 To say that Lincoln started the Civil War by 'invading the South' is an historical atrocity. Lincoln, as 99.9% of historians know, responded to the initiation of force by the South -- the firing on Fort sumter. The initiation of force is one of the foundations of Libertarian thought: the logical and moral response to such is self-defense -- whether from an individual or a nation.
DiLorenzo and his ilk constantly castigate Lincoln by spewing bits of the Consititution.
They always fail to mention, or distort, the following in the Constitution:
SECTION 8 POWERS OF CONGRESS
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
SECTION 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
And then the Presential Oath of Office: OATH OF OFFICE
I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Lincoln suppressed an insurrection by States attempting to enter into a confederation/alliance, and was bound to do such by his oath of office to protect the Constitution.
Did he suspend Habeas Corpus? Yes, but temporarily and for the purpose of ending the insurrection. He also pushed for, and had passed, the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. No mean feat there, and interestingly no appreciation there by DiLorenzo.
So why this constant castigation of Lincoln (and often Sherman) by DiLorenzo? Why never such condemnation of slavery? Of General Lee for defending it? Is DiLorenzo a racist? I don't think so. His blindness, I believe, is over States' rights. He would have preferred, contrary to the Constitution, for the South to have been allowed to secede from the Union -- even with it's monstrous slave system intact.
The argument often goes that too many lives were lost in the war and, had the South been allowed to go, slavery would eventually died a peacefull death. The fact is no one at the time believed the Civil War would have lasted over a few weeks. Lincoln anticipated a very short struggle. But, once started, what was the North to do? Surrender? Sign a peace treaty that most surely would have allowed slavery to expand westward? The cost for freeing tens of thousands of slaves was high -- yet, as Lincoln reasoned in the Gettysburg address, bearable only with the understanding that it was the price for 'a new birth of freedom.'
This States rights issue for DiLorenzo (and Ron Paul I suppose) is untenable. If a State can leave the Union, what stops a city or community within that state to do likewise -- and then down to the individual level as Lysander Spooner argued? Spooner is prominent on Ron Paul's newsletters.
DiLorzeno's reasoning (and Paul's?) leads to anarchy.
 Commenté il y a 4513 jours |
