Lincoln’s 'Second American Revolution'

LewRockwell ^ | November 23, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Ditto]

I found this book review at BSSN. Scroll down the page about 1/3. It's a hoot and like good satire always does, make a very effective point about DiLorenzo's rants.

The Surreal Lincoln, By Thomas J. DiLusional

What if everything you knew about Abraham Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who freed the slaves, Lincoln was in fact the son of Satan who instigated the bloodiest war in America n history in order to teach his Kentucky in-laws a lesson in good manners? In The Surreal Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLusional uncovers a side of Lincoln never before seen.

DiLusional portrays President Lincoln as a demon spirit who devoted his earthly life to dismantling the American form of government from one that supported human bondage to one that lived up to ideals embodied in The Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its hierarchical society, its resistance to literacy, and its reliance on unfettered human slave trade. To accomplish his illegitimate goals, Lincoln literally pissed on the Constitution every night before going to bed (giving it the yellowy, wrinkled appearance of today), trampled on the states right to sanction slavery, and instigated a devastating Civil War that haunts us to this day, as proved by the writings of Mr. DiLusional.

In The Surreal Lincoln, readers will discover a side of The Great Emancipator never taught in schools—a side that calls into question his humanity and explains the true origins of that unnecessary war and unfortunate Emancipation Proclamation. According to DiLusional, a peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle every single problem facing every single American in 1860. Imagine how much better the world would be if the Confederate States of America had won independence and preserved the right to enslave humans, the privilege of leaving its people uneducated, its roads made of dirt, and its minority of aristocrats in control of all the wealth, all for the cause of tax-free living. Yes, but for Abraham Lincoln, the American South of today would be a paradigm of paradise on par with Mexico. This is the indisputable lesson of The Surreal Lincoln, a work that showcases the unique writing talents of Mr. DiLusioinal.

[Colt .45]

See ... there you go again with the yadda-yadda ... blase-blase-blah.

[Non-Sequitur]

That's the kind of intelligent answer I've come to expect from someone who named himself after a malt liquor.

[H.Akston]

Here's some real insight:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. - James Madison, Federalist 39, to the People of the State of New York, who expressed the same right in their ratification message.

[H.Akston]

"He [Lincoln] did say it [secession] was inconsistent with U.S. law and patently unfair in our situation in 1860-61."

And as President, Lincoln of course was authorized to rule on the constitutionality of a State action.

[bjs1779]

Perhaps the person to blame would be the one who brought the war to the south, Jefferson Davis.

It would of been nice to have an actual casualty at Fort Sumter to support your contention.

[GOPcapitalist]

Wrong, wrong and wrong. It was April 12, while Sumpter was being shelled , not the day before.

Not true.

"Designed as a revenue cutter, Harriet Lane was named for President James Buchanan's niece, who served as the bachelor president's unofficial First Lady. Originally based out of New York, the ship fired the first shot of the Civil War as she tried to stop a ship inward bound to Charleston on the night before the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 18161." - Lincoln Paine, An Historical Encyclopedia of the Ships of the World

[stainlessbanner]

President Davis asked permission to suspend the Habeas Corpus, Walt - Davis did not assume that power.

[stainlessbanner]

There was no reason to bombard them other than Jeff Davis wanted to

Except that the states had seceded and wanted the Feds out. If I recall, President Davis was not a fire-eater and preferred other means of handling the situation. Remember it was Davis who said:

"A question solved by violence must remain unsolved forever."

It's very clear from Lincoln's orders to Gen. Scott and Anderson that a means of force was necessary. Included in those orders were naval signal books for Gen Anderson to communicate with the Union fleet.

[stainlessbanner]

All Lincoln said, all that was asked of him, was to preserve the Union.

Do you believe the Union came before the Constitution?

[H.Akston]

What? There were no casualties at Fort Sumter? The Confederates didn't draw first blood?? My goodness. All that we know, is wrong! I can't imagine why.

[WhiskeyPapa]

All Lincoln said, all that was asked of him, was to preserve the Union.

Do you believe the Union came before the Constitution?

Chief Justice Jay indicated that it did.

Jay, Chief Justice:-- "The Question we are now to decide has been accurately stated, viz.: Is a state suable by individual citizens of another state?...

The revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time, providing for their more domestic concerns by state conventions, and other temporary arrangements...the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly;"

-- From Jay's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia

Despite what any "baccer-chewin' morons" might say, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the way Lincoln and the framers viewed the Constitution.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

All that we know, is wrong! I can't imagine why.

All you know -is- wrong.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. - James Madison, Federalist 39, to the People of the State of New York, who expressed the same right in their ratification message.

No one is disagreeing with that statement.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

"He [Lincoln] did say it [secession] was inconsistent with U.S. law and patently unfair in our situation in 1860-61."

And as President, Lincoln of course was authorized to rule on the constitutionality of a State action.

He was certainly authorized to consider what might be constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the "so-called confederate states" (their phrase) were without effect in law and totally void.

In the majority opinion of the Prize Cases (as you know) the Court ruled that the president was authorized under acts from 1795 and 1807 to use the armed forces of the United States to put down insurrection against a state or the United States.

Yes, everything you "know" is wrong.

President Lincoln refused to sign the very harsh Wade-Davis bill in 1864 because he thought --that-- was unconstitutional. He thought that the Congress had no right to outlaw slavery. Imagine that.

Ever hear of it?

"...the Wade-Davis bill clarified and stiffened the reconstruction policy Lincoln had begun, and nearly all Republicans in both houses gave the measure their support. Among other things, it prohibited slavery in all reconstructed states and made slave owning a federal crime punishable by fines and imprisonment. Moreover, the bill threw out Lincoln's ten percent test and decreed that a majority of voters in a conquered rebel state must take an oath of allegiance before they could establish a new government. As outlined in the bill, the restoration process would now work like this for every rebel state:
the President would appoint and the Senate would confirm a provisional governor whose job was to administer the oath and call a constitutional convention charged with creating a republican form of government. So far as the convention was concerned, the bill required that an "iron-clad" oath be taken in order to exclude ex-confederates."

"With Malice Toward None", by Stepen Oates, p. 392

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

President Davis asked permission to suspend the Habeas Corpus, Walt - Davis did not assume that power.

The Constitution does not state what the president may or may not do with regard to the writ.

Jiminy Cricket, Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ and he wasn't even president!

"After the battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded, was well known in the city, but before official knowledge had arrived, Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, that it could be said the war was over, the clamor against martial law,, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr. Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of hebeus corpus to release Loualier. Gen. Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Holander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty trick." Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ Gen. Jackson took it from him, and sent him away with a copy.

Holding the judge in custody for a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should regularly be announced, or until the British should have left the coast. A day or two elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure.

It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now a case of rebellion; and thirdly, that the permanenet right of of the people to Public Discussion, the liberty of speech and the Press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the Habeus Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress."

-- A. Lincoln, 6/12/63

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

What does the body count matter? The fact that nobody was killed does not change the fact that the Civil War started there, in Charleston harbor, and that the south initiated the hostilities. Had the entire garrison been wiped out would it have made it mor acceptable to you?

[Non-Sequitur]

But it is also clear that force would have been used by the Union fleet only if opposed. Had the south not fired the North would have landed food only, no guns or reinforcements. The status quo would have been maintained and the chance for negotiation would have remained alive. Instead the south chose to take the fort through force of arms, for no good reason other than that they 'wanted the Feds out.' Well, if that was reason enough to start a war then I don't see what the complaint it. You got your war, it just didn't turn out the way you had planned. Those are the breaks.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Come on. Southerners who fought in the WBTS were Americans, proud as any; they were merely placing loyalty to their home state as higher than loyalty to Washington.

That's "just" treason.

Walt