The Real Abraham Lincoln

The Laissez Faire Electronic Times ^ | Tibor R. Machan

[Ditto]

The Emancipation Proclamation was just for European consumption, to keep them from recognizing the south.

That it did, and what it also did was add nearly 100,000 troops to the Union side. Black men who were liberated by Union troops.

I always get a chuckle out of people who criticize Lincoln for 'not following the Constitution' on one hand, and then criticize the EP for not freeing slaves in the border states. Those criticisms can only be the result of ignorance of the Constitutional and ignorance of what the EP was, (which was likely the case with the London Spectator), or deceptive and dishonest propaganda which is the most surely the case with Prof. DiLorenzo.

[humbletheFiend]

How does the title "David, First Duke of Bakersfield," sound to you?

[davidjquackenbush]

Well, somebody has to organize the territories . . .

[x]

Neely's recent book "Southern Rights" takes a look at the Confederacy's treatment of dissenters and shows that they have little to reproach Lincoln for.

Machan's admissions that he isn't a Lincoln specialist are honest and refreshing, thought they make one question why he wrote the article and why his editor saw fit to print it.

Economists like Williams and di Lorenzo and libertarian philosphers like Machan rely on the model of individual or consumer choice. It's a good model for many things, but if I individually opt out of the political community and don't leave or if half my neighbors choose to do so and half don't, it becomes very hard to keep any kind of government going. Anarchists might cheer this result on, but anarchy has been shown to have faults, flaws and failings of its own.

Libertarians generally recognize that problems and complexities are involved in public choices have aren't present in private ones. But on secession, some libertarians and economists act as though the decision was as simple and clear cut as buying soap, perhaps because in this case, they see the public choice as inclined to support their view.

It's simple enough to choose this car or this CD, choosing to be ruled by this government or that often does lead to war. Even had Lincoln let the South go, eventually there would have been war over the Western territories or the border states or over anomalous communities in Northern or Southern states that wanted to join the other country. That's not to say secession in itself is wrong or impossible, but there are better and worse ways of going about it, if it's what one wants.

The other thing is that some economists tend to see tariffs in the same way that some look on dancing, drinking, gambling or smoking, not just as a bad choice, but as a snare of the devil. So long as governments exist they will have to be funded somehow, and tariffs aren't so bad a choice. They were accepted by the founders. Protective tariffs may not be a wise choice, but surely there are much worse things in human history and the annals of government.

[TexasKamaAina]

Leaving is rebbellion two mutually hostile neighbors would be created.

Well, there was certainly one hostile neighbor: the invader.

[one2many]

The country's most renowned early supreme court justice, John Marshall, took the Hamiltonian line, favoring judicial as against legislative supremacy, as in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Precisely why the Confederate Constitution reined in the shysters.

Contrary to the impressions created by what has to be considered as more a myth or legend than historical reality, Lincoln comes off as a pragmatic, shrewd, but fundamentally not really principled politician.

Precisely. He was the Bill Clinton of his era; reviled by many (who later recanted for political expediency after the monster's death).

Isn't it time, also, to abandon the tactic, deployed, sadly, even by Professor Jaffa, of dismissing Lincoln critics as apologists for slavery, thus sparing oneself the trouble of coping with damning evidence?

The writer shouldn't hold his breath; this is the ONLY trump card the disinformationists hold and they will not give it up willingly and honestly.

[one2many]

STATIST PIG BUMP

Wlat you are just asking for a

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

==================================

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa

[one2many]

Yes the imp really is an Algore supporter; and worse! See my post above; it has the admission.

[one2many]

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

Very good.
Thank you for posting
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2

Now allow me to post the beginning of Article I of the Constitution:

It says:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

It does not say:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives and an Ape Linkum.

Perhaps you can direct me to another place in the Constitution where the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is given to the Chief Executive.

LINCOLN WAS A TYRANT AND A MURDERER AND HIS MYTH IS PROPPED UP BY TYRANTS TODAY.

[jwh_Denver]

Bttt

[one2many]

A marine? ROFLMAO

Truer words were never laughed aloud!

A PINK marine maybe....

You know, one that would look good shooing the flies away from Dookakis on that tank.....

The pitiful serf.

[one2many]

Your 112 nails it.

Below is a quote that you may want to explore. Short of getting the complete works of Thornwell; an expensive proposition perhaps best pursued here; the next best thing is to assimilate the information in the excellent historical reference work found here.

A Tip o' the Kepi to you Yankee brother!

"The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders --they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground - Christianity and atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake." --JAMES THORNWELL

[one2many]

"The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department." --Chief Justice Taney

Sorry I hadn't seen this when I made my post about this very thing a while back. Of course Taney and I (and any honest man) can only come to the one conclusion; Ape Linkum usurped the authority of Congress from the onset of this sorry episode in which he caused the deaths of 620,000 American soldiers and countless civilians.

He surely rots in an everlasting fire.

[one2many]

Quack:

really strict construction would require that the Constitution say: "powers not explicitly assigned to particular branches may only be exercised by the branch whose powers are being discussed generally in the Article in which the non-explicitly assigned power is mentioned."

You did notice didn't you, in 128 on this thread, that quack is apparently arguing that power not specifically denied to the executive may be assumed by him (the executive). Of course I am waiting, indeed we ALL are waiting, for him to conjure up some interpretation of Article II that gives the executive the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Hint: It ain't there buckaroo!

Chilling isn't he? A natural born torturer of the truth. One wonders what his goals are.

[one2many]

You may be assured that Culloden was remembered by what these disinformationists call "rebs"; --both in the era of the Revolution and the era of northern aggression.

“Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul." –Thomas Paine

[Twodees]

Lincoln's defenders act as though anyone can be elected to office and, seeing that a power is granted in the Constitution, may use it even though it was granted to another branch. These are the same idiots who will argue that since the states delegated some powers to the federal union they created, then they are totally subservient to that union in every respect. They're devotees of invented clauses and imagined text for the Constitution, as well as of the most bizarre extensions of language imaginable.

Every one of them should be deported as seditionists.

[4CJ]

“Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul." –Thomas Paine

I like that. Thanks.

[Quix]

Welllll, I got . . . something . . . carpted out?

quite a number of paragraphs into your piece. . . . Regardless of Lincoln's flaws, He stood authentically ENOUGH for ENOUGH PRIORITY PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS . . . that SOME of us would just as soon leave the image be.

Muck raking can tarnish virtually anyone--even Mother Theresa--as some have found. Ideals and Heros happen to be useful, even valuable.

Then part of me wonders about the psychology of trying to bring down paragon models, ideals. . . . but not enough to really get into it very vigorously.