Author Topic: Libertarian view of Mr. Lincoln (Read 2474 times)

littlecanoe · « **on:** February 26, 2011, 01:23:07 PM »

I didn't see this linked. Thought both sides of the discussion might enjoy this segment from Freedom Watch with judge Napolitano (not the brother of Janet).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4549006/abe-lincoln-worst-president-ever/?playlist_id=157991

williamlayton · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2011, 02:58:47 PM »

It is obvious that they ignored what Lincoln said in on of his last speeches before dying.
He said that courage and bravery shown by black union troops had earned their citizenship.
The freed slave was always going to be a problem. No one had an answer and were not willing to concede that the only solution short of deportation was to give them complete freedoms and allow them to assimulate into society.
No one in the North or South wanted that--no one.
We brought it on ourownselves.
Blessings

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2011, 05:39:55 PM »

Great video littlecanoe... great to see you posting again.

wl, the South tried to reason with Lincoln when it came to freeing the slaves. Jefferson Davis knew full well what would happen to the 4 million blacks if slavery was to be forced upon them by the North. They had no education, no training in how to conduct business, no way to provide for their families if they were just literally thrown into the streets first. Davis wanted and asked for the same form of gradual emancipation as allowed in the North, to prepare them for integration into society.
In a letter to his brother, Davis wrote, "In order for a slave to be made fit for freedom, he must first be made unfit for slavery. This can only be done through education and training." He believed this so much that he had schools setup on his Mississippi plantation to teach his slaves how to read and write and basic math skills.
I doubt Lincoln or anyone else in the North ever really considered what would become of the slaves once they were freed. They just didn't care, as long as they stayed in the South. After all, several Northern states had anti free black laws to prevent them from even entering those states. These laws were in place well before the War ever started.

SBG

williamlayton · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:10:19 PM »

This period of history is an interesting study,
It is also completely misunderstood or worse, not even attempted to be understood.
Those who study it see what decisions were before the ones elected to uphold the constitution.
Lincoln had no idea what was the right decision concerning slavery. he knew that he had no legal means to declare it null and void and was not so inclined, but there were those prickly words in the Constitution---all men are created equal.
Much is thrown out in words thinking that they have discovered a new thing when they are told that Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus but did anyone ever think to ask why?
Everyone says that Lincoln had no constitutional powers to issue the Emancipation Proclamation but fail to study and find that what he did was completely legal.
You can follow Rockwell, and I have for many years, and all you will find is the same old story which twist these times for one purpose and that is to justify.
Folks Coup's need no justification just as there is no justification for me to drive my Pony car 100mph---other than I just want to some times.
Ask some questions before you end up being embarrassed when you find that you have followed a lie.
I can tell you all kinds of stuff I have found in my years of studying this period and you will ask me for sources. i will tell you that the sources are there and that they are factual.
Study it for yourownself, look at all the angels, make up your own mind and don't let some hair ball tell you what to believe.
Blessings

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2011, 02:13:03 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on February 26, 2011, 10:10:19 PM

This period of history is an interesting study,....

Ask some questions before you end up being embarrassed when you find that you have followed a lie.
I can tell you all kinds of stuff I have found in my years of studying this period and you will ask me for sources. i will tell you that the sources are there and that they are factual.
Study it for yourownself, look at all the angels, make up your own mind and don't let some hair ball tell you what to believe.
Blessings

Yes, it certainly is interesting.
Yes sir, you should follow your own advice on this one.
Yes sir, they are there, and they are indeed factual. If you can tell us all kinds of stuff you have found, I'm all ears (or in this case, eyes ). Now that you admit that sources are factual, you shouldn't have any problem showing them. And if you don't, I will be as good as my word and delete those posts.
Refer to my post in the "War of Northern Aggression" thread.

SouthernByGrace
~~~~
DEO VINDICE

williamlayton · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2011, 02:42:26 AM »

Lew Rockwell is a racist and he admits to it---he has long been a racist.
Nothing that Lincoln did inthe first months of the war were illegal. They were all measures given to the President.
They are measures that have been used by other presidents in times like these.
I don't understand, after all these years, after all the facts have been presented, disected, and forencitised why the are not understood.
Every generation thinks they have found something new---they have not found anything new just things that were consifdered and discarded for lack of good thought.
Blessings

littlecanoe · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2011, 05:18:06 AM »

I don't believe that we so much see a new generation with new ideas as we see a generation asking questions of our History. The primary question that we see asked is embodied in the present conflict within our government. We see it in people such as Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Allen West, the questioning of federal power, the questioning of union power, the questioning of democracy as a form of government. The question is "What is Liberty"? and the follow up question is "Do I understand Liberty and know what it looks like in the lives of a free people"?

As I read the threads in this forum I'm struck with the notion that I witness many who are comfortable with giving up some freedoms for a sense of security. Our founding fathers were concerned that this would happen, that the country would face a time that the individual would believe that a powerful government would look out for their best interests as more and more power was given to them. We are witnessing at the very least a strong questioning of this through our newly elected officials.

Another observation is that we see many looking back at the history through the lenses of Democracy. This alone will give us an offset view of these events. A true understanding of the WONA must be seen from the perspective of the founding fathers and the Representative Rule of Law that is embodied in the government of a Republic founded on the Common Law of England which was founded on the Mosaic Law. To look at the war with a view of majority rule cedes the ideology that our founding fathers fought to ensure and replaces it with the fallen view of man. In large part the present situation of our country can be linked to this pivotal event. Republic rule of Law, as established by our founding fathers, rested on the Higher Law of God. The natural question would the become, "How could slavery be supported by men who were just two generations removed from the founding of the country"? My answer, "The were still fallen fallible men"?

I shudder to think that we look at history and believe that it was necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to die and a form of government to die or be forever changed for the sake of ending slavery. When we look to the example of William Wilberforce in England we cannot justify the war as being fought to "end slavery". For nearly fifty years after his conversion to Christ, Wilberforce worked as the primary figure in the fight to end slavery in England. This was done through the pulpit and Parliament and was accomplished in 1833. Since Slavery had ended in England nearly thirty years prior to the war I cannot come to the conclusion that Mr. Lincoln intended the war for this cause. I also must face the reality that Wilberforce did not see war and bloodshed as a way to end this travesty. Mr. Lincoln used slavery as an issue to justify war after the fact. If fought for the issue of Slavery alone the war was the wrong answer to a question that had already been answered. Mr. Lincoln was no Wilberforce.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2011, 06:29:17 AM »

Well said lc. Well said indeed.

SBG

williamlayton · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2011, 07:08:02 AM »

I completely understand the causes of the war in question.
Yes--a lot had to do with slavery. Honestly.
Tariffs were a problem.
Again I go back to the thoughts of Unionist----not Federalist--and Sectionalist. Many saw the advantage of a strong Union--it was not long since we had had our latest war with England (1815). If we had been a divided nation all would havebeen lost.
Unionist were patriots---They saw the vastness and the promise of this continent. It was a possibility. It was a chance to be separatist from Europe and had crushed Mexico's hopes of gaining or regaining a stronghold in the North.
It hinged on this nation being self sustaining--each supporting each other.
Imorts were the method of the day to support the government. It was not an uncommon thing to support growth from within by limiting imports from abroad.
Excess's were almost inevitable by manufacturing, I totally agree. Those were being worked out.
I am not convinced that the South wanted anything other than to not be a part of the Union---to be left alone to walk their walk in the walk they wanted. I am also convinced that there were many in the south that wanted to enlarge and even compete with the Union---expansion of Slavery.
If you are one that says slavery was a done deal by 1861--I wish I knew how they were going to turn this trick. It is evident by conversation there was no plan for this and many, in the business, were looking for new territory in which to expand. Any expansion would have just contributed to a problem that had no solution.
It had no solution because of prejudice. Slaves were moral and intellectual inferiors to White's. Of course in New York, Irishmen were moral and intellectual inferiors to Englishmen -as were all from southern and Eastern Europe.
We are still a bigoted bunch.
Lincoln was a Unionist, He understood the frailties of a nation divided.
No one can ever PROVE what the outcome would have been but I think this war was inevitable at some point in the future.
Blessings

subdjoe · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2011, 07:35:00 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on February 27, 2011, 07:08:02 AM

Lincoln was a Unionist, He understood the frailties of a nation divided.

(Yeah, I know I said I would be gone for a while, I also hedged a bit with that "I think")

The Union remained!

Again and again and again - THE UNION REMAINED.

Seven states withdrew. Washington wasn't destroyed. The Constitution was still in effect. Post office still functioned. Congress still met. The Mint still struck coins.

The only thing that changed was the flow of revenue into the federal treasury. And that Lincoln could not stand.

ADDED:

If I dip a cup of water out of a bucket, does that bucket of water no longer exist? The bucket is there, there is still a lot of water in it. It hasn't exploded.

Gary G · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2011, 08:32:10 AM »

LC wrote:

Quote

The question is "What is Liberty"?

LOL, liberty is hard to see today.

Frederic Bastiat (The Law) wrote this:
Life comes from God. God thus gave liberty and property as a way to support that life. These then are natural rights, or rights given to all men by God. Man can only derive life and enjoyment from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. (The application of faculties is liberty).

But also he may live and enjoy, by by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men. This is the origin of plunder.

Bastiat said that it was both immoral and punishable by law for him to plunder. Yet, he wondered then why a group of men (government) by law do the very thing that he was forbidden. This he called legal plunder.
It is a destruction of liberty.

I think you can find The Law by Bastiat online. It can be ordered from Mises.org.

William, I don't think Rockwell is prejudiced by race. He is a defender of liberty for all men. Now he would say that all are prejudiced in that they have the right to choose that which they prefer; an integral part of liberty. Life is choosing and suppression of choice would be a violation of natural rights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I can't help but think of all those southern people who just wanted to be left alone and a man named Lincoln that wanted to crush them for their non-compliance to his will.

williamlayton · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2011, 10:27:17 AM »

You need to have followed Lew these many years. When he worked for The Good Doctor he made this statement in the periodiacle he published concerning the riots in LA. he said the ressurection was not quieted by police but by the arrival of welfare checks in the mail.
Now that is funny only if you had not followed rockwell in the past.
He is a dead solid racist.
Blessings

littlecanoe · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:53:04 PM »

Good discussion fella's. Didn't bring this up to beat a dead horse but noticed I started swinging the stick anyway! :-)

I find the upswing in Libertarian views to be an interesting phenomenon. While I separate myself from Libertarian doctrine at a certain point I find myself being drawn more and more to the call for Liberty in our nation, questioning what Liberty looks like. As history repeats itself we see another page or maybe a few pages of that chapter in today's events. I wonder if, prior to the war, the discussions around the pot bellied stoves of the country stores resembled the discussions that go on here?

williamlayton · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2011, 03:38:12 PM »

Liberty is certainly not Libitarian anarchy.
Blessings

EOD3 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:28:53 PM »

Mr Layton: I'm not the kind a guy that likes long, protracted arguments on the internet. People tend to say things they neither "truly" believe or have any rational reason to believe. I'll just ask a few questions and then go back to lurking.

1. Where did Lincoln derive the authority to interfere in the internal workings of a sovereign country? After all, the Southern States were perfectly within their rights to secede from the Union and form their own government.
2. Where in the Constitution did Lincoln find the authority to establish a blockade of the Confederacy?
3. Where did Lincoln find the authority to "price fix" goods imported from the Southern States by the factories (using slave labor) in the North? I guess campaign funds were hard to come by back then too.
4. Where did Lincoln find the Constitutional authority to suspend property rights in a foreign country?
5. When did they move the "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution?
6. Have you compared the dates of the "Emancipation Proclamation" and the official declaration of war to subjugate the Southern States? Freeing slaves (illegally) was a tactic, NOT a goal.
7. Are you familiar with the "War Crimes" committed by the North in general and Jackson in particular?

If Lincoln was looked at in the cold light of day, not the pipe-dream of the writers of fiction, he would be considered a war criminal with the blood of 600,000+ soldiers and an unknown number of civilian men, women, and children of the Confederate States dripping from his hands. .02/YMMV

williamlayton · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2011, 01:55:19 AM »

Lots of good questions--let me respond in whole rather than part by part.
This was a sovereign nation by Constitution - agrrement--one for all and all for one.
The South took many unionist without consideration of their will. It was pure and simple revolt--a coup.
These things cannot go without a fight---never has, never will.
The fight was going to come sooner or later---better for the union to be sooner, rather than later.
I am cetainly not in opposition to a revolt. Being a pragmitist and stoic by nature I know human nature. I do think it absurd that the South then, and those of us here, now, would even be able to contemplate that just let them leave peacably---we will deal with this later--would ever be an option.
Those who do think in this manner are, IMO. blind and unthinking.
Again, do it if you think it worth the price for all concerned--not just a few--but if you loose, suck it up and look at reality straight in the face--defeat is a good word.
Blessings

58cal · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:01:17 AM »

I think Lincoln was the greatest Republican president our nation ever elected.
It's early to rate our latest president's however I believe history will not be kind to GWB, he's not fairing well in the color chart below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Quinnipiac_University_poll

EOD3 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2011, 06:23:32 PM »

I have a better idea, why not answer the questions? I already know what your opinion is, I'd like to know what you base it on. All I see is a "public education" response to valid questions, not an objective or reasoned response.

williamlayton · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:17:15 AM »

Question #1 Answered
Question #2 If you can't see that the North disagreed that the South was revolting-illegally or not--and they were farsighted enough to understand that a fight was coming sooner or later then i cannot give you an answer.
Question #3 The president did not draw up the Tariff bill--the Congress did.
The rest of this is not a question--it is soap box oratory and poor at that.
Question #4 See #2.
Question #5 Do you disagree that all men are not created with equal opportunity? that is what this whole thing--the UNITED States was about.
Question #6 I never said it was a goal. I have argued that the slave question was an issue that most had no answer for. When the freed slaves of the North fought what would have been your conclusion?
Question #7 Are you referring to the Haig convention? It had not happened yet. War crimes---the South is the least and last one with any hope of pleading the case of war crimes. However; Since you bring it up. What did the North do but fight a war. I don't suspect that you have ever been in a fight but I will inform you that rules are the last thing one thinks about. War is worse than you can ever imagine. i pity those fine soldiers in the Middle east today--those rules go against any and all natural instincts when someone is trying to kill you.
I would suggest that you are looking at all of this thru unrealistic eyes.
Blessings

EOD3 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2011, 12:45:29 PM »

This is CLEARLY a waste of time. I thought it odd nobody else jumped into the fray, now I know why. If you decide to participate in a reasoned discussion (based on facts), and outside your personal opinions, I'll be around.

My last word,
EOD3

williamlayton · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2011, 02:40:41 PM »

When faced with facts retreat--always the best option.
Blessings

subdjoe · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:57:02 PM »

Or resort to personal attacks.

Casull · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:40:10 PM »

I didn't see any personal attack. I saw some frustration, but that was about it.

williamlayton · « **Reply #23 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:55:29 PM »

Why resort to personal attacks. Tacky at best.
Blessings

nw_hunter · « **Reply #24 on:** April 01, 2011, 09:20:07 PM »

Quote from: williamlayton on February 27, 2011, 02:42:26 AM

Lew Rockwell is a racist and he admits to it---he has long been a racist.
Nothing that Lincoln did inthe first months of the war were illegal. They were all measures given to the President.
They are measures that have been used by other presidents in times like these.
I don't understand, after all these years, after all the facts have been presented, disected, and forencitised why the are not understood.
Every generation thinks they have found something new---they have not found anything new just things that were consifdered and discarded for lack of good thought.
Blessings

Lew Rockwell a racist, and he admits it

Can you point me to a link where he made such a statement, or give us an example of his racism?

Concerning Lincoln..........I have a great read by Thomas Di Lorenzo called the Real Lincoln.DiLorenzo's book is full of documented facts about the Great Emancipator, that would make most people sick. Be happy to loan it to you! "Returned Blessings"

williamlayton · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2011, 02:27:25 AM »

What is it, in particular, that you think I don't know about Lincoln.
Did he have feet of clay? Yes he was human.
Do I revrent Lincoln? Not particularly, he certainly is not a god.
Was he faced with questions he had no answers for? Yes.
Was he faced with questions he did not want to face? Yes.
Did he make mistakes? I think, yes.
Was the final decision to emancipate the slaves correct? I think, yes.
This is a problem we brought on ourownselves. It was a thinking in the moment without consideration of the future. After the Constitution, was there really any correct answer other than the one made? Well, we could have deported them. Then again, I remember Germany.
Was the war a mistake? No, and I agree with Lincolns final thought. This was a republic not nations within a confederacy. I think he did what he had to do.
All of these opinions are mine. they are not based on the magic of my mind--though others have different opinions which come from the same sources that I consider.
How is this conceivable? Should we not all be able to read and come to like minded conclusions? I doubt that this is possible. It never has been, when considering history and humans.
I find good argument in Di Lorenzo--I just can't come to agreement with his final conclusions.
Lew Rockwell. Well no I can't find any statement where he admits to being a racists. in that respect I stand corrected. Does he make irrefutable racists statements? Yes. Does he deny being a racists? He makes no comment.
Blessings

williamlayton · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2011, 03:12:56 AM »

I kinda want to get back to the Libertarian thought of this orginal discussion.
The ACLU in its concept is good. It eventually turns on itsownself.
The same is with Libertarianism. Eventually it devours itsownself.
Laws are good. They protect people from themselves, and others, who may become the victims of this liberty.
We have all used the term, "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Ever really think about this. I take Christianity as an example. While we have liberty in Christ do we not also have responsibility in Christ?
Now, off theology and on to the topic.
Libertarianism in its purest thought is anarchy. It makes each person responsible to his ownself without regard for the better good of the whole.
To have liberty must we not give up liberty?
No nation can survive without law---even though some of them are ignored--there are consequences and people assigned to police these laws and report them.
Then it is up to the people to uphold these laws----a jury.
Now if we don't like a law, we have given ourownselves and out, we can change them.
Now, folks, this is not Libertarianism.
Blessings

Gary G · « **Reply #27 on:** April 05, 2011, 06:07:53 AM »

Quote

Libertarianism in its purest thought is anarchy. It makes each person responsible to his ownself without regard for the better good of the whole.

But that is for the better good of the whole. For example, I have watermelons, my neighbor has hogs. I might like to trade a watermelon for a pork chop. In this trade we both have our needs met and both are satisfied. We will most likely be nice to each other for we might like to do this trade again. Multiply this by thousands of people and thousands of free trades and the better good is accomplished, though not purposefully. It is governments that bring wars and atrocities as happened in the War of Northern Aggression.
Contract laws could easily be privately enforced. natural law would prevail.

williamlayton · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:11:26 AM »

I want to use dynamite in my yard to remove a stump. It is in my yard and it is my stump. You tend to your yard 60 feet away and I will tend to mine, my way.
That is libertarianism.
Now, you will say , but there has to be respect shown for others. Not in the purest form of libertarian logic.
Libertarnism is good if you have a small population and folks have elbow room.
Now, libertarian economics are good--but you must be careful with them in a Republic.
Blessings

Gary G · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:24:51 AM »

Quote

I want to use dynamite in my yard to remove a stump. It is in my yard and it is my stump. You tend to your yard 60 feet away and I will tend to mine, my way.
That is libertarianism.

Natural rights are life, liberty and property. Libertarianism is that I have the right to do as I think best, but not to damage your life, liberty or property. I could blow the stump if careful, but if I cause damage to another's property, I am responsible. For that reason, I might find another way would be better; not by some regulation by government 1000 miles away. That is libertarianism.