Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union

This is an interesting take on the Lincoln presidency. The author appears to make the point that Lincoln was a disaster, and cites a number of reasons. He also claims that the Civil War was not fought for slavery, but to centralize power in the federal government. Here is a snippet:

To give an example, America began as a highly decentralized regime of independent moral and political communities jealous of their liberty. These political societies created a central government as their agent and endowed it with enumerated powers. This government was only a speck on the political landscape and its presence was scarcely felt in everyday life. From 1865 to 1965 it underwent a transformation, emerging as the most consolidated and centralized military and financial power in history. Moral and political societies with a life of their own independent of regulation and control by the central government (especially the Supreme Court) are today virtually impossible. By contrast, Canada began as a highly centralized regime under monarchy and has developed into a decentralized regime in which secession as a means of protecting independent moral and political life is part of public debate. There is a tradition in Canada that this change was due in part to Judah Benjamin, the former Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America who, after the war, fled to England and became a distinguished barrister. In a number of cases before the Imperial Parliament, he argued successfully for measures that gave the Provinces more autonomy, thereby setting Canadian federalism on the path to decentralization. [10] Asserting the right to secede, Quebec has already secured rights making it virtually an independent country, thereby making secession perhaps unnecessary.

This is a lengthy article, but well worth the read.

http://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns...American-Union

interesting

I don't know about abraham lincoln as a disaster, but its apparent that he is/was a statist big government president.

perhaps, its why Obama was a fan of Abraham Lincoln even tho he is Republican.

This is an interesting take on the Lincoln presidency. The author appears to make the point that Lincoln was a disaster, and cites a number of reasons. He also claims that the Civil War was not fought for slavery, but to centralize power in the federal government. Here is a snippet:

To give an example, America began as a highly decentralized regime of independent moral and political communities jealous of their liberty. These political societies created a central government as their agent and endowed it with enumerated powers. This government was only a speck on the political landscape and its presence was scarcely felt in everyday life. From 1865 to 1965 it underwent a transformation, emerging as the most consolidated and centralized military and financial power in history. Moral and political societies with a life of their own independent of regulation and control by the central government (especially the Supreme Court) are today virtually impossible. By contrast, Canada began as a highly centralized regime under monarchy and has developed into a decentralized regime in which secession as a means of protecting independent moral and political life is part of public debate. There is a tradition in Canada that this change was due in part to Judah Benjamin, the former Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America who, after the war, fled to England and became a distinguished barrister. In a number of cases before the Imperial Parliament, he argued successfully for measures that gave the Provinces more autonomy, thereby setting Canadian federalism on the path to decentralization. [10] Asserting the right to secede, Quebec has already secured rights making it virtually an independent country, thereby making secession perhaps unnecessary.

This is a lengthy article, but well worth the read.

http://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns...American-Union Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is an excellent article and reference. Not only was Judah Benjamin a great man, but the United States were intended to be free and independent states, ceding as little power as possible to Washington.

P.S. Why does the manager of the Texas Rangers have so much power, anyway?

Bizarre revisionist history. Alexander Stephens, VP of the confederacy, a few months before the bullets started flying:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us...

very interesting

Nice cut and paste from Wiki

Any time this country goes to war it gets a huge boost of energy and that energy goes to the government in order to fight the war. The Civil War may have been the biggest boost with the exception of World War II. Government grew and reached out for more control. Said to say a government does need control during a war. You can't have industries refusing to build equipment or change technology because of money concerns. You can't let certain industries go on strike during a war. Wars end and the government gets smaller but do they go all the way back to before the war? Never, they always end up stronger and larger than before. The end of the Civil War gave us the Freedmen's Bureau and a number of watchdog agencies to oversee the Reconstruction. By 1876 Reconstruction was over and the American military had strunk, and the American navy lay rotting pierside. The government was still there and found a new direction using progressivism. Workers right, unions, anarchists, child labor, immigrants, social welfare, the yellow peril, the red scares, gave government a new place to exercise power whether it was right or wrong. The tax code was changed to create more revenue. The first federal income tax was struck down but tariffs and consumer taxes increased.

A lot of leftists like to point out the military industrial complex speech by Eisenhower but where did it come from? Prior to Eisenhower the American military has always disbanded following a war, money was saved but the rebuilding cost much more and time was lost. It took Wilson and Pershing over a year to build an army to go to war in Europe. It took Roosevelt even longer before the US military was ready to fight in the German weight class. Eisenhower knew that we needed a 24/7 military and that required a supply line reaching back into the heartland. He also recognized that people would take advantage of the situation. He was warning the country of the corruption that would result from the flow of billions of dollars. Among the many people with good intentions would be found people only interested in profiting. He was warning about the influence of those people among our representatives. This arrangement saddled the US with the cost of policing the world and the cost to our younger generations in life and blood. There are good wars and just causes but we should look at politicians who champion unneeded weapons for the benefit of their districts. Who support causes that are more about profit than justice.

Ah, the good ole "war of northern aggression," ploy.

More bizarre bullshit about how Lincoln was responsible for everything bad that happened after 1865.

The federal government was small and remained small into the 20th Century, decades after Lincoln's death.

If you want to know the major reason(s) why the federal government became the behemoth, look to the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators).

Yeah, but the motherfucker could kill vampires!

You guys are fags!

Nice cut and paste from Wiki

Any time this country goes to war it gets a huge boost of energy and that energy goes to the government in order to fight the war. The Civil War may have been the biggest boost with the exception of World War II. Government grew and reached out for more control. Said to say a government does need control during a war. You can't have industries refusing to build equipment or change technology because of money concerns. You can't let certain industries go on strike during a war. Wars end and the government gets smaller but do they go all the way back to before the war? Never, they always end up stronger and larger than before. The end of the Civil War gave us the Freedmen's Bureau and a number of watchdog agencies to oversee the Reconstruction. By 1876 Reconstruction was over and the American military had strunk, and the American navy lay rotting pierside. The government was still there and found a new direction using progressivism. Workers right, unions, anarchists, child labor, immigrants, social welfare, the yellow peril, the red scares, gave government a new place to exercise power whether it was right or wrong. The tax code was changed to create more revenue. The first federal income tax was struck down but tariffs and consumer taxes increased.

A lot of leftists like to point out the military industrial complex speech by Eisenhower but where did it come from? Prior to Eisenhower the American military has always disbanded following a war, money was saved but the rebuilding cost much more and time was lost. It took Wilson and Pershing over a year to build an army to go to war in Europe. It took Roosevelt even longer before the US military was ready to fight in the German weight class. Eisenhower knew that we needed a 24/7 military and that required a supply line reaching back into the heartland. He also recognized that people would take advantage of the situation. He was warning the country of the corruption that would result from the flow of billions of dollars. Among the many people with good intentions would be found people only interested in profiting. He was warning about the influence of those people among our representatives. This arrangement saddled the US with the cost of policing the world and the cost to our younger generations in life and blood. There are good wars and just causes but we should look at politicians who champion unneeded weapons for the benefit of their districts. Who support causes that are more about profit than justice. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Excellent post, JD.
TimmyBoy's definition of bizarre is anything he doesn't agree with.
Before you other idiots chime in about slavery and such, remember I support reparations for negro slavery and therefore have a higher moral standing.
Also, the US government enslaved the Japanese during WW2 and paid them reparations, so why not make the African-Americans whole?

Yeah, but the motherfucker could kill vampires!

You guys are fags! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

LMFAO!!

And don't forget his innate ability to design, develop and market LOGS!

Excellent post, JD.
TimmyBoy's definition of bizarre is anything he doesn't agree with.
Before you other idiots chime in about slavery and such, remember I support reparations for negro slavery and therefore have a higher moral standing.
Also, the US government enslaved the Japanese during WW2 and paid them reparations, so why not make the African-Americans whole? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

U.S. govt. did try to do that in the late 1860's. -- 40 acres & a mule. President Andrew Johnson, (a former Democrat turned Republican), wasn't having any of that idea and vetoed it.

Yeah, but the motherfucker could kill vampires! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

very true

More bizarre bullshit about how Lincoln was responsible for everything bad that happened after 1865.

The federal government was small and remained small into the 20th Century, decades after Lincoln's death.

If you want to know the major reason(s) why the federal government became the behemoth, look to the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators). Originally Posted by ExNYer

not so nearly bizarre. He was not responsible for what happened after 1865, that has more to do with Andrew Johnson and his bad interactions with the Radical Republicans.

However, Lincoln did lay the foundation for a larger govt.