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.

Unfortuanately, Lew Rockwell

Unfortuanately, Lew Rockwell provides no source for those staements. Some of those are so vague that they are worth mentioning.

Hell, I could come up with a list of 100 offenses of Thomas Jefferson and Wasington using such vague language (and, of course, by blaming them for all the actions taken by everyone alive when they were sitting in office).

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

Lies

They are not statements they are facts.

Proof for them? I mean, half

Proof for them?

I mean, half the things on those list I could probably apply to Rockwell hero Thomas Jefferson.

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

Jefferson

Who's defending him?

C. Vann Woodward notes, the North was not friendly to blacks:

By 1830 slavery was virtually abolished by one means or another throughout the North, with only about 3500 Negroes remaining in bondage in the nominally free states…For all that, the Northern Negro was made painfully and constantly aware that he lived in a society dedicated to the doctrine of white supremacy and Negro inferiority. The major political parties…made sure in numerous ways that the Negro understood his u2018place’ and that he was severely confined to it. One of these ways was segregation, and with the backing of legal and extra-legal codes, the system permeated all aspects of Negro life in the free states by 1860. (p 17-18)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Strange-Career-Jim-Crow/dp/0195146...

What is the point of that

What is the point of that statement?

Are you really trying to say: "AHA! The North wasn't friendly to Blacks! The South kept them in forced bondgage! IT IS ALL EQUAL! AHA!"

I'm not saying that the North was perfect. But far better than the South. And in the future, civil rights came to the North before it came to the South. Permitting of interracial marriage came to the North before it came to the South. Gay marriage has come to the North before it came to the South.

The whole idea of excusing the Southern attitude towards Negroes by pointing at the Northern attitude towards them is ludicrous.

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

Questionable

Actually, that is not entirely true.

Slaves were still being held in Texas under the authority of Lincoln after the war was over. Both Tom Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo have shown and researched how Lincoln was not only opposed to interfering with slavery in the southern states but he had also held a meeting with several prominent black leaders of the time in an effort to convince them to have their people moved, deported really, to Liberia.

As well, at one point during the war the highest concentration of blacks still in slavery was in New York city.

As one prominent individual pointed out "this proclamation (Emancipation Proclamation) keeps slaves as slaves where we can reach them and frees them where we cannot."

As well, the "Fugitive Slave Act" was in strong enforcement under Lincolns administration. A testament to his true nature on slavery.

Then there are the Douglass and Lincoln debates in Illinois.

"Slaves were still being held

"Slaves were still being held in Texas under the authority of Lincoln after the war was over."

Interesting; where is the proof of this? I have never heard of this.

Lincoln initially supported Blacks moving to Liberia (voluntarily, I may add), because he saw no way for freed slaves to integrate into a society without tension. To quote, “[no point in freeing black Americans] and [keeping] them among us as underlings.”

Lincoln is the man who said this: “Let us discard all this quibbling about [this] race and that race and the other race being inferior… Let us discard all these things and unite as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”

"As well, at one point during the war the highest concentration of blacks still in slavery was in New York city."

Inaccurate. The true quote is that in the 19th century, Brooklyn had the highest concentration of slaves in any one particular county, at any one particular point in time, in the North .

"As one prominent individual pointed out 'this proclamation (Emancipation Proclamation) keeps slaves as slaves where we can reach them and frees them where we cannot.'"

Yes, because Lincoln couldn't. As President, what right did he have to simply abolish slavery in Union states? He could do it in states in rebellion as part of his war powers. Constitution-lovers should actually love this stance. Moreover, Lincoln worked with states like Missouri and Kentucky to abolish slavery using state measure and other federal actions. People like Thomas Woods, self-proclaimed Constitution lovers, forget this fact because it fits their view.

"As well, the 'Fugitive Slave Act' was in strong enforcement under Lincolns administration. A testament to his true nature on slavery."

This is a mark against Lincoln. However, he had to balance his views while trying to keep the Union together. It is the same thign he did when he said he didn't want to abolish slavery, even though his actions clearly showed he did. As President, you have different obligations; you have to serve the desires of your entire country, not just your own.

"Then there are the Douglass and Lincoln debates in Illinois."

What, the debate where Douglass agreed to end slavery, not because Blacks had the right to be free, but because he was willing to give them "charity" as he would a free peron? Douglas himself admitted that he didn't know what to do with Blacks once they were free...which was why it wasn't a big priority for him to end it. Plus, this was why Douglas was in favor of popular sovereingty while Lincoln called for a permanent end to slavery in every corner of the nation.

"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment."

Note the use of the word perhaps.

"But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest"

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

Good info Dr. No.

Since your knowledge of history obviously exceeds my own (I'm well read in a lot of areas but not history and next to nothing about the civil war) Let me ask you this....

According to the comments of someone I read on some other website thread (not libertarian friendly), "prior to the civil war, only the abolitionists had fantasies and speculated on the 'WHAT-IF problem' and the "What-Then problem'. Only the abolitionist talked long about 'what-if' the South did seceded without resistance at all from the North, How would the Northern Government fund itself? I have read someone's opinion that the South funded the North central government to the tune of 75% or more.

And I read another's opinion that most pre-civil war intellectuals in the USA never considered the 'what-then' proposition or even advocated the proposition for the Federal Government to simply "Buy Slaves their freedom". It was considered impossible price to pay to buy slaves their freedom. American pre-civil war intellectuals hardly took note how other countries solved the 'slavery problem'.

Finally, even if the federal govt went into massive debt and bought all the slaves and gave slaves a start as the 'Abolitionists Dream' called for, there was the "Then-What problem" ie 1) What would the former slave owners do for labor now that the labor pool has gone? and 2) What would the slaves do with their freedom and no money?

(I also read that it was from the the 'Then-What Problem' that a consensus was arrived at by various abolitionists around question 2: that for the freed slaves payment should not be money but rather payment should be: "40 acres and a mule, 2 kinds of seed for 2 acres of land, 2 rifles, 2 cows, 2 goats, 2 pigs and 36 chickens" where considered "reasonable enough". This was the only 'pre-civil war problem' that was 'solved' prior to the war. The 'unthinkable price' to buy slaves from their masters and the 'labor problem' made solving the 'slave problem' a 'social stalemate' with just abolitionists screaming in againsts the winds of the status quo like the idealists that they were. And by the time the Civil war ended, all that people could recall from the pre-civil war discussions was "40 acres and a mule" for freed slaves was thought to be 'fair'.

Not being a historian or having read much history at all...I found those remarks interesting ... have you read these too? Are they factual? And is it a correct assessment of the pre-civil war stalemate over the issue of slavery?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

"'prior to the civil war,

"'prior to the civil war, only the abolitionists had fantasies and speculated on the 'WHAT-IF problem' and the 'What-Then problem'."

I think you can think of this similar to anarchists today. Many want government gone because they find it morally repulsive. They don't really care what happens afterwards; whatever happens, it happens in a more moral setting. There were abolitionists who certainly thought about "what-then", but there were also many who didn't.

"Only the abolitionist talked long about 'what-if' the South did seceded without resistance at all from the North, How would the Northern Government fund itself? I have read someone's opinion that the South funded the North central government to the tune of 75% or more."

These explanations aren't great. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Also, the 75% thing is a flat-out lie, concocted by Civil War revisionists. 75% of all federal revenue was from tarriffs; they assume that all tarrifs were paid by the South, when they were really paid by the North. Remember the tariff was paid only on imports, not on exports. Well over 90% of the tariff was collected in Northern ports. A relative pittance was collected in southern ports.

In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports.

New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, "Trade Figures by Port in 1860" and "Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)"]

"And I read another's opinion that most pre-civil war intellectuals in the USA never considered the 'what-then' proposition or even advocated the proposition for the Federal Government to simply 'Buy Slaves their freedom. It was considered impossible price to pay to buy slaves their freedom. American pre-civil war intellectuals hardly took note how other countries solved the 'slavery problem'.
"

This is has some validity to it. Basically, the abolitionists knew that if the Federal government had to PAY for the slaves, the Northners would not like it. After all, where would that money come from? After all, there were already rumblings of an income tax, and to keep the South happy, the government would have to pay a premium on the worth of the Slaves.

Also, it is true that it wasn't really considered because the South simply did not want to give up their slaves.

Let us say, John is beating his wife. Now, I can punch John's lights out, or, I can try and buy John's agreement to not beat his wife. If John says, "alright, give me 50 million dollars, and I will agree". Obviously, that is crazy. So, I punch John's lights out and rescue his wife. 100 years laters, historians condemn me for my violence, telling me "look! John was willing to do it peacefully! There was a pricepoint where everything could have been solved peacefully!" You have to look at that pricepoint to see if it was feasible.

On top of that, there are people on this very site, and all over the internet, that are still enraged that 50 years ago, the Federal Government forcibly dicated to the States that they could no segregate. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Federal Government force Southern slaveholders to give up their slaves?

"Finally, even if the federal govt went into massive debt and bought all the slaves and gave slaves a start as the 'Abolitionists Dream' called for, there was the "Then-What problem" ie 1) What would the former slave owners do for labor now that the labor pool has gone? and 2) What would the slaves do with their freedom and no money?"

Many abolitionists, like Lincoln, favored voluntary or involuntary deportation to Africa. They saw now way for Blacks and White to coexist; in a way, they were right as even post-Slavery there was a 100 years of racial tension due to civil rights.

You are correct; the Southern Labor pool was destroyed. Wages went up, production costs went up. It took a long time for them to recover. Of course, had the Federal Government bought the slaves, that would have provided a nice bonus to tide them over.

I must add again, that to many abolitionists, if your average slaveholder became destitute due to the ruined labor force, they did not care. They saw slavery as an evil and did not really care about the consequences, especially the economic consequences, of ending it.

Today, those that did think about the consequences are smeared as racists.

"I also read that it was from the the 'Then-What Problem' that a consensus was arrived at by various abolitionists around question 2: that for the freed slaves payment should not be money but rather payment should be: '40 acres and a mule, 2 kinds of seed for 2 acres of land, 2 rifles, 2 cows, 2 goats, 2 pigs and 36 chickens' where considered 'reasonable enough'."

I've heard something like this. Obviously, enforcement was really weak; the North couldn't even force a defeated South to give this to their newly freed slaves.

"The 'unthinkable price' to buy slaves from their masters and the 'labor problem' made solving the 'slave problem' a 'social stalemate' with just abolitionists screaming in againsts the winds of the status quo like the idealists that they were."

Unquestionably, they were seen as idealists, not at all pragmatic or reasonable. Comparatively, libertarians, miniarchists, and anarchists are all percieved as lacking pragmatism. At the same time, there are many in those movements who are willing to consider consequences, compromise, and be pragmatic.

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

Evidenced

Here is Lincoln's views on deportation of blacks:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826219098?ie=UTF8&tag=lewr...

"The prospect that the Great Emancipator' subscribed to colonizationist beliefs, particularly at the end of his life, seems to completely dispel his popular reputation as a racial egalitarian." -Magness and Page.

Evidenced

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.

Again, I think he said that

Again, I think he said that at the time in order to WIN. And later, to prevent a break apart of the union.

However, there are a multitude of Lincoln quotes where he says the exact opposite. This proves my point about him having to balance his personal viewpoints and his duty to the country.

Also, my original point stands. For his time, Lincoln was incredibly "progressive" on the issue of slavery. Why is he given no credit for that?

Thomas Jefferson, who said said much worse than Lincoln, AND legally protected slavery, gets this benefit of the doubt. "Oh, for his time, he was very liberal on slavery." Why doesn't Lincoln get the same, when his position was far more controversial?

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

Statesman

He will never get credit cause he shouldn't, he was a master manipulater, liar, conniver, a true Statesman.

Slavery was not racially

Slavery was not racially motivated. That stigma needs to end. Africa was just a good place to get cheap people. Slavery was also slapped on the civil war as some humanitarian front to sell the war. The confederate states seceded, making them sovereign entities, therefore the US would have zero business even telling them that they had to abide by even the constitution.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

The history of slavery is

The history of slavery is larger than the United States.

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

When has the US ever had an

When has the US ever had an issue telling sovereign entities what to do? :)

I supposed that you also have problems with any war American fought to gain land.

Slavery wasn't racially motivated? It was at least justified with racism. This is undisputable..how many people said that Blacks deserved to be slaves because of the Bible, their supposed inferiority, etc.

The aboltionist movement was a fairly big part of the Republican party at the time. So I don't think that was "slapped" on to the civil war.

Moreover, while one can question whether the North went to war explicity to defend slavery, or as an afterthought, it is without a shred of doubt that the South went to war with the defense of slavery as one of the major reasons.

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

Questionable, as well..

No, slavery was not racially motivated.

Those slaves were already slaves in their own lands, however, this does not justify them still being slaves when brought over from Africa.

As for America gaining land the rules of war were dismissed when Lincoln sent his minions to decimate the south. "Scorched Earth" I believe it was, and his generals, Sherman, Sheridan, and the like were of the belief that ALL southerners should die at the hands of the Federal government. It didn't matter if the south did surrender.

When in history did the US

When in history did the US government actually declare war to expand its borders?

Just because they called them names doesn't mean it was racially motivated. This is yet another example of a person totally not understanding what racism is.

The south went to war to protect its secession. It had every right to defend itself, even for the reason of slavery. They seceded...they were sovereign.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I don't understand your final

I don't understand your final point.

Fine, the South had a right to defend itself. I'm not asking for them to bend the knee. However, the US also had the right to attack them, no?

If you say the US didn't have the right to attack them, then how can the US/Americans claim any land on North America? The majority of it was either acquired through force, or through purchase from people who had acquired it through force.

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

deleted

double post

No

The majority of land being held by individuals at the time were people who had already made agreements with Native Americans for land use. Even Natives of that time enjoyed the protection of the court system in whatever disputes that arose out of land rights. Acquired, not by force, but by mutual agreements.

Normally what would develop out of mutual agreements was the ability of the land developer(farmer, cultivator, etc.) to create pacts with the local natives that would allow them access to the natural resources in the area. And subsequently the same would be allowed of the farmer.

Even the courts before Lincoln recognized these common disputes as valid, and a majority of those verdicts handed down were in favor of Native Americans.

The US had no right to attack

The US had no right to attack them. The states seceded into sovereign entities. The US is supposed to be a VOLUNTARY union of the states. Again, when has the US declared war on another nation to expand its borders? What we acquired from the people living here before by force is completely justified. That's life, and it wasn't government that did it. The natives were not some peaceful loving hippies that were brutally slaughtered like the educational system would have you believe. They were brutal savages.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I believe the US declared war

I believe the US declared war in the Mexican-American and Spanish war; both wars gained them territory IIRC. Technically, they declared war on England to gain control of the originla 13 colonies.

OK, the South seceded. They became their own union. Then, the US attacked them and enveloped them. To quote you, "that's life".

So becasue the natives weren't peaceful people, the US had the right to wipe them out? After all, we initiated the conflict by coming on to THEIR land.

I can easily say, that the Southerners were not some peaceful-freedom loving people that Thomas Woods would have you believe. They are brutal, backwards, slaveholders. See? Stereotyping is so fun!

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

Technically, the US didn't

Technically, the US didn't exist then, and they didn't declare war on Britain, they declared independence. They just knew that that was basically as good as a declaration of war, but technically, still wasn't.

The US didn't declare war on Mexico to gain land, it declared war on them because we got that land fair and square and they kept coming to try to take it back.

"The US" didn't wipe out the natives.

Southerners were largely not slaveholders. The "problem" of slavery was and is exaggerated.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Northern Racism

Additionally, accepting for the sake of argument the Northern claim that the South is populated by racists, the North is certainly no better. Detroit and New York are not known for their racial harmony. Also, consider the fact that the mayor of York, Pennsylvania — Charles H. Robertson — surrendered on charges of murdering a black girl in 1969. Although the mayor denies involvement in the murder, he has admitted to shouting "white power" at a white power rally the day before the killing. If he were a Southern mayor, you can bet the newspapers and television would be filled with little else besides stories about such allegations of racially-motivated murder. By the way: Robertson was a police officer at the time. According to the York Dispatch, "Robertson has said he does not remember those events, but described himself as a racist at the time."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/david-dieteman/getting-li...

Reality

Yes, I have this conversation on an almost regular basis with friends and family members.

A majority are astonished at such evidence that Lincoln would be racist, however, almost all of them want to learn more on the subject.

Excellent post.

bump

bump

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

bump

bump

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