Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fighting Facts With Slander
LR ^ | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex

Fighting Facts With Slander

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Certain neo-conservatives have responded to the publication of my book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War , with quite hysterical name calling, personal smears, and slanderous language. The chief practitioners of this vulgar means of public discourse are Alan Keyes and employees of his Washington, D.C. based "Declaration Foundation."

On the Foundation?s Web site on Easter Sunday was a very pleasant, Christian blessing, located right below a reprinting of Paul Craig Roberts?s March 21 Washington Times review of my book (" War on Terrorism a Threat to Liberty? "). In a very un-Christian manner the Declaration Foundation accuses Roberts (and myself, indirectly) of "ignorance and calumny." According to Webster?s College Dictionary "calumny" means making false and malicious statements intended to injure a reputation, slander, and defamation. Let?s see if what Roberts said in his column fits that definition.

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag; ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as "The American Bastille" since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners. All of this was catalogued decades ago in such books as James G. Randall?s Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln and Dean Sprague?s Freedom Under Lincoln.

"This amazing disregard for the Constitution," wrote historian Clinton Rossiter," was "considered by nobody as legal." "One man was the government of the United States," says Rossiter, who nevertheless believed that Lincoln was a "great dictator."

Lincoln used his dictatorial powers, says Roberts, to "suppress all Northern opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts." This is not even controversial, and is painstakingly catalogued in the above-mentioned books as well as in The Real Lincoln. Lincoln?s Secretary of State William Seward established a secret police force and boasted to the British Ambassador, Lord Lyons, that he could "ring a bell" and have a man arrested anywhere in the Northern states without a warrant.

When the New York City Journal of Commerce published a list of over 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration, Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General to deny those papers mail delivery, which is how nearly all newspapers were delivered at the time. A few of the papers resumed publication only after promising not to criticize the Lincoln administration.

Lincoln "ignored rulings hand-delivered to him by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to respect and faithfully execute the laws of the United States" says Roberts. Absolutely true again. Taney ? and virtually all legal scholars at the time ? was of the opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus, and had his opinion hand delivered to Lincoln by courier. Lincoln ignored it and never even bothered to challenge it in court.

Roberts also points out in his article that "Lincoln urged his generals to conduct total war against the Southern civilian population." Again, this is not even controversial. As pro-Lincoln historian Steven Oates wrote in the December 1995 issue of Civil War Times, "Lincoln fully endorsed Sheridan?s burning of the Shenandoah Valley, Sherman?s brutal March to the Sea through Georgia, and the . . . destructive raid through Alabama." James McPherson has written of how Lincoln micromanaged the war effort perhaps as much as any American president ever has. It is inconceivable, therefore, that he did not also micromanage the war on civilians that was waged by his generals.

Lincoln?s war strategy was called the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to strangle the Southern economy by blockading the ports and controlling the inland waterways, such as the Mississippi River. It was, in other words, focused on destroying the civilian economy.

General Sherman declared on January 31, 1864 that "To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife he said his goal was "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people." And so he burned the towns of Randolph, Tennessee, Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, and Atlanta to the ground after the Confederate army had left; bombarded cities occupied only by civilians in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1863; and boasted in his memoirs of destroying $100 million in private property and stealing another $20 million worth. All of this destroyed food stuffs and left women, children, and the elderly in the cold of winter without shelter or food.

General Philip Sheridan did much of the same in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, burning hundreds of houses to the ground and killing or stealing all livestock and destroying crops long after the Confederate Army had left the valley, just as winter was approaching.

"A new kind of soldier was needed" for this kind of work, writes Roberts. Here he is referring to my quotation of pro-Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who in his biography of Sherman wrote that "the New York regiments [in Sherman?s army] were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Lincoln recruited the worst of the worst to serve as pillagers and plunderers in Sherman?s army.

Lincoln used the war to "remove the constraints that Southern senators and congressmen, standing in the Jeffersonian tradition, placed in the way of centralized federal power, high tariffs, and subsidies to Northern industries." Indeed, Lincoln?s 28-year political career prior to becoming president was devoted almost exclusively to this end. Even Lincoln idolater Mark Neely, Jr., in The Fate of Liberty , noted that as early as the 1840s, Lincoln exhibited a "gruff and belittling impatience" with constitutional arguments against his cherished Whig economic agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad and road building industries, and a federal government monopolization of the money supply. Once he was in power, Lincoln appointed himself "constitutional dictator" and immediately pushed through this mercantilist economic agenda ? an agenda that had been vetoed by president after president beginning with Jefferson.

Far from "saving the Union," writes Roberts, Lincoln "utterly destroyed the Union achieved by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution." The original Union was a voluntary association of states. By holding it together at gunpoint Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but he destroyed it in a philosophical sense.

Paul Craig Roberts based his column on well-documented facts as presented in The Real Lincoln. In response to these facts, in a recent WorldNetDaily column the insufferably sanctimonious Alan Keyes described people like myself, Paul Craig Roberts, Walter Williams, Joe Sobran, Charles Adams, Jeffrey Rogers Hummell, Doug Bandow, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., and other Lincoln critics as "pseudo-learned scribblers," with an "incapacity to recognize moral purpose" who display "uncomprehending pettiness," are "dishonest," and, once again, his favorite word for all who disagree with him: "ignorant."

"Ignorant" and "slanderous" is the precise language one should use to describe the hysterical rantings and ravings of Alan Keyes and his minions at the so-called Declaration Foundation.

April 3, 2002

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail ] is the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Copyright 2002 LewRockwell.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: dixielist; keyes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-548 next last
To: Rowdee
If so, then the state giving up the territory to form a new state would have to agree thru its legislature, as well as the Congress, per Article 4, Section 3.

At the time the Virginia legislature voted to secede, those members from the western counties where the vast majority of the popular vote was against secession formed a rump legislature in Charleston. They elected a Governor and there representatives were recognized by congress and given seats. The people of "West Virginia" then voted to petition congress for admission as a new state and congress approved the resolution as long as it included emancipapion of slaves, which were very few in the Western counties. It was perfectly Constitutional and Lincoln had little to do with it. Congress did most of it on its own.

41 posted on 04/03/2002 1:15:55 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
The Constitution gives Congress the power to allow a state to split into two states with the consent of the state legislature. In the case of Virginia, the western counties had always had problems with the eastern part of the state. For 40 years prior to the war the western section of Virginia had long thought that they were on the shore end of state spending to the benefit of the slaveholding eastern section. Once the war broke out, a convention was held in Wheeling which formed a breakaway Virginia legislature which they proclaimed to be loyal to the Union. Congress recognized this legislature as the legitimate Virginia legislature. They then voted to partition the state and once Congress approved they reformed themselves as the West Virginia legislature. That is the short version of what happened. Here is a <a href="http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehoo.html'> website </a> which goes into more detail. The long and the short of it is that the people of western Virginia took advantage of the circumstances to achieve something that they had wanted for decades. You may disagree with them but there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about their actions, or the actions of Congress or the President. Western Virginia was not the only section which felt that way, either. Eastern Tennessee would have tried a similar action but, unlike western Virginia, the Union was not in a position to assist them. Governor Isham Harris and his goons held sway to eastern Tennessee through bloodshed, violence, and arbitrary jailings.
42 posted on 04/03/2002 1:18:24 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Pure economics and the industrial revolution destroyed slavery.

How do you figure?

43 posted on 04/03/2002 1:19:27 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Let me try that again. The West Virginia link is here
44 posted on 04/03/2002 1:20:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Pure economics and the industrial revolution destroyed slavery.

The economics of slavery were quite healthy in 1860. The wealthiest people in the country in 1860 were Southern plantation owners. Cotton was King and it was far more profitable and far less risky than steel, coal or railroads --- especially when you had slave labor. The industrial revolution had hardly touched the south and did not for another 40 years after the war was over and the slaves were free.

45 posted on 04/03/2002 1:27:01 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rdf
I repeat that DiLorenzo is an intellectually shabby propagandist.

The only shabby stuff I see around here is that little chicken siht organization you run.

46 posted on 04/03/2002 1:28:56 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Reading the Constitution tells me the US did in fact disobey the Constitution [so whats new]....using circumstances to suit their own purposes [again, what's new].

Whether western VA broke away or not, the Constitution requires the consent of the legislature of the state involved, i.e., Virginia.

I don't see how they, the Congress, can/could just pick and chose what they deem is appropriate Constitutional matters....but then, if I did, the SOBS doing the hack job with our Cosntitution would never be in office.

Regards

47 posted on 04/03/2002 1:33:14 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I suggest you bone up on the Kansas Nebraska act

Kansas-Nebraska act, which was signed into law in 1854. Kansas-Nebraska proclaimed "Popular Sovereignty" in the territories, allowing the people of each new territory to decide whether or not slavery would be admitted when they achieved statehood, rather than restricting it as the Missouri Compromise had.

48 posted on 04/03/2002 1:40:39 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
state spending to the benefit of the slaveholding eastern section.

You're not suggesting that the western part of Virginia wasn't slaveholding are you??? LOL

49 posted on 04/03/2002 1:43:46 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Read the link I posted in reply 44. Congress DID have the approval of the Virginia legislature recognized as loyal to the Federal Government.
50 posted on 04/03/2002 1:44:48 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
There were, in fact, very few slaveholders in western Virginia.
51 posted on 04/03/2002 1:45:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The industrial revolution had hardly touched the south and did not for another 40 years after the war was over and the slaves were free.

Well duhhhh... After the war the congress again passed huge tariffs which only raped the souths economy. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.

52 posted on 04/03/2002 1:46:27 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That's simply not true. Were there as many in the easter half?? Nope... Agriculture... but the western half of the state had plenty of slaveholders.
53 posted on 04/03/2002 1:48:01 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rdf; davidjquackenbush; whiskeypapa; non_sequitur
Why don't we shift gears on this thread. DiLorenzo's core contention is that Lincoln trashed the Constitution. I believe we are all in agreement on that. So why don't you Lincoln apologists take the below, point by point, and provide what you consider constitutional justification for each action:

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus;

launched a military invasion without consent of Congress;

blockaded Southern ports without declaring war;

imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies;

arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses;

censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads;

created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional;

ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections;

deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior;

confiscated private property;

confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment;

Thanks in advance.

54 posted on 04/03/2002 1:51:09 PM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
In the case of West Virginia, was that not carved out of the State of Virginia or one of the other states? If so, then the state giving up the territory to form a new state would have to agree thru its legislature, as well as the Congress, per Article 4, Section 3.

Actually, given that the legislature of the State of Virginia was party to rebellion against the federal government, they kinda lost their right to complain about that issue.

55 posted on 04/03/2002 1:52:32 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Save me the trouble of reading and just tell me....it was the newly formed legislature that voted, right? :) As I said, how convenient.....government has a way of doing that sort of thing.....of course, when it suits their purposes...i.e. a patriot in recent days and years has been considered scum of the earth...right wing radicals,,,,terrorists...yada yada yada....and yet, the SOBS in order to control and cut down on liberties and freedoms, appropriate the word PATRIOT to wrap themselves in the flag of the nation!!

Thanks....but no thanks.

56 posted on 04/03/2002 1:57:28 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rdf
"Lincoln was an American Pol Pot, except worse." - Paul Craig Roberts

Thanks for the ping, but I really don't know if I have the stomach for all this.

Ping me again when they get around to what Lincoln did to Paula Jones' great great grandmother.

57 posted on 04/03/2002 1:58:12 PM PST by humbletheFiend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Ah....another "i want it both ways".....yeah, sure.....
58 posted on 04/03/2002 1:58:42 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
Save me the trouble of reading and just tell me....it was the newly formed legislature that voted, right? :) As I said, how convenient.....government has a way of doing that sort of thing.....of course, when it suits their purposes...i.e. a patriot in recent days and years has been considered scum of the earth...right wing radicals,,,,terrorists...yada yada yada....and yet, the SOBS in order to control and cut down on liberties and freedoms, appropriate the word PATRIOT to wrap themselves in the flag of the nation!!

Actually, the folks who threw the word "patriot" around like a football and tried to say "blowing up a Federal building is patriotic!" are responsible for the term coming into disrepute.

In short, the press refused to disagree with the speakers...

59 posted on 04/03/2002 2:05:52 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
"Once the war broke out, a convention was held in Wheeling which formed a breakaway Virginia legislature which they proclaimed to be loyal to the Union. Congress recognized this legislature as the legitimate Virginia legislature."

In other words, some guys got together and said "Let's make our own state, and while we're at it, we'll make ourselves the legislature." The Union Congress was happy to go along with that.

60 posted on 04/03/2002 2:07:43 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-548 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson