Nathan Key

Husband, Father, Thinker.

 

 
 

Wow, I just read an article today that ripped into Abraham Lincoln. Here's an excerpt:

"Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for today’s population, Lincoln’s killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html)

That's not your typical Lincoln article, huh?

OK, so I know that we all learned in history class that the American Civil War was about slavery. And it was, in part, about slavery. But the thing is... it wasn't actually as much about slavery as Lincoln lovers would have us believe.

We need to remember that, first, Lincoln actually promised during his campaign that he WOULD NOT outlaw slavery. Second, he did not pronounce the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil War was well underway. And third, the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a posturing move than it was an end to Slavery. Consider that it only proclaimed the end of Slavery in States that had joined the Confederacy rather than all States, including Union States that were actually under Lincoln's authority. These three facts joined together make it fairly clear that the American Civil War wasn't just about slavery. It was about control. Slavery was merely the crowbar that Lincoln used to exert the will of the Central Government, sort of like terrorism was the crowbar that President Bush used to strip US Citizens of their rights during the years after 9/11.

Now, let's be clear- both slavery and terrorism are evils that should be fought! No one argues that. But the fact is, both Lincoln and Bush used these evils as an excuse to undermine the Civil Liberties of US Citizens and States. They used hot issues to expand the control that the Federal Government has over the people of this country. And for that, I think both of them deserve a "Shame on You" at the very least. And in light of the hostile takeover they made on the people they governed, perhaps we should reconsider the rights States actually have under the 10th amendment.

You can read more about that, here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

And you can check to see what your State is doing about it, here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/

PS. Even though I'm not too thrilled with Lincoln's actions toward the Southern States, I'm glad that slavery is done with. I just wish we'd been able to do it without a war since every other major country in the world has managed to do so. I wonder if we would have been able to avoid a lot of the racism, prejudice, and hatred that we've experienced had we done away with slavery peacefully instead of through war and reconstruction.

 


Comments

Jeff

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:38:53

High School history classes are beginning to catch up with the complexities of the situation. One of these complexities is simply that the North's economy could continue to function with out slavery, so it's awfully easy for the North to take the moral high ground on the slavery issue. Of course slavery is evil, I believe we are still seeing, feeling, and experiencing it's repurcussions today. However, we often cast the South as somehow morally inferior in the whole thing. I'm personally skeptical that the North would have had such an easy time with letting go of it if so much wealth had to go with it.
(I say all this as a card-carrying yankee)

 

Nathan

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:43:55

And, to be fair (as a Northern Boy myself)...

I think the world of Lincoln. There is plenty of blame to go around to both the North & South when it comes to the Civil War. I don't think we should deconstruct his monuments, but we might want to deconstruct some of the Nationalization that's taken place because of his policies.

 

Chad Hogg

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:28:28

Oh, absolutely. I think most people from the North or South would agree that the outcome has been good for the descendants everyone involved, but the Civil War was a gigantic exercise in ripping to shreds the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence. The states of the Confederacy would never have seceded if not for consistent pressure against the practice of slavery from the North, but the declaration of war by the United States had as its only aim preventing the Confederates from exercising the right to self-government. It amazes me that this is generally swept under the rug.

 

Nathan

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:53:20

Thanks Chad. I really resonated with how you stated this comment.
It was really compelling and challenging.

I may quote it sometime this week.

 

Honest Abe

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:56:20

How dare you question my legacy!
I was the best President who ever ruled this country!
If I could do it all over again, I would... I just might not go out to the theater, however.

 

FTP Blog

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:08:28

"Even though I'm not too thrilled with Lincoln's actions toward the Southern States, I'm glad that slavery is done with."

May I suggest this: Slavery is not done with. If you need resources for verification, just let me know.

 

Nathan

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:45:50

I agree. I guess what I meant was that legalized slavery in this country is done with.

There are many places around the world (and secretly, I'm sure, in this very country) that slavery is alive and well. We should fight against slavery with everything in our being, for the right to one's life, liberty, and property (namely my right to myself as my primary property) are the fundamental rights that belong to all men- whether they are actually free or not.

 

Jeff

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:09:16

Great point about the existence of current slavery. And the idea that Mr. Lincoln himself might post a comment made me smirk.
I do wish to speak up a bit around the idea that Lincoln violated ideas implicit in the Declaration of Independence. I believe the case is strongly overstated by many people and in many places that Lincoln was some sort of rogue who went contrrary to the ideas of his time.
Because this thing is, the U.S. underwent an experiment with states that were effecitvely their own country. It was under the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. nearly fell apart under it. Lincoln and his contemporaries were crystal clear that this system wouldn't work. It was within their parents or grandparents life times that this all happened.

To quote the ideas implied or stated in the Declaration of Independence, or to quote the writings of Revolutionary-era Americans as a way to establish the idea that each state had soveirgnity is to play a shell game. Many people learned the lessons of the Articles of Confederation and supported a strong central government superior to the states.
I'm not suggesting that there was a single, monolithic opinion about whether the states had the right to secede. Their was debate. But it's not the way it sometimes gets played, that Lincoln was some power hungry monarch.

 



Leave a Reply