About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A very fine article, James. I expected a barrage of posts pummeling Bush (Dubya's a tough one for me to swallow, but I respect your opinion and rationale). I didn’t expect the Sons and, well, Sons of the Confederacy to make an appearance. I forget the Rockwellians lurk about ready to pounce on anyone giving respect to Lincoln.

 

In any case, I especially like your description of Washington.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd have to go with Washington, Jefferson, Arthur and Cleveland. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush would both, on the basis of their _actual records_, be somewhere near the bottom with FDR, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon and Lincoln.

Tom Knapp

Post 22

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


A wonderful article, James. It's inevitable that you would get flak for including Lincoln on your list; apparently the revisionist historians have done their work well, in this area as in others. But the re-writing of history doe not alter history.

Barbara

Post 23

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert K Stock wrote:

"I understand your emotional response because the schools have not taught the truth about the War Between the States."

You can blame the public schools for many things, but not my education on the American Civil War.
The Civil War is not covered in the New Zealand curriculum. I learned about that through my own private study of military history.

There is however, a unit in the 5th form curriculum that deals with the civil rights movement in the 1950-70s. I make no apologies for being utterly sickened by the images of public lynchings and platoons of paratroopers escorting black school girls into Topeka High Schools.

Just a few headlines:
"Five White Men Take Negro Into Woods; Kill Him: Had Been Charged with Associating with White Women" went over The Associated Press wires about a lynching in Shreveport, Louisiana.
"Negro Is Slain By Texas Posse: Victim's Heart Removed After His Capture By Armed Men" was published in The New York World Telegram on December 8, 1933.
"Negro and White Scuffle; Negro Is Jailed, Lynched" was published in the Atlanta Constitution on July 6, 1933.

I make no apologies for feeling "emotional" about slavery etc. because slavery is sick.

I do not believe that the immoral xenophobic mentality that gave rise to slavery and these disgusting acts listed above would have simply evaporated of its own accord. As if, by gentle prodding the Southern gentry would have suddenly realised the error of their ways and turned their slaves free on principle. But let us say that I am wrong and the slave-holder and maniac that can justify hacking a man to death just because he is black can - after 35 years of gentle prodding - comprehend the error in their thinking.

I could not and would not ever support the enslavement of even *one* more human being to placate such scum. Not only would it turn my stomach to do so. It would also be a revolt against logic. It was the tacit approval of the government for slavery and Jim Crow laws that planted these abominations in the first place and then nourished them to the point that blood had to be shed to remove them.

Lastly, I cannot see how appeasing the South for an additional 35 years would not have led to an even bigger fight. Or do you think that slaves once liberated would have thanked their masters for their generosity then swum back to Africa to live out the rest of their lives without thought of compensation for their years of involuntary servitude?

Bah! I tire of this argument. It too beautiful a day to be blackened by having to explain why slave-holding racists and their apologists are more evil than Abe Lincoln.
(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/02, 2:11pm)


Post 24

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Winefield:

The atrocities you mentioned also happened in many Northern States during the same time period. In the 1920's the Ku Klux Klan controlled most of the State government of Indiana.

It is historically inaccurate to paint the South as evil racists and not point out that the people of the North thought the same way.

It is not just American schools that teach falsehoods about the War Between the States.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 2:12pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Winfield,

Thank you. At last someone remembered that the slaves were individuals, imprisoned and tortured at hard labor for their entire lives for no crime at all. How anyone here could fault Lincoln for acting against one of the most enormous violations of individual rights in history - yet still claim to be an adherent of the principle of individual rights (but only for white men?) - I find incomprehensible.

Post 26

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, and I always thought the civil war was primarily about money, i.e. taxes and tariffs. *wonders*

Post 27

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason:

I am not a Rockwellian, but I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the League of the South.

I would place Cleveland as one of the best Presidents because he vetoed bills that he thought were not  constitutional. He vetoed more bills then any other President up to his time. He also opposed the Americans in Hawaii who wanted to overthrow the government and be annexed by the United States.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 2:27pm)


Post 28

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam:

I am not defending slavery, but I am claiming that most people have not been taught the truth about the South, the North, slavery and free blacks in both sections of the country.


Post 29

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max, the article you linked to at post #4 is a wind-up.

Perhaps you need to be a bit more careful in separating fact from fiction before you venture forth with an opinion...


Post 30

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sigh.

And why did these crimes happen?

Because the god damned police didn't hunt down those sick freaks and arrest them like they are f---ing well supposed to. Why? Because the government was too busy turning a blind eye to such things. There is another word for this: appeasement! The same solution you proposed as a bloodless solution to the slave-holding problem.

Yes Lincoln did appease those slave-states that supported the North. This is why I feel uneasy defending the bastard. Did I ever deny that Lincoln did not turn a blind eye to slavery in the border states, introduced income tax, conscription and suspended Habeus Corpus? No!

I do say that, intentionally or not, he was a keystone in the effort to abolish slavery. This is the key part of James' argument and I agree with it. As I said before - and you agreed - he freed a large number of slaves and this IS a good thing!

As for the rest, there is an argument that they were emergency measures in time of war against a dangerous foe. I'm not convinced of this, hence my unease. But I AM convinced about the goodness of Lincoln's freeing the slaves in the CSA. I am also convinced that they weren't going to be freed without a war.

We aren't going to agree here so I'm calling it quits.

TTFN

Robert

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/02, 2:32pm)

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/02, 2:39pm)


Post 31

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 2:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert S., you have contradicted yourself. In answer to my question, you told me that the reason the South wanted to secede was that Lincoln wanted to disallow slavery in new southern territories. Hence, the issue was SLAVERY.

Enough with the petty "schoolboy" insults. The idea that Lincoln was evil and had no interest in abolitionism is a popular revisionist tripe among the Howard Zinn-Noam Chomsky school of hard left anti-Americans, but you don't see me accusing you of Chomskyite brainwashing.

And if you think that a state can pass any law it wants, no matter how much in violation of individual rights, then you cannot claim to be a supporter of liberty. The idea that states rights trump individual rights is, well, statist.

Alec  

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 4/02, 3:04pm)


Post 32

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec:

You are the person calling names, hurling insults, saying that I am a liar and not a supporter of individual rights or liberty.

I stand by what I have written. If anyone disagrees with me that is fine.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 3:09pm)


Post 33

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The thing about debating the Civil War that is the most fun, by far the most funny aspect—is watching the losers go on and on about their “raht to secede.”

Robert K. Stock wrote: “The States created the Union and the States can disolve it if they wish.”

If there is a lesson from that conflict that can’t be missed, it has to be that no one will secede. Yet, here he is, a century and a half later blathering about the “raht to secede.”

Jon

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 8:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with you about George Washington. I think Lincoln was a disaster.

--Brant


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 9:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Tom Knapp here, though I might have a toss-up between Arthur and Calvin Coolidge.  Any president whose proudest accomplishment in office is to have 'minded his own damn business' is okay in my book.  Lincoln is not.

I have read articles from conservative, Union-siding historians that have conceded that Lincoln's passage of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 was a purely political move, passed in the hope of inspiring slave rebellion and disruption in the South.  If Lincoln was a true abolitionist, why did he wait until '63 to pass this law, and why didn't he outlaw slavery in all the states?  That said, I agree that it proved a good first step in ending slavery, and I won't condemn Lincoln outright.  Still, his grabbing of non-Constitutionally-allowed 'emergency powers' set the precedent for emergency-power-mongering in the presidency from Wilson to FDR to G.W. Bush, and his outright violation of Constitutional principle proved a pivotal point in the decline of American federalism.

And though I like DiLorenzo's book and agree with much of his analysis, no, I am not a Rockwellian.  Nor do I buy into Chomskyite revisionism.
Thank you for a good article and an entertaining debate.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec Mouhibian wrote:
Exactly why did Lincoln want to disallow slavery in the new territories, if he wasn't an abolitionist?
Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories because he didn't want blacks in the new territories. He wanted only whites in the new territories. Lincoln was a racist. He was not an abolitionist.

How could one possibly be an abolitionist and at the same time not only enforce but also approve of the fugitive slave law? If one were truly an abolitionist then getting rid of the fugitive slave law would seem to be one of the very first and easiest steps to take in freeing the slaves. Upholding the fugitive slave laws is an advocacy of slavery.

Post 37

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you all, ladies and gentlemen. I did think that Bush would create a lot more anger, but I am not surprised that Lincoln is still controversial. The first version of this article was about America's Three Greatest Presidents. I explained leaving out Lincoln by stating that I felt an aversion to the whole Civil War period, as I felt there must have been a better way, and that I just hadn't made up my mind about Lincoln. But I thought to myself, "You're 60 years old. When do you plan to make up your mind?"
I have read a great deal on the other three men, but I felt I had read enough on Lincoln to extract a basic truth; he DID start the expansion of American liberty to include other groups, most notably, blacks, that had not participated in the enjoyment of liberty that white men who owned property had experienced from the beginning.
Only Washington was big enough to see America's near fatal flaw from the beginning and be able to make a statement about it that would echo down through history. There was only one Washington, but if you read the letters between Adams and Jefferson between 1809 and 1826, you will see that Adams was revulsed by slavery. He and Jefferson agreed that it was THE problem and prayed in their letters that it not lead to a civil war.
I think I was right to include Lincoln, but I think we can all see that slavery may have been surgically dealt with in the 1860's, but the scar tissue remains to this very day.
The evolution of the American Revolution has been that freedom is based on individual rights that can only be defended consistently when they are offered to all individuals in a country and to all countries on the earth.

Post 38

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Beautifully written James.   I have always admired Lincoln, who, despite the mean spirited, should be lauded for accomplishing more than the politics of his day should have allowed. 

I was not surprised when the issue of right to secede came up, and this too, is where I am ambivalent.  It is true that slavery would not have ended if the right to secession had been upheld, at least not immediately.  But, Objectivists and libertarians can not help but  ponder any use of force even in support of lofty goals.  Would America have been a great and benevolent force in the world if the South had successfully seceded?  I don't know.

After this, by the same logic, how can we exclude “woman” from the universal concept meant by the word “men” in the Declaration? How can you exclude any subset of people? You can say that it is logical to take away the rights of a man who violates another man’s rights, but how can you say all people have rights except those who choose voluntarily to sleep with their own gender? Lincoln’s bloody surgery on the Constitution is leading to an ongoing, tortured healing of the whole body politic.

As with blacks and women, I believe the question of homosexuality should have its own amendment and be enshrined in the Constitution.

 

I know some will scream at his Medicare prescription drugs benefit as proof he isn’t doing this, but politics is the art of the possible, and he felt that the 700 billion price tag would be half of the democratic alternative. Whether he was right or not, after Social Security reform loom the much worse problems of real tax reform and Medicare. The dismantling of the welfare state will not be easy.

I also share your enthusiasm for George Bush.  Why does it takes years for most people to appreciate a president?  The facts are before them.  I think you missed a chance, when talking about Medicare, to mention that Bush also insisted upon competitive pricing in the private sector, rather that the Democrat preference for government price fixing.  Cleverly hidden within that move is the inevitable destruction of Medicare.  He is making a similar 'assault' on Social Security.  My blessing upon him.



Post 39

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert- you are absolutely right about the fact that I should have included Bush's step toward privatization in Medicare. The first step is the hardest, and he has been bold enough to take it often.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.