Do you have some point in posting shit like this? On Nov 21, 12:11 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Grand Ole Tyrantsby Thomas J. DiLorenzoI am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have > been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My > politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a > national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high > protective tariff. -- Abraham Lincoln, 1832Lincoln and the Republicans > “intended to enact a high protective tariff that mothered monopoly, to pass a > homestead law that invited speculators to loot the public domain, and to > subsidize a transcontinental railroad that afforded infinite opportunities > for jobbery.-- David Donald,Lincoln Reconsidered > [T]he Thirty-seventh Congress [1861-63] ushered in four decades of > neo-Hamiltonianism: government for the benefit of the privileged few. > -- Leondard Curry,Blueprint for Modern America: Nonmilitary Legislation of > the First Civil War Congress > The very first public statement that Abraham Lincoln made after being > inaugurated as the sixteenth president was an ironclad defense of slavery: “I > have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of > slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do > so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He then quoted the Republican Party > platform of 1860 that said essentially the same thing; pledged his support > for the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution “with no mental > reservations”; and supported a proposed constitutional amendment (the “Corwin > Amendment”) that would have prohibited the federal government > fromeverinterfering with slavery. In fact, it was Lincoln who instructed > William Seward to see that the Corwin Amendment made it through the U.S. > Senate, which it did (and the House of Representatives as well). > In the same speech, Lincoln promised a military invasion and “bloodshed” in > any state that refused to collect the federal tariff on imports, which had > just been more than doubled two days before his inauguration. “[T]here needs > to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced > upon the national authority,” he continued. Thus, mere minutes after taking > an oath to protect the constitutional liberties of American citizens, Abraham > Lincoln threatened to orchestrate the murder of many of those same citizens. > What on earth was he talking about? What would cause a president to wage war > on his own citizens whose liberties he had just pledged to protect? Lincoln > explained in the very next sentence: “The power confided to me will be used > to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the > Government andto collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be > necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force > against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added). He promised to murder > American citizens over tax collection. > This was necessary, in the mind of Lincoln, if he was to deliver on what his > party elected him to do, as stated in the quotations at the beginning of this > article: to enact a high protective tariff, give away public lands mostly to > mining, railroad, and timber corporations, and lavish the railroad > corporations, among others, with corporate welfare. This was the old > “American System” of Alexander Hamilton, which was endorsed for decades by > Lincoln’s Whig Party, and finally the Republicans. The overwhelming majority > of Southern congressmen had for decades been ardently opposed to all of these > things. But now, they must be forced into it, or so Lincoln thought, for the > sake of revenue collection. (At the time, the tariff on imports accounted for > more than 90 percent of all federal tax revenues.) > Southerners (as well as Northerners) needed to be forced to pay for the > empire of corporate welfare that the Republican Party hoped would keep it in > power for decades. (It did: the Republican Party essentially monopolized > national politics for the next half century.) That is why there had to be a > war, in the minds of Lincoln and the Republican Party. They were perfectly > willing to enshrine slavery explicitly in the Constitution, but there would > be no compromise over collecting the newly doubled tariff. > This is also why opposition to war in the North had to be brutally repressed, > as it was, and a myth of “national unity” invented. Much of the story of how > the Republican Party engaged in a Stalinist spasm of political repression is > told by historian William Marvel in his book,Lincoln’s Darkest Year: The War > in 1862, which I highly recommend. (Marvel is a renowned Lincoln scholar, > winner of the Lincoln Prize and the Douglas Southall Freeman Award.) > The Republican Party’s first act of political chicanery was to begin kicking > out of the U.S. Senate men like Democratic Senator Jesse Bright of Indiana, > who “lacked enthusiasm for Abraham Lincoln’s war against the South,” writes > Marvel. Using the excuse that, in the years before the war, Senator Bright > “had known and admired [fellow Senator] Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the > Republican Party accused Senator Bright, one of the most senior members of > the Senate, of “retroactive treason” and expelled him with a bare two-thirds > majority vote. > TheCongressional Globepropagandized that “only a traitor would advocate > peace,” and newspapers all over the North that were openly affiliated with > the Republican Party (as was common during that period of time) quoted this > statement. As for Northern newspapers that did not support the waging of war > on their fellow Americans, the government had already begun to “squelch the > most effective . . . criticism by stopping distribution, seizing equipment, > and arresting publishers. Unionist mobs had collaborated in that suppression > of free speech during the summer of 1861, destroying the offices of antiwar > journals and attacking the editors.” > Even “Francis Scott Key’s own grandson understood how dangerous it had become > to utter an unpopular opinion in the Land of the Free,” Marvel sarcastically > writes. The grandson of the author of “The Star Spangled Banner” was a > Baltimore newspaper editor who had been thrown into “the bowels of a coastal > fort” without any due process for editorializing against the Lincoln > administration’s suppression of free speech. > “The party that dominated the United States Senate intended to formalize the > concept that meaningful dissent [to the political agenda of the Republican > Party] amounted to treason.” After kicking Senator Bright out of office the > leaders of the “Grand Ole Party” then “wished to end their day early in order > to prepare for a grand party that had occupied Mary Lincoln’s attention for > some weeks.” Marvel writes that White House employees quickly began calling > Mrs. Lincoln “the American Queen” who, according to one senator, appeared at > the party “looking like she was wearing a flower pot on her head.” Many of > the generals, admirals, Supreme Court justices, and foreign counsels who > attended the party, writes Marvel, considered Lincoln to be “a vulgar > provincial lacking in either sincerity or statesmanlike qualities.” > Without bothering to amend the Constitution, the Republican Party in 1861 > invented a brand new definition of “treason.” Treason, to Lincoln and the > Republican Party, meant oppositionto them.This was very different from the > actual definition of treason in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. > Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in > levying War againstthem, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and > Comfort” (emphasis added). As with all of the founding documents, “United > States” is in the plural, signifying that the free and independent states (as > they are called in the Declaration of Independence) are united in forming a > compact of states for their own mutual benefit. The central government was to > betheir agent. > Treason under the Constitution consists of levying war against “them,” the > states. This of course is exactly what Lincoln and the Republican Party did. > Their war on the South was the very definition of treason under the U.S. > Constitution. Long before George Orwell’s time, they distorted the meaning of > the word to mean exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers intended > it to mean. As the perpetrators of treason as defined by the Constitution, > they accusedtheir political opponents– those who opposed the levying of war” > on the states – of treason. > Marvel writes that on his very first day in office as Lincoln’s Secretary of > War Edwin Stanton “would exercise a cool, dictatorial demeanor” as he > commenced to enforce the new definition of treason. The U.S. government was > failing to recruit enough soldiers for its war despite the fact that it was > offering enlistment “bounties” of as much as $415. Despite the totalitarian > crackdown on Northern antiwar newspapers, there was still pervasive verbal > opposition to the war in Northern cities. Consequently, Stanton “unilaterally > abolished” that freedom of speech on August 8, 1862, writes ... > > read more »
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
