Gerald Horne’s counter-revolution against 1776

In 2014, Professor Gerald Horne of the University of Houston published a book with a startling thesis: that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. This was no genuine revolution, Horne argued, but rather a counter-revolution waged to defend slavery against the true revolutionary force, the abolitionist British Empire—hence the name of the book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The American victory was not a progressive or world-historic event. It was a catastrophe. Horne suggests an analogy: the American Revolution created “the first apartheid state.”

Lincoln did nothing more than what was necessary to defeat Confederate rebellion and abolish slavery forever.

Lincoln did not need to do either thing, and in fact said over and over again he had no intentions of abolishing slavery, nor did he have the authority to do so.

Lincoln did in fact support the Amendment which would have kept slavery permanent.

Progressive centralizing only began after most Civil War veterans were long dead & gone.

No, it began in 1861 and Lincoln started it. There is a reason why the Grant administration was regarded as the most corrupt administration in history. He inherited all those corrupt bureaucrats from Lincoln.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln did not need to do either thing, and in fact said over and over again he had no intentions of abolishing slavery, nor did he have the authority to do so."

Nonsense, Lincoln's oath of office required him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Constitution required him to execute US laws, specifically those against rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and treason, all of which Lincoln faced from Confederates.

As for abolishing slavery, Lincoln had no authority to abolish slavery in states loyal to the Union, nor did he do so.
Lincoln had full authority in time of war or rebellion to declare enemy properties "contraband of war" and so he did for slaves within the authority of the US Army.

Freeing all slaves required the 13th Amendment which Lincoln supported and got passed through Congress.

Of course, you know all this already, but chose to... misrepresent it anyway.

DiogenesLamp: "No, it began in 1861 and Lincoln started it.
There is a reason why the Grant administration was regarded as the most corrupt administration in history."

First, Lincoln started nothing corrupt.
Second, Congress had many committees investigating Federal spending throughout Lincoln's & Grant's administrations.
Third, "corruption" is totally in the eyes of the beholders and historian "beholders" can be notoriously partisan.
For one example, here's a listing of "most corrupt presidents" by one site -- I give it no credence except to show that anybody can say anything.
Ten most corrupt presidents (1=most)

Nixon
Reagan
Harding
Bush Jr.
Clinton
Kennedy
Jackson
Truman
Lyndon Johnson
Grant

Personally, I think that's all nonsense -- sure, they do manage to squeeze in five Democrats, but near the bottom, and my definition of "corrupt" includes corrupting the Constitution, and that puts Franklin Roosevelt at #1 most corrupt.

But, my point is: even this list puts Grant at the bottom.

By contrast, this list ** puts Grant's administration at the top = most corrupt.
However, it doesn't blame Grant himself for any of the corruption, saying he didn't know about it and wasn't involved.
So I'd say his scandals don't prove Grant's was any more corrupt that any other administrations, only that the press and law enforcement were unusually vigorous in ferreting out whatever corruption existed.

So calling Grant "corrupt" is like our Democrat media today calling President Trump more "corrupt" when in reality they simply ignored, excused & covered-up corruptions in Obama's and now Biden's administrations.

** This list has only two presidents, Grant & Jackson (for the "spoils system"), the other "most corrupt" are New York's Boss Tweed, Tenn. Gov. Blanton and Louisiana's Gov Huey Long.
Again, I think the list is nonsense measuring only who got caught, not who was truly corrupt.

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.