tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post3407971474493628726..comments2023-10-10T05:22:51.727-04:00Comments on The Blanks Slate: A Libertarian Defense of LincolnJPBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16468994137056889334noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-60565433628481186552012-07-10T23:26:24.697-04:002012-07-10T23:26:24.697-04:00Very nicely done, I would like to add that anyone ...Very nicely done, I would like to add that anyone claiming a "war of northern aggression" or that Lincoln was at fault for secession is very wrong. The south started seceding before Lincoln was even president, he had only been elected at the time so it was more an issue of Southerners, having almost always gotten their way in Presidential elections, who were not willing to peacefully transition to a president they did not support.Bull Moosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03025252142315355538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-80721623993269056952011-02-01T21:51:16.266-05:002011-02-01T21:51:16.266-05:00An excellent original post, JPB - and some good fo...An excellent original post, JPB - and some good follow-up comments. You make crystal clear what the "libertarian neo-Confederates" of this world are actually defending.<br /><br />The Claremont review of the "real" Lincoln book (what a laugh - and what a violation of truth-in-labeling) is just superb. The book is chock full of out-of-context quotes and tortured logic. The fact that the author now acknowledges just one of the more obvious falsehoods is no evidence of intellectual honesty; it's just an indication of how "careless" and "half-educated" he is - just as Krannawitter says.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-21756725401000144862010-07-05T04:29:10.009-04:002010-07-05T04:29:10.009-04:00I don't take the Krannawitter review of The Re...I don't take the Krannawitter review of The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo seriously. Here is the response of DiLorenzo and others to him -<br /><br />http://tiny.cc/g4cjq<br /><br />DiLorenzo acknowledged months before the review that the quote in his book about Lincoln saying that blacks could never be equal, only Siamese twins could ever be equal is out of context. He said that that was because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should help show you how honest DiLorenzo is.Voluntaryisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02070172298710492866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-74159562646475752082009-06-30T09:59:45.878-04:002009-06-30T09:59:45.878-04:00Very good original post! Thank you very much.
I w...Very good original post! Thank you very much.<br /><br />I would like to respond to "Anonymous", and his/her assertion that Lincoln didn’t fight the war to abolish slavery but to preserve the Union. To stress the point he/she cites Lincoln’s famous letter to Horace Greeley of 1862, but leaves out the last sentences of the letter, which are interesting. Also the historic context should be stressed, and how the objectives of the war were extended while it was fought.<br /><br />Let’s first give the quote including the last sentences:<br /><br />“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. […] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”<br /><br />As a matter of fact, at the time Lincoln wrote the letter to Greeley, the Emancipation proclamation was already drafted, but not yet published. Lincoln worried how it would be received by the Northern people and feared that Northern people would reject the proclamation and the extension of the purpose of the war (from only saving the union to saving the union plus ending slavery) and refuse to fight to free slaves. Therefore, the public had to be prepared for the proclamation, and the famous letter to Greeley has to be seen as an attempt to prepare the Northern people that, in order to save the union, it may be necessary to free some or even all slaves. Lincoln also didn’t conceal that personally he is and always was against slavery.<br /><br />For Lincoln, the purpose of the war was initially to preserve the Union as it existed before the war, with slavery. However, in the 1860 presidential campaign, he and the Republican platform fought hard against the extension of slavery to new territories (the Republicans started as an anti-Kansas-Nebraska act party). Lincoln thought slavery wrong, and by containing slavery to where it already existed (and where it was protected by the constitution) it would ultimately be put on the road to extinction. However, he saw that the constitution protected slavery where it existed and didn’t want to break the constitution. He was no radical. So, initially Lincoln fought for saving the union and for saving government for, by and of the people (Government for, by and of the people cannot exist if the losing side doesn’t accept the outcome of an election, but just secedes whenever it is not happy with the outcome. Such a country would be suicidal). But the war dragged on. Neither the North nor the South expected the war to take as long as it did. During the war, many people came to realize that winning the war without removing the very institution that caused it, would do little good. As the case was new, Lincoln had to think anew, and so the purpose of the war shifted during the war was fought. Ending slavery became an objective of the war, but Lincoln had to be careful in the implementation of this objective. He managed to lead the country through this difficult process, and is (in my opinion) rightfully regarded by many as the finest president the county has ever seen.trilli@nnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-40583023473769547782009-06-30T09:58:04.405-04:002009-06-30T09:58:04.405-04:00Very good original post! Thank you very much.
I w...Very good original post! Thank you very much.<br /><br />I would like to respond to "Anonymous", and his/her assertion that Lincoln didn’t fight the war to abolish slavery but to preserve the Union. To stress the point he/she cites Lincoln’s famous letter to Horace Greeley of 1862, but leaves out the last sentences of the letter, which are interesting. Also the historic context should be stressed, and how the objectives of the war were extended while it was fought.<br /><br />Let’s first give the quote including the last sentences:<br /><br />“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. […] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”<br /><br />As a matter of fact, at the time Lincoln wrote the letter to Greeley, the Emancipation proclamation was already drafted, but not yet published. Lincoln worried how it would be received by the Northern people and feared that Northern people would reject the proclamation and the extension of the purpose of the war (from only saving the union to saving the union plus ending slavery) and refuse to fight to free slaves. Therefore, the public had to be prepared for the proclamation, and the famous letter to Greeley has to be seen as an attempt to prepare the Northern people that, in order to save the union, it may be necessary to free some or even all slaves. Lincoln also didn’t conceal that personally he is and always was against slavery.<br /><br />For Lincoln, the purpose of the war was initially to preserve the Union as it existed before the war, with slavery. However, in the 1860 presidential campaign, he and the Republican platform fought hard against the extension of slavery to new territories (the Republicans started as an anti-Kansas-Nebraska act party). Lincoln thought slavery wrong, and by containing slavery to where it already existed (and where it was protected by the constitution) it would ultimately be put on the road to extinction. However, he saw that the constitution protected slavery where it existed and didn’t want to break the constitution. He was no radical. So, initially Lincoln fought for saving the union and for saving government for, by and of the people (Government for, by and of the people cannot exist if the losing side doesn’t accept the outcome of an election, but just secedes whenever it is not happy with the outcome. Such a country would be suicidal). But the war dragged on. Neither the North or the South expected the war to take as long as it did. During the war, many people came to realize that winning the war without removing the very institution that caused it, would do little good. As the case was new, Lincoln had to think anew, and so the purpose of the war shifted during the war waqs fought. Ending slavery became an objective of the war, but Lincoln had to be careful in the implementation of this objective. He managed to lead the country through this difficult process, and is (in my opinion) rightfully regarded by many as the finest president the county has ever seen.trilli@nnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-84587947203152532392009-02-12T23:52:00.000-05:002009-02-12T23:52:00.000-05:00Lincoln believed his duty as president was to pres...Lincoln believed his duty as president was to preserve the Union. The problem is that as the chief executive, his foremost duty was also to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. In many ways, he made a mockery of it. <BR/><BR/>The South certainly went to war to preserve slavery. You show that very clearly and I don't see how anyone purporting to be a historian or a scholar of that era can honestly argue otherwise. It is embarrassing to watch DiLorenzo and his ilk attempt to argue the opposite. But Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. He even said so in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley:<BR/><BR/>"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..."<BR/><BR/>Lincoln's objective was not freedom but to keep all of the states under the control of the federal government. Put this way, I find Lincoln's goal objectionable.<BR/><BR/>Southern secession is a difficult topic because I certainly do not support the South's reasons for seceding, but neither do I support Lincoln's attempt to keep the Union together.<BR/><BR/>-Billy (Down the street from LvMI. I with they would secede from Auburn)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-10985935961530744322009-02-12T17:06:00.000-05:002009-02-12T17:06:00.000-05:00Great post.From what I know of the period (mostly ...Great post.<BR/><BR/>From what I know of the period (mostly from Shelby Foote's Civil War), preserving the union was the primary motivation for the north in the Civil War. It couldn't have been the abolition of slavery because Lincoln was offering to permanently protect slavery in the southern states via the original 13th amendment if the southern states came back into the union. I think this takes abolition off the table as a primary motivation.Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12418014418681647979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-44361306292074543012009-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:002009-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:00internal wars of secession are considerably differ...internal wars of secession are considerably different than invading another country and throwing off some oppressive political yoke. <BR/><BR/>Can you explain yourself more because I don't see how throwing off a dictator in another country is equal to quelling a rebellion within your own. Other than "war" and "oppression", of an entirely different sort might I add, I don't see how they are similar. Whether the Kurds were right to secede or not is really not our business.JPBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16468994137056889334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-68411104107042262052009-02-12T15:37:00.000-05:002009-02-12T15:37:00.000-05:00According to your logic Bush should be celebrated ...According to your logic Bush should be celebrated for liberating the Kurds in Iraq because they were held as a sub-ethnicity in Iraq. There are many other parallels but I think the case makes itself fairly obviously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-51263397933007190572009-02-12T14:52:00.000-05:002009-02-12T14:52:00.000-05:00Thanks for the link - I tend to place very little ...Thanks for the link - I tend to place very little stock in what LRC/Mises type people say, but that one was always niggling at the back of my mind, and never really looked into it. <BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-14049149050056960952009-02-12T14:43:00.000-05:002009-02-12T14:43:00.000-05:00Tim,as tempting as it is to air my feelings about ...Tim,<BR/><BR/>as tempting as it is to air my feelings about Mises/LRC et al., I'll put up this review of DiLorenzo's book instead. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp<BR/> <BR/>As for the argument itself, again I'd look to the documents--the word "tariff" doesn't come up once in their stated reasons for secession. Check out the docs themselves and CTRL F. <BR/><BR/>Mississippi, and other Deep South states to a lesser degree, directly benefited from the sugar tariff, so it isn't as if the North/Republicans were alone in this. <BR/><BR/>And how many people do you know would accept a war based on import duties?JPBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16468994137056889334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-83595067865517457862009-02-12T14:31:00.000-05:002009-02-12T14:31:00.000-05:00I'll freely admit that my knowledge of this pe...I'll freely admit that my knowledge of this period of US history is very limited, so a question.<BR/><BR/>While you partially address this in point 4, and conceding the evidence the south seceded on the basis of slavery,whats your response to the contention that Lincoln effectively engineered the situation over protectionist issues, as argued by Mises type people [ie http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=952&FS=Lincoln%27s+Tariff+War]?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com