We read:
"DiLorenzo appeared before the House Financial Service Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 9, at the invitation of committee chairman Ron Paul (R-Texas) to testify on the Federal Reserve Bank. After his testimony, Democratic Rep. William Clay, who sits on the committee, raised questions about DiLorenzo's ties to the League of the South, classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [A typical Leftist "ad hominem" argument]
Clay accused DiLorenzo of working "for a Southern nationalist organization that espouses very radical notions about American history and the federal government."
DiLorenzo rebutted Clay's claim in a Feb. 11 posting on LewRockwell.com—a site that describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, [and] pro-market"—saying that his only connection with the League was a series of lectures he delivered 13 years ago on the economics of the Civil War; DiLorenzo gave the lectures at a week-long summer seminar sponsored by three professors who just started a League of the South Institute.
According to him, the southern states that seceded from the U.S. in 1861 should have been allowed to peacefully leave the Union since the states originally came together in a voluntary, cooperative pact when they signed the Constitution. For Lincoln to wage war with the South to bring them back into the Union was tyrannical, a point DiLorenzo writes about in his 2002 publication,Lincoln Unmasked.
Source
There's an old saying in politics: "Follow the money". DiLorenzo points out the economic reasons why Lincoln was desperate to keep control of the South. Lincoln himself said that slavery wasn't the issue -- so 600,000 men had to die to preserve the market for Northern manufacturers!
12 comments:
It was unfortunate that the founders did not address the issue of secession at the time of the writing of the Constitution - perhaps they never thought of it as an option, perhaps they felt they would never get the Constitution passed if it said ANYTHING about it. Without addressing it, however, they left the door open both to the act, and the community response to the act.
Lincoln was concerned about keeping the Union together, not whether Slavery was abolished or not, and probably irregardless of the economics.
As for the actual shooting - it was NOT the "Union" that fired first, but the Confederate forces at Ft. Sumter after the Union garrison refused to surrender.
"irregardless" is not a word in the English language!
Sounds like a double-negative.
Lefties defending a Republican President?
Lincoln wasn't a real republican, he was a RINO and a fascist who imprisoned 1,500 innocent people without trial.
That's fascism, and even though I vote Republican I am not proud of Abraham Lincoln. Read "Lincoln's White Dream" if you want to know who dishonest Abe really was.
The Fashion of Qaddaffi.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/03/dressed-to-kill-fashion-of-qaddaffi.html
Read the history leading up the Civil War; it was indeed all about slavery, no doubt there.
Or to put it another way, Lincoln couldda backed down on the slavery issue at any time and avoided the entire war, but he chose not to. Actions speak louder than words.
What he did do, in an attempt not to inflame hatred Southern hatred for the North even more than it already was, was to consistently avoid moral condemnation as much as possible, usually by substituting more neutral arguments.
He was both usual and unusual in this: most pols will say one thing and do another, but it generally means saying noble things and acting ignobly, whereas Lincoln did the reverse. I am hard pressed to think of many other examples of national leaders, of any time or place, behaving this way.
Lincoln's effortst would be largely successful, however, as subsequent history attests, with commentators amazed at how quickly the hate settled down after the war, all things considered. That would not have happened had Lincoln indulged his ego with the usual j'accuses so fashionable both then now.
A fascinating man.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Irregardless may not be in the English language, but it is part of the American language.
Lincoln knew that the president did not have the power to end slavery. He also knew that if the Confederate States rejoined England, that the United States would fall, being crushed between two English commonwealths, Canada and the South. The Civil War was fought over many issues, not just one.
Lincoln wasn't a real republican, he was a RINO and a fascist who imprisoned 1,500 innocent people without trial.
Of course, Bobby believes that slavery was a good thing as well as a "way of life" that was worthy of defending.
Bobby attacks Lincoln for imprisoning 1500 people but supports the slavery of 4 million people.
Been to DC, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, East LA, NYC, or any other large city lately? The conversation shouldn't be about the abolition of slavery, but about bringing it back.
The Webster link states that "irregardless" is non-standard and probably a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless".
"irregardless" is illogical but it is common in U.S. writing
Logic is often missing in English, however
Foreigners marvel that we first chop a tree DOWN and then chop it UP
The civil war wasn't about slavery,
You've been asked to provide one cause issue of the south that was not tainted by slavery and you have yet to come up with one.
Lincoln didn't give a crap about slavery
Lincoln's primary issue in fighting the civil war was the preservation of the union. However, that doesn't account for the south's reasons for going to war. It also doesn't account for the reason that the South going to war AFTER Lincoln was elected because the Southern States knew that Lincoln had made ending slavery a critical plank in his platform.
defaming the noble history of the south.
Look Sockpuppet, you aren't from the South. You live in Southern Florida that did nothing to support the Confederacy in the Civil War. Your puffery on the Civil War as well as your pathetic attempt to promote your own "blog" on someone else's site matches the vacuum between your ears.
All along we have said that you are a person that is ignorant of history and a racist. Your continued denial of the history of causes of the Civil War continue to prove that point.
Post a Comment