Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Real Lincoln

"You see more than do most men."
--Abraham Lincoln (The Blue and the Gray)

Finally finished Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. Eye opening book on which I will reflect more fully in posts ahead. For now, a few summary thoughts:

Main purpose of the Civil War. Any serious student of history soon realizes that 'freeing the slaves' was not the primary, or likely even tertiary, motivator of the Civil War. Lincoln's oft stated objective behind the war was to 'preserve the Union'--meaning that he wanted to prevent Southern states from seceeding. But why was this Lincoln's motivator? When one begins to understand Lincoln's hunger for political power and his allegiance to Clay's American System, then the dot connecting gets easier...

Main consequence of the Civil War. Clearly, the key outcome of the Civil War is that it squelched the notion of federalism--i.e., the founding idea that states are sovereign and that the federal government served the states. Perversely, since the end of the Civil War, revisionists have tried to argue that it was the federal government that created the states.

The reason that the end of federalism was so important was that the loss of states' rights removed the 'last best bulwark' (Wilson, 1998) of constitutional liberty as envisioned by the founders. The last bulwark consisted of a state's right to leave the union should it feel that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional limits. Without that right, the people hand their sovereignty over to judges who tell us what orders we must obey. This is, of course, the precise course of US government since 1865.

Tainted history. I've mentioned before that the more I dig into US history, the greater my surprise over what I don't know about our path from there to here. Now, I'll be the first to admit that history was never my favorite subject in school, but it seems clear that my ignorance is not merely the result of not paying attention in class. US history has clearly been slanted.

There is perhaps no greater example of this than Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln the humanitarian and emancipator when the data suggest Lincoln as tyrant and centralizer. The Civil War as a just war to free the slaves when the data suggest the Civil War as unjust to terroize people seeking to govern themselves.

History as taught here in the US has an agenda. Which implies self-study as the path to the Truth.

References

DiLorenzo, T.J. 2002. The real Lincoln. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Wilson, C. 1999. Secession: The last, best bulwark of our constitutional liberties. In D. Gordon (ed.), Secession, state and liberty: 89-98. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

3 comments:

dgeorge12358 said...

It makes no difference where the frontiers of a country are drawn. Nobody has a special material interest in enlarging the territory of the state in which he lives; nobody suffers loss if a part of this area is separated from the state. It is also immaterial whether all parts of the states territory are in direct geographical connection, or whether they are separated by a piece of land belonging to another state. It is of no economic importance whether the country has a frontage on the ocean or not. In such a world the people of every village or district could decide by plebiscite to which state they wanted to belong.
~Ludwig von Mises

katie ford hall said...

When you're sharing language with an assassin, (John Wilkes Booth - Sic semper tyrannis), I'm going to say it might be time to check yourself.

I don't think you've stumbled upon "the truth." As I've told you, the claims that Lincoln was a racist and that the war was not really about slavery is not a new revelation. The reporting of history has been questioned for a long time now, but it seems you are just now finding it interesting.

The winners write the history. It's been that way for ages, and it's been questioned for ages.

However, I think it's a huge (and unfair) leap to call Lincoln a tyrant, simply because he didn't subscribe to your current belief system. His motivation was preservation of the union, not some sort of delusion power grab, or some idea about holocaust.

In fact, the worst president, in my opinion, is George W Bush. However, I will not go back and say he was an evil tyrant. Motivations do matter and I believe all US presidents have acted in good faith.

I think that when you start dismissing that assumption, you run into serious trouble. You are dehumanizing them, which is exactly what you accuse the history books of doing.

That's when people start believing that assassinating someone for an ideal is ok. Very slippery slope indeed...

fordmw said...

'Preserving the union' was not something that the Federal govt was authorized to do under the Constitution.

Lincoln took the law into is own hands, which, when done while holding high political office, is what tyrants do...