March 31, 2014 at 9:01 pm #15358randycrowMember
As Prof McClanahan has pointed out, there was no obvious reason for the North to invade the South. Austrian Economist Dr. Fekete has said the reason for the US Civil War is Rothschild Banksters feared the Comstock Lode silver discovery would make silver plentiful for money. The Rothschilds’ had a monopoly on gold as money. This leads me to believe the Rothschilds pushed for an invasion of the South to disrupt the economy and build a strong central government to control silver.June 20, 2014 at 12:21 am #15359gutzmankParticipant
“There was no obvious reason for the North to invade the South?” There were constitutional arguments, philanthropic arguments, political arguments, economic arguments, and diplomatic arguments for invading the South.July 15, 2014 at 10:26 pm #15360andrew.esselbachParticipant
Dr Gutzman, could you elaborate on the constitutional arguments for the invasion of the South?July 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm #15361Brion McClanahanMember
The constitutional argument centered on the same principles Jackson used when he advocated the Force Bill in the 1830s against South Carolina. Secession was illegal, the States were in “rebellion” against the government, and had violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. I don’t think any of these points are valid, but those were the arguments, generally, most importantly the first of the list.July 19, 2014 at 5:19 pm #15362jhendon5Member
The South was providing about 75% of federal revenue via taxes and trade tariffs, the majority of which was being spent in the North. The Morill Tariff was passed by Congress in 1861, a few days before Lincoln’s inauguration and signed into law by President Buchanan. The Bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to 38% and expanded the list of items the tariff applied to. Shortly thereafter the tariff rate was raised again to 48%. That money flowed to the federal government and, just like today, is used to grant all kinds of favors in exchange for power and influence.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated that he would collect all tariffs and imposts: “In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
With regard to slavery, many countries had eliminated slavery without going to war; only the U.S. and Haiti resorted to war. Great Britain had emancipated its slaves by buying them from slave holders. Lincoln, on the other hand, killed between 600,00 and 800,000 Americans (by proportion to today’s American population a death toll of about 6 million!) and destroyed about half the economy.
Look at a picture of the Lincoln Memorial. Beneath each of Lincoln’s hands is a fasces; fasces is the root of the word fascist and a symbol closely associated with Imperial Rome, Hitler and Mussolini.January 8, 2015 at 12:07 pm #15363
interesting argument going on in the comments section here about this issue….January 8, 2015 at 12:07 pm #15364
interesting argument going on in the comments section here about this issue….January 8, 2015 at 4:47 pm #15365
is this ever cited??? pretty intense!
“”I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this tat I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.” – Abe LincolnJanuary 8, 2015 at 7:05 pm #15366jon_gunnarssonParticipant
AaronRobert, it’s not really news that Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Even Obama acknowledged that when he praised Lincoln at his first inauguration. But we can hardly condemn Lincoln for that, given that practically everyone back then was racist.January 8, 2015 at 11:48 pm #15367gutzmankParticipant
Yes, Aaron, including in my essay “Lincoln as Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera,” which appears in Brian Dirck, ed., _Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race_ (Northern Illinois University Press, 2007).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.