In the same category

Words That Got a Congressman Deported

IMG Auteur
Published : June 24th, 2013
1731 words - Reading time : 4 - 6 minutes
( 16 votes, 4/5 ) , 20 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Gold and Silver

Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham (D-Ohio) was the original American "whistleblower." Serving as a member of Congress from Dayton, Ohio during the War to Prevent Southern Independence, his criticisms of the Lincoln regime earned him the reputation as the leader of the Democratic opposition. The Republican Party smeared him (and all other opponents as a "copperhead" (a.k.a. snake in the grass). On May 5, 1863, sixty-seven heavily-armed soldiers broke into his home in the middle of the night and dragged him off to a military prison. This was done without any due process, as Lincoln had long ago illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. He was said to be guilty of "discouraging enlistments" in the army with his criticisms of the Lincoln regime. A military order issued in the state of Ohio declared all such speech to be illegal, and military officers were to have dictatorial powers in deciding what kind of speech would be permitted there. All of this was of course done at the direction of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln apparently wanted Northerners to believe that all such critics were spies and traitors, so Congressman Vallandigham was deported to the state of Tennessee and placed in the hands of a Confederate Army commander. The Confederates considered him to be an "enemy alien" and imprisoned him in Wilmington, North Carolina for a short time. Vallandigham was released and made his way via blockade runner to Canada, where he spent the rest of the war.

The words that got Congressman Vallandigham deported are found in Speeches, Arguments, Addresses and Letters of Clement L. Vallandigham, first published in 1864 and reprinted and for sale today at Vallandigham's first salvo against the Lincoln administration was a July 10, 1861 speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives entitled "Executive Usurpation." In the speech he condemned Lincoln for "the wicked and hazardous experiment of calling thirty millions of people into arms among themselves, without the counsel and authority of Congress."

As for Lincoln's newly-invented theory that the American union was never voluntary, and that the founding fathers supposedly understood that if any state seceded the government would have a "right" to invade that state, murder its citizens by the tens of thousands, and bomb and burn its cities and towns to a smoldering ruin (as was the policy of the Lincoln administration), Vallandigham gave the Congress a history lesson. "He [Lincoln] omits to tell us that secession and disunion had a New England origin, and began in Massachusetts, in 1804, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase; were revived by the Hartford [Secession] Convention in 1814; and culminated during the [War of 1812] in [New Englanders] sending Commissioners to Washington, to settle the terms for a peaceable separation of New England from the other States of the Union."

Congressman Vallandigham described Lincoln's first inaugural address as having been spoken "with the forked tongue and crooked counsel of the New York politician [New York politician Thurlow Weed having been Lincoln's campaign manager], leaving thirty millions of people in doubt whether it meant peace or war." He condemned the Republican Party for opposing "all conciliation and compromise" with the Southern states, and surmised that the reason for it was "the necessities of a party in the pangs of dissolution." They wanted a war to rally the people around their disintegrating party.

But a "more compelling" cause of the war, said the Ohio congressman, was "the passage of an obscure, ill-considered, ill-digested, and unstatesmanlike high protectionist tariff act, commonly known as the 'Morrill Tariff.'" At about the same time, he noted, the Confederate government had outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether in its new Constitution. "The result was as inevitable as the laws of trade are inexorable. Trade and commerce . . . began to look South . . . . Threatened thus with the loss of bot political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England -and Pennsylvania . . . demanded, now coercion and civil war, with all its horrors . . ."

Republican Party newspapers from all throughout the North had been calling for the bombardment of Southern ports before any state seceded, and Lincoln literally threatened war and "invasion" of any state that declined to pay the newly-doubled (two days earlier) federal tariff tax in his first inaugural address. "Honest" Abe threatened war over tax collection, and kept his word.

Another hidden purpose of the war was to "overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead. Thus, Vallandigham charged that this was not just the effect of the war, but its primary objective all along. All of this was being done, he said, to "revive and restore the falling fortunes of the Republican Party."

The congressman harshly condemned Lincoln's unconstitutional, illegal, and dictatorial actions, especially the suspension of Habeas Corpus, waging war without the consent of Congress, the mass imprisonment of Northern political dissenters, censorship of the telegraph, and the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers in the North. Such behavior, he said, "would have cost any English sovereign his head at any time within the last two hundred years."

Congressman Vallandigham mocked Lincoln's contention that "he is only preserving and protecting the Constitution" by destroying it. This, he said, is "the tyrant's plea." "The Constitution cannot be preserved by violating it." It was "an offense to the intelligence" of Congress for Lincoln to argue that "gross and multiplied infractions of the Constitution and usurpations of power were done by the president . . . out of pure love and devotion to the Constitution." [This of course is still part of the mantra of the neocons at the Claremont Institute, National Review, and elsewhere).

Vallandigham also understood that the Republican Party was using the war as an excuse to ram through Congress the old Hamiltonian mercantilist system of massive economic interventionism and corporate welfare. He described it as "national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism." In today's language all of this would be called "national greatness conservatism."

Congressman Vallandigham would continue his public criticisms of the Lincoln administration for the next two years, before finally being deported. On December 23, 1861, he informed his congressional colleagues that, just as he had predicted, a high protectionist tariff could reduce tariff revenues by diminishing trade from abroad too severely. "I predicted that the result of increasing the duties would be a great . . . diminution of the importations, and by consequence of the revenue from customs." But that of course is always the intent of protectionist tariffs - to cut off trade and competition from abroad, not to raise prodigious amounts of revenue.

On May 8, 1862 Vallandigham returned to the floor of the House of Representatives to draw sharp distinctions between the Democratic and Republican parties, which had become virtual opposites in their announced platforms. The Democrats differed from the Republicans in that they were in favor of: "The support of liberty as against power; of the people as against their agents and servants; and of State rights as against consolidation and centralized despotism a simple government; no public debt; low taxes; no high protectionist tariff; no general system of internal improvements [i.e. corporate welfare] by the Federal authority; no National Bank; hard money for the Federal public dues; no assumption of state debts; expansion of territory; self government for the Territories . . . " Nothing could be further from the "national greatness conservatism" policies of the Lincoln administration. It is little wonder that Vallandigham was deported.

The congressman destroyed Lincoln's argument that the American union was being "saved" by war by stating on August 2, 1862 that: "The president professes to think that the Union can be restored by arms. I do not. A Union founded on consent can never be cemented by force. This is the testimony of the Fathers." On February 23, 1863, Vallandigham threw another rhetorical bomb at the administration by pointing out in another speech that the administration's conscription law "is a confession that the people of the country are against this war. It is a solemn admission . . . that they will not voluntarily consent to wage it any longer." Two weeks later, in a speech in New York City, Vallandigham was met with loud cheers when he declared that "instead of crushing out the rebellion," the "effort has been to crush out the spirit of liberty" in the Northern states.

Six weeks before his imprisonment and deportation Vallandigham made some remarks at a March 21, 1863 meeting in Hamilton, Ohio, that must have been he last straw for the Lincoln dictatorship. The dictatorship had issued yet another military "general order" (General Order Number 15) - this time one that condemned the private ownership of firearms as "unnecessary, impolitic, and dangerous" and "a violation of civil law" as defined by the military authorites then occupying Ohio. "Are we a conquered province governed by a military proconsul?", Vallandigham asked, "And has it come to this, that the Constitution is now suspended by a military General Order? "Yes" would have been the appropriate and obvious answer.

Congresman Clement L. Vallandiham was deported by the Lincoln dictatorship because every word of his eloquent critiques of their tyranny and his defenses of constitutional liberty was true. Every word and every speech disproved the false propaganda lines invented by the Republican Party to "justify" its power - that the Constitution must be first destroyed in order to save it; that the voluntary union of the founders could be "saved" by mass murdering hundreds of thousands of citizens who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C.; that high tariffs, high taxes, out-of-control government spending, and stupendous public debt would cause prosperity; that corporate welfare was good for taxpayers; that a national bank run by politicians was in the public interest, etc., etc. All of these lies are still repeated ad nauseam today under the rubric of "Lincoln scholarship." It is no mere coincidence that so many of those who still repeat these hoary government propaganda tales are also busy defending the spying and prying police state.

Source :
Data and Statistics for these countries : Canada | All
Gold and Silver Prices for these countries : Canada | All
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4 (16 votes)
>> Next article
Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College, Maryland, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author or co-author of ten books, on subjects such as antitrust, group-interest politics, and interventionism generally
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Trying to figure out what it's all about.
It's all about the money as usual isn't it ?
"The war was about control, nothing more, of the trade taking place in the south and the fact the north was missing out on money it considered as there's."
Need any slaves ! These days they come cheap. They don't know what to do with their freedom.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
Keep on living in the past.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
Crediting Lincoln for ending slavery defies fact. Although Lincoln demanded he sign the proposed Amendment, SCOTUS had long ago ruled that the POTUS was not a participant in Article V procedures. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 US (34 Dallas) 378 (1798).

And it wasn't ratified until 8 months after the POS was rotting in the ground.

Lincoln was a dictator, plain and simple. He set the federalism standard for Wilson, FDR and our current POTUS.
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
To my knowledge DiLorenzo has never criticized any Civil War individual for their support of slavery - from Jeff Davis, who led an insurrection for the expansion of slavery; to Robert E. Lee, who sent thousands of young men to their deaths in support of it. DiLorenzo has even denigrated General Sherman's march through Georgia while never mentioning Lee's invasion of the North and spoilage of the Shenandoah Valley. In fact, had General Meade not stopped Lee at Gettysburg the latter and his scavenging troops would have laid even greater waste. This is mindboggling: that someone who professes some interests in liberty would invest such time and effort in the critique of President Lincoln who ended slavery in the entire United States with the 13th Amendment.

What mental gymnastics must DiLorenzo go through to allow this to happen?

Man's ability to spin facts to fit some ill conceived philosophical premise is truly amazing -- and truly sad.

Rate :   7  4Rating :   3
The only one doing any spinning here is you Jim. The leaders from the south never said they wanted to end slavery, in fact there is nothing hidden about the fact that they would have carried on with the status quo as long as they would have been able to. If you want to criticize them find another horse to flog. Lincoln made all the noise about freeing the slaves yet ignored the slaves in the north where he could have easily with the stroke of a pen had them set free long before the war was fought never mind that it took him the better part of a year to end slavery AFTER the war was over. He married into a family that had slaves, he benefited from these slaves in the life style he enjoyed at their expense. Where was his compassion then? Where is the history books does it tell us about him admonishing his in laws for keeping slaves? Lincoln was a typical politician, talking out of both sides of his mouth. You simply can't ignore this fact Jim C, Lincoln enjoyed a lifestyle that was based on the oppression of black people, his in-laws slaves. He is as guilty as any southern general or leader in that regard, benefiting from slavery.

Why is it that you never address this fact, that Lincoln could have ended slavery in the north but didn't till after the war? How can you keep ignoring this documented fact and still lambaste anyone that tells the truth about Lincolns true motives for going to war? Yes yes, I know you'll bring up the same BS as always, the south fired the first shot. Well open your blind eyes and you'll be staring at the fact that Lincoln in fact fired the first shot with the taxes he levied on the south, taxes that finally pushed the south to retaliate. You ignore all of the civil war history that doesn't fit your view, the view that Lincoln was a hero, well he wasn't and many consider him a war criminal. He most certainly does not deserve to be glorified as a freer of slaves.

Rate :   6  3Rating :   3
Jim C is the reason why they get away with what they sell us. Many million more Americans believe the Government can never being lying to us. Why isn't the full history of the USA not taught in school? Not just the winners side of the story?
Because if it was this would be a very different place?
Or he is the dumbest troll 24gold ever picked up.
Rate :   6  3Rating :   3
Why didn't Lincoln act quicker to end Slavery before the end of the war?

Without winning the war, or even with the appearance of winning it, Lincoln's effort to issue any kind of universal amnesty would have been futile. Aside with the rabid abolitionists of the North, abolition did not have widespread support. It was only after the battle of Antietam,
a stalemate for the Union -- but nonetheless better than their previous losses -- that Lincoln felt comfortable in issuing the Emaciation Proclamation. And coming out for complete amnesty before the election of 1864 would have insured his losing.

After the war was won why would Lincoln then push the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery forever in the now re-united United States
- the South was back in the Union and the status quo maintained.

DiLorenzo is so blinded by the State Rights issue that he has ignored the atrocity of slavery. States have the right to leave the Union because of rights issues -- not because they wish no interference violating the rights of the residents within their states.
Rate :   8  2Rating :   6
Sorry Jim, choosing to win over doing the right thing does not make Lincoln a hero. In fact your statement contains some spinning.

"Without winning the war, or even with the appearance of winning it, Lincoln's effort to issue any kind of universal amnesty would have been futile" So what your saying is that Lincoln had little or no control. Of course not, who would listen to someone telling them to free saves when the messenger himself was benefiting from them!

"that Lincoln felt comfortable in issuing the Emaciation Proclamation" For any politician feeling comfortable means they have a very good chance at getting re-elected. So don't stir the waters until such a time that it doesn't matter, you'll still get elected. Your statement simply implicated Lincoln of leading by the peoples choice, not any deep seated conviction to do the right thing no matter how unpopular it might be. He left the slaves suffering because being re-elected was more important to him.

Thank you for verifying what I have been saying.

Like I said, Lincoln was a real politician and no hero.
Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
" hero"?

If you want to make a hero of pro-slavery expansion Jeff Davis and Robert E. "slave owner" Lee instead, go right ahead.
Rate :   7  2Rating :   5
You keep purposely avoiding the point. While no one here (that I've seen) myself included would call those who promoted and fought to keep slaves hero's, the point of all you posts on Lincoln is to glorify him as the saviour of the slaves. Point of fact, I abhor even the thought of slavery and would never extol the virtues of anyone promoting it. What I and everyone else here keeps trying to tell you is that Lincoln is every bit as guilty as the southerners when slavery is discussed. He did not fight the war to free slaves, by your own words, he did not have the support to do so, (as recorded in historical documents his soldiers would not have gone to battle to die freeing slaves as they felt nothing but contempt for them) by his own words it didn't matter if the slaves were freed or not. The war was about control, nothing more, of the trade taking place in the south and the fact the north was missing out on money it considered as there's.

You label Robert E. Lee a slave owner, well you better include Lincoln in that category as well since his in-laws were slave owners making his wife, and he himself through marriage, a slave owner. Find me some historical evidence that good ole Abe told his wife and her family to free their slaves and we might have some common ground but lacking this evidence he remains labeled a slave owner, hence he cannot be called a hero nor can it be claimed that he fought the war to free slaves.

Rate :   5  2Rating :   3
Putting Lincoln in the same category as Robert E. Lee (an actual slave owner) just because his wife's family owned slaves is nonsense. Do you think his wife or her family approved of the Emancipation Proclamation or the 13th Amendment?

And, again, like DiLorenzo, no condemnation of the South's slavery or of Southern slave owners from you -- only of Lincoln who didn't end the institution fast enough for you.

Rate :   7  3Rating :   4
"And, again, like DiLorenzo, no condemnation of the South's slavery or of Southern slave owners from you -- only of Lincoln who didn't end the institution fast enough for you. "

No Jim, he didn't end slavery in time for the thousands of slaves that died while he was playing politics, not me. He was the only man that could have at that time ended slavery, starting in the north, and stopped the suffering but he was more interested in being re-elected. You want us in some twisted way to believe this made him a great man.

I thought I made it clear when I said "Point of fact, I abhor even the thought of slavery and would never extol the virtues of anyone promoting it." that I was against slavery, in all of it's forms. Why didn't I denounce Lee and all the others? Simple, this is not about them, this is about Lincoln and the fact that he would rather see slaves suffer than risk his chances at election time. So don't go spinning this into my supporting the south and those who would still have slaves. Here you go accusing me of what in fact you have been doing, playing spin doctor. There may be a job for you with Obama's department of obfuscation.

How is it that you can in good conscience go on extolling Lincoln for his ruthless and brutal criminal act of war against the south yet not see that the south was protecting itself from unfair and over reaching government oppression of their economic success? Were the southerners wrong for keeping slaves, yes. Were those in the north wrong for keeping slaves, also yes. The difference is that the southerners were at least open and honest about what their intentions were on the matter of slavery. Lincoln, a true politician, glossed over his indifference to slavery and only brought it up as an excuse to run a money grab.

Who's worse here? Those that openly tell you they want slavery to continue or those who tell you they oppose it while continuing the practice?
Rate :   6  3Rating :   3
I would also point out to you Jim C that you completely avoided the first point of the article. A man being hushed by Lincoln for speaking out against him. Lincoln had no moral delema in taking away the rights of a citizen, an elected official no less, if it served his purpose. Do you think that such a person wouldn't lie and mislead, possibly start a war because of greed and then try to cover it with a nice story about freeinng oppressed people? It's no different than what we are seeing happen these days with Obama is it? By redirecting the thread to the lie that Lincoln was a hero you took away from the fact that Vallandigham suffered at the hands of the ruthless Abe Lincoln. This one act (there are more but let’s stay focused) is enough to show the character of Lincoln, a ruthless and demented individual. Jim C should read the article and comment on its contents, not go on some rant that's been disproven many times.

By the way Jim C, my 8 year old wishes to pass along a hello to the Boob (that’s you) and she suggests you read the history books without the rosey pink glasses on.

Rate :   4  2Rating :   2
You better hope your daughter doesn't read your emails when she grows up and away from your cockeyed view of history. Delete them now while you still have her respect.
Rate :   7  2Rating :   5
That was very weak, even for you Jim C. My daughter is a gifted child who wishes she could debate you in public about Lincoln and the civil war. She would like to, as she puts it, finally shut you up. Interestingly, since you have decided to go personal, the only person to comment rubbish about the civil war is you. Your pathetic attempt to persuade readers that your view represents history accurately causes most here to laugh. Yes Jim C you seem to have become the comic relief here. Ouh look Jim C posted another gaff, let’s see how messed up he is today... When I first came to this forum I read some of your posts and thought there was a measure of intelligence behind the words, well I was wrong and should have listened to what people like Hart had to say about you. It's indeed sad that someone with some obvious schooling would regress to the level you have.
Rate :   5  4Rating :   1
Jim, even the dumbest of the dumb know when to stop but you don't. Now instead of addressing the comment about your skirting the issue of Lincoln playing dirty with someone that had the kahonas to speak out against his oppression, you take a cheap shot. I personally would like to see you go up against this mans daughter. She may lose and she may win but it would be most interesting to see how well you faired against her. Would you could keep a civil tongue or would you go all Lincoln on her.

My moneys says you turn into a moron when faced with facts. Iesos please pass along my greetings to your daughter and let her know that some here appreciate the young people of today taking an interest in what happened in the past and how it affects us now all the while not swallowing the propaganda. My hats off to her.

Jim, please do relate to us your side of the story about why Lincoln was in the right to arrest, detain, and deport an opponent all without due process. Please inform us mere hill folk how taking out someone that opposes tyranny by executive order glorifies a president. Oh please do tell Jim how you can ever come back from this humiliating event.

You backed the wrong horse, take your lumps and shut up already.

Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
How sad the corruption of history -- where the forces of good are called evil; the evil, good.
Rate :   7  3Rating :   4
Jim C. Our man from another planet. Lincoln was every as bit the war monger and criminal as the jackass's in the Whitehouse these last few terms and you speak evil of them but pronounce Lincoln to be a hero. Are you daft or being paid to re-write history?

Hart, best to give it up as Jim is beyond reasoning. Like many others he has chosen to selectively pull from history that which fits his twisted reality. Individuals such the intrepid Jim C are willfully blind and ignorant to the truth and will fight tooth and nail to defend those they hold up as gods even when faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Jim C is a messed up old coot that's gone off his meds to the detriment of all who venture into these forums. Like a child he refuses to take his medication and listen to the adults but in this case he's one of those senile old guys that won't listen to the nursing home staff and stay off the freaking computer.

There you go Jim C, I've come down to your level, will you now rebuke me for attacking you personally when you have done the same so many times before?
Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
How sad that you keep twisting history to make the guilty and corrupt look like little angles. Lincoln was a filthy corrupt criminal who couldn't stop himself from using his powers to quell those who's opinion didn't match his. How sad that you keep bringing up the same old crap and in every case you get slapped with the truth yet you learn nothing.

You never addressed the issue brought up in this article, all you did was try to smear the author, you accuse me of attacking an individual when I merely give grooming advise but you lambaste anyone who would dare to show Lincolns true colors. Why is it you never touched on the meat of the issue? Could it be that you have nothing to say other than spew hate against DiLorenzo because when faced with the truth you stall out?

Jim your a bloody hypocrite!

Rate :   6  2Rating :   4
Well Jimbo, you've once again proven your a blathering blind idiot that uses flash and redirection when faced with facts! It must stick in your craw that so many have turned against you with the truth when all you sought was another one of your quick smear and run campaigns on DiLorenzo. And about that attacking the person instead of the subject matter thing, good advice for you considering all you've done this whole thread is attack the individuals and have never addressed the matter at hand, how the oppressive Lincoln tried to crush opposition.

Grow up!

Rate :   6  2Rating :   4
Latest comment posted for this article
Well Jimbo, you've once again proven your a blathering blind idiot that uses flash and redirection when faced with facts! It must stick in your craw that so many have turned against you with the truth when all you sought was another one of your quick sme  Read more
Schwerpunkt - 6/25/2013 at 8:22 PM GMT
Rating :  6  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow