Dear Steve,
Slavery was by no means responsible for the civil war. The civil war (or
the war of Northern Aggression) was started over a dispute over Federal
taxes and controls over commodity prices both initiated largely by
Northern mercantilists. Lincoln attached the slavery issue to the war
much later, freeing the slaves in the South but not freeing them in the
North where slavery thrived but didn't gain as much attention as it did
in the South. Of course he hoped that the "freed" slaves would run to
freedom rather than fight. He had no such incentive to free the slaves
in the North.
Lincoln also made his personal views of blacks known in many speeches
where he felt the best solution was to ship all the black people in the
US to an island in the Caribbean. So much for his interest in civil
rights.
I have reams of information to support this view I can send you
tomorrow. Of course one isn't likely to get this perspective from public
schools as the State worships saint Abraham Lincoln. There's a reason
former Chinese Chairman Deng Xio Ping openly praised Lincoln as his
favorite US president. Knowing what the Chinese are doing to the
citizens of Tibet, it should come as no surprise.
One of our local Libertarian buddies wrote a great book on the subject,
demonstrating that slavery was on the way out at the time Lincoln made
it a civil was issue. It's called "Freeing the Slaves, Enslaving Free
Men" by Jeffery Hummel.
Politicians never lead a parade, they march in front of them. Lincoln
cleverly took an issue that already had "legs" in the North and South
and wrapped his Federal power agenda in it. Those in the South who
refused to accept what they saw the Feds in an unconstitutional power
grab it was, were labeled racists. All the South wanted was to solve
their problem themselves without Northern intervention. The Northern
public bought the whole thing while those in the South who saw it for
what it was, haven't forgotten and never will.
More on this tomorrow.
Mike
No need. I withdraw that example.
It seems to me that there are times when revolution (as opposed to evolution) is necessary, but also times when it is counter productive. Perhaps differentiating the two is the key to effective politics.
If this is true, then any particular situation must be analyzed to determine the best strategy. Dictums alone are not a sufficient guide.
Cheers,
-- Steve
Dear Everyone;
Something you are missing. Slavery was enshrined in the US Constitution see Section 2 where it refers to a census including 3/5 of all other Persons. If Slavery had not been condoned by the US Constitution there would not have been a US Constitution. The Northerners needed those Southern votes to get a US Constitution. The dichtomy as Mike Denny notes is the North was where the original NIMBY's were created. Abolitionists who wanted abolition but not in their backyards.
Another note on the Civil War it was also originally a states rights issue. Could a State once a member of the Union secede from the Union if it so chose? If the People of the States who seceded had actually voted in a plebescite chances are the secession may not have happened. As Mike Denny notes it was a revolution of the agrarian South against the manufacturing might of the North and the squeeze play being put on the South's productivity and profits.
The Civil War turned out to be a planters vs. the manufacturers war with the majority of the blood spilt on both sides belonging to the Common Man. The Common Man usually is the one who always pays for the idiocy of politicians. Just look at todays Iraq if you have any doubts.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
Dear Steve,
Slavery was by no means responsible for the civil war. The civil war (or
the war of Northern Aggression) was started over a dispute over Federal
taxes and controls over commodity prices both initiated largely by
Northern mercantilists. Lincoln attached the slavery issue to the war
much later, freeing the slaves in the South but not freeing them in the
North where slavery thrived but didn't gain as much attention as it did
in the South. Of course he hoped that the "freed" slaves would run to
freedom rather than fight. He had no such incentive to free the slaves
in the North.
Lincoln also made his personal views of blacks known in many speeches
where he felt the best solution was to ship all the black people in the
US to an island in the Caribbean. So much for his interest in civil
rights.
I have reams of information to support this view I can send you
tomorrow. Of course one isn't likely to get this perspective from public
schools as the State worships saint Abraham Lincoln. There's a reason
former Chinese Chairman Deng Xio Ping openly praised Lincoln as his
favorite US president. Knowing what the Chinese are doing to the
citizens of Tibet, it should come as no surprise.
One of our local Libertarian buddies wrote a great book on the subject,
demonstrating that slavery was on the way out at the time Lincoln made
it a civil was issue. It's called "Freeing the Slaves, Enslaving Free
Men" by Jeffery Hummel.
Politicians never lead a parade, they march in front of them. Lincoln
cleverly took an issue that already had "legs" in the North and South
and wrapped his Federal power agenda in it. Those in the South who
refused to accept what they saw the Feds in an unconstitutional power
grab it was, were labeled racists. All the South wanted was to solve
their problem themselves without Northern intervention. The Northern
public bought the whole thing while those in the South who saw it for
what it was, haven't forgotten and never will.
More on this tomorrow.
Mike