The Essence of Liberty Volume I. Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government.

A Summary of: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Compiled and Edited by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

Chapter 4: Lincoln’s Real Agenda

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)In Lincolns words (1832): “I am in favor a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” This statement summarizes his entire 28 year political career before being elected president. It is also a concise definition of the Whig Party’s political agenda—protectionism, government control of the money through a nationalized banking system and government subsidies for businesses. As historian Michael F. Holt wrote, “Few people in the (Whig) party were so committed to its economic agenda as Lincoln.”

When the Whig Party imploded in the 1850s, Lincoln joined the Republican Party and assured his constituents that there was no difference between the two.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a replay of the old argument between the Federalists (and Whigs) “one consolidated empire” and Jefferson and Jackson’s “confederacy of sovereign states.”

Economists have a word for the American System—mercantilism. More precisely, it is a system of protectionism which provides the means for government dispensation of favors to special interest groups which, in turn, provide support for the politicians handing out the favors. It benefits both the special interest groups as well as the politicians. Everyone else is harmed. For mercantilism to survive, the public must be intentionally miseducated in economics. And that is the role of intellectuals and publicists—confusing the public about the true intentions of the two groups.

The same goes for tax-funded subsidies. They generally benefit those lucky enough to get them at the expense of the taxpayers. Today, “internal improvement subsidies” is denigrated as “corporate welfare.”

Nationalized banking was always part of the mercantilist agenda. With it, the government can simply print paper money to finance special-interest subsidies. In this way, the true costs can be more easily hidden. Those “true costs” eventually show up as inflation which the politicians can blame on “greedy corporations.”

Obviously, mercantilism inherently has great potential for political corruption. In fact, it is this very potential for buying votes that attracts politicians to the system.

All of these policies generate centralization of governmental power. But, the debate ended in the 1860s. The centralizers won, literally by force of arms.

The American System provided the framework for a giant political patronage system. Contrary to what the public was generally led to believe, it was not “capitalism.” To the contrary, it was mercantilism which was the very system Adam Smith railed against in The Wealth of Nations. It was (and is) special-interest, pork barrel politics of the worst kind.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange. It does not involve monopolistic privilege created by protectionism. Capital markets finance projects that serve consumers—investments do not depend on political connections.

The denationalization of money is essential to the development of a capitalist economy. Socializing the money supply is a dire mistake. By now it should be obvious that the more politicized an economy becomes, the less opportunity there is for its citizens. Of course, the same can be said for all forms of statism—everything from mercantilism through full blown socialism.

Henry Clay and the Whigs

An overview of Henry Clay’s political beliefs will be instructive in understanding what Lincoln was so devoted to. When Clay entered politics in 1811 he launched a 30 year political battle with the defenders of the Jeffersonian philosophy of constitutionally limited government.

Being Alexander Hamilton’s political heir, Clay was a champion of centralized government driven by political patronage for the benefit of the “monied aristocracy.”

He spent a large part of his career lobbying for corporate subsidies and was a fierce advocate for protectionism. Since high tariffs protected northern manufacturers from foreign competition, Clay was their man in Congress.

By the 1840s most of the country’s exports were from the South. The Southern economy was almost totally agrarian. Therefore, tariffs on manufactured goods meant that Southerners had to pay more for those goods—i.e. they had to bear most of the burden while most of the expenditures of tariff revenue took place in the north. They rightfully saw the tariff as an unconstitutional tool of plunder.

Clay was a primary proponent and sponsor of the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” which almost resulted in secession. (A South Carolina convention voted to nullify the tariff by refusing to collect it at Charleston harbor.)

Clay favored nationalized banking and fought a pitched battle with Andrew Jackson over the Bank of the united States. Jackson eventually won the battle but in the meantime, Clay used his position as Speaker of the House to place his cronies on the bank’s board of directors. This was exactly the kind of corruption that the opposition to nationalized banking predicted.

Jackson referred to the bank as “a vast electioneering engine” with the “power to control the Government and change its character.” His Treasury Secretary, Roger Taney, pointed out the bank had a “corrupting influence.” The behavior of Henry Clay is evidence that these concerns were well founded. Clay left Congress for two years in 1822 for a position as general counsel of the Bank of the united States. In those two years, he was paid what would amount to almost a million dollars today.

Daniel Webster (another Whig) collected “compensation” from the bank without even bothering to resign from Congress. He simply demanded a “retainer” for being a bank spokesman in Congress. This was the kind of shakedown that Taney and Jackson correctly spoke of as a “corrupting influence.”

By 1840 the Whigs thought they would break the constitutional logjam with the election of William Henry Harrison. But, unfortunately for them, Harrison died shortly after taking office and John Tyler (his Vice President) turned out to be a Jeffersonian and strong advocate for states’ rights and limited government. Tyler vetoed Clay’s bank bill and was also opposed to protectionist tariffs and internal improvement subsidies.

Protectionism, a government controlled money supply and corporate subsidies where the corner stones for the American System. A fourth would be the quest for empire—a goal that the Founders never intended. Clay’s attitude toward the American Indian was essentially the same as the Republican’s from 1865-1890 when all of the Plains Indians were to either be killed or placed on reservations.

Lincoln the Whig

Lincoln was devoted to the American System from the time he entered politics. Next to Clay, he was the fiercest advocated of a nationalized banking system of all the Whigs.

If the Whigs could not have paper money printed by the federal government, they would settle for state government controlling the currency. When Jackson refused to re-charter the Bank of the united States, Lincoln and the Whigs in Illinois turned to advocating the issue of paper currency by state government to help pay for their internal improvement projects.

Lincoln , like Clay, was a devoted protectionist for his whole political career. He took up where Clay left off as chief advocate for tariffs to protect northern manufacturers from foreign competition. He not only ignored the case for free trade made by Adam Smith 1776, he also ignored the economic logic of the commerce clause of the uS Constitution which made it illegal for one state to tax goods imported from another. If free trade between states is a good idea, how could international trade not be?

Trade restrictions reduce the wealth of nations. Although they due provide temporary benefits to the industries they protect from competition, that comes at the expense of consumers and workers whose choices are limited and who have to pay higher prices for goods. A Naval blockade his ports is a means of harming an enemy during wartime. Tariffs and other types of protectionism achieve essentially the same result except the harm is suffered domestically.

In order to gain their support for protectionism, the public must be convinced that the interest of some small special-interest group is really their interest too. Clever protectionist propagandists make the case for special-interest policies by producing a blizzard of plausible sounding (but incorrect) economic theories intended to conceal their real intensions from the public. It is relatively easy to pull the wool over the public’s eyes by taking advantage of its ignorance of economics.

Lincoln frequently commented on the tariff issue. In a 1847 speech he made a counterintuitive argument that free trade would actually cause higher prices since the costs of transporting goods constituted “useless labor.” According to this logic, importing products from Illinois to Ohio should be prohibited.

He also espoused a crude version of Marx’s labor theory of value—the idea that all value is created by the labor used to produce the product. According to this theory, value can be created by digging a hole in the middle of the desert. According to Lincoln , free trade was a system whereby “some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large portion of the fruits…” Obviously this ignores the importance of consumer preferences, entrepreneurship, investment, risk taking, etc. in the determination of economic value.

Corporate welfare (or in the language of the time, government subsidies for “internal improvements”) was Lincoln ‘s motivation for entering politics in the first place. In 1837 the Whigs, under Lincoln ‘s leadership, appropriated $12 million for myriad “internal improvements.” The program was a disaster. Not even this miserable experience changed his support for such policy.

George Nicolay and John Hay described the debacle as resting “upon a people who had been deceiving themselves with the fallacy that it would somehow pay itself by acts of the legislature”…but after the $12 million had been spent, nothing was left of the “brilliant schemes” but “a load of debt that crippled for many years the energies of the people.” And Lincoln held a big part of the responsibility for convincing the public of that “fallacy.”

So, the “internal improvement” system collapsed and Illinois was left with a huge debt and an empty treasury. The Whig experiment at the state level had been an unmitigated disaster. Never-the-less, they (and Lincoln ) continued to advocate more of the same for decades.

Internal Improvements in Historical Perspective

It was not just chance that caused Lincoln to pick internal improvements as his key issue. It was central to the most important political debate of the time and Lincoln was an astute politician. To understand Lincoln ‘s agenda, one must understand this debate in historical perspective.

From the beginning there had been a sharp political divide between advocates for centralization and those who advocated decentralized government—i.e. the Federalists v. the anti-Federalists or the Hamiltonians v. the Jeffersonians.

Alexander Hamilton was the foremost proponent of centralization. He proposed a constitution that concentrated all power in the central government with little or no role reserved for the states. He did not believe in federalism’s divided sovereignty.

By the 1820s an economic policy agenda was being promoted by the political heirs of the Federalists. This consisted of ”a group of northerners determined to use the federal government to bring about its economic goals” through national banks, internal improvements and tariffs.

Essentially, their agenda was the British-style of mercantilism that Jefferson and his disciples were so opposed to because they knew of its results—government-sanctioned favors at the expense of the public, economic monopoly and corruption. It was just such a system that had driven so many British to settle in America.

By the 1830s the Whig Party had adopted the Hamiltonian/mercantilist mantle and would battle mightily on its behalf until the demise of the party in 1856. But then, the agenda was adopted by the Republican party and in 1860, Lincoln became its standard bearer. His election and the northern victory in the war was the final victory of the Federalist/Hamiltonian centralizers.

Hamilton was the first to propose government subsidies for internal improvements. But it was Albert Gallatin ( Jefferson ‘s Treasury Secretary) that was the first to present a detailed plan but very little came of the “Gallatin Plan.” John Quincy Adams was the second most prominent champion of internal improvement subsidies but neither did he have any real success. Then, after Andrew Jackson defeated Adams in 1828, Henry Clay took up Hamilton’s vision and young Abe Lincoln jumped on the bandwagon.

Henry Clay had introduced a bill for road building subsidies which James Madison vetoed on his last day in office. In his veto message, the “father” of the Constitution made a powerful constitutional argument against internal improvements. He said simply that Congress had certain enumerated powers but “it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised in the bill is among (them).” He warned that the general welfare clause was never intended to be a Pandora’s box for special-interest legislation.

Sixteen years later, Andrew Jackson would veto numerous internal improvement bills. This was not just a debate over funds for building roads, canals, etc. It was a debate over the fundamental meaning of the constitution and the form of the united States government.

Waste, Fraud, and Corruption

The proponents of government subsidies for internal improvements argued that private capital would not provide sufficient resources. But privately funded roads proliferated throughout the early 19th Century.

James J. Hill built a transcontinental railroad (the Great Northern) without a dime of government subsidy. And so did several others.

Local merchants and residents invested in private road and canal building because it helped their businesses and communities.

Virtually ever case where state and local governments subsidized internal improvements turned out to be a calamity. Projects in Ohio , Illinois , Indiana , and Michigan were all plagued by waste and corruption and shortly went bankrupt. In fact, subsidized internal improvements were such a universal disaster that, by 1875, Massachusetts was the only state that still permitted them. But none of these experiences fazed Lincoln.

Most of the opposition at the federal level came from the Southerners. In fact, the South was so opposed to it that the Confederate Constitution outlawed the practice.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's Handbook  Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why Governments Hate Secession

Think secession, all the way down to the individual family unit. — jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

Thus, states that control large territories and populations are able to directly control larger and more diverse economies within their borders. This means more tax revenue, which in turn means greater military capability. Naturally, state organizations are not inclined to abandon these advantages lightly, even when secession movement express a desire that they do so.
A Handbook for Ranch ManagersThink secession, all the way down to the individual family unit. — jtl, 419
by Ryan McMaken via Mises Wire

When the Soviet Union began its collapse in 1989, the world witnessed decentralization and secession on a scale not seen in Europe since the nineteenth century.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualOver the next several years, puppet regimes and states-in-name-only broke away from Soviet domination and formed sovereign states. Some states which had completely ceased to exist—such as the Baltic states—declared independence and became states in the own right. In total, secession and decentralization in this era brought about more than…

View original post 1,802 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Essence of Liberty Volume I. Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government.

A Summary of: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Compiled and Edited by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

Chapter 3: Why Not Peaceful Emancipation?

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)Lincoln had several opportunities to liberate slaves but refused to do so. Union General John Fremont, who was in charge of military efforts in Missouri, issued a proclamation to implement martial law. In it, he declared that anybody who resisted the occupying Federal army would have their property confiscated and their slaves freed. Those sympathetic to the unionists were free to keep their slaves. Lincoln nullified the emancipation part of that proclamation and stripped Fremont of his command. A similar incident occurred when General David Hunter attempted to emancipate slaves in Union-held territory.

Slaves who ended up in the hands of the Federal army, and many did, were not freed. Instead they were put to work doing the most unpleasant tasks in and around the army camps. Some were simply sent back to their owners.

In a public letter to New York Tribune, Lincoln explained that he not especially concerned with emancipation per se but that his main objective was to force the secessionists to remain in the Union. He indicated that he would either free the slaves or leave them alone—whatever it took to “save the Union.” Note that this contradicted the statement he made in his First Inaugural Address to the effect that he “had no constitutional authority to disturb slavery.” Apparently he had since become willing to ignore the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers.

It should also be noted that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. It applied only to rebel territory—even though the Federal armies occupied a large part of the South at the time where it would have been possible to free thousands of slaves. The Proclamation was promptly denounced in the North as a political gimmick. (DiLorenzo quotes from the New York World, the London Spectator, and the Saturday Review.) In a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln himself admitted that the Proclamation was only a war measure and not a real attempt at emancipation.

(Note that today, presidents spew thousands of laws (executive orders, etc) that state and local governments must comply with. It was Lincoln that let that “genie out of the bottle.)

One might wonder what the objective of such a “war measure” might be. Lincoln was desperate. If England or France offered economic support to the Confederacy, he might have to end the war. He understood that the European countries (who had recently peacefully abolished slavery) would be less likely to support the Confederacy if emancipation was one of the purposes for the war. Furthermore, there was a chance that the Proclamation would incite a slave insurrection.

The Military Context

The first major battle of the war (in July 1861) was known as the Battle of First Manassas in the South and the battle of Bull Run in the North. It was a resounding Confederate victory ending with a wild scramble of Federal troops and civilians back to Washington, DC . At that point, “Stonewall” Jackson approached President Davis and said, “Give me ten thousand men and I will take Washington tomorrow!” Davis refused and would speak of that decision for the rest of his life as “one of the great mistakes of the war.”

Several smaller battles took place in early 1862 with Federal victories at Forts Henry and Donelson in Tennessee where both sides suffered horrific losses. The Battle of Shiloh in early April was considered a Federal victory even though Federal and Confederate casualties were essentially equal. It was all downhill from there for the Federal Armies for the next 15 months.

Here is the military context within which the Emancipation Proclamation was issued:

Jackson defeated 45,000 Federal troops with only 16,000 of his own in the Shenandoah Valley.

Together, Jackson and Lee outwitted Lincoln (who had effectively taken over command of the Federal army) in the Peninsula Campaign.

Total casualties in the Seven Days Battle were more shocking that those at Shiloh. It was not a major victory for either side, but the Federal army was forced to retreat back across the James River.

The Battle of Second Manassas (August 1862) had essentially the same outcome as the first.

The Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg to Southerners) ended in a stalemate with September 17, 1862 going down as the date of the bloodiest battle ever fought on American soil.

At the Battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862, more than 121,000 Federal troops attacked the Confederates in thirteen charges across an open plain. Not a one of them got as close as 50 yards and once again the Federal army retreated.

Lincoln was at the end of his military rope. Furthermore, the Proclamation did not fool the British. Their opinion makers did not support the Proclamation. They believed that, at best, it was intended to incite a slave rebellion against the women and children left on the plantations.

Northern Response to the Proclamation

Northerners were shocked by the Emancipation because they had not been told that they were dying by the tens of thousands for black strangers in faraway states. In fact, race riots occurred in New York City as whites protested the Emancipation.

There were also “draft riots” after Lincoln’s conscription law was announced. The Emancipation also caused a desertion crisis in the army as men fled to Canada and hid out in the mountains of central Pennsylvania. Enlistment rates and war bond prices plummeted.

There was a “backlash of anti-emancipation sentiment” in the Federal army because soldiers believed that the Emancipation had changed the purpose of the war. They may have been willing to risk their lives for the union but not for the freedom of blacks.

These were the predominant attitudes in the Federal army.

Emancipation Around the World

Slavery existed without hardly any criticism for about 3,000 years. The first meaningful abolition movement was organized in England in 1774. Slavery was finally abolished completely in the Americas (Brazil) in 1888. In other words, an institution that had been “normal” for 3,000 years was eliminated within a century.

Abolition took place for numerous reasons—religious, philosophical and economic. Quakers opposed slavery because they believed that it was an offense against God. The Enlightenment championed individual rights and equality under the law. The industrial revolution contributed economic pressure—slave (vs. free) labor is inherently inefficient. Slaves have few incentives to work, acquire new skills, and improve their production. Labor-intensive agriculture and industry could not compete with capital-intensive methods of production.

The worldwide development of capitalism resulted in peaceful emancipation. Dozens of countries ended slavery peacefully. In those countries where violence did occur, emancipation was an instrument of the revolutionaries who were seeking state power. Only in the uS was open, all out warfare associated with emancipation. In essentially every other country, slavery ended through manumission or compensated emancipation. (DiLorenzo provides a detailed listing of the countries where peaceful emancipation occurred.)

The north’s share of the monetary cost of the War of Yankee Aggression was more than it would have taken to buy the freedom of every slave and furnish each with “40 acres and a mule.”

The Fugitive Slave Law, supported by Lincoln, prolonged slavery as did the legal prohibition of manumission and a multitude of other laws and regulations. Furthermore, as early as 1849, there is evidence of a growing political support in the Border States for peaceful emancipation.

In sum, Slavery was on its way out. Lincoln could have ended it as more than 20 other societies had done. Instead, he chose to wage a prolonged and terrible war in which every Southerner (not just the slave owners) was a victim. The average Southerner did not own slaves.

Most Americans would probably have opted for compensated emancipation, the cost of which would have been a very small fraction of the cost of Lincoln’s total war. But he never offered the nation the option.

Why did Lincoln not take the peaceful path to emancipation that every other nation on earth did? That was simply because he viewed it only as a tool for achieving his real objective which was the consolidation of state power.

He sugarcoated this objective by referring to it as “saving the Union.” But the union could only be “saved” by destroying the decentralized, voluntary union of states (as established by the Founders) and replacing it with a coercive union kept in place at the point of a gun.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's Handbook  Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Rothbard: The Constitution Was a Coup d’État

And then came Dishonest Abe who rendered the coup de grâce. I may slap the next SOB that tries to tell me what a “free” country we live in. — jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

…it is not surprising that the nationalist forces were able to execute their truly amazing political coup d’état which illegally liquidated the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the Constitution. In short, they were able to destroy the original individualist and decentralized program of the American Revolution. (p. 128)
The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAnd then came Dishonest Abe who rendered the coup de grâce. I may slap the next SOB that tries to tell me what a “free” country we live in.  — jtl, 419
by David Gordon via Mises Wire

[Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic, 1784–1791. By Murray N. Rothbard. Edited by Patrick Newman. Mises Institute, 2019. 332 pages.]

We owe Patrick Newman a great debt for his enterprise and editorial skill in Combat Shooter's Handbookbringing to publication the fifth volume, hitherto thought lost, of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty. The details of his rescue of the lost manuscript are…

View original post 1,520 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Song for Today: ANNE MURRAY – Could I Have This Dance 1980

Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen very often in this awful time we live in. — jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

Buyer Assistance:

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is in a position to assist the buyer in purchasing ranches anywhere in the Western United States and Northern Mexico. Pre – purchase services include help with due diligence, estimates of carrying capacity and potential for improvement, cash flow projections, etc. Post purchase services include everything from part time consulting to complete turn-key management.

We are not licensed real estate brokers nor are we licensed appraisers. We work only for the buyer for a negotiated fee.

Contact us at info@landandlivestockinternational.com or through our web site at www.landandlivestockinternational.com 

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Essence of Liberty Volume I. Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government.

A Summary of: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Compiled and Edited by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

Chapter 2: Lincoln’s Opposition to Racial Equality

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)Lincoln was a master politician and therefore a master of rhetoric. He was never above saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another. Murray Rothbard put it this way: ” Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar.”

Lincoln stated over and over that he was opposed to racial equality. Perhaps his most succinct statement was his response to Senator Stephen Douglas in an 1858 debate:

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I…am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”

This is quite a contrast to the Gettysburg Address where he proposed to “rededicate the nation to the notion that all men are created equal.” He had this to say about emancipation: ”Fee them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…We cannot, then, make them equals.”

Also, he defended the right of slave owners to their “property” and promised to support the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. As will be seen below, this was clearly in concert with the mainstream of northern public opinion.

At the same time Lincoln opposed “social and political equality” of the races, he defended the natural rights of all races to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and referred to slavery as a “monstrous injustice.” DiLorenzo identifies this as “a textbook example of a rhetorically gifted, fence-straddling politician.”

Kentucky slave owner, Henry Clay, was Lincoln ‘s idol and role model. Their positions on slavery were virtually identical. In Clay’s words, “opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility toward the abolition movement.” Theirs was a vivid example of circular reasoning: Although slavery is an affront to human liberty, ending it would be even worse.

Furthermore, Lincoln was a highly skilled lawyer who tried thousands of cases but never defended a single runaway slave in his 23 years of litigation. However, he did defend a slave owner. The constitution guarantees the right to legal defense. But, it seems strange that Lincoln, who claimed to be bothered by slavery, tried to condemn several people to permanent, lifetime servitude for a small legal fee.

Lincoln and Colonization

As of 1857, colonization was the only solution that Lincoln had to the problem of slavery. When asked what should be done with the slaves were they freed, he responded, “Send them to…their own native land.” He developed plans to send every last black person anywhere but the united States. DiLorenzo then proceeds to cite numerous quotes of Lincoln ‘s own words as well as others (including the preeminent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison) that support this contention.

Lincoln is an American icon to the extent that the historical literature about him is not an explanation of history but a rationalization or excuse for his behavior. “Historians have created a literary and historical fog bank that makes it extremely difficult to understand the real Abraham Lincoln.”

Lincoln’s Opposition to the Extension of Slavery

Lincoln said, in his 1st Inaugural Address, ”I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…and I have no inclination to do so.” He also promised to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Law.

No politician during the 1860 election advocated the abolition of slavery mainly because of public opinion at the time. Whenever the issue of slavery did come up, it was in terms of the extension of slavery into the new territories. Opposition to the extension of slavery into these areas was not always based on moral grounds. The major concern was that slaves would compete with white labor in the territories, which Republicans wanted to keep as the exclusive preserve of whites. Lincoln explained the rationale for this very clearly in a speech given in Peoria on October 16, 1854.

The speech is quoted in the original. In support, DiLorenzo also quotes Secretary of State William Seward; New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley; Lyman Trumbull—a US senator from Illinois; historian Eugene Berwanger; and Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania.

The 2nd political reason why Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories was that it would artificially inflate the congressional power of the Democratic Party. The 3/5 clause of the Constitution allowed every five slaves to count for three persons for purposes of determining the number of congressional seats in each state.

In his Peoria speech, Lincoln spoke of “the practical effect of this” by comparing Maine and South Carolina : ”This principle, in the aggregate, gives the slave States in the present Congress, twenty additional representatives.” The extension of slavery into the new territories would make this imbalance worse. It was opposition to slavery, but certainly not on moral grounds.

Northern Attitudes Towards Race

The ”official” cause of the War between the States is slavery. Although this may be official, the facts suggest that it is, at best, incomplete. Although quite vigorous, the abolitionist movement was so small that politicians would not risk associating themselves with it. Furthermore, white northerners cared little about the slaves and treated blacks with “contempt, ridicule, discrimination, and sometimes violence.” This is described by Eugene Berwanger in North of Slavery.

In Democracy in America Tocqueville wrote that “the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude had never been known.”

Lincoln was the first “sectional” president in the sense that he owed his election totally to the northern States. He simply could not have won had he diverged significantly from the racial views of mainstream northerners.

Northerners discriminated against blacks in cruel and inhumane ways during the 1850s. So-called Black Codes existed in the north decades before discriminatory laws were enacted in the South. The Revised Code of Indiana is a prime example. Under this law, blacks could not earn a lawful living, had no voting rights, and no right to defend themselves in court. Such laws were common in virtually every northern state as of 1860.

In addition, the federal government required every new territory or state to deny voting rights to blacks all the way up to the 1860s.

Attitudes and laws like this are strong indicators as to why Lincoln’s position against the extension of slavery into the new territories struck a chord with the northern white population.

On the one hand, Lincoln said he was in favor of extending basic protections of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to freed blacks. But on the other, he simultaneously contradicted himself by opposing black citizenship. In other words, Lincoln would have the government protect Negro life and property, but deny them the rights to vote, participate in the judicial system, and enjoy any semblance of social equality (while promoting a plan to colonize them anywhere but America). Actually, this was a clever political position because it was quite popular.

Blacks were often victims of mob violence in the northern states. Irish immigrants viewed free blacks as direct competitors for jobs and so did most other immigrant groups.

Supremacist attitudes were expressed in northern newspapers. Papers cited include: the Philadelphia Daily News , the Niles (Michigan) Republican, the Daily Chicago Times, the New York Times, the Providence Daily Post, the Columbus (Ohio) Crisis, the New York Herald , the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Concord (New Hampshire) Democrat Standard, and the Boston Daily Courier.

The foregoing sheds a great deal of doubt on the standard account that “northerners elected Lincoln in a fit of moral outrage spawned by their deep-seated concern for the welfare of black slaves in the Deep South.”

Certainly, it is conceivable that many white northerners abhorred slavery. However, it is doubtful that that abhorrence was wide spread enough for hundreds of thousands of them to have given their lives on bloody battlefields the way that they did.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's Handbook  Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ATF Proposes Step to Make a National Gun Registry Easier

And this is the way they do it; little by little, piece by piece, bit by bit, not a catastrophic amputation but death by a thousand cuts. And then one day… well… jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

… if they’re successful with changing the 4473 in this way, it will be much easier for ATF to create a national gun registry by photographing paper documents.
The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAnd this is the way they do it; little by little, piece by piece, bit by bit, not a catastrophic amputation but death by a thousand cuts. And then one day… well… jtl, 419

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The ATF has issued new rules that will alter the format for Form 4473’s and make it easier to create a national gun registry.

Here’s what we know. ATF agents have used annual inspections to electronically record the contents of Form 4473’s being kept by federal gun dealers. See here and here.

We also know that a software company exhibiting its wares at the Shot Show in Las Vegas has crafted a system where ATF can take the contents of…

View original post 516 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Song for Today: Marty Robbins – Devil Woman

Yep, as always, it’s all about the story boys. — jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

Yep, as always, it’s all about the story boys. — jtl, 419

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc. (Protecting Liberty through Private Firearms Ownership)  

“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” – Jeff Cooper

Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first.

In Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, and the Supreme Court upheld, that “(T)he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specify persons arises.” Because the complaint did not allege a relationship “beyond that found in general police responses to crimes,” the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The bottom line is that your local police are not legally obligated to protect you, the average citizen. In addition to the Warren case…

View original post 271 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Essence of Liberty Volume I. Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government.

A Summary of: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Compiled and Edited by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)Much of what has been written about Lincoln is myth. And, an entire industry of “Lincoln scholars” has gone to fantastic lengths to perpetuate those myths.

The War of Yankee Aggression fundamentally transformed the nature of our government. Before the war it was highly decentralized and limited. But, the war created the highly centralized state that we suffer under today. It transformed the purpose of government from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire.

During almost three decades before becoming president, Lincoln was almost single-mindedly devoted to the economic agenda that Henry Clay called “the American System.” He was devoted to protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for railroads and other corporations and the nationalization of the money supply. But, the constitution stood in the way of this agenda.

Lincoln was heir to the Hamiltonian tradition, which sought a centralized government that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money. This, his real agenda, was fully implemented during the first two years of his administration.

Before 1854, Lincoln hardly ever mentioned slavery. Chapter 2 sheds great doubts on his supposed commitment to racial equality. He stated over and over that he was opposed to political or social equality of the races. He was not an abolitionist. To the contrary, he denigrated and distanced himself from them. His primary means of dealing with racial problems was to create colonies for American blacks in other countries—anywhere but in the united States.

Chapter 2 also shows the views on race of the overwhelming majority of white Northerners, which raises serious questions about the extent to which racial injustice in the South motivated such a long and bloody war.

Chapter 3 poses the key question of why Lincoln did not do what much of the rest of the world did in the 19th century and end slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Literally dozens of countries ended slavery peacefully this way as opposed to killing 620,000 of their own people (the modern day equivalent of 5 million).

Chapter 4 outlines Lincoln ‘s real agenda which was Henry Clay’s “American System.”

Chapter 5 chronicles the long history of the right of secession in America , beginning with the Declaration of Independence, which was itself a “secession” from England . Until 1861 the states right to secede was taken for granted. In fact, the principle was even taught to the cadets at West Point. Lincoln ‘s insistence that no such right existed has no basis whatsoever in history or fact. He simply invented a new theory and waged the bloodiest war in history to “prove” it to be true.

Chapter 6 deals with the strange claim that Lincoln “saved” the Constitution by suspending constitutional liberty. In the name of “saving” the constitution, he launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned citizens without trial, censored telegraph communications, imprisoned opposition newspaper publishers, nationalized the railroads, used Federal troops to interfere with elections, confiscated firearms, and deported a member of Congress. These precedents did permanent and irreparable damage to constitutional liberty in America.

In addition, Lincoln abandoned international law and the moral code of civilized societies by waging war on innocent civilians. Chapter 7 details these criminal atrocities.

Lincoln ‘s political legacy is explored in Chapter 8. Reconstruction (1865-1877) plundered the South for 12 years after the war. Puppet governments raised taxes but provided few public benefits. Much of the money was simply stolen by Republican Party activists. Adult male ex-slaves were given the right to vote (even though blacks could not vote in several Northern states) while most Southern white males were disenfranchised. Using ex-slaves as political pawns in such a corrupt way poisoned race relations in the South beyond repair.

Lincoln’s policy of crushing dissenters continued after the war with the eradication of the Plains Indians by many of the same generals. The stated purpose was to make way for subsidized transcontinental railroads—all a part of the quest for empire.

Chapter 9 describes Lincoln ‘s economic legacy which is the realization of Henry Clay’s American System. Southern statesmen had opposed this system as being nothing more than the corrupt “mercantilist” system that prevailed in England at the time of the Revolution. So powerful was this opposition that the Confederate Constitution outlawed both protectionist tariffs and internal improvement subsidies. Lincoln ‘s war created the “military-industrial complex” 90 years before Eisenhower coined the phrase.

Chapter 10 explains how the death of federalism was the biggest cost of Lincoln ‘s war. He stated over and over that his purpose was to “save the Union ” (which was just another way of saying abolish states rights). He destroyed the idea of the Union as a voluntary association of states by forcing the Southern states to stay in the Union at gunpoint. Indeed, he saved the Union , but only in a geographical sense.

In sum, Lincoln ‘s war was not necessary to free the slaves. However, it was necessary to destroy the primary check on central government—the right to secession.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's Handbook  Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits 

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

State Thieves and Forfeiture for Profit

No bones about it, this bunch of bastards need killing. — jtl, 419

Land & Livestock International, Inc.

As always, the government thieves claimed without any evidence that this money was proceeds from “specified unlawful activity” and likely for the manufacture, sale, or distribution of a “controlled substance.” No charges were filed, and the owners of the company claim to have evidence that this money was taken directly out of their business account. They are now forced to sue two federal agencies, a daunting and expensive venture to be sure. These agencies can use other stolen money from taxpayers to hire attorneys, and drag this out in court for a very long time. This usually ends up bankrupting the lowly citizen, while the government keeps its ill-gotten gains, and spends taxpayer money to defend their theft in the corrupt courts.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsNo bones about it, this bunch of bastards need killing. — jtl, 419

By: Gary D. Barnett

News today revealed that this tyrannical government had seized in September…

View original post 1,155 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment