The Speech
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Thursday, January 18, 2007 20:22
VIEWED: 3830
PAGE 3 of 4
Oh yeah - try not payin the master his cut(taxes) and see how free you really are.
You asked for it....
Requested Linkage
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html
Quote:
In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having 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." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."
Dilorenzo can in fact, prove that claim - it's historically documented fact.
Lincoln is also the guy who had NYC shelled by artillery in response to draft riots because people did not wish to be cannon fodder for his ambitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots
The union tactical doctrine seemed at times to be "just bury them in bodies, theirs, ours, who cares, we'll get more", Grant's own troops called him a butcher for good reason, especially after Cold Harbor
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor )
as compared to (initially) a very high percentage of the southern forces beiong volunteers, fighting and dying for something they believed in rather than being forced to fight for something they didn't - not a moral judgement this, but a simple statement of how things were.
At the end of it all, the south really had nobody LEFT to stand up and fight, the attrition of their forces was so horrific that widows and orphans were the bulk of southern population for a good long while.
(Side note: Forced Conscription is technically a form of slavery in and of itself and more horrifying in experience than any other.)
He was in fact hated at times more than the confederacy, even by his own people, who made their will known quite strongly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Fizzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Riot
As with any war, most folk didn't really want it, especially if they had to fight it.
Constitution ? Habeus Corpus ? Due Process ? WHo gives a damn ?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ProvostMarshal.htm
Freedom of the press ? in your dreams - many of those arbitrary arrests were newsies that Lincoln and supporters felt were 'disloyal' and thus subjected to arrest, and placed in the civil war version of gitmo.
And noteably, he did not seek a congressional declaration of war before acting.
The man was a monster, and it was against his ilk that the founding fathers put certain provisions in the constitution and forbade a standing army, for when you have a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.
He didn't preserve the Republic, he destroyed it, in favor of the bloated parasitic monster that the FedGov has become.
Was he somehow "Right" in doing so ? - I don't feel qualified to make that judgement, myself, in all honesty, but personally I doubt it.
It wasn't nearly as simple an issue as capsule history classes make it out to be, nor were the politicians of either side particularly noble or virtuous.. but the historical record of fact shows without a doubt that the man was right up there with Papa Doc, Pinochet, Hitler and others of that ilk.
If you can justify what Abe did, then you can similarly justify Hitlers own actions in unifying HIS country - and for myself, i'll have none of it.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and watching anyone emulate those actions makes me nervous, especially some texan who's not half the leader Abe was.
(Yes, I give him that, iron-fisted tyrant that he was, Abe had the charisma and oratory skill to make folks do what he wanted.)
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FremD,
I hope you take no offense but ...
I take it you were born and raised in the South? If so maybe you could explain the thinking to me.
From what you said, the South was fighting for the right to own slaves. The North (Lincoln specifically) was fighting to extend federal authority. So you are on the side of the South, FOR your personal freedom from the Federal government but also FOR the right to own people. And you are AGAINST the North (Federal government) and the AGAINST the abolition of slavery. N'est-pas?
Which represents the greater freedom to you? states rights or outlawing slavery?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s your idea slavery, huh? Try living in a society were there are no roads, no fireman, no teachers, no military, no policemen and see how free you really are. I’m not a fan of taxes, but necessarily equating them to slavery is kind of harsh.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh yeah - try not payin the master his cut(taxes) and see how free you really are.
That being said, here’s a personal anecdote about taxes. One year I worked especially hard in order to get a project done on an advanced timetable because some higher-ups wanted it early. I came in early, worked late and weekends putting in extra hours of work that I generally never billed into the project, was never even paid overtime. I didn’t do any of this expecting a reward, but one day I was rewarded for all my work with a spot bonus of $1000.00. Hardly made up for the extra hours I put in, but it could turn a $1300 42” plasma tv into a $300 42” plasma tv. Yet when it finally came, it was just around $500! The Man took half my plasma tv money, when I worked extra for the bastard! We’ll see if I work that hard again.
No taxation is not slavery, but it sure as hell will wreak havoc on a countries production potential.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue:
Nah, the south was fighting for (primarily) an end to what they saw as northern exploitation and economic warfare (See Also: Morril Tarrif) as well as state sovereignity and government by consent of the governed.
As stated in an 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury-
" The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic (a voluntary union of states) to a national sectional despotism."
Slavery was an issue, sure, but neither the only, nor the primary, and lets face it, the practice was soon to die out regardless, most other countries phased it out via compensated emancipation rather than violence, but as a general rule slavery as an american institution was already doomed.
One must remember that the US banned importation of slaves in 1808 (although i'm sure a few smugglers did good business) and the general consensus of folk didn't own any - our whole society was changing to a point where folks didn't have to spend so much effort merely to survive and thus got to thinking about things beyond putting food on the table, and many of them viewed slavery with a vague disgust, if not outright revulsion.. a general enlightenment of society as a whole is repeatedly described by authors of the period.
I do think that the harsh measures of the time, particularly the reconstruction, led to the rise of the Klan and caused a social turbulence that continues to plague us to this day - whether that would have happened had the institution of slavery been allowed to expire via 'natural causes' I couldn't say, but those actions fed into a lot of the more severe racism in the south in later years.
In fact Rue, I was born in Maryland, which historically got stomped pretty viciously by that man, and yes, a seething hatred of him and his legacy does fester a little, especially when every republican governor since had crapped all over the state and smirked while doing it.
The greater freedom is the consent of the governed, again, I do not believe the institution of slavery in the US would have endured the industrial revolution, especially not when you look at the violent reactions to the attempted corporate slavery at the time.
Finn: That's just my perception of it.
I got no problem with paying for the things necessary to provide enough national infrastructure to support our society, such as it is, but I got a BIG problem with payin for stuff like shiny new aircraft carriers and missle subs so that people like shrub can play Ceasar, and I have a pretty nasty issue with say... payin for the bombs we just dropped on Somalia.
Wouldn't be so bad if we had a CHOICE - if there was, say, a 1040XL or something that allowed us to choose where the money went and vote with our money on what it would be used for... that'd be interesting, especially when people went "WTF?!" and started de-funding the pork, wouldn't it ?
As a self-employed, independant contractor, and one who pays for his own gas, plus manifest, I regularly stare down the barrel of tax rates higher than 50%, on top of the fuel tax, sales taxes, excise taxes AND sales tax on the full price of a product(tobacco) who's price mostly consists of excise tax (yes, that's a tax ON a tax, believe it or not) - property taxes, you get the picture - I work damn hard, and at the end of the day have to struggle to put food on the table because the FedGov has taken most of my money and used a chunk of it to blow up people in foreign countries with.
And what happens if you tell the strawboss(IRS) to piss off ?
They send armed thugs(police) to do violence and/or incarceration unto you.
Taxes as a general rule can be ruinous to a society, the american revolution started over them, and they lead to Shay's Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, Tarring and Feathering of Tax Collectors (A practice I feel should be reinstated..) and all manner of social upheaval,
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
FremD,
I hope you take no offense but ...
I take it you were born and raised in the South? If so maybe you could explain the thinking to me.
From what you said, the South was fighting for the right to own slaves. The North (Lincoln specifically) was fighting to extend federal authority. So you are on the side of the South, FOR your personal freedom from the Federal government but also FOR the right to own people. And you are AGAINST the North (Federal government) and the AGAINST the abolition of slavery. N'est-pas?
Which represents the greater freedom to you? states rights or outlawing slavery?
My question to the both of you would be did the abolition of slavery as implemented really benefit the people in question ?
As I have read, many perhaps even a majority were turned out, jobless, and without means after the war. Even without the war there was no plan to provide for the education or welfare of these people, or to provide for the protection of whatever rights they were to be offered. Some of Lincolns own party advanced the idea of simply rounding up the former slaves and forcible shipping them back to Africa.
I would submit that either FremD is correct in saying that slavery only became the primary issue in the hindsight of history, or the US government was as shortsighted, corrupt and incompetent then as they appear to be today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, General Lee made some efforts postwar to see to the education of former slaves and various ideas to assist them in integration into society as freemen, wiki has a few comments on it but I don't have time to dig up links at the moment.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, General Lee made some efforts postwar to see to the education of former slaves and various ideas to assist them in integration into society as freemen, wiki has a few comments on it but I don't have time to dig up links at the moment.
-Frem
Yes, but Lee was not the US government and he was on the side of the South in the war.
My point is Lincoln's government had no real plan past tanking the economy of the South, if the issue had of been slavery... some policy ideas would exist, and may even have been enacted after the war... instead of leadership in that regard segregation, dred scott , etc became law of the land.
And against the best efforts of Lee ( who fought against Lincoln ) and many others, the former slaves were in some cases worse off for what, a hundred years until the civil rights movement really picked up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a long sad history of many successful post Civil War black communities - torched and murdered into oblivion. Until the blacks learned that though they weren't slaves anymore they weren't free either. They just needed to learn their place.
Given that history, and the fact that the South was not only NOT looking to abolish slavery as an institution but was trying to expand it to new states and territories - I'd say the South was far from an innocent victim.
It still reads to me - if you support the Southern Civil War agenda, you de facto support its slavery.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now yer just baiting me for free history lessons, I can tell....
While wholly irrelevant to whether or not Lincoln was the monstrous tyrant I paint him as, imma offer the following links in respect to this.
The issue was far, far more complex than that, slaveholders were a small minority (placed at 15% or less) of the south, and many southerners viewed the practice as repulsive themselves - it wasn't ever a matter of whether or not, it was a matter of when and how.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatecause.htm
To most of the men while raised up arms for the defense of the confederacy, it was a complete non-issue, and as I stated, the politicians of either side were not particularly virtuous, and a lot of grievances on both sides had merit, sure.
I do think the reconstruction was pretty horrific by any standards, and the integration of freed slaves into society was handled in the most incompetent, shortsighted, halfass fashion that caused a multitude of problems.
This all, of course, has little to do with the primary issue of whether Lincoln was a madman, but if you have additional historic questions, just go on an ask them.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To kind of riff off Rue here, there was a period (1865-1890) where freed blacks spread throughout what is now the lower 48. Urban. Rural. Didn't matter. After 1890, through a variety of methods (many of them involving violence or the threat of violence), black populations were forced into the inner city. At least in the North, Midwest and West. The South had a couple hundred years practice in their own racist infrastructure set-up to deal with uppity negroes.
Become too successful? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.
Engage in a consensual relationship with a white woman? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.
Stand up against a lynch mob? Get lynched or burned out. And your neighbors, too.
Raise a ruckus because your husband was lynched? Get lynched and have your unborn baby ripped from your womb and stomped on by a boot.
The Ku Klux Klan or, as I prefer to think of them, the most successful American terrorist organization in our history, was a manifestation of a greater sickness. How do you own human beings? How do you create a new country dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while trafficking in human beings? You do it by convincing yourself that they aren't human. You do it by preaching that they don't have souls. You do it by training up your children to these beliefs. None of that goes away with the freeing of the slaves.
David Neiwert is in the middle of an excellent series on American eliminationism. I highly recommend the last two chapters. Quite long. But very eye-opening.
Strange Fruit: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/12/eliminationism-in-america-vi.html
Quote:
from Strange Fruit (from a 1918 lynching, some details in spoilers)
...
It began on May 16 when a white landowner in rural Valdosta, Georgia, was shot to death at his home. His wife accused a black man named Sidney Johnson, and a lynch mob soon formed with the purpose of carrying out summary justice for the farmer's murder. However, when it was unable to locate Johnson, the mob turned its wrath on five black men who'd had the misfortune of being in the vicinity at the time and lynched them instead. Among the five was Haynes Turner, a former employee of the murdered farmer.
Turner's wife, Mary, was eight months pregnant, and when she heard of the murder, she vowed publicly to find the men responsible, swear out warrants against them, and ensure they were punished in the courts. Not surprisingly, her vow to seek justice doomed her; as an Associated Press report of the affair put it, Mary Turner had made "unwise remarks" about the execution of her husband, "and the people, in their indignant mood, took exceptions to her remarks, as well as her attitude." The local sheriff placed her under arrest, reportedly for her protection, but then surrendered her to a mob of several hundred white men and women -- as well as a number of children -- determined to "teach her a lesson."Select to view spoiler:
At a place outside town called Folsom's Bridge, they stripped her, tied her ankles together, and hung her upside down from a tree. Dousing her with gasoline, they slowly roasted her to death. While she was still alive, a man using a knife ordinarily reserved for splitting hogs walked up and cut open the woman's abdomen. "Out tumbled the prematurely born child," wrote a news reporter covering the event. "Two feeble cries it gave -- and received for the answer the heel of a stalwart man, as life was ground out of the tiny form." Hundreds of bullets were then fired into Mary Turner's body. Sated, the mob left her body by the roadside. She and her child were buried in a shallow grave near the bridge.
After Sundown:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/01/eliminationism-in-america-vii.htm
l
Quote:
from After Sundown (an excerpt of a 1902 NYT article)
...
Negro Driven Away
The Last One Leaves Decatur, Ind., Owing to Threats Made
The last Negro has left Decatur, Ind. His departure was caused by the anti-Negro feeling. About a month ago a mob of 5NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME