lot of people.  In other words, when you see a redneck with a Confederate battle flag in his pickup window, does anyone really think that he is saying "I support slavery" or is it more like he's saying "I think that flag looks dang cool in my truck window!"

For reasons unknown to me, Bo and Luke Duke seem to have escaped such criticism, which is good because The General Lee was one of my favorite TV images when I was a kid (I thought that flag looked dang cool on the top of that car).

[hpowders]

Meanwhile, there's this huge confederate flag near where I live strategically placed at the merger of 2 main interstate highways. Can't miss it. So many folks have complained, and want it removed, but nothing ever happens. The powers that be claim it is "private property" and they can't remove it.

I assume you're talking about the battle flag and not the other national flags used by the Confederacy.

The various Confederate flags makes for an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_t ... of_America

Wouldn't it be funny if the British were as offended by the U.S. flag as some people in the U.S. seem to be by the Confederate battle flag?  It's very true that history is written by the winners.

It doesn't help that the Confederate battle flag seems to find its strongest enthusiasts in a certain class of southern whites who are easy to make fun of.  OTOH, any time I see someone displaying a Confederate battle flag I want to ask them what they're trying to accomplish, since it's basically a meaningless symbol that for whatever reason seems to bug a lot of people.  In other words, when you see a redneck with a Confederate battle flag in his pickup window, does anyone really think that he is saying "I support slavery" or is it more like he's saying "I think that flag looks dang cool in my truck window!"

For reasons unknown to me, Bo and Luke Duke seem to have escaped such criticism, which is good because The General Lee was one of my favorite TV images when I was a kid (I thought that flag looked dang cool on the top of that car).

As a transplanted northerner, I just tune it out. But it has created plenty of controversy. I guess folks object to it being of huge size, hoisted on a skyscraper-like pole in a very visible location. That's what I call "making a statement." I don't think folks mind seeing it on a pickup window, or on Brad Pitt's cap in "Kalifornia", but this one is as "in your face" as something can be about 100 feet high.

[notsheigetz]

When my wife immigrated to the U.S. about 8 years ago she wanted to go to D.C. and see all the sights so I obliged her. Standing there at the feet of honest Abe it suddenly started to occur to me that as a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian values we have somehow completely lost touch with the concept of blasphemy. If you've never been there before, there is a sign as you enter telling you to keep quiet because this is a solemn place, as though you have entered into some kind of holy temple to be approached with reverence. Being from a foreign country my wife found this kind of funny and openly mocked it which I thought was pretty neat.

From that time on I started seeing the same thing everywhere. On the opposite end of the mall there is the Washington monument and since the last time I visited they had built a monument to F.D.R. so you have the big three - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please be reverent as you pass by these hallowed grounds!

Over at Arlington cemetery the blasphemy is even more blatant. There is a sign that says to keep quiet because the ground you are standing on has been consecrated with the blood of soldiers who fought and gave the ultimate sacrifice for America's freedom.  

Just where in the Bible does it say that the blood of young men sent off to fight and die in war has the effect of consecrating the soil of a farm that once belonged to Robert E. Lee? Will there ever come a day when people quit believing this kind of nonsense? Maybe when Jesus returns.

I don't think anyone could have come out of that time looking like a great leader.

Ironically, though, many did, including Lincoln:



I get that he did the best he could with a difficult situation, but it's a bit like saying that if your wife wants to leave you, you may have to beat her up because you can't stand the thought of your happy family being broken apart.  The fact is that if you look through history political unions break up all of the time, and a massive war isn't a necessary part of the process.

The Union was only about 70 years old at the time of the Civil War.  What was the big deal about a few states seceding?  Are we saying that the right to secede wasn't implicit when they joined the union in the first place?  Did they forfeit that part of their sovereignty?  I don't think that was their understanding.

[hpowders]

When my wife immigrated to the U.S. about 8 years ago she wanted to go to D.C. and see all the sights so I obliged her. Standing there at the feet of honest Abe it suddenly started to occur to me that as a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian values we have somehow completely lost touch with the concept of blasphemy. If you've never been there before, there is a sign as you enter telling you to keep quiet because this is a solemn place, as though you have entered into some kind of holy temple to be approached with reverence. Being from a foreign country my wife found this kind of funny and openly mocked it which I thought was pretty neat.

From that time on I started seeing the same thing everywhere. On the opposite end of the mall there is the Washington monument and since the last time I visited they had built a monument to F.D.R. so you have the big three - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please be reverent as you pass by these hallowed grounds!

Over at Arlington cemetery the blasphemy is even more blatant. There is a sign that says to keep quiet because the ground you are standing on has been consecrated with the blood of soldiers who fought and gave the ultimate sacrifice for America's freedom.  

Just where in the Bible does it say that the blood of young men sent off to fight and die in war has the effect of consecrating the soil of a farm that once belonged to Robert E. Lee? Will there ever come a day when people quit believing this kind of nonsense? Maybe when Jesus returns.

I don't think anyone could have come out of that time looking like a great leader.

Ironically, though, many did, including Lincoln:



I get that he did the best he could with a difficult situation, but it's a bit like saying that if your wife wants to leave you, you may have to beat her up because you can't stand the thought of your happy family being broken apart.  The fact is that if you look through history political unions break up all of the time, and a massive war isn't a necessary part of the process.

The Union was only about 70 years old at the time of the Civil War.  What was the big deal about a few states seceding?  Are we saying that the right to secede wasn't implicit when they joined the union in the first place?  Did they forfeit that part of their sovereignty?  I don't think that was their understanding.

Abraham Lincoln said it in his Gettysburg Address and that's good enough for me. Hallowed Ground to be sure.

[notsheigetz]

Abraham Lincoln said it in his Gettysburg Address and that's good enough for me. Hallowed Ground to be sure.

Funny but my wife had to memorize the Gettysburg Address and recite it in English in front of her class when she was in high school. So there she was standing in front of the holy shrine with the words she spoke engraved on the wall. Being raised in a third world country she has a great bullshit detector when it comes to politicians, thus her irreverent mocking attitude (she used to make extra money stuffing envelopes with bribes for politicians).  I also recommend Mencken's comments about the Gettysburg address, another person with a well-honed bullshit detector.

[MediumTex]

When politicians send young men out to kill each other because of the politicians' leadership incompetence, I don't see anything "hallowed" coming out of that.  It just seems like a deep, deep tragedy.

The desire for glory on the battlefield is, IMHO, one of the activities in which humans seem the most like dumb brutes.

[hpowders]

Given your pacifistic train of thought, we might all be speaking German right now; that is to say, those of us who would be left and deemed worthy to live after the "selections".

Sometimes one just needs to get out there and do what needs to be done.

[notsheigetz]

Given your pacifistic train of thought, we might all be speaking German right now; that is to say, those of us who would be left and deemed worthy to live after the "selections".

Sometimes one just needs to get out there and do what needs to be done.

Sometimes we all get too serious in these threads. Thanks for the comic relief.

(On the off-chance your comment really was serious please take your butt out of your ass. We killed lots of Indians to take this country fair and square and do you really think we'd let the Germans do the same thing to us).

[MediumTex]

Given your pacifistic train of thought, we might all be speaking German right now; that is to say, those of us who would be left and deemed worthy to live after the "selections".

Without the U.S. getting involved in either world war, they would have remained regional conflicts.  Especially in WWII, Germany would have broken itself fighting the Soviet Union whether we got involved or not.   I would say that both Wilson and FDR were pretty incompetent wartime Presidents.

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Sometimes one just needs to get out there and do what needs to be done.

Remember, it was the U.S. that dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations.  If anyone but the U.S. had done that it would be considered one of the most heinous war crimes in history.

The U.S. is not always the good guy in these things.  In fact, I would say that there is rarely a "good guy" and "bad guy" in any of these things.  Both sides normally have some strength to their positions, as well as some weaknesses.  The fact that we allied ourselves with Stalin in WWII and Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 should make it clear enough that good and bad don't play that large a role in these things.  That's what makes me want to steer clear of these kinds of affairs--it's not that I wouldn't be willing to defend myself or my country, it's that I don't think most of this stuff is really about defending myself or my country. 

Think about the last 100 years of U.S. wars, when were we actually defending our country?  It looks to me like just a string of military adventures driven by a gang of glory seeking politicians and generals.  Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were probably the two situations where we were truly justified in taking military action to defend our country, but what happened in each case?  The President used the attack as a pretense to invade another country (Germany after Pearl Harbor and Iraq after 9/11) that hadn't attacked us at all.

[Pointedstick]

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Clearly you are a terrorist who hates America, freedom, and apple pie.

[hpowders]

Given your pacifistic train of thought, we might all be speaking German right now; that is to say, those of us who would be left and deemed worthy to live after the "selections".

Sometimes one just needs to get out there and do what needs to be done.

Without the U.S. getting involved in either world war, they would have remained regional conflicts.  Especially in WWII, Germany would have broken itself fighting the Soviet Union whether we got involved or not.   I would say that both Wilson and FDR were pretty incompetent wartime Presidents.

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree. World War 2, no. We entered the war in 1941 due to a direct attack by Japan, who was an axis partner of Germany. Japan attacks us, that means we are at war with Germany too. Hitler had a voracious appetite and seemed to want to make the entire world his empire. From what I read, Hitler had plans to eventually invade the USA. Therefore, I consider World War 2 a just war, something we had to fight, given the circumstances at the time. The way Hitler was going, who knew he was going to be stopped by anyone? Also, there was the matter of that German rocket that was being developed. No telling what destruction that would have caused. The man was a maniac that had to be stopped.

If any war can be considered to be a just war to be fought, it is World War 2 and those battlefields and beaches where Americans died are consecrated ground to me.