Who Was this "Great Liberator?"
Thomas DiLorenzo calls attention to a vital fact that demolishes the popular view that one of Lincoln's primary motives for opposing secession in 1861 was his distaste for slavery. Precisely the opposite was the case.
It is well known that, in an effort to promote compromise, a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that forever forbade interference with slavery in states where it already existed. Lincoln referred to the proposal, the Corwin Amendment, in his First Inaugural, stating that he was not opposed to the amendment, since it merely made explicit the existing constitutional arrangement regarding slavery. Of course, Lincoln was here characteristically mendacious; nothing in the constitution prior to the amendment prohibited amendments to end slavery. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (14)
Steve Hogan
I vaguely recall my high school social studies classes. What little of the Civil War they managed to cover consisted of the usual nonsense: Lincoln was a great man exhibiting national leadership in a time of turmoil. Oh, and he freed the slaves!
Never was there any mention of the blatantly unconstitutional acts, the crass motivations behind his murderous policies, or his willingness to destroy people to further his own ends. In short, Abe was a truly evil man and America's first dictator.
Only in retrospect does one fully recognize that public education isn't meant to impart knowledge. Rather, it is intended to propagandize. It is books like these that allow me to "unlearn" the lessons from my high school days. Many thanks to Dr. DiLorenzo for helping me to discover the truth.
Published: July 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Cyd Malone
The only good politician is a dead politician.
Published: July 12, 2007 12:51 PM
C. Cathey
Cyd-
"The only good politician is a dead politician."
I disagree for 2 reasons...
1) Dead politicians become martyrs.
2) Too many good guys end up dead for even 1 dead politician.
Let me rephrase your statment:
The only good politician is an unknown politician.
The only good politician is a powerless politician.
The only good politician is a the politician in range.
CC
Published: July 12, 2007 1:28 PM
Stefan Jovanovich
I hope that the standard of civility will extend to Mr. Gordon in the future. Describing Lincoln as "characteristically mendacious" has no support among the testimonies of Lincoln's clients, fellow attorneys or his political allies and opponents, and neither Mr. Gordon nor Mr. DiLorenzo has offered any direct testimony from anyone claiming that Lincoln was an habitual liar. Mr. Gordon's brief against Lincoln seems to be that Lincoln was a hypocrite for supporting the abolition of slavery but not being in favor of absolute political and social equality for former slaves. He then joins Mr. DiLorenzo in accepting Lysander Spooner's conspiracy theory about the true motivations for Lincoln and "the North". If Lincoln was a hypocrite for not believing in racial equality, his hypocrisy was no greater than that of his countrymen. Very few of Lincoln's fellow Americans believed that black-skinned people should be entitled to civil equality. They had, with a few more exceptions, the same reservations about women of all skin colors. Ulysses Grant was a rare exception - on both counts; and he remains a reviled figure to this day for holding to the astonishing notion that men and women of all colors should have equal rights. As for Spooner's conspiracy theory, about which Mr. DiLorenzo is so passionate, it has at least one serious flaw. The tariff interests of the farmers in the corn belt from Ohio to Iowa were exactly the same as those of cotton planters in the South; yet they were the most dedicated supporters of Lincoln and the War. Spooner is an interesting figure and not a man without merit, but by the end of his life he had quarreled with every friend and become a bitter, solitary crank. Harry Jaffa's hagiography of Lincoln deserves to be criticized, as does the standard high school canned biography; but their refusals to recognize Lincoln's faults should not be a justification for exaggerated criticisms that are even further from the historical truth.
Published: July 12, 2007 2:44 PM
Quenton
Lincoln was not the only American president who though that the freed slaves should repatriated elsewhere.
Thomas Jefferson stated this view as well. He didn't hold this view because he didn't like blacks, however. He believed that when they were freed (a personal goal of his since before he ever became involved in politics) that the social tensions between blacks and whites would be far too strong to ever co-exist peacefully. He was right to a certain extent.
I would certainly like to know Lincoln's reasons for his support or repatiration. Was it simple dislike of negros or because he forsaw the problems that Jefferson saw? Is there any solid evidence either way?
Published: July 12, 2007 4:51 PM
George Gaskell
The tariff interests of the farmers in the corn belt from Ohio to Iowa were exactly the same as those of cotton planters in the South.
That is not correct. The South had much less in the way of manufacturing industry than Ohio and the North, and thus a protectionist tariff wold raise the price that Northern industry could charge and still be competitive with Europe. Ohio had substantial agriculture, as all states did then, but had a greater extent of development in factory goods than the South, and was thus less dependent on imports, and the beneficiary of a tariff hike, which they got.
Also, Ohio's agriculture interests were clamoring for federal canal, road and railroad money to a greater extent than the South, which had more navigable waterways that led directly to oceans. Ohio was therefore in line to be one of the primary beneficiaries of Lincoln's proposed "internal improvements" campaign. Ohioans were therefore expecting to receive a federal bailout by voting for Lincoln and keeping those federal tariff revenues up. Ohio needed a bailout because of its spectacular economic failure in its state-sponsored canal-building program of the earlier 1800s. (I believe it was Ohio, in addition to other states, that had made state and local subsidies for internal improvements unconstitutional, due to the vast waste, fraud and mismanagement they experienced.)
But, despite its subsidy woes, there was always a sizable pro-subsidy contingent, in Ohio and other Northern states, that just wanted that federal money.
Published: July 12, 2007 7:01 PM
Philemon
Stefan Jovanovich claims that the charge was made that Lincoln was a “hypocrite” or guilty of “hypocrisy” on the abolition of slavery in the review posted here. In Mr. Gordon’s review of Mr. DiLorenzo’s book, I found no mention of “hypocrisy” or of Lincoln being a “hypocrite.”
Perhaps, Mr. Jovanovich can assist me and find the actual quote for me in which Lincoln is so described in Mr. Gordon's review.
Published: July 12, 2007 7:41 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Ill take the bait Philemon.
Lincoln, who believed that people who wanted to abandon the constitution should be killed, abandoned the bill of the rights himself.
Not just hypocrisy, murderous hypocrisy.
Published: July 12, 2007 8:55 PM
Brian McCandliss
I think we need to focus solely on the central issue of state sovereignty, otherwise all facts about Lincoln will just be dismissed as "Lincoln-hating." Contrarily, proving state sovereignty will reveal Lincoln as being in the same league as Hitler and Hussein.
Published: July 12, 2007 10:52 PM
Matt
"The tariff interests of the farmers in the corn belt from Ohio to Iowa were exactly the same as those of cotton planters in the South."
Tariff on Corn? Was corn exported? if it was it was very little compared to the cotton exports of the south, its main export! No wonder they seceded. They were being financially milked by the North.
Published: July 12, 2007 11:10 PM
jay
To say that the southern white minority in the US at the time of Civil War was being milked by the industrial north overlooks the fact that through Jefferson's three-fifths provision the US government was dominated by southern & southern leaning policy makers. most major legislation up to that time was inordinately weighted toward the south. an additional danger encountered when re-writing history is that contemporary viewpoints and mores are thrust upon a society that saw things very differently than we do today. the fact that Lincoln may not have been similarly outraged at what we would see as bigotry and racial discrimination in the 21st century simply demonstrates that he was in line with his times. he was also acutely aware of how to lead change, including the fact that it takes time for the collective conscience of a nation to throw off something that has become engrained in its economics, social constructs and psyche. even during woodrow wilson's administration, black regiments were segregated from whites. Lincoln did however, speak out loudly against the collusion between his predecessor and Justice Taney on the Dred Scott decision--another policy decision written to the benefit of southerners at the expense of northern and territorial wishes to prohibit slavery north of the mason/dixon.
Published: July 13, 2007 10:14 AM
George Gaskell
most major legislation up to that time was inordinately weighted toward the south.
The only way in which legislation was "inordinately weighted toward the South" was that the North was not robbing the South quite as extensively as it could have.
What you consider "inordinate" depends entirely on what you consider to be the baseline reference for what is normal and appropriate.
Published: July 13, 2007 12:12 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Note 1 states "If the Corwin Amendment had been adopted, what would have happened had a national consensus developed that slavery should be abolished? To accomplish this, two amendments would have been required: one to repeal the Corwin Amendment and another to abolish slavery."
That's incorrect. All that would have been necessary - and in fact far better than outright abolition - would have been to put in place and carry through the sort of things that had led to the organic end of slavery elsewhere (I don't mean everywhere else).
I'll just state the measures, without proof. I'll go into the reasons in further discussion, if anyone else is interested.
(1) Consolidate and reaffirm the measures that many slave codes had, forbidding slaves being freed against their wills; make this provision only cut in after the age of seven, say.
(2) Impose minimum standards of slaves' board, lodging, education, sanitation, flight and health insurance etc., on penalty of fines and/or forfeiture.
(3) Set up a hypothecated Pigovian poll tax on slaves, with a sliding scale according to age, sex, etc., to fund slave patrols and returns instead of letting the cost of policing fall on the wider tax base (much of this would go to northern states).
(4) Set up a legal framework to allow slaves to buy themselves out on mortgages, as freedmen who can lose their contingent freedom.
(5) Allow slaves being sold first refusal on themselves, i.e. the right to match any price offered.
(6) Run a proportion of the new funds into buyouts, on the principle that that reduces flight and thus policing costs.
Essentially, this puts in the sort of costs and pathways that the Roman Empire faced and which lasted until the Middle Ages in Europe. It's unlikely that slavery could survive more than a couple of generations under this, and any slaves remaining under a transition would mostly be ageing volunteers seeing out their time. As I said, I'll leave detailed reasons until anyone who wants requests them.
Published: July 14, 2007 6:05 AM
Anonymous Coward
The real, non selective quote:
He is merely laying down the duties of the federal government in the states. He also says the mail will go through.
Nothing even close to him saying he would invade a state *because* of tariffs but that he would invade if they prevented the federal government from performing their stated duties.
Published: July 24, 2007 12:48 PM