Honestly, Abe!
"A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid." —Matthew 5:14
How many Americans are aware that Abraham Lincoln was well known for telling dirty stories, engaged in antics (like playing with his feet) when he did not want to answer questions, and was flippant when his attention was called to Union soldiers' graves?
That he kept his son safely at Harvard during the war? (Robert E. Lee's son was kidnapped from home while severely wounded and brutally imprisoned away from his dying wife and children.)
That Lincoln was a wealthy corporate lawyer with the biggest mansion in Springfield and a private railroad car placed at his disposal by capitalists?
That while very clever and articulate, his knowledge of American and world history, the origins of the Constitution and of the Founding Fathers, of foreign languages, economics, science, and most other subjects was nearly non-existent. His legal success was based on clever manipulation of juries. His political success was based on (mostly clandestine) tactics, Biblical sounding rhetoric, capitalist support, and prolific promises of government jobs and contracts.
That he was the least known, the least distinguished, and the least popular man who was ever elected President before or since.
Karl Marx enthusiastically supported Lincoln because—?
Hitler admired Lincoln because—?
Before he was president Lincoln made one practical proposal for the end of slavery. He outlined a program of gradual emancipation by which slavery would have ended in New Jersey in 1914.
Those who knew Lincoln most closely and for the longest period of time were agreed that he had two predominant character traits: ambition and secretiveness. Almost all first-hand immediate impressions of Lincoln, including those of most people on his side, reveal not a wise, deep, warm, sorrowful man, but a practiced dissimulator with a remote amoral core. His behaviour fits the pattern described as "passive-aggressive." He also exhibited traits of "crackpot realism." A crackpot realist is a cynic who believes that everybody he deals with is acting in bad faith. By being aware of this, he thinks that he can outsmart and manipulate others.
How many people know that Lincoln struck many of those he encountered as actually physically grotesque—arms and legs too long and a deformed face? He did not resemble Henry Fonda in the least, or even Raymond Massey.
Who was the only American President who complained publicly about "the troublesome presence of free negroes"?
How many people know that Lincoln approved a proposed Thirteenth Amendment which would have guaranteed non-interference with slavery in the South, as long as no black people could be brought to unsettled territories which Northern capitalists were eager to exploit—and those capitalists could continue their tariff "protection"?
A large amount of Lincoln's papers were destroyed by his son. Why? Wouldn't you think every scrap of paper associated with such a revered figure would be saved?
The French have looked again at their history and have lowered their once high opinion of Robespierre and their other brutal revolutionaries. The Russians have done the same with Lenin. When will Americans experience the humbling and healing process of grasping the truth about Lincoln's brutal war of conquest against free Americans? A people who are in such denial are in moral peril. And a people whose most revered symbol is a corporate lawyer and scheming politician in an armchair are little to be admired.
129 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Conservative Donnybrook » Blog Archive » Why I (Continue to) Love Lincoln
- Interesting information on Lincoln « Whispered Pleasure, Shouted Pain
- Occidental Dissent » Blog Archive » Hitler on the War Between the States
- Pain in GC : Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar
Entries(RSS)
Mr. Kabala (#24),
Hitler expresses his admiration for Lincoln in "Mein Kampf" as he exhorts the need for Grossdeutschland and Lebensraum.
1. Why should anyone feel sorry for the South regarding tariffs? They managed to have themselves exempt in the constitution from any taxes on exports. So they had to suffer an offset with tariffs -tough!
2. The idea that the war was over tariffs is another lie. Various states issued declarations of independence when the treasonously left the Union. That all said that the reason for leaving was that the Northern States & juries [such as in the famous case in Oberlin, Ohio] would not return the slaves. Get up on the internet and read them. Especially South Carolina's, the first state to leave the Union and spill blood at Ft. Sumter.
3. People accuse the contemporary college scene in America as being rife with politically correct revisionist professors. This website is also. Most of its authors are crabbed, cynical busy bodies who are evidently morally blind to the wickedness of slavery. They dare accuse Lincoln of moral defects. He invaded the South to collect tariff money? What a crock.
4. I wish to comment about someone who taught in Germany and had the wife of a Prussian officer who participated in the Hitler Bomb Plot and was executed by the Nazi's. Most of the participants in that plot did so not from high moral purpose, but because Hitler was losing the war. And most of them, were commies or socialists. They were OK with Hitler as long as he was winning. How dare this woman state that Lincoln was a nascent Hitler or Stalin. This is typical of Europeans trying to make us their equal in the crimes against humanity. If Lincoln was like that, there would not be a South because he would have exterminated all the whites. Why didn't still instructor stand up her? Was it her supposed moral authority from being force to leave her home on foot with her children? I guess because Stalin was in charge of Russia it was OK to murder, rape, pillage, burn and sack the homes of millions of Russians? I glade she had to suffer. She married into the Prussian military machine of the Franco-Prussian War, World War I - of which the Germans and the Austrian were guilty of starting, and World War II. She can go to Hell if she isn't there already.
5. You Chronicle people hold yourselves out as defenders of Christian Civilization but mention nothing about the evil wickness of slavery. If Jesus was walking the earth now he would no doubt state in the Sermon on Mount that you point out the microbe in Lincoln's eye, while you have the Verrazano Bridge sticking out of your own eyes. First remove the Verrazano Bridge from your own eye, then point out the microbe in Lincoln's.
6. In the event some of you are Bhuddist, I hope your re-incarnated as a Christian from Sudan who is kidnapped and enslaved by a Muslim. I like to see how fast you prayer Bush launches a war against those scumbags! Oh by the way, did you read that the US military recently removed over 500 tons of uranium from Iraq, about half of which was provide to Saddam the Nazi Baathist Hussein by the Brazilian Military?
7. Christianity condemned slavery since the time of St. Patrick. I'm sure one of your great beefs against William the Conqueror was that he outlawed slavery when he took over Britain from the gangster Harold. I guess he was a nascent Hitler or Stalin.
Where is your moral perspective. These comments seem almost totally throw backs from the 1850's South. You guys lost! Get over it! With your line of thinking, George Washington was all wrong and we should go back to being part of the British Empire.
Matt @ 54,
1. I know of no one asking anyone to "feel sorry for the South" on the issue of tariffs. The facts are that the South was paying about three-fourths of the tariffs collected in 1860 and that most of the money gleaned from the tariffs was being spent in the North. The newly minted Republican Party was a regional and not a national party. It campaigned on raising the tariff, expanding the scope of the general government (beyond the bounds imposed by the Constitution) and spending said money on "internal improvements," with said monies going to the cronies of the party. With the election of 1860, it was clear that the Republican Party could hold power and execute its policies without even being on the ballot in the South. Remaining in such a "union" within the compact of the Constitution became highly questionable for Southern states, on the issue of the tariff, on specie currency, on the national bank, on fundamental principles of state sovereignty and on slavery.
2. A sovereign state can leave a union predicated on a compact for whatever reason: slavery, tariffs, or a whim. However, leaving the union was certainly not on a whim. Most, although not all, understood how serious the step of secession was. Mr. Lincoln's action against South Carolina and the Confederate States of America at Ft. Sumter was in and of itself an act of war based on the conventions of the time. One also notes as Murray Rothbard points out in his article "Just War," that ..."if classical international law limited and checked warfare, and kept it from spreading, modern international law, in an attempt to stamp out "aggression" and to abolish war, only insures, as the great historian Charles Beard put it, a futile policy of 'perpetual war for perpetual peace.' " Classical international law prevailed in 1860, and Lincoln cynically abused it. By the way, no blood was shed at the firing of Ft. Sumter and technically, it was the CSA which fired on the fort. There had been considerable debate on that very issue between the CSA and the State of South Carolina.
3. Why then did Mr. Lincoln invade the Confederacy?
4. You give to yourself the authority to relegate someone to hell because they dare to compare, even with the word "nascent," Lincoln to Hitler or Stalin? Just who are you?
5. So one alleged evil excuses total war and a reign of terror on civilians?
6. I, personally, would never demand that someone launch the evil of war on my behalf, regardless of my condition. I have not yet acquired that level of self-importance.
7. No, George Washington was a slave owner and the British were in the emancipation business, just as cynically as was Lincoln. You have your analogy backward as far as it goes.
Robert Peters
2. The Southern States were never sovereign states, ever. They were under the British Empire or under the United States sitting in Congress. If you would read Lincoln's speeches you would understand he was right.
4. I feel free to relegate many people to Hell. I relegate Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong to Hell, right now and right here! If there is any group of human beings who need to humble about what they suffered at the end of the Second World War it is the German people, as was acknowledged by former Chancellor Helmut Schmit in the book by Max Hastings on the end of the war in Germany. I think the title was Armageddon.
5. I want a president to launch a war against nations or people who attack America or American citizens. Like FDR did against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor or like Lincoln did after centuries of oppression of the Black American Citizens. Most morally superior cynics who accuse people of doing everything for money or power and not because they want to right a wrong, have such an attitude because they will never put themselves at risk to help another human being. The true source of their cynism is cowardice. You might say, I am cynical about cynics - Greek for yapping dogs.
P.S. - I still seen no one state slavery was wrong and wicked. No doubt many adherants will go into a rage that maybe the NSA might listen in on the boring conversations over the phone, but slavery no.
Commie Matt exclaims : "These comments seem almost totally throw backs from the 1850’s South. You guys lost! Get over it!"
Well, Comrade,we lost some battles but it is not over yet and didn't end at Appomatox : the flame still burns and as long as it does the cause is not lost.
O, I wish I was in Dixie!
Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand
To live and die in Dixie
Away, away,
Away down south in Dixie!
Mr. Peters, I commend you for your display of patience.
the csa ain't gonna arise... just like jesus did NOT. give yourselves a break - factor-in next time what is yes APPROPRIATE myth since it elevates us too (it's the human factor) and APPROPRIATE self-discipline in reality since it elevates us too (it's the human factor)... don't YET be stupid. YOU dopey'b'stards... or not.
don't YET in the mythical arena, for example i.e. on tv these days have spittle building Up in the corners of your then apparently MEALY friggin mouth. (what were you a 'plant' to TRASH my values...)
It'S both of NECESSITY in the human realm the mythical and the disciplined. shoot yourself - the south ain't gonna 'arise' - at least do that and put yourself out of our misery... if not yours.
Matt @ 56
I am not sure if you are familiar with the story of the Billy Goats Gruff. You would be the troll under the bridge. I would be the first and smallest of the goats to cross the bridge. There are bigger and meaner goats, i.e. more learned and articulate men than I, who are likely to follow me across the bridge of your post.
Let, however, the little goat speak to the troll.
2. While one could bring scores of facts to refute your point under this point at 56, I will merely cite your post itself. In it, you use the word "Congress." In the 18th century, a congress was a meeting of delegates representing sovereigns. The congress itself was not sovereign. Provinces, none sovereigns, sent representatives to a parliament. Sovereigns sent delegates to a congress. Thus, this mere detail among scores establishes that the states were indeed sovereign.
4. Here your hubris is showing. In addition, what do the German "people" have to do with the matter under discussion? I am frankly not sure what you meant by citing Helmut Schmidt.
5. Slaves and most free blacks were not citizens, and Lincoln did not consider them to be citizens, nor did he advocate that they become citizens. His quotes and actions reveal quite the contrary. Surely you are not implying that he launched a war on their behalf!
Your P.S. makes little sense. Would you restate?
Dear Mr. Robert M. Peters -
Allow me to clarify my P.S. with this question: Do you or do you not think slavery was and is wicked and oppressive? I have seen anyone, with maybe one exception, state or agree that slavery in the South was a blight or sin on our country.
I am sure to you and others' great joy, I conclude my comments on this editorial with this last email.
Allow me to correct my last email. I meant to state that I have NOT seen any, ..., state slavery was wicked, etc. - Sorry
Mr. Peters, thank you for your comments. I deliberately put "nation of immigrants" in quotation marks so as to imply that it doesn't express my own opinion. I agree completely with what you said regarding this in the first paragraph of #52. I'm sorry to have caused a misunderstanding.
Is Lincoln not responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other person in history?
Any guesses as to whether Matt is a Jaffaite neocon or a more standard issue liberal?
"...like Lincoln did after centuries of oppression of the Black American Citizens."
Has a more ignorant sentence ever been written? That kind of ignorance has to be willful. Can't have any of those inconvenient facts messing up their tidy morality tale.
"I still seen no one state slavery was wrong and wicked."
Get it? Before anyone can say anything even remotely positive about the South they must first condemn slavery. Matt, I have never met a single person who wanted to re-institute slavery. Have you?
Ah, we have a neocon/leftist/imperialist/Trotskyite in our midst! What a pleasure to indulge such an ideology-driven mind. I'm sure our guest Matt could be presented with mountains of evidence that countless Southern black slaves LOVED their masters, considered themselves part of their masters' families, and considered themselves loyal members of the Confederacy who would stand with their white Southern countrymen in fighting the Union tooth and nail . . . but he would still preach his morality sermon to us about slavery and the "treason" of leaving the Union.
Dr. Wilson, wherever you are, what say you about this poor soul who probably is in the same boat I was a few years ago - that is, struggling to shake off the chains of American public school indoctrination??? After all, this is your post Matt is poisoning with his putrid comments!
Dr. Wilson is undoubtedly doing better things with his Sunday rather than spending time reading juvenile attacks.
Well, I see the hardheaded indeologues with no sense of reality have invaded this post, blathering their idiotic hateful ignorance. I seem to recall hearing of a similar event, on a much larger scale, beginning in 1861.
The only reason egalitarians consider slavery a moral sin is not because they care at all about the 'poor' slave, though they may lie and say they care. The truth is, they hate slavery because it violates their rabid egalitarian ideology. That's the only reason, there is no other, and dont let their false 'humanitarian' blather fool you.
Those who claim that slavery was the only real cause of the war do so because they are obsessed with Southern slavery, since it feeds their self righteous, holier than thou, superior, flattering self image. They choose to remain willfully ignorant of the truth about the war, about slavery, and about Lincoln, because to come to terms with the truth would destroy their self-image of superiority, as well as force them to actually think honestly about things, which for them is scary. They like their smug, petty little world view. It makes them feel so good about themselves to think they are so much better than someone else lower down on the map.
P.S.: They refuse to acknowledge the right of secession, both on moral and legal terms, because it would be to admit that their ancestors committed a great crime, which they continue with their cultural hatred and by holding the South in political, social, and cultural chains, and that they, therefore, are not such superior, righteous people as they thought they were; quite the opposite, in fact.
There is only one thing more convenient than historical lies and propaganda for upholding a false self image and a false, arrogant sense of self-esteem, and that is credal nationalism. Furthermore, to them, Lincoln is the great pagan messiah of this creed and we Southerners are the vanquished legions of hell. He died so that they could feel self-righteous and superior, and 'America' is now going to usher in a new golden age by shoving 'democracy' down the entire world's throat.
Yes, these are cultusts, just a Mr DiLorenzo and others say they are. Pay them no heed, for they are dangerous only when they can get others to do their dirty work.
When was blood spilled at Ft. Sumter? Neo-cons like Matt always seem to love tyrants like Lincoln. Sic semper tyrannis...
Dr. Phillips,
You give too much credit. I rather doubt that Matt knows who Jaffa is or understands one precept of liberalism. He sounds like a petulant child with no developed grounding in reality or morality who took his "social studies" class a little too seriously. I just hope his mama comes to yank him off the Internet soon. It's probably getting late and she probably has to help little Matt paste together the popsicle sticks for his junior high science project.
Slavery has always been the property of the Slaver States, New England.
New England, through the Triangular Trade tortured and killed millions of black folk as they spread slavery throughout the Caribbean, Brazil, and the whole New World. Planters were kind enough to fight this evil by giving the black folk jobs, homes, and free health care. Several times, Southern states attempted to abolish slavery forever, but were overruled by the Slaver States.
The entire collective wealth of the Northeast was built on Yankee slavery. When by 1861, it was clear that, economically, slavery was about to end, the Slaver states started a war, enslaved the South, and set out on its road to enslave the entire globe under Yankee capitalism. This is why today, every important decision affecting your life is made by somebody else. If you have been allowed to have a job, a house, a car, or a vacation, that decision was made by somebody else.
If you were allowed to have a business loan to set up your own business, that decision was made by somebody else. If you are like most people, not only is your entire life controlled by someone else, but it is actually literally owned by someoone else in the form of pink slips, debt, and the ability of somebody else to take your property if you cannot pay taxe on it -- or if they simply want it to build a hotel. The chain of command over your life ends in New York City, which replaced Boston as the Yankee capital a century ago, and which is now the capital of the United States and the whole world -- a fact which New Yorkers proudly boast of.
Our system of government is slavery, specifically Yankee capitalism, and it has been so since 1865, the most important date in modern world history.
And it all began almost 400 years ago, when wooden Yankee vessels plied the seas looking for slaves to buy and sell and to rot, chained deep in the awful ship's hull. Remember this every time you hear "Amazing Grace" sung.
1. "Various states issued declarations of independence when the treasonously left the Union."
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
Chief Justice Salmon Chase
From Johnson's Reports of Chase's Supreme Court decisions.
2."South Carolina's, the first state to leave the Union and spill blood at 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. "
Lincoln, Letter To Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861
"He (Lincoln) himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Gov Pickins of S.C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter—it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."
Senator Orville Hickman Browning's diary dated July 3, 1861
3. "If Lincoln was like that, there would not be a South because he would have exterminated all the whites."
"The government of the U.S. has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war--to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything...war is simply unrestrained by Constitution...To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better..."
Maj. Gen. W.T. Sherman, 31 Jan 1864.
"There is a class of people men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." .
Gen.Sherman in a 21 June 1864 letter to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton
4. "mention nothing about the evil wickness of slavery."
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution......has passed Congress......that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service......I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Lincoln On Original 13th Amendment
5. "If you would read Lincoln's speeches you would understand he was right."
"It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . . ."
William Rawles, “A View of the Constitution” which was taught at West Point.
6. "I relegate......Robert E. Lee......to Hell."
"General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, (was) one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation......he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history......a nation of men of Lee's calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul......I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House August 9, 1960.
PcH,
Excellent summation ... and true. But what is the New Englander's motivation? They must convince/delude themslves somehow ... is it the eventual result of Calvinism?
In a photo of King Lincolns first coronation John Wilkes Booth can be seen near his Majesty. He missed a good chance.
Tom Abts,
Thanks! The Puritans' first mistake was dealing in abstractions, and like Aquinas, working from the subtle presupposition that man can reason himself to God. This flipped Calvin on his head.
reason like denial although often opposites have always been useful human tools. but yes they are only patently human. reason though should have informed aquinas that if there is a divine dimension we are here in the world to learn, we cannot get what we want (where the divine is concerned at least) simply by an act of our own will or our own 'reason' or our own anything... it would have to be also god willing. isn't that the Point of what the divine is. ? If there is such a dimension or reality. That's why it's also always 'if' regarding the divine herein, so there's the need too for faith. wouldn't a simple exercise of reason have led these reasonable intellects to those actual human conclusions? yes and no - they're in the business of religion and know there has to be a perceptible ideal 'as if' it were known and that for box office or attendance people have to also 'believe' their own absurd and limited reason can march them straight into heaven. so resonably, acquinas et al. in the relig-biz take that too into consideration. OR were they possible just stupid? I doubt it.
life is more of a sentence we serve in this world perhaps because there's also a divine we either remember or sense... the world is a preexistent reality of - you can fill in the blank _________ - pernicious or perspicacious or pernicipicacious design... at best it teaches at worst it punishes.
'don't you know you fool you never can win - use your mentality, wake up to reality - '
(now for you romantics) 'but every time I do just the sight of you' (i.e. a gorgeous bit*h) 'makes me stop' (responsibly viewing reality) 'before I beign, I've got you' (you dopey bi*ch) 'under my skin.'
that's life - that's wife... if you get around to marrying, which you should. ... 'cause i got you, under my skin.'
p.s. the above post # 78 was the Real john zander. i've only had one beer. which makes me even more real than on zero beers, but less real if on the third one. it has to do also with dopamine or endorphins - i have a dearth of them - due to servere childhood abuse for years and years... alcohol makes me feel normal at first but then of course it is my undoing since I keep going.... and going... and going... 'and every time i do just the sight of you makes me stop' (drinking for a few minutes and try to pull myself together before being 86'd) 'cause I got You under my skin.' (humor)
ain't life grand?!
Interesting points, PcH.
Mr. Abts, motivations for me are also difficult to discern. As I see it, New England and Old England at some juncture decided to work together, and Old England hardly displays any of the religious fervor that is associated with New England's roots, other than to religiously imbibe any and all politically correct mumbo-jumbo and stray far from traditional Christianity. If we count cultural marxism as religion, then perhaps we could say the two halves of the Anglosphere share this religious fervor.
Although, power and greed should not be underestimated as a driving force.
Today's Anglosphere is the joint New-Old England econo-politico-socio-program of world domination. Some may say that "slavery" is too harsh a word, but I think PcH may be on to something when he emphasizes that there is no part of our lives untouched by the world controllers in Leviathon's axis of big business, big government, and big propoganda that is at the heart of the Anglosphere's leadership structure.
The Anglosphere dominated the "cold war" era. The stalemate with Russia and the neutralization of Germany post-WWII served its expansionist intentions quite well. But, it sought more "markets" to expand into and thereby sought the end of Communism. Russians awoke from the dreary hell imposed upon them and accomodated the restructuring. However, this unleashed some new and uncontrollable forces onto the world scene that threaten the dominance of the New York-London set. Thus, a renewal of hostilities with the Russians was necessary, as was pushing the Germans into the same mistakes they made these past hundred years: needless confrontation in the Balkans and potential head-butting with the Russians as a result. All to stir the stew and warrant the Anglosphere's role as provider of "security"...
That is why I have numerous times claimed on these pages that if Germany and Russia were to enter into cooperation rather than conflict, this would not suit the Anglosphere one bit. If the two continental giants see more value in cooperation (which on paper, there appears to be), that would likely signal the end of world domination for the Anglosphere.
There are eastward leaning elements in Germany's elite. Just this week came the signal from akey politicians that US meddling in European affairs was unwelcome when the Bundestag Board forthrightly stated that its government and other governments have made a big and illegal mistake in aiding Kosovo's rebellion against Serbia.
How does this all tie back to Abe and the War Against Southern States' Sovereignty? Abe and his cronies reflected the nascent big state imperialism that democratic-capitalism would enable and cultural marxism put on a leash. The South, on the other hand, favored independent states, (true) free trade, and respect for aristocratic culture. Today's Anglosphere is indeed a Yankee-led enterprises that has all but extinguished any remnents of the American South that stood for those things the Founders themselves stood for, and that Lincoln wrecked.
eagle the russians are a soulful people, the germans that and more too of the entire enchalada. jews the moveable island of people, like england or japan are fixed or sedentary islands of the putsch culture or crack-pot realism mentalities, noticed this about the germans... they were moving out into the lead. but germany for the most part is NOT a putsch culture like the u.s. isn't normally. so the putsch cultures & countries still exist while germany (except for its excellence for the past 200 plus years) is not only normal but neutered too.
still it's hard to couple with russia, or anyone when you're so far in the lead. even if for that reason alone you've been crucified. why couple... ? it's boring.
that's germany like it or not. (no, I'm not german. I'm so many different things i'm only a mutt.) oh, germans'll say otherwise of course to stay alive. they know now the alternative. but like pat says they've learned too - no more blank checks.
While I agree there are two sides to the story, to say slavery had nothing to do with the causes of the war is a little much.
Put it this way, is anyone going to argue that if slavery had never existed in the United States, the war would have occurred anyway?
I'm all for localism and tradition, but society still evolves. Slavery and human bondage are an affront to man's equality before God. No one should universally apply this view on the 19th century world of the Confederacy , but no one today should doubt its veracity, either.
I think Matt is a perfect example of an individual who simply hates the South-far more than Lincoln ever did .I'm not sure what his references to Jesus and slavery indicate other than he is unfamiliar with the New Testament.It is unfortunate but amusing that he decided to expose himself to this readership.Reincarnation,Mr.Matt?As a "Hindu" can you explain your justification for the caste system and it enslavement of the untouchable.
Scott, you are wrong concerning slavery being 'an affront to man's equality before God'. Being equal in the eyes of God has nothing to do with a man's station in life. This issue has been discussed and debated here before.
As for your question whether the war would have happened anyway if slavery had never existed, the answer is 'yes'. The South's agrarian economy wasn't entirely dependent on slavery by any means, and the tariff, the long time concern of the South and immediate cause of secession, would have led to war anyway. One can envision an agrarian South made up exclusively of small farms, or perhaps with plantations using free wage labour, and the tariff would have had the same effect, leading to secession. Secession doesn't necessarily lead to war, but having Lincoln in the white house when the South seceded would have meant war no matter what.
The better question to ask is: if abolitionism had never existed, would there have been a war? The answer again would be 'yes', or: 'if Lincoln had never existed, would there have been a war?' Perhaps not, but when certain big business interests want war, they'll get it one way or another, and they would have gotten it with or without Lincoln.
Scott-
Slavery was an issue. Slavery was about to end, since by 1861 it cost more to keep up a slave than it did to hire help. That meant a fundamental change in the economic system. The Northeast had created slavery in America, and had built its liquor stills and cotton mills from the profits off it and from the tariffs imposed on the South. To keep its control of the vast resources of the South before the South freed the slaves, the Northeast started the war.
The primary motivation for the war were the immense loans handed over to the Northeast to finance it. They amounted to more than 75% of the assessed value of all real property in the USA. That puts it in the tens of trillions of dollars or more in today's money. For a collection of frontier republics that made up the US back then, that meant absolute power to the purse-holders of the Northeast.
To make payments on the loans, the Northeast was obliged to seize the vast undeveloped resources of the South and the West. This was done by the war: the South was invaded, tens of thousands were tortured and murdered, and the South was kept in a perpetual state of poverty by way of the punitive regional railroad rates, which were an effective internal tariff system.
With the South obliterated, the sparsely populated West became the Northeast's by default, and Yankee carpetbaggers took over the governments and economies there just as they did in the South. Various tricks were used. Indian contracts were awarded to Yankee insiders, but instead of using the princely sums handed over to them to buy blankets and beef for the Indians as directed by law, the carpetbaggers let the Indians freeze and starve while they took the money in order to build palatial estates in the new cities which they controlled. The railroad debacle is well-known and during that time hundreds of millions of acres were handed over to Yankee carpetbaggers with no money down. The Grant administration is famous for mass corruption, and subsequent presidencies, still more corrupt, became more savvy in concealing the organized crime that is our American, or rather Yankee capitalist, government.
Allen - in response to yours in 84, I have not seen your debates, so I won't comment on them. There is voluminous verbiage in the Bible, Old Testament and New, that discusses how the fulfillment of God's plan for humanity revolves around the inversion of the established economic-social order-"last shall be first", etc. Clearly, this divine re-org is necessary because the current order is defective and incompatible with God's plan. Economic systems such as slavery, in which people are born into the lowest so-called "station in life" and for which they are legally unable to change by themselves, are particularly egregious examples of this defectiveness and incompatibility.
If you're going to argue that the war would have happened anyway, in our hypothetical example where slavery never existed, my question for you then is why it didn't happen much sooner? Why not during the Panic of 1837?
A South mde up of yeoman farmers was not just a vision; it was reality in parts of the upper South and Appalachia; interestingly, those were areas that exhibited little support for secession. Why would that be the case if economic issues were driving the train for disunion?
You know, philosophically, I agree with much written in Chronicles and elsewhere on this website.
But the "Lost Cause" mentality and knee-jerk defense of the Confederacy and Old South (based on the most tenuous of historical premises - e.g., slavery wasn't really the cause of the war - yeah, right) exhibited by you and others dilutes and undermines everything else here.
The Old South, slavery, the Confederacy, the Klan, and racial segregation are all inseparable in the minds of most Americans. Perhaps we need another historical example upon which to propagate. This one won't attract many converts.
"The Old South, slavery, the Confederacy, the Klan, and racial segregation are all inseparable in the minds of most Americans."
Thanks to the public school system.
#86 Also thanks to the ingrained hypocricy, self-righteousness, and comforting delusions with which "most Americans" view their history.
Fact, yeoman farmers did support secession, more strongly than large slaveholderrs.
The reference to the Panic of 1837 makes no sense at all. It effected the North much more than the South.
The Old South provides the only possible basis for a conservative standpoint in the United States.
I guess whether or not one's family benefited from Lincoln's fine war
doesn't really come into play in the assessment of his character.
Scott, setting aside your defective understanding of theology and history, the best question of all to ask is: why are you yourself dwelling on slavery? Why is it so important to you?
Yeoman Farmers and Secession
On 26 November 1860, nearly one month before South Carolina seceded, the citizens of Bossier Parish, Louisiana, met at a pig roast in Rocky Mount, Louisiana, in that parish and voted to secede from the union and on the spot formed a militia to defend their act - this a month before Louisiana itself would secede from the union. Most of those who voted that day were yeoman farmers, although some alluvial planters were there as well.
Dr. Wilson @ 88: The Old South provides the only possible basis for a conservative standpoint in the United States.
A truer statement could not be made. Appomatox was the overturning of everything traditional and conservative and in its place the progressive, radical, and revolutionalry was given free rein. In the Nietzschean view, God was unseated and man took the throne. Allen Tate stated that the South was the remaining hold-out to the new order and was, at the time, more European than even Europe. To understand the chaos and confusion that reins today, you must understand the upheaval that gave it the ascendency. The myth serves as a blinder; the self-righteousness only a falsehood. Compare the works of R. L. Dabney wtih those of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Thus was born the era of abomination in which we live. The gentleman of character was replaced with the ruthless, unprincipled Sherman. The qualities that Plutarch so admired were replaced by those of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It's good to see that when the hornet's nest is poked so many hornets come swarming. Great stuff (from most).
The most enlightening thing I've seen of late was Dr. Wilson's statement (on another thread) that the American Revolution was actually counter-revolutionary. To the extent the nationalizing North was a further innovation, we can say the Southern "rebellion" was also counter-revolutionary.
Something tells me the Second Coming will be the most counter-revolutionary event in history.
#87 what was the Klan then? A social group for unemployed white planters?
#88 & #92 - I doubt that Robert A. Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge would agree with you.
Scott, your derogatory comments illustrate what we in our section have tolerated for the last 170 years or so. Based on the fact that the majority of race riots in the country have occured outside the South, we can surmise that those are the racist sections. Or how 'bout the fact that the grand wizard is a resident of a Northern state? Cheap shots are great! Especially when directed at the South, right? In an age of 'equality', why do we remain in a state of defense? From the disgraceful insults of the Northern press, to the atrocities in Mo., to the invasion of the lunatic John Brown, to the invasion of the Yankee controlled government, to the police state occupation of Reconstruction, to the usurpations of the so-called 'civil rights movement', to the present erasure of all our symbols, we remain in a constant state of defense. Pray that we can one day be just left alone. But since your type never changes, it will only occur when we can at last gain our independence.
Scott, why dont you answer the simple question? Why do you yourself wish to dwell on slavery and rudely dismiss any explanations of any other causes of the war with asinine retorts like 'yea, right'?
I guess you believe we also went to war with Iraq in order to free the poor Iraqi people from Saddam?
Scott-
Henry Cabot Lodge, the Last Yankee, lost to JFK in 1953!
Taft died> in 1930!!
It's time to update your date book.
#96 - no I don't believe that we went to war to do anything of that sort, just like I don't believe that slavery was irrelevant to the genesis of the Civil War. I also don't believe that it was the _sole_ cause of it. You are right to point out the other interests, economic and financial, that motivated the increasingly industrialized North to pursue the war - had a Buchanan-esque "errant sisters depart in peace" mentality prevailed, this history of North America would be very different.
My issue boils down to the fact that one of the primary justifications for slavery was pure racism and the belief that non-whites were genetically inferior - that was a basic tenet of southern slavery. Of course, many Northerners shared that belief at that time (and some probably still do). But after the war, the South continued to proliferate that belief into throughout their society - in forms such as segregation, the Klan, poll tax, etc., and other activities which have only ended in comparatively recent times. To me, holding up the Confederacy as our model for "conservative government" is akin to citing Nazi Germany as our model for good executive leadership. One cannot separate the racial basis for why the secesh believed as they did - that's not to say that there weren't other, non-racial underpinnings for their beliefs, because there certainly were. But glorifying the Confederacy is liked going to a poisoned well for a drink; there's lots of water, but it's going to make you sick.
#95 - "your section"? Haven't heard that one since I was re-reading some of William Lownes Yancey's speeches a few months back. I think you have been reading too much Ulrich B. Phillips lately. Perhaps a little Kenneth Stampp will cure the excess? Not that I agree with either of them...fyi, when you take such umbrage and affront toward nameless Yankees and northerners, you only reinforce a stereotypical perception of some Southerners as being tremendously insecure about themselves. (It always amazes me how some of the smartest people on this planet, particularly in academe, have such needy and fragile egos when they are challenged - wouldn't you agree, Dr. Wilson?)
#97 - you're telling me to update my book? At least my political admiration goes for people who lived during the last 100 years...Taft and Lodge were both exemplars of the American republic as it should be. (BTW, Taft strongly opposed the Klan, so perhaps that's why no one likes him here?)
#97 - and by the way, Robert A. Taft died in 1953.
Scott, 94. If Lodge and Taft are the best you can do for a non-Southern conservatism, you have proved my point.
Who honours or listens to these people today? What legacy have they left that still has any effect or inspires anyone? How do they look compared to Washington, Jefferson, Calhoun, and Lee?
And since you are concerned with "racism," you might note that Lodge believed not only that whites were superior to blacks but that New England Anglo-Saxons were superior to the motley herd of other white Americans.
Scott, you obviously think it is the duty of the benevolent, totalitarian state to decide what is best for everyone and social engineering is progress. You consider this conservative?
The difference between the Rockefeller wing and the Taft wing was the modern equivalent of the difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican party. Both believe in mammoth, all-powerful, centralized government and "progress" towards a more "equitable" socialist utopia. They merely disagree on the speed at which this should happen.