How do Rothbardians Support DiLorenzo [revised]
I'm going to reposition my argument and start over.
Why do Rothbardians support DiLorenzo's work?
First Premise: The Rothbardian non-aggression principle negates "slavery" -- period. Google It.
----Massive Scale Rape
----Massive Scale Sex-Slavery (selling - prostitution)
----Massive Scale Sodomy (young boys)
----Feeding babies to Aligators for Sport (or leaving them out in the eliment -- forced abortions -- especially during recessions owing to laws of "fair" treatment)
It was the biggest Abomination on American Soil (at scale)
----Might be 2nd to American Indian Land Theft and Genocide (per capita)
----The Rape, Sex Slavery, and Sodomy put it over the top.
Second Premise: The Rothbardian self-ownership axiom. Google It.
----Selling off and Destruction of the Family
Third Premise: DiLorenzo's book is full of fallacies or out-and-out "rephrasings"
Example: DiLorenzo quoted Lincoln as saying; "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation."
Example of what Lincoln actually said: ""If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."
I could go on all day.
My point is: "What's the goal of the work -- How does this benefit History when his conclusions are based on omissions and rephrasing of fact? How does this benefit the Liberty Movement?
Octobox
I can't disagree with ThomasD paraphrase, as I argued below
Example: DiLorenzo quoted Lincoln as saying; "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation." By Lincoln's own words he is guilty.
But I still don't get the question: "Why do Rothbardians support DiLorenzo's work?"
Rothbard's non-aggression principle negates slavery. Where does Thomas D. endorse slavery? Same question as for point #2.
As for ThomasD historical scholarship #3, I still am finding no significant issues.
Here is the transcipt of one debate I found:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xHgErpU0jhYJ:www.h...
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
Kennedy and Lincoln assassinated by Rothschilds
According to Kovacs: "The Rothschild bank financed (the supply chain)in the North and the Paris branch of the same bank financed the South, which is the real reason the Civil War was ignited and allowed to follow its long, and bloody course. The more Americans that dies, the more money the Rothschild bankers made."
Lincoln refused direct money from the Rothschilds but his suppliers were getting huge lines of credit to support the North and the French Rothschilds bank was supply the south (only directly).
The Southern Elite was knowingly in bed with the Rothschilds.
According to John W. Booth's grand-daughter her grandpa was never assassinated instead lived off a pension in England -- after Lincoln.
She said Knights of the Golden Circle rescued him to England.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Paul_S:
Lincoln never made that quote -- That's my point.
The quote he did make was much more eloquent and spoke of the accepted model (of those in the North and the South) that agreed Blacks should go back to Africa if freed.
This was a "philosophy" of the time -- it was not Lincoln's nor did he create the idea of it.
Lincoln adopted the accepted model as one of many ways he attempted to end slavery.
I never said he "endorsed" slavery -- What I'm saying is that he 100% knew (as do the Rothbardians) that Lincoln tried "buy-outs" and the south refused. He tried just freeing them and the North refused. Yet millions in the North and the South wanted to see it ended.
Take it this way -- the period was full of contradictions. Gen Lee of the south wanted the union to remain in tact -- he argued for this prior to changing his mind and fighting for his native "virginia" (was it?) or "south carolina?
My point is why does DiLorenzo misquote Lincoln, put words in his mouth, and never mention that the Rothschilds were heavily subsidizing the South -- extending huge lines of credit prior to the civil war to fuel session?
DiLorenzo gets us to shift our focus from the multiplicity of reasons we went to war and suggests that one-man can take a country into war against her will, hahahahaha.
My argument on the first two tenents of Rothbardianism (non-aggression and self-ownership as being "negative rights") is that Slavery far exceedingly violated them then did heading into a war that monetarily should of only lasted 6 months to a year.
The South had no capital to wage long term warfare. They were financed by England and France (two main houses of Rothschild).
Remember Lincoln suggested an alternative currency not backed by the Rothschilds -- later on assassinated by the Rothschild agent Booth.
DiLorenzo states Lincoln never tried a buyout -- this was a flat lie.
He also states that Lincoln never made anti-slavery his focus prior to 1860 -- which was absolutely absurd -- nearly all of his public speeches were decrying slavery.
Racist Northerners were aligned with Anti-Slavery Northerners -- It was a very slippery slope and Lincoln did not create either.
Again I'm not a Pro-Lincoln guy.
I'm anti-rothbardian -- or atleast the 20% of their philosophy that they regular use and disregard to make their propertarian arguments.
Rothbardian Homesteading is very similar the Founding Father's Republicanism. It promises the same things but would lead back toward economic-fuedalism and economic-fascism -- because it is not a 100% free-market model. Once you open the door to "rights" everyone wants them.
We need to get he MIses back into Mises Institute, smile.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
War is a lesser evil than slavery?
octobox says" My argument on the first two tenents of Rothbardianism (non-aggression and self-ownership as being "negative rights") is that Slavery far exceedingly violated them then did heading into a war.
>I would say war is slavery: master over slave, one man steals the free life of another. Both are deadly to individuals and cultures. The Republican War of 1860 did damage the republic and reconstruction added insult to the injuries.
The economic costs of the containment of slavery involved geopolitical efforts with high economic costs.
But there were also psychological and emotional costs to being a slave owner. A burden earned through the owner's tyranny. How long before they realized that it was in their own best interest to abandon slavery?
These costs were shared by those without slaves. All cost and little benefit. Economics suggest and early end to slavery.
Instead of five years of war, what could have been produced with five years of political suasion. What would the effect on modern life have been if the southern states had voluntarily abandoned slavery.
But once war was engaged battle lines were drawn sides were taken, rule of law replaced by rules of war and its despicable results.
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
Paul_S: Hahahaha "the republican war"
It was not a war of aggression like Iraq or Afganhistan or Pakistan or Vietnam where those countries did "nothing" to our civilian populace -- in fact they did nothing to our foreign businesses trading assets in those regions either -- We were buy up their Opium or Oil in all isntances.
The South was allowing a foreign hostile (once our "masters") to gain power footholds in this country. They were striving to drive slavery into the West and wanted control of our Ports there (not for the South to "run" but their Banking Cartel Masters -- The Rothschilds of England and France).
The South was NOT going to abandon slavery -- There was no talks of it (on a serious level) in the South either.
You must understand that the "demon" within Slavery was forced Prostitution, Ritual Rape, and the Sodomy of "most" African Boys. It wasn't just the menial labor. Also, an even bigger "demon" was the belief that people's children were not their own nor their wives and could be "rented" out or sold off willy-nilly.
The biggest thing you are missing is that "Americans" were being "enslaved" -- "Americans" were having their land stolen and massacred (Indians) in the name of "prosperity and god." And American Children were being raped and sodomized -- for purposes of subjugation (control) and for pleasure.
The South was commiting atrocities on Americans -- That's what was happening -- period!
The worst evil (the boiling festering wound) was the previous 400 years of "bline-eye" and "rationalizations" and "religious perversions"
You call it the "republican war" ---- "as if" --- as if the South hand not initiated it. Yes the North was just as guilty for profiting and encouraging it. But I just want the blame to be properly assessed.
So - yes. Being that slavery, session, nothern hesitation, and southern sexual addiction, and the Rothschilds were all intermarried -- 'war' was the lesser of the evils. The "war" had been waging for 400 years. A "war" against humanity and free-will.
Lincoln properly assessed the war should only take 6 months. Giving the "real" economy of the South and North. Logistically it should not have gone on much longer. However, The Rothschilds (normally the arch-nemisis of Rothbardians) were subsidizing / giving out massive lines of credit to Norther Merchants (for the supply chain) and even much more so to the South (directly to her leaders and also to her merchants).
It was like all other wars a war of profit.
Only Lincoln defied the Rothschilds and turned down "direct assistance" -- he could not prevent the indirect. Maybe was bit naive here (as we are looking back with rose colored glasses).
Lincoln created the "greenback" and it had no ties to the Rothschilds or their "printing press." Lincoln like Kennedy tried to bust the bank.
The delusion is (for people of our time) to think that "one man" starts wars -- hahahaha. Or that it was a "War of Northern Aggression" -- wow!
The latter being a Southern Propaganda Catch-Phrase. Hey Mises Institute (should be Rothbard Institute) is in the south right? Rothschild / Rothbard, hmmm? Illuminati - Knights of the Golden Circle -- Knights of Malta.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
DiLorenzo's Questionable Scholarship
His scholarship has been called into question several times. I read his book "How Capitalism Saved America" and several of his articles on mises.org
What I've read was excellent, but I've heard about errors in his rehashing the real Lincoln.
I see nothing wrong with prostitution amongst willing adults, btw, at least not on a personal level. I would personally never engage in the practice, but to each their own.
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
Abe: Prostitution?
Slaves were not "willing" prostitutes less you think zero pay, the lash, the threat of children being sold off, or family being murdered if there is no participation to be "willing?"
Now did some of them prefer it or "learn" to enjoy it? Maybe. Just as a 10 year old might come to like sex with her father by the time she's 16 or 17.
I know you are not condoning sex-slavery.
DiLorenzo is not the devil -- I do not revile the man, I promise.
I'm challening him and critiquing Rothbard's Propertarian Philosophy.
I believe Mises to have gotten it right -- of course I've added on to Misesian thought; but my work stands on his shoulders. As does Ron Paul.
In fact I don't know if modern day Rothbardians truly represent Rothbard's teachings or not.
The OP sums up my questioning and argument focus pretty well.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Forced Prostitution
Yes, I in no way condone forced prostitution. Like I said:
I see nothing wrong with prostitution amongst willing adults
I agree with you on Dilorenzo, I worry about his scholarship.
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
Not familiar with the work
But Di Lorenzo sounds like he worked on the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, and maybe moonlighted for Arlen Specter.
We’ve created an online offline 1/2 PRICED GASOLINE CO-OP get half off at the pump through my site below.
http://www.fillerupclub.com/0000/?idFriend=1582
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
Hahahaha -- No -- DiLorenzo is not the devil
I believe the Rothbardians are 80% Misesian -- it's the 20% that kills them.
DiLorenzo's specific work on Lincoln and why the Rothbardians support is the OP Threads main question/debate.
Thanks for the cheap gas
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Question
How is your argument for war any different than Bush's?
----->We were going to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi People.
How is your argument for war any different than Obama's?
------>We are staying in Afghanistan to give them freedom and democracy...sometimes war is just. Or another from the left is the women are treated like property under the Taliban (sounds like slavery).
Now the last I check Paul himself says those arguments are bunk so how is that different than your argument?
---->
We must not let the south secede because 8% of them might be raping slaves. Even though slavery is legal (even in new England) and the border states. Therefore the unions cause is just...we must teach them folks how to live with our guns and bayonets.
Thats the value I see in Dilorenzo He speaks for the 92% of southerners that didn't have slaves. Probably didn't even want war with one of the biggest armies in the world. But they were sure willing to fight and die for a principle that their great grandfathers (in the revolutionary war) did and that was secession from an oppressive state who was going to jack up taxes on them.
Phathead: Answer
"How is your argument for war any different than Bush's?"
----I never made an argument in favor of war -- I made an argument against DiLorenzo and Rothbardians who know for 100% assurity that the South was never going to give up slavery -- there was no indication they were.
#1 They were offered buy-outs (nope -- no counter-offers or negotiations)
#2 England, France, and the South wanted to gain control of the ports in the West -- to further promote Slavery. They wanted slave states in the west as well. For England to regain a foothold in America.
#3 The South was Subsidized before and during the Civil war (by France and England)
#4 Twice France and England threatened (10's of thousands of troops on our borders: Canada and Mexico) to aid the South
#5 The Bank of England (Rothschilds) gave out huge lines of credit to the South before and during the Civil War
#6 The rape was far more pervasive than just the 8% - wow. You really have no idea of the torture. They were sold into sex slavery when crop yields were low. Young boys were sodomized and grown men were castrated to prevent pregnancy. Children were sold off never to be seen again.
My arguments are that slavery was far worse than war (given that the north was unaware of how much aid the south was given by England and France -- supply chains, gold, weapons, and post war contract guarantees; nor that it would last that long or cost that much in lives).
My argument is why when the atrocities of slavery were so much worse, so much more costly (in terms of lives, national character, and innovation), and given the Rothschild energetic support of it would the Rothbardians make arguments in prolonging it?
The First Two Axioms of Rothbardianism are: 1) Non-Aggression Principle and 2) Self-Ownership
Slavery broke these axioms for 400 years and there was no sign of its coming to an end -- contrary it was a push for expansion and more secure ports (San Diego, Los Angeles, Oregon, and Seattle)
Lincoln was assasinated by Booth a familiar associate of Johnson's and a hired-gun of the Rothschilds.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
here is your peace prise Octobox
essentially you endorse the wars Paul speaks against.
Slavery has been around a lot longer than 400 years.
And you are right there was no sign of it coming to an end because there surely weren't any laws passed attempting to ban it (which I take since you continue to ignore that fact you concede that I am right).
The south seceded before Lincoln took office. They exercised their right. Once they were no longer part of the union they were a foreign nation to Lincoln and he was just a belligerent to them as congress tries to be against iran.
No one says the rothbardians were for prolonged slavery. Again just because we are anti FDR does that make us Pro Hitler? You are taking a very complex time and events and trying to simplify it on terms that are complete fallacies. You have overstretched your logic in trying to prove Rothbard as being illogical.
And I would argue against slavery being worse than war. 600,000 dead vs 4 million forced to work for food, clothing, and shelter with a small percentage getting sexually abused. I take the living souls over the dead ones no matter how f'd up their lives may have been. But I have stated before I don't believe in moral equivalency.
Here is my point: The state allowed slavery. There for the state is immoral. You can't turn around and say the state is suddenly moral at the drop of the hat. Slavery wasn't something relegated strictly to those confederate states. It was condoned and granted by the central state.
So why is the war and total war against the south justified. BTW how many slaves do you suppose Sherman killed on his march to the sea? I know a bunch drowned after he destroy a bridge they were trying to cross to follow him. How many starved after his army pillaged anything with in range for themselves? Good thing those people were emancipated at that point though huh?
Phathead: Don't twizzle my words
I've been supporting Ron Paul since '88 -- don't even try that "argument from authority" mess with me.
Rothbardian Axiom (the 1st two) they are both "negative rights" (google it): 1) Non-Aggression (less negative rights are being violated) and 2) Self-Ownership.
Slavery violated the living diaperload out of those axioms.
Lincoln and his advisors determined given the South's economic situation that the war would last 6mos -- maybe 1yr.
But with Rothschild Gold and extensive lines of credit -- the war went way beyond what would of been a natural time table.
In fact Rothschild tried to give Lincoln a ginormous "pot of gold" and Lincoln refused it.
The final straw was when Lincoln tried to break the banking cartel's currency hold.
According to By JOHN E. KOVACS, Editor, "The U. S. Patriot News"
Lincoln and Kennedy both defied the Rothschilds by trying to eliminate Banking Cartel stranglehold on currency. Lincoln created the greenbacks and Kennedy printed U.S Treasury bills and not FRN's.
According to Kovacs. "The Rothschild bank financed the North and the Paris branch of the same bank financed the South, which is the real reason the Civil War was ignited and allowed to follow its long, and bloody course. The more Americans that dies, the more money the Rothschild bankers made. "
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
So these second hand sources/hear say
are better than delorenzo how?
How was Lincoln going to end slavery after war was over in 1 year or six months?
6 month maybe a year....boy that sounds familiar. Doesn't every president and his advisers say that to dupe people into war? Why the hell would anyone believe a word coming their mouth when it comes to war propaganda?
You can keep restating those axioms but until you present anything factual representing A change in slavery policy before 1863 in the union the war wasn't going on to help people live by them.
Once again I still don't see why you can't say I believe in those axioms and I just don't think we should spread them around the world with a armies. Especially when the armies are coming from a place that isn't much better. Its kind of like saying we need to end the gang wars in Afghanistan when there are gang wars raging in DC.
I don't see as a contradiction at all to take that stance. Otherwise how are we any better than the idiots that believe we should use our military to spread "freedom" around the world. South had every right to secede to escape the tariff increase. Since you can't produce any evidence that slavery was going to end any time soon and I can show tariffs were going up real quick. What is left to discuss? It seams pretty clear why rothbardians can support dilorenzo's work.
Phathead: The "second hand" sources are quoting the same
sources as DiLorenzo did -- Remember he didn't go back in time and Live the Era, hahaha.
There are page by page quotes of DiLorenzo and authors who quote and show the original texts DiLorenzo used and subsequently butchered.
That's not an argument. We can see Lincoln saying it #1 We can look at the economic landscape of the South #2 and the North #3.
It was patently obvious that the South could not sustain $2M per day for the entire duration of the war.
You know what -- We should stop here.
You honestly don't see how the two first AXIOMS of Rothbardianism being violated in the most perverse ways for 400 years (with no end in sight) should be "protected?"
Non-Aggression and Self-Ownership
-----You can't see how Slavery was violating it or you can't see why it should make a difference to a Rothbardian who talk about nothing else.
Okay -- Let's just say you win then, I will relent to that reasoning.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
ok
Yea this is going no where. Once again I am not for protecting slavery just because I believe the 13 southern states had every good a reason to secede as the original thirteen colonies did from jolly old England.
Yes I believe it to be horrendous violation of those axioms to enslave someone and the perpetrators should be punished. But what I don't believe in is spreading freedom or those axioms around with armies and navies. I don't see how those two positions are in contradiction with each other.
Sorry I just don't see how this argument is any different than the argument for operation Iraqi freedom was. Especially after you stating "that's not an argument." OK Al Gore. How much bigger was the US army, Navy, and economy than Iraq's? I could have swore I was told by a president and his advisers it was going to be over in 6 months. So #1 and #2 and #3 check. Didn't we have an embargo on them for 10 years? and yep still there
I bet the same words were uttered from king George about the revolutionary war and he had the worlds biggest army, navy,and economy. Seems there must be a theme here. Could it be when you invade a land that doesn't want you there they dare fight back?
Where you get your 2 million a day figure I don't know, but I doubt its validity. For not being a Lincoln worshiper you sure are quick to eat up the propaganda for another glorious war.
A rothbardian who talks about nothing else...hmmm
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=dilorenzo
Just a quick scan but as I suspected out of the many books and articles he has written it appears that only 2 maybe 3 are related to the very original post you put up.
Maybe he gets attention for this work and that's why he talks about it so much. Just a thought $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Do you have a problem with the profit seeking motive too?
PhatHead: You are twisting my words (entirely)
Of course I know you are not in favor of slavery -- I would never accuse you of that nor have I.
You however ARE accusing me of some pretty harsh things.
The biggest thing you are missing is that "Americans" were being "enslaved" -- "Americans" were having their land stolen and massacred (Indians) in the name of "prosperity and god." And American Children were being raped and sodomized -- for purposes of subjugation (control) and for pleasure.
The South was commiting atrocities on Americans -- That's what was happening -- period!
The worst evil (the boiling festering wound) was the previous 400 years of "bline-eye" and "rationalizations" and "religious perversions"
You call it the "republican war" ---- "as if" --- as if the South hand not initiated it. Yes the North was just as guilty for profiting and encouraging it. But I just want the blame to be properly assessed.
So - yes. Being that slavery, session, nothern hesitation, and southern sexual addiction, and the Rothschilds were all intermarried -- 'war' was the lesser of the evils. The "war" had been waging for 400 years. A "war" against humanity and free-will.
Lincoln properly assessed the war should only take 6 months. Giving the "real" economy of the South and North. Logistically it should not have gone on much longer. However, The Rothschilds (normally the arch-nemisis of Rothbardians) were subsidizing / giving out massive lines of credit to Norther Merchants (for the supply chain) and even much more so to the South (directly to her leaders and also to her merchants).
It was like all other wars a war of profit -- FOR THE MONEY MASTERS.
Lincoln (JUST LIKE) Kennedy tried to us the Treasury to print money -- With No Profit Ties to the Banksters (Rothschilds) -- they both cut them out. Lincoln with his amature greenback attempts and Kennedy with U.S Treasury Notes -- both smacking the face of the money Masters.
Linclon also refused direct aid from the Rothschilds -- though he could not stop his merchants from taking lines of credit.
The final official estimate in 1879 was over $6B. Divided over 4 years cost is over $4M per day -- so, yeah. I found 7 sites that support that number or one very near to it (use google man). Also, those numbers do not factor in "opportunity costs" nor do they factor reconstruction or the effects on industry.
If the ritual murder, rape, sodomy, slavery, and land theft of Americans on American Soil (otherwise known as "property") is not a worse afront to Rothbardianism then they also do not believe (as does Ron Paul) on Just-War-Theory.
Their Philosophy then is not completely "humane" is it -- That is part of my argument that they flip axioms around and use them when its convenient.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
One point I have to argue
The indians (as far as I know) were getting pushed off their land by blue coats not grey ones. Ahem...cough Lincoln cough
Phathead -- Adrew Jackson "Indian Removal Act"
Have I made it clear that I'm not "Pro-Lincoln" -- Go back to the OP
Trail of Tears was in the South.
Some Indians owned slaves as well -- this is pointless, smile.
Lincoln was not kind in policy to the American Indians -- for sure.
No president, that I know of, was ever good for American Indians.
I'm not a fan of any president prior to Lincoln (including Lincoln) and there was only one I was fond of after Lincoln, smile.
Can you guess who that was?
I take it back -- I liked Adams (only prior to Link)
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I can't think of one...
thought I liked Jefferson, but not as a president.
I almost have to say washington just because he was pressured to be a king and atleast set the precedent for 2 terms. He sucked, but he could have started us out a lot worse, especially as he was a general.
Cool history from up my way...the Sioux uprising where Lincoln ended up hanging 38 Indians simultaneously left me with my favorite beer. Its the second oldest family owned brewery in america in large part due to the uprising. Schell's brewery near Mankato MN. Schell's wife treated the indians like "white" people (traded with them fairly and gave them good clean water etc.). When they torched New Ulm ( heavy german town... glockenspiel and everything ) pretty much the only thing industrial left standing was Schell's brewery. It appeared they helped them selves to a small portion of a keg of beer but that's it. All the competition in the town was burned to the ground. Lots of competition up until 1919 in the land of 10k lakes, but schell's got a little extra help. oh and then they started making 1919 root beer to get through prohibition.
Thanks for the history lesson ;-)
Free-Markets are the Root of Civlized-Society.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
This is what the Federal Reserve really does....
AUDITS are going to reveal a whole lot of ugly......
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/crime-rescued-banks/
What does not make sense, is this is our currency system!!!
In any other country in the world, people would be UP IN ARMS IN THE STREETS about having found out their currency system is a complete shame run by tyrannical criminals!!!
The Federal Reserve is the biggest scam most have never seen. And we're sitting around watching soap operas, rather than flooding the streets in uprising about it.
OUR WHOLE CURRENCY SYSTEM....PARTLY HAS BEEN PROPPED UP BY ILLEGAL DRUGS....AND CNN DOES NOT CARE???
Ouch.....Now it makes sense why there's no war crimes trials. Everything is based on a lie which is based on Federal Reserve Criminal Inc. that owns Lehman Brothers, Bank of England, Bank of America, and every national bank now proven to be involved in drug proceeds.
SSam: Off topic here create new content for this important topic
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
I don't understand your question
"If as the friends of colonization hope,.."
This quote has significant racist undertones, from me.
"If as the friends of colonization hope, " Free and prominent blacks did not buy into this program, the friends of colonization were "our" country men (whites).
"Dangerous prescence of slavery." I see no concern for the victims of slavery. The danger was in the release of blacks and the threat that they would immigrate into the northern states and territories if abolutionists had their way.
Instead, his solution was to let the slaves free to go back home to Africa. where they belong. The claim "long lost fatherland" pretends that Lincoln knew where they were from, and that they had a desire to go back.
"neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change,"
Black skinned people will leave and the white skins left behind need not worry, for blacks go to a far better place, (far away from whites). Is how I read it. Lincoln was a politician. Is a rail splitter today called a baloney slicer?
'it will indeed be a glorious consummation." Glorious for whom, the whites or the evicted slaves.
After Lincoln's push to protect slavery by amendment and the fact that he rejected emancipation for so long has me questioning his motives. When slaves were emancipated it was in the rebel states only, strongly suggesting that this was a war tactic, not at all ethically motivated.
Yet, true to form of Hamilton mercantilism as preached first by the Federalist's, then by the Whigs and later by the Republicans, tax collection was Lincoln's goal. Taxes were needed to fund public projects such as railroads.
The seccession of the southern states left the treasury empty. Like Hamilton before him during the Whiskey rebellion, Lincoln was first a tax collector.
According to the Constitution, "
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,"
If the South had nullified the Morrill Tarriff Acts instead of seceding, then Lincoln would be guilty of Treason.
Still he attacked the Confederacy for their rebelliion, under the belief that they had broken their contract and not paid their tax bills. That is, they were still part of the United States.
Four hundred thousand owners claiming ten slave each presents another problem. Why would a population of four million fight and die to protect he so-called property of 8% of the population?
Seven generation removed from the reality of state sovereignty leaves modern man skeptical of th claims the southern soldiers were fighting for their state and their state's rights.
The claim that the War between the States mortally wounded the Tenth amendment should be considered.
Ocotbox, you seem to have premises that I do not understand or know.
I have not read one Lincoln statement that begins to convince me that he was agaisnt slavery as much as he was against slaves.
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
Paul_S: Lincoln was well aware of the times he lived in
During a debate in the North he proposed to have slaves freed and make their way safely to the north. They threatened to meet the slaves with violence if they did.
The most popular arguments coming out of the south and the north -- in regard to ending slavery were to "evict" them back to Africa.
We can't say what people believed in their hearts -- Logistically Lincoln and Gen Lee were wise enough to know that the slaves were not going back to Africa -- in mass. Maybe a few hundred thousand.
Both men were aware that many slaves were already free in the North -- The whites there had no problem with that -- but they did not want a mass exodus. So, the "violence" northerners promised was not an "absolute" statement -- it was a warning of mass migration.
What happened 40 years later. Ford and other auto-dealerships caused a mass migration and it didn't result in "actual" violence.
It's like Eminem saying he murders people and puts them in his trunk as lyrics in his music. He's not "really" doing it.
I think Linocln was a politician and had to say a lot of things to end the notion of session.
I don't believe he was a Saint.
Federalism even a Dictatorship could work as gov't models if you could ensure 1000% that only self-sacrificing men of high character and morality were at the helm. However, abdicating to others, can never result in freedom -- obviously, statistically, and mathematically.
Regardless -- No one has answered the OP (my questions).
Paul_S -- Your conclusions about Lincoln are not based in "reality or presentment" they are based on 200 years of bewildering historical revisionism. If Lincoln had a Youtube page and a camcorder he could break it down for us -- clearly and succinctly.
If you want to get closer to the truth you have to look at things in a more simplistic light.
#1 South wanted Slavery to exist with no end date in mind
#2 South (8%) convinced the South (92%) to fight for session because of "liberty" as opposed to "their" profits.
#3 The North would not welcome slaves to come north
#4 England and France had "landed" in Mexico (I think) and were ready to help with a land invasion on the side of the South -- this is when Lee surrendered.
#5 England and France had been "subsidizing" slavery (during Lincoln's debates).
#6 The South had taken on "credit" from the Bank of England (Rothchilds).
#7 The South wanted to move Slavery in the West -- can you imagine if that happened. If they would have gotten port of Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco as "slave" trading ports -- they would have revitilized slavery for another 200 years. I might be reaching here, but it would of been for a long time.
I'm not saying there wasn't more that could of been done. But to put it all on one man is as naive as putting all our present problems on Bush.
The real problems always lies with the sleeping individual (the consumer).
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Thanks Paul s. ggrrreeaaat Post!
Good luck with this on Octobox. I wish no ill will towards him nor do I think he is misguided or something. But you hit the nail on the head with the concept that he has premises that you don't know about. He may or may not explain them to you. But in general its obvious he is pro-war for just causes just like Obama laid out in his peace speech.
I heard or read somewhere that at one time or the other the south had offer to pay off its existing debt before shots were fired. I think that is a minute point at any rate because Lincoln was all about expanding the state. In fact the war frustrated him because he couldn't spend money on more fascist projects (like the railroad). Why he could not just let the south break off was the future revenue he would loose to fund Indian killing Railroad building.
Just think what could have happen had he let the south secede? More would have joined them and left him with less money. The souix uprising could have meant something besides the hanging of 38 people trying to resist Lincoln's oppressive state. That's just the way I see it the southern slave owners would have help put a stop to manifest destiny and Abe couldn't let that happen.
Anyway the main thing dilorenzo does is translate what Lincoln is saying into the plainest possible of modern terms. It does us a great service since nobody talks like Abe anymore and on top of that Abe puts out contradictions like obama does so that everyone can see what they want in him (master politician/scum of the earth trick). It might not be exactly what Abe was saying, but for the most part it factors in the context and his actions. Dilorenzo is either spin or convenience and I have no problem with either because what you are getting out of Abe's mouth directly is either spin or convenience.
Phathead: Men have been turning Jesus words into the greatest
of modern terms -- And from that they derived that it was Okay to "own people"
I'm Black-Cuban-Irish; yet I know how to look back on racism because I am not a slave nor are any of you slave masters. I'm an American-Individualist and think for myself and I do not like DiLorenzo's revisionist history -- Libertarians always decry others from doing this and I'm asking a basic question you keep glossing over; "why do Rothbardians (non-aggression) and self-ownership principled people side-up with 'Robert E. Lee' was great and Lincoln the 'devil'" -- Especially given Lincoln did not own slaves and Lee did.
Please don't get in a Lee debate with me either -- that's another thread entirely.
No it does not factor into his actions -- You are looking at Lincoln through half-read DiLorenzo glasses.
We can't "know" from this far forward in history how Lincoln did what he did -- but in doing so slavery did not go on. That's what we know.
Also, we know that Lincoln was not the sole factor -- as DiLorenzo makes it seem.
I suppose you think Bush took us to war in Iraq and Afganhistan? Further i suppose you think Obama is continuing it, hahahaha.
As if these single men can direct the causality of an entire nation.
They are "puppets" of a greater work -- A work of morality vs a work of perpetual evil.
I'm not a Lincoln Fan -- I'm just against "refreshing" history from a safe distance. I also don't see how arguing on behalf of General Lee and against Lincoln betters our position in the liberty movement. Especially when the south stood for the OPPOSITE of Rothbardianism, hahaha.
I'm not a Rothbardian either.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Sorry we will have to agree to disagree
at least until i read the other half of dilorenzo :)
You are looking at it like most people do and that's from the stand point of today looking back.
I look at it from the perspective of what would be going on in the lead up to the civil war.
How to get these two different perspectives to reconcile I don't know. And hey I wasn't there; you weren't there so it is a mute point.
I don't argue on behalf of lee...I just argue on behalf of the states right to separate from the union. That doesn't mean that war was necessary. If you would argue we should not support the constitution because it allowed slavery then I could see what you were talking about. Being that slavery was legal through out the union and the confederacy through even most of the war means there wasn't a good reason to not allow succession.
Basically the civil war was a disaster no matter what you wanted to accomplish. That doesn't mean I am pro-slavery, just means I am acknowledging the way of the times. No one can prove slavery would have ended slower through peaceful means. Just because I support secession doesn't mean I support everything Lee does.
I certainly don't know what the inner workings are behind our government are and if you did I don't think you would be living. So in the interest in life preservation...Yes bush Cheney and Powell led us into the Iraq and Afghanistan "conflicts". To a man they could have said fuck off to the same people Obama should have when he got into office. It wouldn't be hard to hold a giant press conference and tell everyone the truth for once. Just make sure you put the bubble on the car.
"What kind of “libertarian” supports the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of citizens by the central state in the name of “the glorious union”? Answer: One who hasn’t a clue about what he is talking about."
-Thomas Dilorenzo
Sorry I just read that quote today and Had to share it with you.
Phathead: If you believe single men can start wars
then you believe single men can end them.
I don't suffer from that delusion -- history tells me it's men behind the mend behind the men -- utilizing the abdicated power of the individual.
Corporatist - Unionist - Bankers - Politicians - Lobbyist
They all have the same Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Consumers-who-Abdicate (Vote - Lobby - Buy Corporatist Products - Keep Assets in Banks and Wall Street - and Pay Taxes).
Consumers hold all the power.
Mises teaches this.
"What kind of “libertarian” supports the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of citizens by the central state in the name of “the glorious union”? Answer: One who hasn’t a clue about what he is talking about."
-Thomas Dilorenzo
Fact #1 -- The South (upper 8%) was receiving Subsidization from England and France
Fact #2 -- The South was taking out massive lines of credit from The Bank of England (The Rothchilds)
Fact #3 -- France and England were landed in Mexico (I think) and ready to aid (with soldiers) the South
Fact #4 -- The South was pushing to extend slavery into California, Oregon, and Washington -- Specifically to gain control of the Ports
Fact #5 -- The South was receiving arms from England and France
The Rothchilds and Banking Clan ran and owned France and England (by-the-by) -- The "real" nemesis to liberty according to Ron Paul.
I think there was more to those 100's of thousands of deaths then just Lincoln. I'm just sayin'
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality