ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Daniel Day-Lewis accepts the Oscar

Perhaps he didn't give this speech, but really, he damned well should have:
Tonight I had the great honor of receiving the Academy Award for Best Actor for my performance in the film Lincoln. It is my immense privilege to receive an Oscar for the third time in my career, especially for portraying such an historic figure. And as I look back on this role, I can only feel deeply honored and humbled for the praise and respect I’ve received, even though I personally believe that Abraham Lincoln was an American traitor who deserved to die.

Honestly, this award truly is a tremendous thrill for me. And the fact that I’m being awarded for portraying a liar, a fraud, and an enemy of justice whose murder was fully justified doesn’t change that.

After all, just because you play a character in a movie doesn’t mean you have to agree with the views and actions of the character you’re portraying. Far from it! In fact, I saw this role as a real actor’s challenge considering my own deeply held belief that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and a hypocrite and that the South should have won the war. It has always been my strong opinion that the Confederate forces had a political and moral imperative to defeat the Union army and that America’s 16th president was a monster who deserved to be murdered in front of his wife, so just imagine what a test it was for me to try to humanize this repulsive figure. All of which makes this third Oscar win particularly satisfying.
It still amazes me that no one in the South ever stopped and thought, you know, since Lincoln is about the only one hell-bent on this war, and nearly everyone else seems to accept the Constitutional concept of allowing the various sovereign states to express their self-determination and go their separate ways, how about we shoot him instead of tens of thousands of immigrant German farm boys being forced to fight against us?  How is assassinating a single dictator somehow considered out of bounds when the alternative is butchering hundreds of thousands of innocents whose only crime was to get drafted into military service?

Labels: ,

322 Comments:

1 – 200 of 322 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous p-dawg February 25, 2013 9:41 AM  

Well, I think the people at the top would rather kill thousands of innocents than face the possibility of death themselves. I mean, that's obvious when reading history, right?

Anonymous The other skeptic February 25, 2013 9:44 AM  

Farrakhan wants to draft some dunderheads as well

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 9:46 AM  

Is there much of a history of assassinations in the Anglo-American military traditions?

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 9:48 AM  

Also, I think the South foolishly decided to fight the war by the rules and expected the North to do the same.

Anonymous Curlytop February 25, 2013 9:50 AM  

Oh wow! Wished THAT had played out. However, tptb would have pulled the live feed had Lewis hinted at that kind of a speech. Just pleased that the movie didn't take home best picture. Gag.

What is truly amusing as a bona-fide Southerner, is to listen to current "Tea Party Conservatives" from BOTH sides of the Mason/Dixon Line singing and justifying Lincoln's tyrannical actions while clamoring for Nullification and Resistance under the current one. Cognitive Dissonance, anyone?

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2013 10:04 AM  

Shooting Lincoln early would have put Hannibal Hamlin on the throne. He would have seized the power as an opportunist, but I think would have lost the war.

Anonymous Johhny Reb was Neocon too February 25, 2013 10:04 AM  

I hate imperialists who are out to start their own EMPIREs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_%28proposed_country%29

Blogger Shimshon February 25, 2013 10:20 AM  

"How is assassinating a single dictator somehow considered out of bounds when the alternative is butchering hundreds of thousands of innocents whose only crime was to get drafted into military service?"

Vox, it's interesting that you put it that way. Did you listen to Bob Wenzel's recent interview with Moshe Feiglin? Whether or not you agree with his opinions on Iran, Feiglin said almost exactly the same thing regarding Ahmadinejad and Iran. He had no problem with Iran or the Iranians, but he believes Ahmadinejad needs to go, and thought waging a war to do so was senseless. I think it was jarring for Bob to hear, but the logic was absolutely compelling in that situation, just as it was with Lincoln.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 25, 2013 10:23 AM  

OT, but useful info, I think.

My Ruger P95 was stovepiping in the hands of a member of the fairer sex, while my Glock 17 was not for the same individual.

Neither has stovepiped for me, although the Glock will fail to feed properly (round not completely in the chamber) for some other members of the fairer sex.

So, while I think that 9mm is a good round for members of the fairer sex to use, Glocks seems better for them than that particular Ruger, but they need training to use the gun properly.

Also, lots of people at the range yesterday in CA, and people I have never seen at the range before, including women and teens. This means something, I think.

Anonymous CJ February 25, 2013 10:27 AM  

Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, Khameni does. The Iranians found that out the hard way when they voted in the supposed moderate, Khatami. And even if you kill Khameni, there are more where he came from. Vox's solution only works when the policy you want to change is the pet issue of the leader and nobody else really cares.

I don't think killing Lincoln earlier would've helped the South, though. Regardless of how irrational it is, assassination was considered out of bounds. If someone had shot Lincoln, he still would've been canonized, and the new administration would'nt have wanted to "let the terrorists win."

Blogger Scott February 25, 2013 10:27 AM  

What I don't understand, is why don't we think that now? I'm not talking about president but, unless I'm mistaken, not too many politicians in the US get shot anymore. Wouldn't it be an easy way to stack the supreme court? Couple questionable heart attacks are car accidents.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 25, 2013 10:31 AM  

Perhaps the Mocha Messiah will get an opportunity to declare an emergency and martial law in 2015 ...

Of course, they will have to tell people that they were wrong about global warming, but if it turns cold people might not care.

Blogger Shimshon February 25, 2013 10:32 AM  

CJ, what part of "whether or not you agree with his opinions" wasn't clear? I actually know who calls the shots in Iran. He actually had reasons he expounded on in the interview for wanting Ahmadinejad's head, but that's a different matter.

Anonymous Roundtine February 25, 2013 10:33 AM  

Did you catch MacFarlane's Lincoln joke?

"This is interesting. Daniel Day-Lewis not the first actor to be nominated for playing Lincoln. Raymond Massey portrayed him in 1940's 'Abe Lincoln In Illinois.' This is true. I would argue, however, that the actor who really got inside Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth."

Blogger IM2L844 February 25, 2013 10:35 AM  

I don't see how the rabbits can possibly resist these tasty looking morsels. hehe

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 10:36 AM  

CJ: Mixed feelings there, re. Lincoln being shot.

Google: Ulric Dahlgren

I did not watch much of the Oscars but I caught the MC joke that "the last person to get into Lincoln's head was Booth." The reaction of the audience was as expected.

Anonymous CJ February 25, 2013 10:37 AM  

Shimshon, I saw your caveat. I was simply explaining why I disagree with his opinion in the case of Iran, and why I don't think it would cause any substantive policy changes.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 10:41 AM  

The Southern response to the war was to enact a draft before the north did, attempt an expansionist foreign policy, and debase their worthless paper currency within 3 years so that pretty much demonstrates they had the same tyrannical tendencies.

The South consisted of a bunch of punks who rightly got what they deserved as well. It's hard to see how Lincoln was literally the only problematic person in the entire country when the shooting had already begun in Kansas before he ever thought about running for president.

Lincoln wasn't amazing, but at least he had a respectable deportation policy.

Anonymous CMC February 25, 2013 10:43 AM  

Wasn't their some book in the early 90's to the effect that Gen. Lee's failure to drive on Washington DC and, in effect, do just that --take the enemies capitol, seize their leader?

Anonymous CJ February 25, 2013 10:43 AM  

Jamiein Texas - the Dahlgren papers caused a public crapstorm. The same would've happened with an earlier assassination of Lincoln. No way the Union would've backed down after that.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 10:48 AM  

I see that RINO is doing a good job of owning up to his name.

Anonymous Nah February 25, 2013 10:48 AM  

There was a significant War Party in the North that was hell-bent on abolition by force of arms. Killing Lincoln wouldn't have gotten rid of them. Indeed, it would have provided them with a casus belli. "The Slave Power killed the President!" would be their rallying cry, which the average Northerner might well have found more compelling than "They fired on Fort Sumter!".

Anonymous Nah February 25, 2013 10:49 AM  

(In short, I disagree that Lincoln was the only one hell-bent on war.)

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 10:50 AM  

The Southern response to the war was to enact a draft before the north did, attempt an expansionist foreign policy, and debase their worthless paper currency within 3 years so that pretty much demonstrates they had the same tyrannical tendencies.

How many thousands of newspaper editors did Jefferson Davis imprison? How many supreme court justices did he have arrested?

Also, what what was the "expansionist foreign policy" of the South?

Anonymous Roundtine February 25, 2013 10:55 AM  

what what was the "expansionist foreign policy" of the South?

I have seen Spengler (atimes) argue that the South wanted to conquer all territories south and have a vast empire.

Anonymous Roundtine February 25, 2013 10:58 AM  

: "The Memphis Daily Appeal, December 30, 1860, wrote that a slave 'empire' would arise 'from San Diego, on the Pacific Ocean, thence southward, along the shore line of Mexico and Central America, at low tide, to the Isthmus of Panama; thence South - still South! - along the western shore line of New Granada and Ecuador, to where the southern boundary of the latter strikes the ocean; thence east over the Andes to the head springs of the Amazon; thence down the mightiest of inland seas, through the teeming bosom of the broadest and richest delta in the world, to the Atlantic Ocean'."

No pipe dream was this plan. That is what Southerners read day in and day out during the 10 years that preceded the Civil War.


Happy Birthday Abe: Pass the Blood

He lists his sources in the article.

Anonymous MendoScot February 25, 2013 10:58 AM  

OT, but I thought that I'd bring the phrase contained depression to your attention.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:02 AM  

Virginia did not secede until Lincoln demanded 75,000 troops from States in Union. An Article 1 delegated authority to the Congress, and only for very specific reasons.

Technically, I supposed it was not a draft ... worse ... it was a dictatorial edict.

http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011/04/15/lincoln-calls-for-75000-will-virginia-secede/

Anonymous ThirdMonkey February 25, 2013 11:08 AM  

The south lost because Lee didn't have the heart to win it. There were several instances in which he refused to use actionable intelligence because it was gained sereptitiously, and wanted to fight a "gentlemanly" war. Losing Gen. Jackson didn't help either. If only they had a steady supply of Irish and German immigrants to draft...

To expound on an earlier post, Mt. Rushmore should be redone to include Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Obama, and renamed Tyranny Hill.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 11:08 AM  

Southern dreams of a slave empire are pretty well known and they included everything from Cuba to nearly everything imaginable that was south of the Missouri compromise. Their aggression also extended to Missouri where southerners crossed the border to cause violence and rig elections. Many believed a slaveholding society inherently requires aggression:

"Your social system [addressing slaveholders] is founded upon forced labor … which demands the setting aside of the safeguards of individual liberty … ; free labor demands their preservation as essential and indispensable to its existence and progressive development. Slavery demands extension by an aggressive foreign policy; free labor demands an honorable peace and friendly intercourse with the world abroad for its commerce, and a peaceable and undisturbed development of our resources at home for its agriculture and industry. Slavery demands extension over national territories for the purpose of gaining political power. Free labor demands the national domain for workingmen, for the purpose of spreading the blessings of liberty and civilization." (quote attributed to Carl Schurz)

Anonymous Rex Little February 25, 2013 11:10 AM  

What Nah said.

I've often wondered what would have happened if the CSA had left Fort Sumter alone, and simply ignored the US when it tried to give orders. Would the North have wanted to be the ones to start shooting?

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:12 AM  

I am not aware the southern confederacy wanted to push southward in the way alluded in the Asia Times article. Why not also quote a sample of was published and not just what Professor Robert E May.

For example, the Confederacy was open to the idea of Cuba joining at some point, after all, the independence movement in Cuba did ask Jefferson Davis to lead them against Spain. But it was not a forced union.

Blogger James Dixon February 25, 2013 11:12 AM  

> Also, I think the South foolishly decided to fight the war by the rules and expected the North to do the same.

I doubt that mistake will be made again.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:13 AM  

I stand corrected, that was newspaper quote.

Anonymous George of the Hole February 25, 2013 11:14 AM  

Hilarious to listen to a bunch of "freedom lovers" upset that they didn't get to keep their enourmous slave labor camp.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:22 AM  

I stand corrected, it was a quote from a newspaper.

Anonymous James May February 25, 2013 11:22 AM  

Maybe the alt-history buffs should do a novel where McClellan won the election, stopped the war because the South had 19 zillion soldiers according to his count, and the next 200 years is an endless series of wars among Balkanized slave-holding nations and free states.

An Austrian king placed on the Mexican throne ala the King of Jordan reconquers the American West and plays the divided American states off against one another.

Since alt-history authors put the "P" in pedantry, don't forget to spend 12 pages getting the exact fabric and color Zouaves wore right because that makes for ever so fascinating reading.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 11:25 AM  

Some more interesting tidbits, this time from wikipedia:

Barney speaks of "the heavy-handed intervention of the Confederate government." The Confederate income tax was higher than the Union one; and economic intervention, regulation, and state control of manpower, production and transport were much greater in the Confederacy than in the Union."

So we can add all those to the final list:
1) Human slavery
2) Higher income tax
3) Implementation of draft before the north
4) Aggressive foreign plans
5) 3 year paper currency backed with nothing + subsequent inflation
6) More central planning than the north

Would Josh say that the Confederacy was an honorable entry in the encyclopedia of human freedom?

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:29 AM  

Jefferson believed in gradual manumission. I of the opinion that the South would have eventually abolish slavery but, alas, my guess is as good as those who guess otherwise.

The slavery expansion was an issue because it dealt with lands "held" in common, through equal suffrage in the Union.

Anonymous Tallen February 25, 2013 11:31 AM  

Hilarious to listen to a bunch of "freedom lovers" upset that they didn't get to keep their enourmous slave labor camp.

The scenery has changed but the plantation remains.

Anonymous John Regan February 25, 2013 11:31 AM  

I don't think you're being entirely fair to Lincoln. It was an awful war, and he did some awful things, but murdering him in front of his wife? You should take into account the difficulty of his circumstances, regardless of how voluntarily he subjected himself to them by getting elected president.

I mean, somebody was going to be president and face those circumstances.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 11:35 AM  

RINO: No standing army, no navy, not much of an industry, a fraction of the north's population.

As has been stated before, war is the health of the state.

Still, when all is said an done, the States joined into the Union and did not relinqish their authority to remove themselves from it. In order to force the southern states from leving a greateer violence was done. Slaves were emancipated (as a happy byproduct, not as the cause) but free men were enslaved.

We all belong to the FedGov.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 11:41 AM  

Southern dreams of a slave empire are pretty well known and they included everything from Cuba to nearly everything imaginable that was south of the Missouri compromise

Dreaming about something is not the same as an actual government policy.

Anonymous cheddarman February 25, 2013 11:42 AM  

The real enemy of the soldiers on both sides was the small group of individuals who stood to profit from the war, namely the bankers, politicians, and industrialists. Some things never change.

Sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous Dystopia Max February 25, 2013 11:44 AM  

Well, killing Lincoln did piss off the rest of the North to no end and made Reconstruction the horror and byword for failure that it was, so there's that.

And given the behavior of Mexico, did you really not see the South devolving into a mulatto mediocrity with a small white technocratic elite who sent those slaves north as a safety valve(given the destruction caused by the Great Migration, I'd say Lincoln should have been left alive just to see if his African repatriation ideas could have held.)

I'd rather live under white dictators than Africans, and so does every white person who chooses a dictatorial homeowner's association over the ghetto.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 11:46 AM  

Would Josh say that the Confederacy was an honorable entry in the encyclopedia of human freedom?

Given that it was an attempt to preserve a voluntary republic of sovereign states, yes.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 11:50 AM  

Some further questions:

Would Lincoln's deportation policy have been better or worse in the long run than whatever the south's policy was?

It's been stated here in the past that non-Anglo immigrants changed the country away from English principles founded in common law and limited government. Can it really be said then that killing Lincoln would have done more for freedom than killing numerous German/Irish immigrants?

Anonymous Unending Improvement February 25, 2013 11:51 AM  

This is another one of those issues were I am diametrically opposed with most of the Dread Ilk. I also tend to agree with RINO most of the time.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 25, 2013 11:52 AM  

What to do about El Presidente ?

CELTIC IRELAND (650-1650)is an example of what to do with our so-called 'dear leader'.
During this time, it was customary for the Tribal Leader/Chieftain or King to lead the charge into battle. There were few wars and few who wanted to 'lead'.

Today, we should tie Barry "The Drone Queen" to one of his unmanned hovercrafts, let him "lead" us into The Hindukush mountains of Afghanistan, and see who is followers really are.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 11:53 AM  

This is another one of those issues were I am diametrically opposed with most of the Dread Ilk.

Why?

Blogger IM2L844 February 25, 2013 11:57 AM  

Hilarious to listen to a bunch of "freedom lovers" upset that they didn't get to keep their enourmous slave labor camp.

George, Who, exactly, is this "they" you are referring to? As far as I know none of my ancestors ever owned a single slave. As a matter of fact, only slightly more than 1% of the millions of Americans ever owned a slave and at least some of those slave owners were wealthy black people.

Please explain to me why I am personally supposed to feel the least bit guilty about that?

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 11:59 AM  

Given that it was an attempt to preserve a voluntary republic of sovereign states, yes.

A voluntary republic where half the population was being forced to be there.

Anonymous Betty February 25, 2013 12:00 PM  

What? So you believe slavery in the South was okay, do you?

OpenID deconstructingleftism February 25, 2013 12:00 PM  

The Civil War was indeed a rebellion against the Constitution. The South controlled the Supreme Court, had ruled slavery would be extended to the West, and was on the verge of having slavery extended everywhere, through the pending case of Lemmon v. New York. The idea that the South only wanted to maintain slavery on their territory is not true. Had they won a military victory, they would have extended their social and legal system- in which not only were blacks enslaved, but the majority of the white population was expected to bow down to rich whites- anywhere they saw fit.

Anonymous JJ February 25, 2013 12:04 PM  

The south lost because Lee didn't have the heart to win it.

The South lost because the North had superior industrial and manpower resources, and the Europeans weren't interested in intervening.

Anonymous James May February 25, 2013 12:06 PM  

Lee in fact did have the heart to win it. Who gave more than that guy? He was a general, not the emperor.

Anonymous VD February 25, 2013 12:10 PM  

So you believe slavery in the South was okay, do you?

Yes, that's the correct takeaway here. We're actually hoping to impose sex slavery and burqahs soon, because that's what libertarians are all about. Just give us a few million more Muslims with whom to work.

Anonymous Wendy February 25, 2013 12:10 PM  

What? So you believe slavery in the South was okay, do you?

Good Lord, study some history before you spout off. And control your emotional reactions. You might learn something.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 12:11 PM  

"The Civil War was indeed a rebellion against the Constitution."

Yeah, by the northerners.

"Had they won a military victory, they would have extended their social and legal system ..."

Maybe no, maybe yes., We will never know. I disagree with your guess, though.

"... the majority of the white population was expected to bow down to rich whites- anywhere they saw fit."

Nothing changed after all.

Anonymous Wendy February 25, 2013 12:12 PM  

The South lost because the North had superior industrial and manpower resources, and the Europeans weren't interested in intervening.

Yet the South can oh so close to winning. And they didn't have any draft riots.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 12:13 PM  

"Well, killing Lincoln did piss off the rest of the North to no end and made Reconstruction the horror and byword for failure that it was, so there's that."

Not quite. It resulted in Andrew Johnson's succession as President, and he issued a blanket pardon to the Confederate veterans. It's doubtful Lincoln would have done that.

Blogger IM2L844 February 25, 2013 12:15 PM  

Yes, that's the correct takeaway here.

You crack me up, dude. You've obviously freshly sharpened up your poking stick this morning.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 12:16 PM  

A voluntary republic where half the population was being forced to be there.

Several points:

1) the north also had slaves states

2) your math is wrong, 3.5 million is not half of 9.1 million

3) your concern for the freedom of blacks in America is touching given your support of Lincoln's plans to slaughter thousands of them in constructing the Panama canal.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 12:17 PM  

"Hilarious to listen to a bunch of "freedom lovers" upset that they didn't get to keep their enourmous slave labor camp."

The South had African slaves. The North had the Irish, who often worked and lived in far worse conditions than slaves did.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 12:18 PM  

Yes, that's the correct takeaway here. We're actually hoping to impose sex slavery and burqahs soon, because that's what libertarians are all about. Just give us a few million more Muslims with whom to work.

Cue McRapey screaming "VOX DAY IS A SEX SLAVIST!"

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 12:20 PM  

Cue McRapey screaming "VOX DAY IS A SEX SLAVIST!"

But if sex slavery is legal, it isn't rape, right?

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 12:20 PM  

2) your math is wrong, 3.5 million is not half of 9.1 million

Ok, it was at or near 50% in most of the deep south states and closer to ~30% in the border states. 38.5% is still a pretty considerable amount for your voluntary republic.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 12:24 PM  

"Had they won a military victory, they would have extended their social and legal system- in which not only were blacks enslaved, but the majority of the white population was expected to bow down to rich whites- anywhere they saw fit."

Which, of course, is completely different from how things are today.

Anonymous Daniel February 25, 2013 12:24 PM  

Cue McRapey screaming "VOX DAY IS A SEX SLAVIST!"

Don't be ridiculous, Josh.

McRapey can't bring himself to actually type or speak his name. Who knew that Scalzi's Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name was actually "Vox Day?"

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 12:26 PM  

"Ok, it was at or near 50% in most of the deep south states and closer to ~30% in the border states. 38.5% is still a pretty considerable amount for your voluntary republic."

And today, virtually all of them vote to be slaves. Most whites do too. In retrospect, I'm not even sure what the problem was.

Anonymous Josh February 25, 2013 12:31 PM  

Ok, it was at or near 50% in most of the deep south states and closer to ~30% in the border states. 38.5% is still a pretty considerable amount for your voluntary republic.

The voluntary republic is about the nature of the relationship of the states to each other and to the federal government.

And you can't play the slavery morality card now because you've already stated that your preference was for the slaves to be freed and forced into bondage and almost certain death to build the Panama canal.

It is an absolute fact that blacks would have been better off remaining in the American South rather than being deported to either Panama or Africa.

Anonymous paradox February 25, 2013 12:32 PM  

John Wilkes Booth is My Homeboy


Gen. Jackson did want to march into DC after the battle of First Manassas. Confederated Pres. Davis said his biggest regret was telling him no.


Now Lincoln did make statements about colonizing Africa with American Blacks. Maybe Booth should have allowed him to live. The demographic problem might have been solved.

Blogger ajw308 February 25, 2013 12:37 PM  

How is assassinating a single dictator somehow considered out of bounds when the alternative is butchering hundreds of thousands of innocents whose only crime was to get drafted into military service?
That's the lesson the PHOENIX program taught: In a political war, eliminating key personnel such as a provincial recruiter or tax collector, is far more effective than fighting troops with troops.

I suspect that in the early 1860's people were far to genteel and polite to apply (or even consider) the most effective solutions to the problem at hand. Had they only known

Blogger ajw308 February 25, 2013 12:39 PM  

How is assassinating a single dictator somehow considered out of bounds when the alternative is butchering hundreds of thousands of innocents whose only crime was to get drafted into military service?
That's the lesson the PHOENIX program taught: In a political war, eliminating key personnel such as a provincial recruiter or tax collector, is far more effective than fighting troops with troops.

I suspect that in the early 1860's people were far to genteel and polite to apply (or even consider) the most effective solutions to the problem at hand. Had they only known

Anonymous Krul February 25, 2013 12:40 PM  

For all its flaws, the movie Lincoln was committed enough to creating a sense of historical authenticity that it couldn't completely hide its subject's true character. For instance, the movie shows Lincoln use shady henchmen and bullying tactics to get his way with the congressmen, hypocritically using his position to prevent his son from enlisting in the Union army while sending multitudes of other fathers' sons to die, and having his cabinet members point out that the legal shenanigans surrounding the Emancipation Proclamation certainly make him look like a tyrant. It all culminates at the climax of the movie when Lincoln deliberately and flagrantly lies to Congress to make them vote his way.

Then there was the accurate portrayal of Lincoln's dysfunctional relationship with his shrewish wife. In spite of its Lincoln worshipping veneer, hints of the truth show through for those with eyes to see.

Anonymous David February 25, 2013 12:41 PM  

Considering that the North was sufficiently enraged to go to war over the firing on Fort Sumter(total dead...one horse) killing Lincoln early on would likely only have united the North in fury and made them even more keen on conquering the South to gain revenge.

It would have to look like an accident or illness.

I believe the South's only viable strategy would have been to refuse to attack no matter what the provocation, letting the North be the aggressor. Then, presuming the North invades, Lee disperses the army and lets them fight a guerrilla campaign like the American militia during the early period of the Revolutionary War.

Lee never did that because that wasn't what he was taught at West Point.

Anonymous David February 25, 2013 12:42 PM  

Let me clarify...I consider the North the aggressor from historical perspective, but the firing on Fort Sumter at the time clouded the issue and let Lincoln portray the South as the aggressor.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 12:44 PM  

And you can't play the slavery morality card now because you've already stated that your preference was for the slaves to be freed and forced into bondage and almost certain death to build the Panama canal.

It is an absolute fact that blacks would have been better off remaining in the American South rather than being deported to either Panama or Africa.


No, my preference would have been to free the slaves to colonize Liberia or elsewhere and leave them, I do not have to defend any plans involving Panama. And given the turmoil and suffering that often goes along with multiracial societies, I do not think your "fact" is a fact. After all, the long term effects of not deporting them are still playing out.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 12:47 PM  

One (small) aspect where I agree with RINO, the confederacy was far from the ideal as a constitutional republic or a libertarian society. I feel no particular compulsion to defend the Confederacy beyond saying they were in the right in trying to peacefully secede and to defend themselves when Lincoln launched his invasion to crush the southern states into submission.

And can we dispense, for once, with the notion that the civil war had anything to do with Slavery? Lincoln didn't care about black people and didn't do anything to help them. The emancipation proc. was a political ploy to counteract European sympathies towards the Confederacy and was carefully worded so as not to do anything. Lincoln was a tyrant who responded in typical tyrant fashion to the news that his slaves (Republican economic policies were enslaving the entire southern economy) didn't want to pay his bills anymore.

Seems to me that the south lost because it was almost as centralized and over-governed as the north. The CSA completely destroyed it's own economy with it's drafts, embargoes, inflation, confiscation, etc. And it blundered almost as badly militarily by drafting all it's men and putting them under the command members of the military elite, even the best of whom showed little ability or ambition to win. We had, just 80 years earlier beaten a world super-power effectively using what today is known as 4th gen warfare, but the south forgot that lesson and tried to fight European-style war against a superior force.

I do wonder how long the union would have stuck around in the CSA if their officers kept getting shot by local farm boys and their supply lines were impossible to maintain more than 50 miles into confederate territory...

Anonymous George of the Hole February 25, 2013 12:48 PM  

IM2L844: George, Who, exactly, is this "they" you are referring to? As far as I know none of my ancestors ever owned a single slave. As a matter of fact, only slightly more than 1% of the millions of Americans ever owned a slave and at least some of those slave owners were wealthy black people.

Please explain to me why I am personally supposed to feel the least bit guilty about that?


You shouldn't.

I just happen to think it's hilarious that "libertarians" and "freedom lovers" are upset that a tyrant took away their slavery. ROFL!

Noah B. The South had African slaves. The North had the Irish, who often worked and lived in far worse conditions than slaves did.

LOL! What is it about the word "freedom" that seems so elusive to all you "freedom lovers"?

Anonymous E. PERLINE February 25, 2013 12:53 PM  

The South African whites should have realized the tide was turning against apartheid and they should have abolished apartheid in favor of equality.

The antebellum Confederacy should have realized that human slavery was not viable in 1860 and they should have abolished slavery in favor of wage-earning.

Then there would have been no civil wars and the top producers would still be riding high. People at the top have an obligation not to be glaringly stupid.

Anonymous Krul February 25, 2013 12:54 PM  

Let me clarify...I consider the North the aggressor from historical perspective, but the firing on Fort Sumter at the time clouded the issue and let Lincoln portray the South as the aggressor.

I read a free book in the Mises.org online library a while back that used extensive contemporary quotes and analysis to show that the Lincoln administration's (ultimately successful) goal during the buildup to war was to manipulate the South into "firing the first shot" at Fort Sumter. It made clear that "clouding the issue" of who was the aggressor and who the victim was Lincoln's purpose. I wish I could remember the title.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 1:09 PM  

E. PERLINE: slavery or no slavery there would have been a war against southern independence.

Lincoln, for once, really did mean what he said in his 1st inaugural, including his support for the Corwin Amendment. Yes, Lincoln worked for it in the background.

Blogger IM2L844 February 25, 2013 1:10 PM  

I just happen to think it's hilarious that "libertarians" and "freedom lovers" are upset that a tyrant took away their slavery. ROFL!

Woooosh!

You're still totally missing the point, moron. Nobody is "upset" that anyone took away "THEIR" slavery. The people you are referring to had nothing to do with slavery and, furthermore, it is highly unlikely, given the statistics, that any of "THEIR" ancestors had anything directly to do with actual slaves.

Show me a single instance of anyone here even remotely suggesting they are even modestly "upset" because slavery was taken away from them.

Slavery isn't even the issue here.

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 1:18 PM  

Lincoln, for once, really did mean what he said in his 1st inaugural, including his support for the Corwin Amendment. Yes, Lincoln worked for it in the background.

This is why Vox should clarify how Lincoln was "about the only one hell bent" on the war given that he made so many last ditch efforts to make the 13th amendment a protection of slavery to appease the southern states.

Anonymous Dan in Tx (we're all slaves now) February 25, 2013 1:18 PM  

"Exhausted troops or not, if Napoleon had been the southern general (at Bull Run), the still organized southern army would have been in Washington as fast as the disorganized Union.".... Paul Craig Roberts

The war could have quite possibly been over almost as quickly as it began had the opportunity presented to the South been grabbed.

Anonymous Orion February 25, 2013 1:19 PM  

A few minor points to stir the pot. Prior to the invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney, I seem to recall that slavery was indeed on its way to dying out. The variety of cotton grown in the USA was more difficult to sort/clean for usage so the value of the cotton crop was far lower. With the creation of the gin allowing for far less labor intensive cleaning slavery became far more profitable.

A number of European powers had interest in entering on the side of the South but the two largest (France and Britain) would have had a hard time with public support specifically because of the slavery issue. The British Empire had already banned it. France may have been an "Empire" once more under Louis Napoleon, but he had to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic he had over thrown to maintain his base support.

Celtic Ireland 650-1650 as an example of better government? Really? Ireland was a mess no matter who was running the game. Fratricide, regicide, raiding your neighbors (this included the island of Britain (who are the Scots? descendants of Irish raiders)) were favorite pass times and there were plenty of Kings to fill the role (the saying if your Irish your descended from kings isn't far off the mark). High Kings were fewer of course but seldom had much power beyond their home county.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 1:20 PM  

The war wasn't about slavery. Someone has already mentioned the Corwin amendment, Lincoln was fully in support of "hard coding" the legality of slavery into the constitution if that would keep the Southern states in the union. Lincoln cared about the tax revenue, the Whig/Republican economic program was one of "collect taxes the south, buy votes in the north." The south's secession represented the complete ruin of this program, and when northern industrialists, merchants, shippers, etc. realized that the South intended to establish a very low tariff and that all the international commerce would stop shipping to Boston and NY in favor of Charleston and New Orleans the invasion was inevitable, slavery or no.

Blogger Longstreet February 25, 2013 1:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Dystopia Max February 25, 2013 1:29 PM  

The Southern rulers were a confederacy of rich men making free-trade and transnationalist arguments every day in order to increase their power, letting their slaves breed to the point where they outnumbered the whites in many states, and you wanted those people to [i]win[/i]?

MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONNECT YOUR DISCONNECTED POSTS SOMETIME, DUDE. The Bryan Caplans and Paul Krugmans of the world would have found easy employment and a receptive audience in the antebellum South, and that alone should cause you to recoil from these LINCOLN WAS A FASCIST DICTATOR arguments in horror. These pro-Confederate arguments only appeal to people who have no thorough and complete understanding of both race and immigration(ie, people who have been raised to believe that all people are perfectly equal.)

Blogger Longstreet February 25, 2013 1:30 PM  

You shouldn't.

I just happen to think it's hilarious that "libertarians" and "freedom lovers" are upset that a tyrant took away their slavery. ROFL!


Your mom has to set a time to remind you to breathe doesn't she?

Blogger Longstreet February 25, 2013 1:38 PM  

Even if this
The Bryan Caplans and Paul Krugmans of the world would have found easy employment and a receptive audience in the antebellum South,
is true, this
and that alone should cause you to recoil from these LINCOLN WAS A FASCIST DICTATOR arguments in horror.
does not follow from it. One can look disapprovingly at the South without approving of Lincoln's and the North's actions.

These pro-Confederate arguments only appeal to people who have no thorough and complete understanding of both race and immigration(ie, people who have been raised to believe that all people are perfectly equal.)
Oh, please.

Anonymous CJ February 25, 2013 1:41 PM  

"it is highly unlikely, given the statistics, that any of "THEIR" ancestors had anything directly to do with actual slaves."

Ironically enough, I'm black and one of my (white) ancestors owned slaves.

I'm not sure that there would've been a war without slavery. You didn't see a Preston Brooks type reaction to tariffs and such. Without a combustible issue like slavery, neither may have been motivated to start shooting. It's more likely to have been a sectional "Cold War" and the North would've "won" anyway because an agrarian South, even with free labor, couldn't have competed with the rapidly growing industrial economy of the North.

Anonymous George of the Hole February 25, 2013 1:41 PM  

IM2L844: You're still totally missing the point, moron. Nobody is "upset" that anyone took away "THEIR" slavery. The people you are referring to had nothing to do with slavery and, furthermore, it is highly unlikely, given the statistics, that any of "THEIR" ancestors had anything directly to do with actual slaves.

There is no slavery because A TYRANT took them away from us!

Bahahahahaha!!!!

How dare that tyrant! ROFL! The nerve! Lol!

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 1:43 PM  

So... if the south was so villainous and its culture so toxic to the long term health of the nation... why did the Union go along with it for 80 years and then sacrifice the blood and treasure of the country to preserve it, even when ‘preserve’ meant turning a third of the country to rubble?

- Alexander

Anonymous George of the Hole February 25, 2013 1:56 PM  

@Alexander

Follow the money, my friend. Follow the money.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 2:00 PM  

"I'm not sure that there would've been a war without slavery. You didn't see a Preston Brooks type reaction to tariffs and such. Without a combustible issue like slavery, neither may have been motivated to start shooting. It's more likely to have been a sectional "Cold War" and the North would've "won" anyway because an agrarian South, even with free labor, couldn't have competed with the rapidly growing industrial economy of the North.

Um... Tariff of abominations? Nullification crisis of 1832? the motivation was definitely there.

And again... Lincoln told the south "We'll pass a constitutional amendment enshrining slavery indefinitely if you don't secede" and the south said "No thanks, we're out of here!". Slavery simply wasn't the issue.

Anonymous JJ February 25, 2013 2:05 PM  

There is no slavery because A TYRANT took them away from us!

Bahahahahaha!!!!

How dare that tyrant! ROFL! The nerve! Lol!


Except for tens of thousands of years, up to and including the first decades of this country's existence, slavery was not regarded as tyrannical at all. The idea that slavery is the Most Heinous Crime Ever is a totally modern one.

Anonymous . February 25, 2013 2:09 PM  

The idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is amusingly stupid, not least because it reflects the mindset of a whipped dog. I'd have more respect for Dixie-philes who argued in a manly, forthright fashion that the South was entirely within their rights to own and employ slaves, as slavery was completely in keeping with their centuries-old laws and customs.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 2:16 PM  

@.
So basically, you're saying Jake's argument is stupid and that you don't have respect for people who agree with him, and you're not bothering to address his argument in any logical fashion? How creative and convincing.

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 2:19 PM  

Lincoln's or the current president's negatives aside, from a Christian perspective, assassinating one's ruler is not something we should advocate. David did not assassinate Saul when he had the chance. Jesus did not advocate knocking off the Ceasar or the evil religious leaders. Neither did Paul advocate eliminating Nero.
- Hoppes #9

Blogger James Dixon February 25, 2013 2:22 PM  

> ...from a Christian perspective, assassinating one's ruler is not something we should advocate.

Lincoln was no longer the South's ruler, and they were at war.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 2:24 PM  

Hoppes #9: whole different things.

Judges 3
20 Ehud went to King Eglon, as he was sitting alone in the room above his summer palace. Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” As the king stood up from his chair, 21 Ehud reached with his left hand and took out the sword that was tied to his right hip. Then he stabbed the sword deep into the king’s belly! 22 Even the handle sank in, and the blade came out his back. The king’s fat covered the whole sword, so Ehud left the sword in Eglon.

Anonymous George of the Hole February 25, 2013 2:25 PM  

JJExcept for tens of thousands of years, up to and including the first decades of this country's existence, slavery was not regarded as tyrannical at all. The idea that slavery is the Most Heinous Crime Ever is a totally modern one.

The same can be said about empire, conquest, and warfare. Lincoln's decision to wage war to preserve a nation was almost...romantic - like so many feudal Lords, knighted soldiers, and epic warriors before him of whom songs are sung and tales are told.

So quit yer bitchin.

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 2:26 PM  

Understood James, but the original post called for a pre-emptive assassination.
- Hoppes #9

Anonymous jay c February 25, 2013 2:26 PM  

The other skeptic wrote, Also, lots of people at the range yesterday in CA, and people I have never seen at the range before, including women and teens. This means something, I think.

Yesterday was Purim, one of two Jewish holidays that celebrate violent resistance to tyranny. It was a good day to spend at the range practicing against moving and distant targets.

Anonymous Dan in Tx February 25, 2013 2:27 PM  

@ Anonymous

Lincoln was not the ruler over the South, which had already seceded and left the Union. So if you wish to go the biblical comparison route here, a more accurate comparison was when God told the ancient Israelites to march out against the king of another nation and slay them.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 2:27 PM  

I would not say that slavery was not an issue but that it was the spark, a source of passion and heat, that ignited what already was a keg full of powder.

As to Krugman, et al. Most definitely on the side of Lincoln because of all the railroad graft, protectionism, high tariffs, etc.

Anonymous CJ February 25, 2013 2:27 PM  

"Um... Tariff of abominations? Nullification crisis of 1832? the motivation was definitely there."

Yeah, but again, no shots were actually fired. Nobody got the sh*t kicked out of them on the floor of the Senate over it. Instead it was lots of posturing, negotiation, and ultimately, compromise. A Cold War.

"And again... Lincoln told the south "We'll pass a constitutional amendment enshrining slavery indefinitely if you don't secede" and the south said "No thanks, we're out of here!". Slavery simply wasn't the issue."

There was no guarantee he could deliver on it, and previous concessions (Missouri Compromise) hadn't held. The future CSA probably felt they were better off looking after their own interests rather than trusting Abe to come through.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 2:30 PM  

Louisiana Purchase. War of 1812, Texas' annexation, ...

Blogger James Dixon February 25, 2013 2:31 PM  

> ...but the original post called for a pre-emptive assassination.

No, it did nothing of the kind. You're reading into it something which isn't there.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 2:31 PM  

no shots fired but it has been building for a long time prior to 1832 or 1850s.

Anonymous DT February 25, 2013 2:33 PM  

Daniel Day-Lewis was in a movie about Lincoln? Huh...

Rather glad I don't go to movies any more.

Anonymous jay c February 25, 2013 2:37 PM  

Noah B wrote, "Ok, it was at or near 50% in most of the deep south states and closer to ~30% in the border states. 38.5% is still a pretty considerable amount for your voluntary republic."

And today, virtually all of them vote to be slaves. Most whites do too. In retrospect, I'm not even sure what the problem was.


Not quite. They vote the dependency of slavery to themselves while voting the labor of slavery to others.

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 2:37 PM  

Dan in Tex - Do you think the North would have been less inflamed over the killing of the president than on the firing on that poor horse in Charelston's Harbor? Contrary to VDs original post, there were more war mongers in the North than just Lincoln, notably the rabid abolishionists. The (self) righteous indignation over the killing would have brought on war as well I would guess. - Hoppes #9

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum February 25, 2013 2:50 PM  

Remove the issue of slavery, and the attack on Fort Sumpter, and the South may have had a moral leg to stand on, and I might have stood alongside the soldiers in Grey uniforms.

Unfortunately, the south started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter, in addition the south went to war with the expressed purpose of keeping half their population enslaved.

If you're going to start a war, don't be surprised when the other side goes all-out in finishing it alá Sherman's march to the Sea.

The South also should have also known better. They were not prepared for a war with the northern states. It was a testament to the soldiers of the south that they held out as long as they did. The North could have won through sheer attrition of man-power alone if they wanted to.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Just search on your browser for the word "slave" on that site.

I would no sooner take up arms and go to war for such a demonic reason than I would go to war to support abortion, or go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan today.

African American culture in this nation is a complete basket case, no arguments on that point, but they don't deserve to be enslaved any more than they deserve mass slaughter in the womb.

Anonymous Dan in Tx February 25, 2013 2:51 PM  

@ Anonymous:

My previous comment had nothing to do with whether or not the North would have been inflamed over the death of the President. Rather it was in response to your claim that it would be unbiblical for the South to have targeted Lincoln directly, which since after the secession he wasn't the ruler over the South your biblical examples do not apply. I haven't commented one way or the other on whether the South should have targeted Lincoln directly except to point out that after the routing they gave the Union at Bull Run, they foolishly decided not to pursue and march to Washington thus ending the war promptly (admittedly probably with the hanging of Lincoln). If you wish to argue that the South would have been foolish to do this than it would seem your argument pretty much boils down to, "anything the south would have done to win would have been bad because it would have made the Yankees mad".

Anonymous Lex Rex February 25, 2013 2:52 PM  

Moar Lincoln!!!

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 2:57 PM  

"Not quite. They vote the dependency of slavery to themselves while voting the labor of slavery to others."

A fair point. However, one should be very frightened at the prospect of being dependent and serving no purpose. Historically, these are the people who governments murder first.

Blogger James Higham February 25, 2013 3:00 PM  

As a Brit, I found that, particularly comments, most interesting through Northern eyes. What's the view on Andy Johnson?

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 3:03 PM  

Dan in Tex - mia culpa goal post shifting. I guess my point goes back to VDs original post on the usefulness of the move. 1st Manasas and Beyond goes into the woulda, coulda, whatif collection. - Hoppes #9

Anonymous RINO February 25, 2013 3:06 PM  

Unfortunately, the south started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter, in addition the south went to war with the expressed purpose of keeping half their population enslaved.

Not only firing but firing for 34 straight hours. If Lincoln wanted to bait the south into shooting first he couldn't have asked for better.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia February 25, 2013 3:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 3:17 PM  

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Just search on your browser for the word "slave" on that site.

I would no sooner take up arms and go to war for such a demonic reason than I would go to war to support abortion, or go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan today.


The reasons for secession are not the same as the reasons for the war. It's ludicrous to say "the South seceded over X" there were multiple motivations, slavery was one of them. But the reason for the war had nothing to do with slavery. For the north it was almost exclusively to prevent their tax base from disappearing and instead becoming their competitor. The abolitionist had no political power and were despised in North and South alike. For the south it was because one of the largest armies in the world was suddenly marching into their land.

Fort Sumter is a red herring. I'm totally aware that it may have been a strategic mistake to fire on the fort, but it did not in anyway justify a full scale military invasion. It was a formality, the CSA commander sent message to the fort saying essentially "we're going to open fire in a few hours, please take precautions so that no one gets hurt". Lincoln sent the ships precisely to provoke an incident and succeeded. The union sending naval vessels into a confederate harbor to reinforce the fort (after they'd promised not to) was every bit the act of war as the brief shelling of the fort (in which no one was injured, seems like maybe a single horse was killed).

Anonymous Luke February 25, 2013 3:18 PM  

"The south lost because Lee didn't have the heart to win it."

Failing to quickly promote NB Forrest to command of the CSA in the West, ever promoting Hood above a division commander, and letting Bragg, Floyd, and Pillow command anything more than a latrine detail were even more important CSA decision errors IMO.

Anonymous clk February 25, 2013 3:29 PM  

I really liked the Lincoln movie .. especially the way he cut off the heads of all those vampires.. certainty an academy level performance... :) .... oh wait .. there was another Lincoln movie out at the same time ? ...

Anonymous Feh February 25, 2013 3:32 PM  

African American culture in this nation is a complete basket case, no arguments on that point, but they don't deserve to be enslaved

On the contrary, slavery is exactly what they need.

Currently, they are dependent on a collective entity (the government) but have no reciprocal obligations, and nobody can be held accountable for their misbehavior.

If they were dependent on an individual, then that individual could require obligations from them in return, and would also be accountable for their misbehavior.

Anonymous David February 25, 2013 3:37 PM  

'Fort Sumter is a red herring. I'm totally aware that it may have been a strategic mistake to fire on the fort, but it did not in anyway justify a full scale military invasion. It was a formality, the CSA commander sent message to the fort saying essentially "we're going to open fire in a few hours, please take precautions so that no one gets hurt".'

You make a good point, but look how Credo and Rino still show some emotion about it even though it happened 150 years ago. And Rino points out they fired for 34 hours.

Bringing up Fort Sumter is LITERALLY beating a dead horse back to death. Because the net effect of firing on Fort Sumter is...one dead horse. That's it. If they had fired for 34 minutes and killed one human being it would have been an exponentially worse scenario.

Now personally, if I were told that my country needs me to avenge a dead horse, I would take a pass and if my patriotism was questioned I would tell them to let me know if someone important dies and I may reconsider.

But that is now one side gets emotionally invested in war, people like Rino and Credo get blinded by the "he started it" argument.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 3:38 PM  

The war started when Lincoln continued the plan to send the Star of the West, with armed escort. It was understood that that was an act of war. SoW sent while the Southern delegation was in Washington negotiating in what they thought was in good faith from the Lincoln administration?

----

[my note: I used to have links to digital sources and I had to do quick searches to find what I could find]

Secretary of State William H. Seward, warned, "The dispatch of an expedition to supply or reinforce Sumter would provoke an attack and so involve a war at that point."
http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Hesitation/Seward29.html

"The Sumter expedition failed of its ostensible object, but it brought about the Southern attack on that fort. The first gun fired there effectively cleared the air... and placed Lincoln at the head of the united people." ~ Secretary of State Seward's opinion about Ft. Sumter.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zgQ7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236#v=onepage&q&f=false

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:573?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

"President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war." ~ The account of John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Lincoln's trusted confidential secretaries.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rlcfAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false

"I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the ides, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer."
Major Robert Anderson to the Adjutant-General U.S. Army
April 8, 1861
http://books.google.com/books?id=GaAOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294#v=onepage&q&f=false


The Battle of Fort Sumter
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battle-fort-sumter.htm

Anonymous ENthePeasant February 25, 2013 3:38 PM  

"My Ruger P95 was stovepiping in the hands of a member of the fairer sex, while my Glock 17 was not for the same individual."

Grip!!! She's either limp wristing it or doesn't have the P95 snugly fitting into her thumb webbing/tang axis. A lot of women become too conscious of their trigger and forget their grip. For smaller hands a double stacked mag makes it hard for women to properly grip a weapon naturally. I think the P95 is reliable but ergonomically unatural. Work on her grip first and then trigger.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 25, 2013 3:55 PM  

@clk

"I really liked the Lincoln movie .. especially the way he cut off the heads of all those vampires.. certainty an academy level performance... :) .... oh wait .. there was another Lincoln movie out at the same time ? ..."

I saw that Lincoln movie and it was so stupid it was funny, kinda like an "Airplane". I have no quibble with The Vampire Slayer, it is fantasy, and presented as such.

Spielberg's fantasy, is presented as truth and is mostly lies. Lincoln was a syphilitic ridden madman, a mass murdering tyrant, a slave master of the worst stripe, justifying his criminality with moral platitudes. I would cheer his face being blasted off Mt. Rushmore, and his monument being pushed into the Potomac.

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 25, 2013 4:02 PM  

The Onion: Autistic reporter reports on 27 dead in Afghanistan

Reporter: "So if you kill you enemies at your job it is not sad? What if I killed my enemy Ryan at my job. It would not be sad?"
Solider: "No, you shouldn't do that."
Reporter: "But he is rude to me. He steals my yogurts. He makes fun of the way I talk."
Soldier: "Look, only soldiers can kill without getting in trouble."
Reporter: "Ok. Are you going to kill Ryan?"
Solider: "No."
Reporter: "It does not make sense."


Some of the commenters here sound like this guy.

Anonymous Noah B. February 25, 2013 4:06 PM  

"Lincoln was a syphilitic ridden madman..."

Wow, that actually seems to check out. Sure never heard that in American history!

Anonymous paradox February 25, 2013 4:13 PM  

Credo in Unum Deum February 25, 2013 2:50 PM
Unfortunately, the south started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter, in addition the south went to war with the expressed purpose of keeping half their population enslaved.


Uh... no... that was South Carolina who started firing at Fort Sumter (there is no letter 'p'). You have to remember it was a Confederacy, each state a separate republic that left the Union differently.

For example North Carolina was one of the last states to leave the Union. May 1861, NC joined the Confederacy, two months after Sumter and NC did not leave over slavery. The Federals wanted to march an army through NC and have NC raise additional troops federal troops.

NC is on the border with SC, who do you think SC would have been attacked if NC had allowed the Federals to do so? I'll give you a hint, it wouldn't have been DC.

NC's refusal to allow the Federals through bought the state a Naval blockaded. This presented NC with only one option, join the Confederacy.


If Lincoln wanted to handle the Fort Sumter question Constitutionally, he would have recognized SC's independence as a foreign country, and required just compensation for an attack on the US. If SC didn't acknowledge, then Lincoln could have asked congress for a declaration of war and attacked a foreign country (SC)to take back US property.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia February 25, 2013 4:23 PM  

paradox:
and required just compensation for an attack on the US.


The Fort was not US Fed Gov. It was Carolina territory.
To wit, what state is Fort Sumter a part of today?

How do you compensate your neighbor for returning you shovel after returning it back to you?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia February 25, 2013 4:23 PM  

How do you compensate your neighbor for returning you shovel back to you after borrowing it?

Blogger Colonel Wilberforce Buckshot February 25, 2013 5:08 PM  

Interesting how the slavery angle is given such emphasis considering Day Lewis is a Jew and the Jews played such a pre-eminent roll in the importation of African slaves into America.

Anonymous 11B February 25, 2013 5:32 PM  

Since this blog often discusses free trade, I thought it would be apt to point out that the Southern states, being part of a free trade agreement with their erstwhile countrymen, relied upon those Northern states for much of their finished goods. Once hostilities commenced, it didn't take long for that relationship to end which put the South at a severe disadvantage.

Fast forward into the 21st century and one wonders if the USA has now become too dependent upon people who have much less in common with them than the South had with her cousins in the North. It's not too hard to envision Uncle Sam being handicapped someday by a foreign trading partner with a chip on their shoulder

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 25, 2013 6:37 PM  

Vox, you just don't understand. War is good for bizniss - especially for those nice folks who make money out of what comes from their anus and then lend it at interest to governments such as the one run by Old Abe the Railroad Lawyer. Old Abe's problem was that he double-crossed those nice multi-tentacled folks with the blood-funnels by printing up all them greenbacks known as United States Notes. They don't much appreciate being double-crossed, so their agent J.W. Booth was given a mission.

It worked out OK in the end for our kindly cephalopod overlords as they ended up in control of the whole thing in less than half a century anyway. It took them longer than originally planned and who really gives a damn about the death of a few hundred thousand cattle anyway.

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 25, 2013 6:49 PM  

Col. Wilberforce Buckshot:
Interesting how the slavery angle is given such emphasis considering Day Lewis is a Jew and the Jews played such a pre-eminent roll in the importation of African slaves into America.

C'mon now, you know that the folks running all those fine slave emporiums were Portuguese according to the approved version. Repeat after me - they were Portuguese slave traders, Portuguese slave traders. There.... see ..... much better. Now you're getting it!

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 25, 2013 6:54 PM  

For the newbies.... this is the only Lincoln movie you will ever need to see.

Blogger tz February 25, 2013 7:50 PM  

The difficulty is our inability to accept that both sides in a conflict can be evil, albeit of differing kinds. The south seceded to continue slavery (as their declarations said). But there was no legitimacy in using military - or any other force for that matter - to keep any state in the union against the expressed will. We can speculate about a timeline which did not occur, but the war was a horror but Lincoln preferred the horror of an unjust war with all its evils to a lesser peace.

Would the England of Wilberforce long trade with the south? Would now the "above ground" railroad - who did not have to conduct slaves to Canada be more effective? Would not Slavery itself change?

If you do not think so, consider today where we are not just the policeman of the world but its nanny. Every conflict, evil, injustice, no matter how petty becomes our business - and that means assassination, torture, and our corporate corruption.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 25, 2013 7:59 PM  

Again, in his first inaugural speech Lincoln was explicit, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. "
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Without the taxes from the south, the north could not afford the profligate spending of federal dollars on all internal improvements in the northeast.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 8:40 PM  

I read you're blog regularly and I normally agree with your posts, but when I saw you call Abraham Lincoln "an American traitor" and "an enemy of justice" I had to say something, the tensions in the country came to a boiling point when Lincoln was elected, because Lincoln championed the view that "In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race (blacks) has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between them and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five states... that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has been taken away" (Speech on the Dredd Scott Decision) Lincoln was not speaking of equality in the sense that Tocqueville uses it. "They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal-equal in "certain unalienable rights", among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"(Speech on the Dredd Scott Decision) Lincoln is very keen on the difference between principles and their specific applications, e.g. laws "Consequently, since the law is cheifly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good, therefore every law is ordained to the common good" (Aquinas ST, I-II, Q.90, article 2) "They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit"(Speech on the Dredd Scott Decision)This speech paints a picture of Lincoln who needed to suspend the law in order to save the principles behind them, hence the commonly quoted "One must amputate a leg to save the rest of the body". It was these positions that the rhetoric of the South aimed itself at, and that caused the tensions in the country to boil over. Lincoln agonized over the decision to suspend the right of habeas corpus.
In contrast is set the vice president of the Confederacy who in his cornerstone speech claimed that the founders were wrong in the universal application of human rights to the negro. "The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Anonymous HH February 25, 2013 8:46 PM  

"My Ruger P95 was stovepiping in the hands of a member of the fairer sex, while my Glock 17 was not for the same individual."

This is a bit off subject but always up for a gun discussion..

Well the Ruger P95 is one of the most reliable guns ever made... stance is isosceles or weaver ? Make sure its clean (although P95 ruger will work dirty just fine) and new ammo... if it doesn't do it for you.. then its her .. and I am sorry to tell you that it sounds like you need a new woman.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 9:10 PM  

In response to those who suggest that the assault on Fort Sumter was provoked by the sending of supplies and that therefore the North was ultimately responsible for the war,they have neglected the fact that the resupplying of a US fort is hardly what one would consider a justification for war.

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 9:19 PM  

Ain't their fort Bill.

You build a chicken coop on my land, then I say that's mine cause it is on my land...guess who owns it.

-CtheCimmerian

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet February 25, 2013 9:21 PM  

What percentage of African slaves delivered to the New World were delivered to British North America?
or as i like to call them,the lucky ones.
link thingy

"In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country owning one or more slave.....According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."
-By Robert M. Grooms, © 1997 COURTESY OF THE BARNES REVIEW

In America
25%+ of free blacks owned slaves
35%+ of Indians owned slaves
50%+ of Jews owned slaves
1.4% of whites owned slaves
------
DannyR

Anonymous Anonymous February 25, 2013 9:21 PM  

And that (" ...resupplying of a US fort... ") is a real stoopid thing to say, Bill.

I would say it was extremely obtuse, but that would be an insult to obtuseness.

-CtheCimmerian

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 9:49 PM  

Anonymous, don't be a troll, especially if your going to post as anonymous. The south was in open rebellion, your acting like it was the duty of every american soldier to go along with it. In order to justify a rebellion the south needed a cause that was not "light and transient" (DOI)The resupplying of loyal american troops was most certainly a "light and transient cause" Perhaps the economic tyranny of the majority was a sufficient justification for the war, but taxes have been high at many places throughout history, and the rhetoric of the south suggests that slavery was the real issue. Remember that the south was far more keen on the slavery issue and the escaped slaves than they ever were about the trans continental railroad. And it should also be kept in mind that Lincolns stance was primarily on slavery and not on economics.

Anonymous Richard February 25, 2013 9:50 PM  

If you want an interesting take on the causes of the civil war I recommend reading "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams. A synopsis of the book is:
a. The U.S. intentionally established a mercantilist system wherein the agrarian south was manipulated by the tariff system into selling its produce to the mills in the north which.
b. Sold finished products to Europe and made lots of money. Meanwhile imports of finished goods mainly went to the south (Port of Charleston) where southerners paid said duties.
c. The net result was that something like 80% of the federal revenue (which at that time was mainly from tariffs) was being paid for by the south--money that was not proportionately spent in the south.
d. The moneyed interests in the north wanted to maintain the status quo.
e. The moneyed interests in the south wanted a bigger piece of the action (tariff income).
f. Since neither side could convince people to fight and die in order for them to have greater income, false flags were raised on both sides (north--preserve the union; south--states rights).
g. Fort Sumter was the focus because it was the customs house for the port of Charleston which at that time had was the busiest port on the east coast. The attempt to seize it was because South Carolina wanted the tariff income. Lincoln wanted it because it represented a noticeably large chunk of federal revenue.

(caveat: It has been about 10 years since I read the book so some of the details might be skewed---but well worth reading)

Bottom line: Like most wars, it was caused by greed, and in this case, greed on both sides.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 9:52 PM  

Also Lincolns insistence upon morality in the Mexican war, despite the obvious benefit to be gained for the US, remember "spotty lincoln", suggests that he was far removed from tyranny.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 10:06 PM  

Bill as has been said it wasn't their fort anymore, the fort didn't need resupplying (they received routine shipments of supplies from local merchants, the whole "sending supplies to starving troops" story was invented for maximum PR effectiveness) and Lincoln refused to receive a delegation sent from South Carolina to negotiate a transfer of control of forts and other federally controlled land to the state of SC.

Keep in mind also that despite the stories told today that "Forts were build to defend harbors" that was NOT their primary purpose. Fort Sumter and other such installations were primarily built to enforce and collect customs. If I recall, Ft. Sumter was THE major customs post in all South. As long as the fort was under Union control the port of Charleston could be pretty effectively shut off from any shipments the union didn't want to allow through. So you can pick your favorite if you want, the Union: held a military position on foreign soil against the wishes of the "host" country, blockaded the primary port of that country, and finally sent armed warships into the port of a foreign country against that nation's wishes. ANY of which could legitimately be seen as an act of war.

South Carolinas's response was to prevent any further stalling on the part of the Union in evacuating the fort (which everyone in Lincoln's cabinet knew was inevitable) by peppering it's walls with some cannon fire. Something they could have done at any point for several months prior but had been trying to get Lincoln to abandon the fort peacefully. Note that they COULD have used mortar rounds and dropped explosives inside the walls of the fort and truly attacked like they meant it, instead they chose to attack in a manner that would NOT be likely to cause casualties and went so far as to give the fort commander advance warning that they would be shelling the fort so that he could get his men away from harm. I suppose they could have just sat there and continued to allow a foreign nation to blockade their major port, in retrospect that MAY have been the better play (not certain by any means), but the idea that South Carolina was a hot-headed war-monger who went and attacked union troops and thus instigated the war is nonsense built upon falsehoods.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:15 PM  

"but the idea that South Carolina was a hot-headed war-monger who went and attacked union troops and thus instigated the war is nonsense built upon falsehoods." Im not saying this. Im saying that "Fort sumter is not the cause for rebellion that you are looking for". The north simply did not act tyrannically with respect to Fort Sumter.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:18 PM  

Are you suggesting that one may rebel without cause whenever one wants to?

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 10:23 PM  

"And it should also be kept in mind that Lincolns stance was primarily on slavery and not on economics."

Bill is a proud member of the Lincoln-as-savior cult. Tell a big enough lie and people might believe it huh Bill?

What evidence do you have that Lincoln cared one bit about slavery before the moment it became an important strategic factor in the war? If Lincoln wanted to fight slavery all he needed to do was get the fugitive slave act overturned. Instead he offered to make slavery constitutionally protected as bait to keep the South in the union. If he cared about ending slavery he could have done so in the North, or in the areas of the South that were under Union control, he did none of these things and even reprimanded and over-ruled a Union officer who, early in the war, proclaimed the slaves in the area recently brought under his command as free.

I do look forward to the day when those altars to Lincoln are torn down. We'd do well to get rid of all of presidential monuments as we should not be a land that worships politicians, (some in a respectful manner, some less so) but we should start with the images of Lincoln. This will be a better place when the monuments to that mass murdering, war-making, pork-fatted, tyrant are pulled down, pulverized, and re-purposed as fill material for some sewage treatment plant.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:30 PM  

Your mistaking geopolitical necessities with moral truths.The south had no moral right to rebel over slavery, and they chose not to rebel over economic reasons. But once they were in rebellion they had no choice but to assault Fort Sumter, because as you said it was "their major port". On the other hand Germany in World War I was not a "hot headed warmonger", the morally neutral geopolitical realities of Russia and France mobilizing against it forced it to declare war in order to protect its national sovereignty. The south meanwhile had no established national sovereignty.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 10:32 PM  

Of course Ft. Sumter wasn't the cause of the rebellion. The deep south was already gone, and the border states didn't leave until they saw realized that Lincoln was a madman who wanted to force them to fight their brothers to the south for the interests of the Northern industrialist.

Ft. Sumter was Lincoln's "cause" not the south's. He needed a "sinking of the maine" or "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident to create at least some support for his war. So he manipulated things quite masterfully to get SC to fire the first shot and give him his rallying cry. When your arresting anyone who publishes dissenting opinions you don't need a particularly good justification I guess.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:40 PM  

"Bill is a proud member of the Lincoln-as-savior cult. Tell a big enough lie and people might believe it huh Bill?" This is just rhetorical trash and I wont dignify it with a response.
"If he cared about ending slavery he could have done so in the North, or in the areas of the South that were under Union control, he did none of these things and even reprimanded and over-ruled a Union officer who, early in the war, proclaimed the slaves in the area recently brought under his command as free." Lincoln did just as the founders did, he was not willing to sacrifice the entire union on the altar of slavery. The founders compromised on slavery, because they believed that slavery would die out after a while. This is why Lincoln attempted to postpone the slavery debate as a last resort, even though he had serious doubts about whether slavery would die out (see his speech on the Dredd Scott
Decision), in order to protect the union.
"If Lincoln wanted to fight slavery all he needed to do was get the fugitive slave act overturned" You're forgetting the Dredd Scott decision.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:47 PM  

"Of course Ft. Sumter wasn't the cause of the rebellion" What was the cause then?
"Ft. Sumter was Lincoln's "cause" not the south's. He needed a "sinking of the maine" or "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident to create at least some support for his war. So he manipulated things quite masterfully to get SC to fire the first shot and give him his rallying cry. When your arresting anyone who publishes dissenting opinions you don't need a particularly good justification I guess." When attributing extreme manipulative powers to Lincoln one should keep in mind that Lincoln was the one who was nicknamed "spotty" for his opposition to the casus belli used in The Mexican War, I think the more likely explanation is that Lincoln wanted to postpone a hot war as long as possible in order to give negotiations a chance.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 10:48 PM  

"When your arresting anyone who publishes dissenting opinions you don't need a particularly good justification I guess" This pertains to my earlier post about obeying the spirit of the law.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 10:53 PM  

"The south had no moral right to rebel over slavery, and they chose not to rebel over economic reasons. "

I don't see how you can say this. A large chunk of the south obviously didn't rebel over slavery, they had very few slaves for one thing and for another didn't "rebel" until Lincoln announced his plan for invasion. And if the South was seceding over slavery then you'll need to show me why they thought slavery was threatened all the sudden when Lincoln was supporting an amendment to make it enshrined in the Constitution... it's already been explained why they were threatened economically. So no, don't buy it, certainly not as a categorical statement concerning all of the southern states.

Now, please do explain why you would say Lincoln's "stance" was anti-slavery rather than economic in nature. I think it goes right to the heart of the issue as to why all of the sudden a large portion of southerner's wanted to secede.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 11:00 PM  

"I think the more likely explanation is that Lincoln wanted to postpone a hot war as long as possible in order to give negotiations a chance."

And then refuse to receive a delegation sent expressly for the purpose of negotiation?

And Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican war doesn't really say much. His interests, and the interests of his backers (railroads in particular and protectionist industries in the North in general) had little to gain from a war in Mexico. You say it benefited the country, which shows me you're not really thinking things over in detail. "The good of the country" was not, and rarely ever is, the motivation behind a politician. "The good of my contributors", "the good of my future election prospects", "the good of my employment opportunities once I leave office" are what you should understand a politician to be saying when he utters phrases like "The national interest" or "the good of the country". It's not at all hard to believe that Lincoln could be opposed to one war and then the driving force behind a different war years later.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 11:04 PM  

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." How can you argue with that from the vice president of the confederacy? "A large chunk of the south obviously didn't rebel over slavery, they had very few slaves for one thing and for another didn't "rebel" until Lincoln announced his plan for invasion." They decided to join their sister states in rebelling for the principle of slavery. That's pretty much the same thing. "Now, please do explain why you would say Lincoln's "stance" was anti-slavery rather than economic in nature." go look up the republican party platform in 1860 its almost entirely about slavery from the second declaration and it doesn't even mention tariffs until declaration 12 out of 17. The South rebelled explicitly because they would not stand a republican in the white house.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 11:10 PM  

"the good of my future election prospects" Lincoln was ridiculed and pretty much unsupported in congress on this, so it wasn't exactly beneficial to his "future election prospects".

Blogger Bill Solomon February 25, 2013 11:17 PM  

Ive been looking around for evidence of this refused delegate, before fort Sumter and I cant find any. Could you direct me to that evidence?

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 11:34 PM  

"How can you argue with that from the vice president of the confederacy? "

I don't have to. You're quoting one person writing about his take on their new constitution after secession had occurred. What does that have to do with the motivations of secession? A little sure, but it's not saying much. I've already said slavery was one motivation behind secession, definitely not the only one and probably not the primary one. Just as an aside, I'd point out that Lincoln said very nearly the exact same things... so much so that I almost suspect your quote was intended to parrot the invading president's own words.

"They decided to join their sister states in rebelling for the principle of slavery. That's pretty much the same thing"

That's one possible interpretation, Or could just be they didn't want anything to do with Lincoln drafting them to invade the south. And no, it's not the same thing. You seem to be one who thinks the right or wrong of an act depends on it's motives. I guess one has to believe such nonsense if one's going to defend Lincoln, but in any case I, and I think most here, do not agree with this idea. A just act done with ill motives is still a just act, and murdering thousands of people, even if ones motives are good, is still murdering thousands of people.

"go look up the republican party platform in 1860 its almost entirely about slavery"

You said Lincoln was concerned about slavery, not the republican party platform. That platform was adopted before Lincoln was nominated as the presidential candidate and going into the convention Lincoln was a dark horse who wasn't expected to even be a serious contender. The selection of Lincoln wasn't because he fit with republican platform but because he was the one guy who hadn't had a chance to alienate some important part of the republican ticket. This is a good piece of evidence for arguing that the preservation of slavery was a motivation for the South leaving (which is not in dispute) but it says nothing about Lincoln's concerns as president. The man did not do ANYTHING to end slavery at any time, and supported some of the most anti-black laws in the union during his time in the Illinois House.

While the south was motivated by slavery among other concerns to leave the union, slavery had NOTHING to do with Lincoln's decision to invade and bring them back at bayonet point. The war was not fought over slavery, it was not fought to end slavery, it was fought to force a region to submit to further economic exploitation. Lincoln did nothing to free black slaves, and a great deal to ensure that the whole of the south would remain slaves to Northern interests.

Anonymous Jake February 25, 2013 11:43 PM  

"Ive been looking around for evidence of this refused delegate, before fort Sumter and I cant find any. Could you direct me to that evidence?"

Here is one source, Starting on bottom of pg. 244 (book numeration, not PDF)

and with that, I'm out.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet February 25, 2013 11:50 PM  

Is there anyone here who believes that there are any Africans, living in any of the second or third world economic shit holes of the southern hemisphere,who are crying for any Africans lucky enough to live in any of the first world civilized white Christian societies of the northern hemisphere and their first world economies, especially America.
DannyR

Anonymous Vic February 25, 2013 11:51 PM  

"The South rebelled explicitly because they would not stand a republican in the white house."

As should have legally been their right, even if it was something as silly as they didn't like the way you talk.

I suppose from the status perspective of Lincoln's legacy, he was as virtuous as they come. He saved this country, just as King George was trying to save his.

But from a liberty perspective, he was a tyrant who enslaved an unwilling people to the power of an ever increasing beast of a government. No state dare defy it now.

Is this such a good thing? A government accountable only to itself? That decides what its own powers are? How is this different from a dictatorship?

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 12:09 AM  

Bill, I am ConantheCimmerian. I am not anonymous, try reading.

Bill you are talking loud, but ain't saying nothing.

Carolina has all rights to Carolina. Full stop. To suggest otherwise is a show of stoopid.

Nobody but the brain dead and brain washed believe the Second War of Independence was fought for slavery.

-ConantheCimmerian

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 12:10 AM  

Why is it that Yankees and their sympathizers can't stand the South but can't let her go her own way?

It is like they are afraid of something....

-ConantheCimmerian

Blogger Bill Solomon February 26, 2013 12:20 AM  

"As should have legally been their right, even if it was something as silly as they didn't like the way you talk." Wait your saying that people have a right to rebel whenever for whatever reason they choose?
"Is this such a good thing? A government accountable only to itself? That decides what its own powers are? How is this different from a dictatorship?" Its accountable to the will of the people, the true will of the people not as they are overcome by their passions in a moment of fury. Go read the federalist papers it explains all this.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 26, 2013 12:26 AM  

"Bill, I am ConantheCimmerian. I am not anonymous, try reading." my apologies I didn't notice it.
Carolina had no right to Carolina if it meant destroying the establishment of order. This is very similar to the principle that a law is no law unless it is promulgated, in that Carolina had a duty to uphold the union for the benefit of all. In establishing its own right to secede for whatever reason it saw fit, it threw the door wide open to any of its counties or cities that might want to rebel.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 26, 2013 12:30 AM  

Jake, I looked at the pdf on the bottom of page 224 book notation and it was talking about railroads.

Blogger Bill Solomon February 26, 2013 12:36 AM  

"And no, it's not the same thing. You seem to be one who thinks the right or wrong of an act depends on it's motives." clearly motive would be strong evidence for Lincolns tyranny but motive is simply not there, and Lincoln couldn't have really done anything to solve the economic problem even if the war was about economics, which I don't for a minute grant. So, Im not really seeing any reason to believe that Lincoln was the cold blooded tyrant you think he is.

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 12:44 AM  

Bill

Your reply is nothing more than obfuscation.

If you did not offer it purposefully to obfuscate, then there is a lot that you think you know that is just simply wrong...The result of miseducation.

No state has any duty to uphold the Union.

Either this was a voluntary association or it was not.

If it was not, then the colonies had no right to secede from England, as there is more of an argument against the actions of the colonies related to England than the states to the union.

If it was voluntary, then Lincoln is the greatest tyrant and destroyer of freedom to curse these lands. He destroyed the republic and birthed the federal behemoth.

And here is a link to ponder about blacks, the South, and slavery:

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2013/02/black-history-month.html

Bill, you need to reeducate yourself and unwash your brain.

-CtheCimmerian

Anonymous Asher February 26, 2013 2:09 AM  

What's really amusing is that when defenders of the CSA start discussing slavery all moral absolutism goes flying out the window. Is there nothing morally undesirable about slavery? And, if so, how do you square the existence of slavery with your moral absolutism?

If you want to claim that Lincoln was a tyrant then what are yu criteria for tyranny? Mine is that he rulers have similar sentiments of the ruled but that is a morally relativistic standard. BTW, this seems to be the stan, but dard for tyranny that most, here, seem to be using. Fine, but so much for moral absolutism.

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 6:46 AM  

LOL at people saying Lincoln wasnt a tyrant. Just look at how he treated Northerners. He first instituted a draft, which in of itself should set off warning bells. He imprisoned those who refused. He sent the conscripts to smash the printing presses of newspapers that told the truth, and imprisoned the editors. He sent out an arrest order for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He deported a sitting Congressman for fucks sake! Oh, and he had to institute martial law in Maryland to keep it in the Union.

What I think is most pathetic about some of the commenters here is that they actually think the Civil War was about slavery. The idea that white politicians actually started a war because they gave a shit about the well-being about blacks is laughable. And that poor white Southerners fought and died so that less than 8% of wealthy white Southerners could continue to own slaves is also idiotic. If anything, white Southerners hated slavery for the same reasons they hate illegal immigration today - they give unfair labor advantage to the rich and put family-owned farms out of business.

The Civil War was entirely about economics. The South paid more than half of the tax revenues. They couldnt be let out. The whole matter was a tax rebellion. If it was about slavery, why did Lincoln never do anything about the four slave states in the Union? Even when the war ended, he had nothing to do with the 13th amendment. Too busy trying to think of how to re-colonize the blacks.

And those who dont want to look at the libertarian historians can look at the work of the Progressive Historians and the New Left Historians. Both groups came to the conclusion, but they actually defend Lincoln in spite of it all. Its also funny, but unlike Vox Day, they actually believe Lincoln was killed at the perfect time - after the Civil War, but before he could get rid of all the newly freed blacks. They believe Lincoln would have been successful and the US would have been "robbed" of the diversity.

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 6:52 AM  

Also, the people who keep bringing up the terrible inflation as a point against the CSA are forgetting a key point in history. The Civil War was the first instance of the US engaging in financial warfare. Union sympathizers had actually successfully counterfeited the CSA currency and deliberately flooded the Southern economy with devaluated money. They remembered what happened to the Continental Dollar, and sought to repeat history with the Confederate Dollar. They succeeded.

Anonymous Anonymous February 26, 2013 7:40 AM  

I've come to believe that the only problem with John Wilkes Booth was that he was four years too late!

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 7:43 AM  

Secession was not constitutional. Read Harry V. Jaffa. Read the Federalist Papers. Read Washington's farewell address or Andrew Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification. The Union is the first principle of our liberty. The Articles of Confederation declared that the nation created by the Declaration of Independence was "a perpetual union." The Constitution was crafted "to form a more perfect union," and it gave the government the power to suspend habeas corpus "in the event of rebellion." The early Militia Act of 1792 gave the President the authority to call out the militia to suppress insurrections, and under that authority George Washington responded to the Whiskey revolt.

The OP is ahistorical and illogical. It's quite simple to imagine a North America broken up into lots of little statelets, all warring with each other, all being manipulated by outside powers, and none being a bastion of liberty. That's the end you get when you advocate secessionism.

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 7:56 AM  

It's also ahistorical and illogical to argue that the American Revolution gives the southern revolt a moral precedent. The Revolution was actually a revolt against tyrannical executive power, and a recognition that the people of the American colonies had reached the point where they were ready for self-governance. Don't forget that they tried for years to get the British crown to grant them some form of self-determination, and they also tried very hard to reconcile, to stay within the British realm, and only declared independence when it was clear that their fundamental rights would never be respected within it.

The southern rebellion, on the other hand, was not in response to any form of oppression. Lincoln had just been elected, and hadn't taken any action against southern rights, and had expressed no intent to do so. The southern states essentially threw a fit that they had lost the 1860 election, as they had enjoyed a long influence over the policy of the Federal government, but that time was ending, as demographics were turning against them. The writing was on the wall: slavery would be outvoted soon, and the only way to preserve their peculiar institution was to separate (or, as pointed out by others, to expand into more slave territories, such as Cuba). While it is true that many southerners fought for hearth and home, more than anything, and believed they were fighting for their own freedom, the sad truth is that they had been led into war by the slave-holding elite, in an illegal and immoral revolt against their constitutional government.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 26, 2013 9:09 AM  

Or, you can read the Constitution and try to find where was the authority to force a State to remain in union was granted to the FedGov.

Secession is not invasion.
Secession is not the lawful State's government call to arms, for defense.

Good Lotd, read the Articles too.

So, when thr 9th fotmer colony signed up to join in the new compact:
1) were the other 3 under the Articles?
2) were the other 3 foreign govetnments?
3) were the 9 still under the Articles, while violating them?

So much Jaffa crap, so little time.

Does Congress have thr authority to delegate itd powers? If yes, where is it?


Blogger James Dixon February 26, 2013 9:31 AM  

> Secession was not constitutional.

Bull.

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 9:40 AM  

So much fail by the unionist folks on this thread.

Anonymous Jake February 26, 2013 9:53 AM  

And a reference to Jaffa! HA HA HA. Brilliant!

Anyways, probably too late, but Bill for the record the page # is 244, not 224.

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:05 AM  

Okay, in what way would a militarized, divided North America, likely making up three or more nations, have been more conducive to the liberty of the people here? In what way would the CSA have been a bastion of liberty? In what way would the divided American peoples have avoided warfare, alliances with (or control by) outside powers such as Britain? Where would your libertarian ideas have gotten a chance of actual practice?

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:09 AM  

Not to mention, in what shape would the world be without a united USA in the 20th century?

Those who advocate the first principle of our Constitution: that it formed a UNION, are no friends to our Constitution.

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:10 AM  

That should read "those who deny the first principle", not "advocate."

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:13 AM  

Also, those who follow the ahistorical view that Lincoln is to blame for the growth and strength of the Federal government are failing to explain the weak, small, limited government that we enjoyed until the Woodrow Wilson administration, and that Harding and Coolidge tried to return us to. It's Wilson that should be your villain, not Lincoln.

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 10:43 AM  

Not to mention, in what shape would the world be without a united USA in the 20th century?

You're seriously going to play the "well Lincoln kept the union together and later on the united States defeated Hitler" card?

If there wasn't a "united USA" in the 20th century, we would not have intervened in world war I, Germany wouldn't have lost, the kaiser wouldn't have fled, Weimar wouldn't have happened, and Hitler wouldn't have taken power.

So, by your logic, your beloved Lincoln is to blame for Hitler. Congratulations. Also note that Karl Marx corresponded with Lincoln and spoke highly of his efforts to create a totalitarian central government.

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 10:49 AM  

It's Wilson that should be your villain, not Lincoln.

Wilson is certainly on the list, but Lincoln was the first president who was a tyrant.

Also, this:
Karl Marx himself wrote Lincoln on January 28, 1865 to say, "Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority." In the same letter Marx assured Lincoln that the European communist movement was with him: "From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class,"

Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:51 AM  

Is this what you are talking about? http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Your characterization is incorrect. But nice attempt to defame Lincoln by association.

Do they even teach history anymore?

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 10:52 AM  

More:

Even quite worshipful Lincoln biographers and historians called him a “dictator.”  In his book, Constitutional Dictatorship, Clinton Rossiter devoted an entire chapter to Lincoln and calls him a “great dictator” and a “true democrat,” two phrases that are not normally associated with each other.  “Lincoln's amazing disregard for the . . . Constitution was considered by nobody as legal,” said Rossiter.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 26, 2013 10:53 AM  

Here, something that is really worth reading, unlike Jaffa:

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE United States of America.
BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
SECOND EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER,
NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET.
1829.
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm

pay special attention to CHAPTER XXXII. OF THE PERMANENCE OF THE UNION.



Anonymous Federalist February 26, 2013 10:54 AM  

If there wasn't a united US, we would likely have been drawn into WW1 even earlier, as various North American factions took sides. Read Harry Turtledove. Alternate history is a tricky business. I'm willing to bet there still would have been fascist and communist regimes that would have been a threat.

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 10:55 AM  

Also, who but a tyrant would have the chief justice of the supreme court arrested?

And he suspended habeas corpus.

And, as has been previously stated, he used federal troops to prevent the Maryland legislature from voting on secession.

Anonymous Josh February 26, 2013 10:58 AM  

I'm willing to bet there still would have been fascist and communist regimes that would have been a threat.

That's fantastic, tell me ,how does Hitler come to power if Germany doesn't lose?

1 – 200 of 322 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts