"Nonsense on Stilts": The Rhetorical Cornerstone of the American Welfare/Warfare State expressed in the Gettysburg Address

Food for thought! I am not a fan of President Lincoln! The southern states had every right to secede. The American Civil War was not fought over slavery! The Gettysburg Address is a much overrated speech. Slavery would have been abolished without the American Civil War like it happened all over the world in the course of time!

The American Civil War probably destroyed much of what the Founding Fathers and Mothers originally created!

"... “Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves” ...

It is easy to come to the conclusion after reading Graham’s book that it is hard to imagine a larger collection of falsehoods ever packed into a single political speech anywhere at any time than the Gettysburg Address. In essence, the Address was a radically false rendition of the American founding designed to fool the public into believing that the founding fathers did after all create a highly centralized, monopolistic superstate with virtually unlimited powers. ...

Following Mencken’s example, Graham picks apart the Address by the old railroad industry trial lawyer/lobbyist, slick phrase by slick phrase. First of all, no “new nation” was brought forth “four score and seven years ago” as Lincoln absurdly asserted.  ...
Lincoln’s claim that America is a “nation” dedicated to the “proposition” that all men are created equal is a non-sequitur for several reasons, including the fact that it was never established as a “nation” but as a collection of sovereign states (with sovereign rights to raise taxes and wage war, as all sovereign states do, according to the Declaration). Besides, as Graham points out, a “proposition” is something that can be either true or false. This means that these words of the slick railroad trial lawyer from Illinois were, well, a meaningless jumble. Moreover, the founders would have been amused to learn that they created a “nation” predicated on a “proposition” that could be either true or false. ..."

"Nonsense on Stilts": The Rhetorical Cornerstone of the American Welfare/Warfare State | Mises Wire

The “Lieber Code” – the First Modern Codification of the Laws of War in 1863

Another reason, why President Lincoln was not such a great president!

As I have stated here several times before (e.g. here), the American Civil War was a very bloody, unnecessary, and unconstitutional war! And President Lincoln is responsible for it!

"... However, some of the rules are no longer permissible under modern humanitarian law. Article 17 for example provides that it is lawful to starve civilians:

"War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. ..."

The “Lieber Code” – the First Modern Codification of the Laws of War | In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress

Lieber Code

Credits: A report on food as a weapon of war by India's WION news channel. See my blog post here

Abraham Lincoln in 1861: "I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it"

I believe, President Abraham Lincoln is a highly overrated U.S. president. The American Civil War was unnecessary, unconstitutional and not about slavery, but about secession (read more about it here)!

Perhaps, in those days, the phrase he used ("I would rather be assassinated") was innocent or frequently employed, but he may have also hinted at his obsession.

Lincoln was probably very narrow minded and maniac about secession. Simply, he would not allow it to happen over his dead body! His obsession that slavery would be expanded into the new territories is also peculiar!

"... But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle---I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. ..."

"... In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed -

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South. ..."

Address at Independence Hall - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

House Divided Speech

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth, Yet Again

Recommendable!

Yes, Lincoln was indeed a very controversial president besides his soaring rhetoric and speeches!

Lincoln introduced Big Government at a grand scale! He was also the first president e.g. to introduce a federal income tax!

The American Civil War was totally unnecessary and unconstitutional!

The Civil War was not about slavery but about the preserving the union at all costs!

Southern states had every right to secede if their citizens decided to do so!

Slavery would have been peacefully abolished over time as it happened previously in the United Kingdom and as other Western countries have shown! It was only a matter of time to be accomplished ...

A truly great president would have resigned if he was unable to prevent a civil war between the states! But Lincoln opted to fight this horrific civil war to the bitter end! How many times did Lincoln earnestly try to end the war as early as possible by negotiation or other diplomatic means?

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth, Yet Again | Mises Wire

Some Inconvenient Truths About The American Civil War

Posted: 5/27/2017

Trigger

Just read this excellent, but old and very long article https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/was-the-south-poor-before-the-war/

This dated article describes at length why the ante bellum southern states were very rich; had a significant, broad, affluent middle class; and enjoyed economic prosperity very comparable or even better than the northern states.

Purpose

Victors of war rewrite history to suit their purpose. This was no different with the American Civil War!

Anyone familiar with my blog posts, realizes that I am very critical of the necessity of this total American Civil War (slavery was a pretense, secession was the cause) and how very much overrated President Lincoln is, who failed to stop or quickly end this enormous, senseless bloodshed. Slavery would have disappeared anyway without this terrible war. Slavery was already doomed in most western countries at the time, even in Russia.

Even buying all slaves and grant them freedom would have been so much cheaper and more civilized!

Some Salient Quotes

Quotes & Comments (emphasis added):

1. “... Numerous books on Southern history speak of such terms as “the slaveholding dynasty,” the “proud Southern ‘barons,'” and others.[34]  Cairnes titled his polemic The Slave Power. Northerners resented the perceived Southern political domi­nance of the country.[35] Southern wealth undoubtedly produced jealously and resentment on the part of many Northern people. Coupled with the political power of the South and the arguments of the Republican Party, there was ample incentive for Northerners to want to clip the wings of the slaveholders, to reduce their power and even their affluence. ...”
2. “Cairnes quotes Lord Sterling in Letters from the Slave States as saying “for all practical purposes we may still regard Southern society as consisting of aristocratic planters and ‘white trash’””
   [If you ever wondered where the expression “white trash” comes from and how far it dates back and that is was e.g. a British nobleman who used it. John E. Cairnes was a widely respected British economist of the classical kind.]
3. “On the other “hand, Southern wealth and prosperity helps explain-why the Southern states were so bold as to secede and so confident that they could successfully establish an Independent nation. The depth of that wealth, its extension throughout society on a close par with the North, helps explain why the masses of Southerners supported secession and the Confederacy.”
4. “Per capita wealth in Southern States ranged from over $2,000 in Mississippi and South Carolina to under $600 in only one.  The per capita wealth of only Connecticut and New Jersey in the North and Oregon on the Pacific rose above $700 and one state, Kansas, fell below $300. Twelve Southern states had per capita wealth above $800 while there were no Northern states so wealthy.
   Even should all the slaves be counted as potential wealth-holders, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina would remain as the nation’s wealthiest states. Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas would join them as more affluent than any Northern state except Connecticut. Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware would be wealthier than New York, and North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri would be richer than New Hampshire, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan.”

Cotton Was King

During the ongoing industrial revolution, most of British cotton imports came from the southern states. This was big business in its time. To prevent it, Lincoln quickly imposed the naval blockade on southern ports etc.

That the UK and other countries quickly declared the Confederates as belligerent. “Great Britain declared belligerent status on May 13, 1861, followed by Spain on June 17 and Brazil on August 1. This was the first glimpse of failure for the Confederate South” (source)

Previous, Related Blog Posts

American Civil War

Please find more, related blog posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here,

Abraham Lincoln

Please find more, related blog posts here, here, here, here, here

Abraham Lincoln - A Destroyer From Within

Posted: 8/21/2016

Introduction

Anyone, who followed my blog posts, realizes that I am not a big fan of this highly overrated president in particular. I think, he is grossly overrated not least because he became a martyr!

Trigger

I recently learnt of the misattributed, but popular quote “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

What he really said that comes close to the quote above is:

“I answer, if  [an approach of danger] ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” (From the Lyceum address of 1838; emphasis added).

Where Lincoln Terribly Erred

I have only recently discovered excerpts from other speeches of Lincoln, which suggest he was gravely mistaken about the union and the sovereignty of states as well as the right to secede by any state (emphasis added, commentary added):

1. “The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully , withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. … This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State - to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. … The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. ” (Source 1)
2. “Therein [Declaration of Independence] the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show.” (Source 1)
3. “The Union is older than any of the [confederate] States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union.” (Source 1)
   [Incredible, Lincoln said this nonsense!]
4. “The nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent or without making any return?” (Source 1)
5. “The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status.”
6. “The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.”
7. “Again: If one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors?” (Source 1)
   [This nonsensical argument does not justify a total civil war! This is a matter for negotiation of which Lincoln was apparently not very capable of.]
8. “Our popular Government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it our people have already settled—the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains—its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it.” (Source 1)
9. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Source 2)
10. “Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.” (Source 3)
    [This comparison is simply nonsense!]

At the moment, I do not have the time to do more research or address all the points Lincoln argued in the above excerpted quotes. However, one thing is perfectly clear his reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

Each of the 13 original states had a distinct history of its own and they came together as sovereign entities to form a union for common defense etc. For Lincoln to claim that the southern states came into being only by grace of the union is absurd.

That Lincoln’s arguments (especially states are only adjuncts to the union) are awfully flawed is also found in the U.S. Constitution Article V, i.e. a convention of states has the power to alter the constitution.

Sources:

1. Fourth of July Address to Congress (1861)
2. Letter to Horace Greeley (1862)
3. First Inaugural Address (1861)

Previous, Related Blog Posts

Please find more, related blog posts here, here, here, here

U.S. President Buchanan Freed Slaves

Posted: 7/30/2016

Introduction

I do not know much about this president, but he appears to be underrated. In rankings of U.S. presidents by scholars etc. he ends up as one of the worst presidents. He has been seen as indecisive, inactive, and unable or unwilling to address the divisive slavery issue.

My impression is rather that this president was a decent man who believed in a civil society and compromise to resolve the slavery issue without the savagery of a civil war.

Sources

1. White House, Presidents, James Buchanan
2. 5 facts about James Buchanan
3. http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/presidents/james_buchanan_wheatland.html
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

Briefly On Buchanan’s Views On Slavery & Abolition

Perhaps following quotes illustrate Buchanan’s position (emphasis added):

1. “Although in Pennsylvania we are all opposed to slavery in the abstract, we can never violate the constitutional compact we have with our sister states. Their rights [sovereignty?] will be held sacred by us. Under the constitution it is their own question; and there let it remain”
2. “"Before [the abolitionists] commenced this agitation, a very large and growing party existed in several of the slave states in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery; and now not a voice is heard there in support of such a measure. The abolitionists have postponed the emancipation of the slaves in three or four states for at least half a century."”

I would tend to agree with Buchanan. Was it not the uncompromising fanaticism of northern abolitionists that fueled the flames?

I was surprised to learn that there were actually abolitionists active in the southern slave states. Why don’t we seem not know much about them? Could these southern abolitionists have been part of a more peaceful solution? Victors write history?

Buchanan Personally Freed Slaves

“There are at least two documented cases of Buchanan having, with his own money, purchased slaves to later free them in his native Pennsylvania.

When his youngest sister, Harriet, was to marry Robert Henry of Virginia in 1832, Buchanan found out that the Henrys owned slaves. To spare his sister any association with slavery, Buchanan arranged to purchase their two female slaves, whom he brought to Pennsylvania and freed as quickly as he could.

Harriet’s son James Buchanan Henry, who served as personal secretary to Buchanan as president, said in a biography of his uncle that Buchanan also purchased several slaves in Washington, D.C., during his years in the White House 1857-61. He likewise took them to Pennsylvania to be freed, according to Henry.” (Source 2; emphasis added)

How many slaves did the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln buy with his own money to free them?

If more men had followed Buchanan’s great example, then the American Civil War could have largely been avoided!

Abraham Lincoln's First Presidential Election

Posted: 12/13/2015

Introduction

I have written a number of critical posts here on this so overrated U.S. President (See about the American Civil War here, here, here, here, here, here, here and about Lincoln himself here, here).

Somehow today (12/13/2015), I became interested to find out about the election results of 1860, Lincoln’s first presidential election. I wonder how many Americans are familiar with his election results of 1860?

My source for this blog: The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Notes

1. Abraham Lincoln was clearly and overwhelmingly voted into office by northern states. He received zero votes in southern states, Virginia voted 1.1% for him, Maryland 2.5%.
2. He received only 40% of the popular vote (Note, I do not personally prefer the popular vote). Lincoln carried only 15 states of 33 then states by more than 50% of the votes.
3. Thus, a president who was voted into office in such a lopsided way then engages into total war with those who did not vote for him. This is a very sad part of U.S. history!