And don't forget our Texas Southern Heritage! (not the school :)) 
Posted on 08/16/2002 3:44:14 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Ever wonder what the abolitionists thought about Abraham Lincoln's war, its purported motive of "saving the union," and the claim that it was fought to free the slaves?
Here's what leading abolitionist philosopher Lysander Spooner had to say about it all in 1870 (highlights bolded by me)
Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no visible, permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers who call themselves "the government." That is to say, there is no ONE MAN, who calls himself the state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one who claims that he and his children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or by special appointment from Heaven. There are only certain men, who call themselves presidents, senators, and representatives, and claim to be the authorized agents, FOR THE TIME BEING, OR FOR CERTAIN SHORT PERIODS, OF ALL "the people of the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic evidence that they are so; and who notoriously are not so; but are really only the agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes.
What is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents, senators, and representatives, these pretended agents of all "the people of the United States," the moment their exactions meet with any formidable resistance from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of blood money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow their money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those "people of the United States" -- their own constituents and principals, as they profess to call them -- who resist the robberies and enslavements which these borrowers of the money are practising upon them. And they expect to repay the loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate through a long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest.
Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war [i.e, the Civil War]. In proof of all this, look at the following facts.
Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of priests and kings.
Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices FOR A PURELY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATION, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future -- that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South -- that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These -- and not any love of liberty or justice -- were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.
On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war.
This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war**, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE."
The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you.
These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people.
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"
By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.
The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered -- so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
**Editor's Note: Spooner's "chief murderer" reference is to Union General and then recently elected President Grant
Come see your entire position torn to shreds by the leader of the abolitionist movement!!!! ROTFLOL!!!!
I see that this is Chapter 19 of a book claiming that the Constitution of the United States is invalid. I think it is fair to label the book and everything in it "Tin Foil"
If the Constitution of The United States is invalid then "Do What Though Will is the whole of the law"
So9
Actually, the book is an argument by a prominent legal philosopher forwarding the notion that the constitution had been violated by the conduction of the war and the events in his wake.
Spooner's a very interesting and important character in American history. He and William Lloyd Garrison were the two main philosophers of the intellectual abolitionist movement. Look him up if you get a chance.
In a sense, I believe that is what he's complaining about - he's asserting the government has assumed a policy of might makes right free of any restraint, and that they've done so by tossing out the constitution through the waging of the war and everything in its wake.
If I remember correctly Spooner had a legitimate first hand grievance with the government that probably influenced his stance.
I think he owned some sort of a nineteenth century version of a UPS mail delivery service. He created competition with the post office and it made them lose money and lower their stamp prices, so Congress intervened and used statute to put Spooner out of business.
Malarkey, boy. You try to quote a once famous Satanist and can't do it because you can't spell 'thou'. If you aren't even familiar with Spooner's book you shouldn't try to horn in on a discussion of an essay from it. Servant of nine winos under a bridge? Is that what your nick means?
So I take it you side with the political power grabbers and petty tyrants over the real abolitionists? At least you're honest about your affiliations!
Do you think he's not one? Cause practically every analysis of that movement's intellectual side identifies Spooner and Garrison as the leaders. They're about the only two who consistently make the history books as well, plus Stowe I suppose as the literary side and Brown as the violent domestic terrorist branch of the movement.
This is the same man who wrote "A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery"
Very good! You know your history!
where he had little to say about the kind of men who would become the leaders of your confederacy.
That is nice and all, but completely misses his post-war book quoted from here. His critique of the northern participants in the war and after the war (as in the people you constantly defend, embrace, and promote) is one of the most scathing pieces he ever wrote.
I'm perfectly content with ceding that he was no friend of the south and that makes his testimony here all the more amazing. But even then as a staunch opponent of slavery, I don't believe he ever called Jefferson Davis the "chief murderer of the war." No, he saved that title for Ulysses S. Grant.
"Mr. Lincoln, you know that General Grant drinks."
"Drinks, does he? Well find out what he drinks and send a barrel of it to all my other generals!"
This is probably a legend rather than a fact.
Even so, the War Between the States came down to two things;
The North had superior manufactoring capacity and more men.
In this clash of Titans, Lee was the superior general, but the North could replace generals at will. Lincoln finally found Grant. Not a genius, but true fighting spirit.
In the end, the war was basically a bad idea.
To quote Shelby Foote, a Southern historian; "The South never should have picked that fight."
I am getting into middle age now. I am Texan, but I have lived in the North, the South, and on the Left Coast.
I served for ten years in the USMC. With Yankees, good ol' boys, surfers, and kids from the Great Lakes. And a heck of a lot of Texans. They were all good Americans.
Today's battle is not South or North, it is between Americans and the remnants of the Communists and the rabid idiots who want to murder us in the name of some non-existant so-called god.
Let us all try to remember that.
The Civil War is over, long since.
One other thing. There is no wrong in a Southerner taking pride in his heritage and the valor of his ancestors anymore than there is wrong in a Yankee boasting that his great-great-grandfather fought to save the Union.
The war was misplaced, but the valiant men on both sides fought with honor (except for Sherman, and he died a long time ago).
LOL! That's funny.
Well it worked for Crowley and Clinton.
And don't forget our Texas Southern Heritage! (not the school :))
States Rights are VITAL. The 10th amendment makes this very clear.
And the 10th amendment reserves all rights not granted to the FED to the states, and then to the people.
And don't forget our Texas Southern Heritage!
"R.E. Lee once paid a very large tribute to Texans. After a battle (sorry I forget which one, look it up for yourself) he sent in a Texas Regiment.
They won.
Quoth R.E. Lee; "Texans always move them.
'Nuff said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.