Posted on 08/23/2002 11:48:38 AM PDT by Aurelius
Those military forces wouldn't have included the seven ships bought or built would it? Naaaaahh, couldn't be
Never heard it said like that
Its basic premise: that Lincoln was the American equivalent of a Prussian Junkers landowner is downright laughable.
The "facts" are pure crap, predicated on Young's preconceived notions of Lincoln's motives.
Wouldn't be prudent.
Oh, for f-ck sake.
If they're all as stupid as this one, I'm afraid you've been robbed....
You misprepresent the basis of their similarities; Lincoln was not the equivalent of Bismarck as a Prussian Junkers landowner any more than Bismarck is remembered for being such. The two men were alike in their single-minded devotion to taking power from the people and consolidating it in the hands of the politicians. Lincoln may not have anticipated the all-powerful government we know today, intervening in the most private of our affairs, but he played a major part in bringing it about.
"Both Lincoln and Bismarck began their careers laboring in their respective wildernesses in pursuit of their twin goals: the consolidation of their general federations into a centralized regime of privilege and the destruction of free trade and other classical liberal ideas. And both Lincoln and Bismarck would found their power on the slave labor of conscript armies."
...
"Lincoln, like Bismarck, scorned the liberal policies of peace and free trade. And it is because of Lincoln's war that America came to be less and less associated with those ideals of free trade and peace. Abraham Lincoln made the American national state great, but Americans as free men small. Abraham Lincoln overthrew his own people and began reversing the gains of classical liberalism--a reversal that still continues to this day throughout the world."
Mr. Young takes the viewpoint of all good southron supporters - something is illegal or unconstitutional just because he says it is. Let's take them in order, shall we?
After engineering the delay in calling Congress back to Washington for three months
Please show me the illegal action here? Where does it say, either in the Constitution or in any legislation, that Lincoln must call Congress into session at all? Article 2, Section 3 states that the president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them..." It doesn't say must convene. It doesn't say "on extraordinary occasions will immediately convene..." Lincoln called Congess into session and convened it on July 4. Whether it was one day or three weeks or three months is meaningless in terms of legality.
after having used duplicitous communications to force the South to fire first
Ah yes, the Yankees made them do it. The comment is typical southron and is too ridiculous for words.
Lincoln usurped the congressional powers of appropriation and spending as he built up his military forces. to which billbears added Those military forces wouldn't have included the seven ships bought or built would it? Naaaaahh, couldn't be
Again, Lincoln did nothing illegal. As Commander in Chief he could have ordered a hundred ships and an army of a million men. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in that. But as Commander in Chief, or even as President, he could not appropriate dollar one to pay for those ships or to arm those men. And he didn't. Read the accounts of the times. The army Lincoln called to colors was supplied and funded by the various state legislatures throughout May and June in the expectation that Congress would appropriate the money to reimburse them when they came into session. McPherson mentions this in his book, how governors called state legislatures into session to pary for organizing and supplying the soldiers in the interim. And as it turns out Congress appropriated the money but if they had not then all those men would have had to go home and all those ships been returned to the builders. Again, show me what law Lincoln broke and what section of the Constitution he violated with his call for 75,000 men?
...unconstitutionally ordered a naval blockade of Southern ports, and began planning the invasion of the Confederacy before Congress even had a chance to gather.
Where were these unconstiutional acts? Where does the Constitution forbid this? What article? As Commander in Chief Lincoln could have the navy deploy where ever he felt the need to and could send the army to any part of the United States that he wanted. There was nothing illegal in any of this. Mr. Young will no doubt point out that only congress can declare war. But war is declared on other soverign nations and not rebellious parts of your own country.
Now if Mr. Young wants to talk about unconstitutional actions like failing to appoint a supreme court, or socialistic actions like seizing farm output for government use then I'll be glad to join in. But the actions he referenced are illegal in his own mind only.
You truly do get what you pay for, don't you?
Thanks to Shuckmaster!
Your convenient ellipsis leaves out the fact that Young apparently thinks otherwise. Bismark's entire list of sins is traced back to his Junker roots: Otto von Bismarck sprang from a long line of Prussian Junker landowners, and he identified with the Junker's disdain for the emerging industrial society in Germany, with its liberal ideas of individualism and opposition to feudal privilege and monarchical absolutism....
Young then gives us a rundown of how Bismark's Junker views informed his political goals: Bismarck would loyally serve the ideal of feudal and monarchical authoritarianism as the twin pillars of the Prussian state's self-declared destiny to unify a disunited Germany.
Thus we have the description of Bismarck as Junker and Monarchist.
Young continues his descriptive comparison by showing how Lincoln is "just like Bismarck:" Abraham Lincoln would rise through the ranks of the pre-Republican Whig Party of Illinois, eventually securing unquestioned control over the state party machine....
Gasp! A successful politician gaining control of his party machine. Unheard-of except with tyrants! Bismarckian, for sure!
Aside from this asinine attempt to turn normal politics into a tyrannical act, Young leaves out something: we're not given a life-history of Lincoln. This is crucial because Lincoln was clearly anything but a Junkers landowner. Young leaves Lincoln's heritage out for the obvious reason that to mention it would ruin a key part of his argument: the reason for why they both desired tyranny. The convenient omission is clearly meant to imply that their backgrounds yielded similar political views.
Next, Young gives a recitation of Lincoln's alleged sins that are not merely wrong policies, but (according to Young) his actual goals: ... all the time advocating the mercantilist agenda of tariffs, subsidies to politically connected businesses, a central bank and paper money, and a strong executive.
Which is, of course, pure DiLorenzian bullshit, not to mention being an apples-to-oranges comparison of Bismarck's goals.
Given the dismal quality of this small section of Young's screed, it's no surprise to find that the rest is full of corn too.
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.