16 votes

Fight with Slate.com regarding Lincoln/Slavery

I've been actually having an enjoyable debate with some commenters at Slate.com regarding Linciln and slavery. Some fool actually tried to justify their position by referencing the movie Lincoln.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/18/america_s_sla...

Excerpt from the debate:
"The motivation was to prevent European powers from recognizing and supporting the Confederacy.

Also, newsflash to More Liberty: See the movie Lincoln RE: the 13th ammendment."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the thing you must realize.......esp regarding the debate

Of the emancipation proclamation. .....no one from the south was even present. Its a joke and an insult to anyone with common sense.

Missing the point?

The point is to point out how criminals define crime as no one else can.

Criminals enslave their targeted victims.

Criminals then make it a false law that their power to commit crimes, enslavement, are their prerogatives, because they say so, and anyone claiming otherwise, will be enslaved, and sent the bill for doing so.

The point at which the victims were disbelieving the lie of criminals claiming authority of law and then the victims believe the lie is the point here in this question about slavery in America.

That point of "change" from disbelief in the lie that the criminals are authorities of law to belief in the lie that the criminals are authorities of law was pointed out by more than one person.

Example:

Here is the point at which disbelief in the lie became belief in the lie: when slavery being not legal became slavery being legal - proven in fact.

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

Here is what one Dictator in Chief, after the Usurpation, said about Secret Proceedings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8

It is by now readily and reasonably apparent that liars have taken over government, their lies constitute the inculpatory evidence proving the case each time.

Before the first Con Con, Con Job, Confidence Scheme, there was an incident that proved the case that slavery was not legal within the Democratic Federated Republic then operating as a Voluntary Association among 13 Sovereign States, and that incident was called Shays's Rebellion.

Many people were blowing the whistle concerning the significance of that Legal Precedent.

Here:
http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

In fact it was the Revolutionary War continued, and won, as there was no power given by The People, and no power given by any agreement made by any number of State Governments, allowing the actual Federal Government to enforce the return of runaway Slaves running away, voting with their feet, from one State where Slave Masters kept Slaves to another State where Slave Masters were less able to keep Slaves.

Daniel Shays is the example setting the Legal Precedent whereby the Federal Employees are POWERLESS to return runaway Slaves under The Articles of Confederation.

In that specific context, in fact, demonstrated by that Legal Precedent, the Federal Government had no power to enforce slavery in the Country called America.

That is why the Slave Masters in the South got together with the Central Bank Frauds and War Profiteers in the North in Philadelphia to conduct their Secret Proceedings.

There is no shortage of whistle blowers blowing that fraud wide open in our America History.

Example

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-m...

The liars carried the day, as explained here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

Quote_________________________
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
___________________________________________________end quote

Central Bankers (Monopoly of Crime) want this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

When they don't get that, they do this:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

They get a Cult of Personally going, a Strong Man, hired to whip the targets into shape.

Like this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-tro...

When once it is the duty of free people to rebel against criminal governments as declared in clear English in The Declaration of Independence, the change occurs, and the slaves obey without question.

The nails going into the coffin include that Secret Proceeding leading to that Usurpation, despite the Bill of Rights, and this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Quote______________________________________
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
___________________________________________

Any questions?

Joe

Fuel

Excellent information, helps to forward things along.

Reaching for Liberty?

Remedy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzwCX9MZG_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC9mbr-c5oo&list=PLC137A05A5D...

I knew that last person back before he stepped onto the stage of Defending Liberty. He is now dead, shot by a lone gunman, in fact.

If it were easy, everyone would be doing it, and why is it not easy?

1.
Willful deception
2.
Threats made upon the targeted victims
3.
Aggressive violence upon innocent victims is now lawful according to the criminals who take the power of law and abuse it

How deeps does the infection of crime into law go?

Far too deep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (Start in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2014, start now, finish early

Joe

Would Lincoln have allowed the South to secede if.........

If President Davis had put forth that the south would abolish slavery but was still moving forward with secession, would Lincoln have allowed it and avoided war?

I don't doubt that ONE of the main reasons for the original 7 states to secede was the issue of slavey, but to include the other 4 states that later seceded and the final two recognized states as participating in some civil war to maintain the existence of slavery, is not historically accurate.

I personally think one of the main reasons that government, media and education always makes any references to the Confederacy as negative and inflammatory is two fold. The idea of states rights and less centralized form of government is one very similar to what we are battling for today and it scares them. Second, it's a divisive issue and therefor keeps the races divided instead of focusing on issues we can agree on.

Anyways, that's my take.

Mark, if you read South Carolina sessions doucuments

it makes it look pretty clear that SC was doing it over slavery. I wish it wasn't so......but its there for all to read. Personally I don't think that was the reason but you have to accept what was publicly published.

I mentioned in my post above

I mentioned in my post above that one of the main reasons for secession of the original states was slavery, but that was not the reason for the remainder of the southern states to join the Confederacy, and not the main reason of the civil war. The remaining states would not have joined if slavery was their main purpose. At least that's my understanding if it.

I'd be very curious to see

how much federal land & resources the US government took from former Confederate States and now currently owns/manages.

Now that would be telling!

One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

Slavery

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery legal by amending the constitution.

Google Corwin amendment.

Don't use google

Startpage Corwin amendment

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-Benjamin Franklin

points matter

My point on the subject, as many at Slate don't realize or what to accept, was that the civil war that killed 600,000 people was not about ending slavery but about making sure the states didn't succeed from the union. It was the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Absolutely. Latest estimates

Absolutely. Latest estimates even pin the number closer to 800,000 people who died in the senseless War Between the States. If you asked anyone today if they would be willing to eradicate slavery world wide(and mind you, there are more slaves in the world now than there were during the height of the Atlantic Slave Trade) if we could only kill 800,000 people, reasonable people would answer no, there are better ways to do it. But, the Lincoln worshippers love "strong executives", i.e. presidents who lie, steal and murder to advance their agenda, their power and their party.

When I was in school even I

When I was in school even I saw that it was about the states trying to leave and not about slavery. Slavery is a secondary issue and getting rid of it just happened to align with the goals of winning.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Update

I think the latest numbers from the DiLorenzo camp are upwards of 850,000 dead in that war against the states.

Right. BEcause there is

Right. BEcause there is absolutely no connection between the Union winning the Civil War and the passage of the 13th amendment.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Reconstructionist

No, the connection is there. But it wasn't what most make it out to be. That the only goal was to end slavery.

If such were the case, why pass anything else after the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

Perhaps he would do well to

Perhaps he would do well to read the Emancipation Proclamation, where only the slaves in the "areas of rebellion" were freed, where as the slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio and others were left in bondage. The great emancipator saved us from ourselves!

Results matter. Results

Results matter.

Results matter

Constantly, I've heard the racism of Thomas Jefferson or Jefferson Davis explained away by "they were a produce of their times". Yet, both not only tolerated slavery, but actively protected it.

Not only does Lincoln apparently not get the benefit of his views being put into the context of his time, but under Lincoln, slavery was ultimately abolished in the United States. And Lincoln was a major factor in getting that done.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"Necessity is the tyrant's

"Necessity is the tyrant's plea."
-Milton

I agree that results matter...

The only good thing that came out of the Lincoln administration was the abolition of slavery.

We must also take into account other results, however, when making a judgement on Lincoln's presidency:

1. Membership in the Union became involuntary and enforceable by military invasion.

2. Over 600,000 Americans died whereas slavery was ended without bloodshed in much of the world.

3. Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the Union, and if the Southern states would have agreed to rejoin under the condition that slavery not be abolished, Lincoln would have accepted those terms.

4. Lincoln damaged the economy and financially strapped many people in the South by instituting tariffs to "protect" manufacturing in the North (another big cause for secession).

5. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and the 1st Amendment which led to the detainment of many people in the press that spoke out against him - setting a very bad precedent.

The abolition of slavery was not the only result of the Lincoln presidency.

Evidence

"2. Over 600,000 Americans died whereas slavery was ended without bloodshed in much of the world."

Absolutely, all of the following material supports that claim:

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Emancipations-West-Abolished-...
http://www.amazon.com/Disowning-Slavery-Gradual-Emancipation...
http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-New-York-Ira-Berlin/dp/1565849...

Slavery should have been allowed to end peacefully.

1. Membership in the Union

1. Membership in the Union became involuntary and enforceable by military invasion."

True. However, this conflict was inevitable.

"Over 600,000 Americans died whereas slavery was ended without bloodshed in much of the world."

There is this Ron Paul fantasy that the North could have ended slavery without bloodshed, by just purchasing the slaves from the South. Yeah, with whose permission? You think the South would have agreed to give up such a valuable economic rule?

Both in terms of its role in the economy, as well as the sheer number of slaves, the US was in a very unique position. Plus, the other countries had more authoritarian governments...government who COULD unilaterally free all slaves with no protest, for fear of reprisal.

If having a weaker government, means war has to break out for slavery to end, so be it. The alternative would have been to save those 600,000 lives at the expensive of a much more authoritarian regime.

"Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the Union, and if the Southern states would have agreed to rejoin under the condition that slavery not be abolished, Lincoln would have accepted those terms."

Again, Lincoln says he would. What assurances could he give the South that slavery would never be targeted again? After all, he can't unilaterally change the Constitution. The fact is, Lincoln also had to deal with a large number of abolitionists in his own party, individuals who would not have stood for slavery ending. You forget that there were 13 free states and multiple no-slave territories that would have fought strongly against slavery.

That is the main issue in the war. The South rightfully feared that their right to own slaves would always be threatened.

"Lincoln damaged the economy and financially strapped many people in the South by instituting tariffs to 'protect' manufacturing in the North (another big cause for secession)."

True. Although the tariffs only really affected the richest Southerners. And Lincoln did not single-handedly enact those tarriffs; Congress did. And, FYI, the Morrill tarriff was not signed by Lincoln. AND, the Confederancy upon its creation also implemented a tarriff, effective at 21%..the Morrill tarriff was effctive at 26%. Plus, effective rates were lower than historical norms (like in 1828)

"Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and the 1st Amendment which led to the detainment of many people in the press that spoke out against him - setting a very bad precedent."

True. Washington was the first violator when he squashed the Whiskey Rebellion. Oh, and of course, Thomas Jefferson with the naval heatlh insurance act.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Required reading

In this insightful treatment of the Civil War (addressing the causes, the war itself and Reconstruction), Hummel's text argues against the thesis that armed confrontation was inevitable. "As an excuse for civil war," he says, "maintaining the States territorial integrity is bankrupt and reprehensible. Slavery's elimination is the only morally worthy justification." But slavery, he suggests, was on its way out in any case. Not only was it a political liability, but the institution's many-faceted costs (social cost, enforcement, uprisings, mistreatment) outweighed any profits. If, after decades of unsuccessful compromise, the North had recognized the South's revolutionary right to self-determination and had let the Gulf states secede, slavery would have succumbed in the border states. Hummel goes on to argue, as have many others before, that after a devastating war and the disappointment of Reconstruction, a federal government that once interfered only a little in the affairs of individual states "had been transformed into an overbearing bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with taxes, drafts, surveillance, subsidies and regulations." Hummel, a professor of history and economics at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, quotes David H. Donald, saying, "Before the Civil War, many politicians and writers referred to the United States in the plural"--i.e., the United States are, a grammatical agreement no longer used after 1865. With its insightful analysis (not to mention the extensive bibliographical essays that elaborate each chapter), Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men will supply both the academic and Civil War buff with an added perspective on the causes and consequences of the Civil War.

Copyright 1996 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693124/lewrockwell/

I am sure Hummel's book puts

I am sure Hummel's book puts some good arguments.

You have to realize, that there are hundreds if not thousands books, documents, and papers defending the conventional view that the civil was inevitable. You can't simply ignore those because you don't like them.

The idea that slavery was on its way out anyway is a popular one, and there is some academic backing to this idea. But, most historians agree that there were too many barriers in place for enough time to have passed for the South to have given up slavery peacefully. Especially since, we know that in real life, the sudden loss of the practically free workforce, as well as the loss of profitability of the slave trade, was an economic blow that the South took years and years to recover from, on top of the damages from the Civil War.

For example, the abolitionists in the North were going stronger and would have pushed for a violent end to slavery. Slaves themselves would have engaged in a violent response that would have required federal intervention either way (either the South demanding federal intervention to help quell the slave rebellion, and the Federal government angering them by not helping or angering the abolitionists BY helping).

The fugitive slave law was also incredibly unpopular in the North. How long would they have tolerated being forced to send slaves back? What if slaves escaped to Canada? Then what would have happened?

Also, it should be noted that following the civil war, government shrank tremendously. In fact, between 1900 to 1910, government spent less as a % of GDP, and taxed less as a % of GDP, than it did during the founding era. World War I created a HUDGE spike in government interference, followed by economic recovery plans and World War II; the government hasn't stopped growing since. But to say that the growth of government in the 1910's was due to a war half a century ago is dubious.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Point by point

"You have to realize, that there are hundreds if not thousands books, documents, and papers defending the conventional view that the civil was inevitable. You can't simply ignore those because you don't like them."

This is not a valid argument in favor of Lincoln. A majority of the work out there are Lincoln apologists, cultists, and mythologists. They cannot stand the latest evidence showing Lincoln in a bad light. Lincoln decimated the South, and in doing so had the opportunity to alter history itself. "He who wins the war writes the history books" don't readily remember who this is attributed to, but it is valid in any area of the world. As for not liking them, what makes you think I haven't read, and/or compared, them to begin with?

Evidence supporting your claim that "most historians agree" is a falsehood, there is none, and whatever historians that do agree are apologists or cultists. Is it ok to accept the majority opinion in the face of the minority? Once such "historian" is Doris Kearns, the professed plagairist, the one who's book the latest movie about Lincoln was based upon by Spielberg. Is she the historian you are referring too? All of her lies are exposed by Lerone Bennett, Jr. in his book "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream", as well as by Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, but you should know this because David is THE foremost historian here in America, he's won several pulitzer prizes for his historical work. So that shouldn't be new to you, should it?

"David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/11/thomas-j-dilorenzo/spielb...

"the abolitionists in the North were going stronger and would have pushed for a violent end to slavery."

Really? You mean that by the fact that Lincoln had to conscript people to fight in that war? If the war was so "just" why were people FORCED to fight in the war of Northern aggression? And slaves were already on their way out the door to begin with, as most newly discovered evidence has shown and is still being uncovered today.

And, as for the economic factors of the time I'm not entirely convinced of your claims.

Lincoln was killed, that was the response to the governments claim that should the southern states look to secede again, their people that had been so wrongly invaded would not tolerate another.

Required reading:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874850851?ie=UTF8&camp=178...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1589806921?tag=lewrockwell&camp=145...
http://www.amazon.com/Emancipation-Hell-Tragedy-Wrought-Proc...
http://www.amazon.com/They-Never-Said-Misleading-Attribution...

"This is not a valid argument

"This is not a valid argument in favor of Lincoln. A majority of the work out there are Lincoln apologists, cultists, and mythologists."

Only according to you.

"They cannot stand the latest evidence showing Lincoln in a bad light."

I've specifically attacked this supposed evidence.

"Evidence supporting your claim that "most historians agree" is a falsehood, there is none, and whatever historians that do agree are apologists or cultists."

Brilliant. If someone disagrees with you, they must be an apologist or a cultist.

The ironic thing is, they would call you a slavery apologist; a Confederate apologist. They would argue that you belong to the cult of Southern revisionism.

"Lerone Bennett, Jr"

Ironically, a historian who would laugh at the idea that the South was any better.

"David H. Donald"

FYI, there is no "one foremost historian". Secondly, Donald speaks very highly of Lincoln; it is Sumner he criticizes. Have you read his works? To Civil War revionists who make claims that the war was not about slavery, Randall absolutely destroyed with mountains of evidence. Yes, while it is true the war was not *exclusively* about slavery, Randall shows that slavery was indeed the crucible through which radicals of both sides eventually wound up taking arms against each other. He similarly criticizes abolitionists like John Brown and cynical Yankees as Stephen Douglas (more concerned with building a transcontinental railroad through the industrial north, partly at the expense of Southern taxation) in equal disdain.

His point, is not that the civil war could have been avoided and slavery also been abolished. His point, is that the Civil War could have been avoided because many Northerners really didn't care about slavery, but had other reasons for attacking/hating the South. By conceding those concerns, the war could have been avoided, with the South in exchange getting to keep the slave trade.

"Really? You mean that by the fact that Lincoln had to conscript people to fight in that war? If the war was so just' why were people FORCED to fight in the war of Northern aggression?"

FYI, the South practiced conscription as well. Prior to the civil war, many states practiced forced conscription in local militias.

"And slaves were already on their way out the door to begin with, as most newly discovered evidence has shown and is still being uncovered today."

Where? This sounds like nonsense. The number of American slaves was increasing, not decreasing until the end of the civil war.

"And, as for the economic factors of the time I'm not entirely convinced of your claims."

For the claims of revenue/GDP, here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1850_1930....

You have a spike during the Civil war, then relative flatness until the great depression. To be fair, the numbers are a little underestimated; the real % is probably twice that amount, but it holds across multiple years (meaning that 1840 and 1860 and 1880 are all underestimated by the same relative amount)

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Impass

I see your argument however I don't agree completely with any of the assessments you make.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You can certainly agree to

You can certainly agree to disagree about some of my comments on Lincoln apologists, etc., but many of my other comments (the economy, the authors you claimed are anti-Lincoln), the trend of slavery, etc. are factual, or, are the claims made by those other authors.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Results

1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.

2. Opposing racial equality.

3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.

4. Being a racist.

5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.

6. Supporting Clay’s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.

7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.

8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.

9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.

10. Never defending a runaway slave.

11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.

12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.

13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.

14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that “free white people” can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.

15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.

16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere — Lincoln’s war was the only “war of emancipation” in the 19th.

17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.

19. Supporting a conscription law.

20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.

22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.

23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.

24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.

25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.

26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.

27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.

28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.

29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.

30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.

31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

32. Illegally declaring martial law.

33. Illegally blockading ports.

34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the “indestructible” state of Virginia.

50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.

51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.

52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

56. reating an enormous political patronage system.

57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.

60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.

61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.

62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.

64. Using civilians as hostages.

65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.

66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln’s allies.

67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.

68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.

69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.

70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.

71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.

Supporting evidence here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/dilorenzo...