Sunday, October 13, 2013

Paging Thomas DiLorenzo

Rand Paul hails the Civil War has part of the Republican Party's "rich tradition". Politico reports:
Sen. Rand Paul suggested on Sunday the "demise" of the GOP is "overstated."

Asked on CNN's "State of the Union" by host Candy Crowley about an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that showed only 24 percent approval for the GOP and 21 percent for its tea party members, Rand said, "I think our demise is a little bit overstated."

Democrats will also catch blame for the government shutdown, he said. "I think this is a lose-lose situation, we need to open up government."

Asked if he would ever consider joining another party, the Republican senator from Tennessee [sic]said no.

"Republican Party just has a really rich history," he said, noting the party's origins during the Civil War and its role in abolishing slavery and Jim Crow Laws.
See:  The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo

15 comments:

  1. Rand has absolutely no balls whatsoever. What a pussy. I guess he learned almost nothing from his father. Gag!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You get him Bob! How dare he rhetorically promote his party by highlighting its historical role in freeing millions of people from human bondage when he should be following his father's lead and endorsing candidates who want to use state power to ban blowjobs... for shame, Rand...

    Cuccinelli 2016!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah right. As if the civil war had anything to do with ending slavery.
      It's funny how a Rand apologist spews all the usual mythology and mainstream propaganda. Any more proof Rand is for the status quo? Just look at his supporters buying the court historian account of Abe Lincoln.

      Delete
    2. Freeing millions while enslaving everybody. Yeah, awesome job!

      Delete
    3. Tony, first things first, if the Civil War was not about slavery, please explain what it was about. Second, I mentioned nothing about Lincoln. I mentioned the Republican Party's role in emancipating Southern slaves, which was done through passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

      Mike, you're a slave? You are currently held in bondage, forced to perform labor for free, subject to beatings and sexual abuse with no legal recourse, and liable to sale at the whim of a master who considers you his property because you are a member of a supposedly inferior race? How did that happen?

      Delete
    4. Pretty much everything Obama does these days has its basis in what Lincoln first did. Throwing thousands in jail without charge or trial, spying on letters and newspapers, shutting down newspapers, targeting civilians with acts of war, etc are all great legacies of Lincoln. The word parsing and lying with the emancipation proclamation that exempted any areas where the north had control was a great touch, too because so many idiots today think that freed the slaves. They think the same guy who wanted all blacks deported out of America and who supported a constitutional amendment forever allowing slavery decided to fight a war to end slavery - hilarious! Just ignore his thret of military invasion for any state not collecting the full tariff rate while we also ignore his deportation and permanent slavery amendment support! Let us also ignore the widespread rioting in NYC after the EP was given, and William Lloyd garrison saying Lincoln did not have an abolitionist home in his body.

      The fact that Karl Marx himself praised Lincoln isn't a sign or anything either!

      http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

      Delete
    5. The War Between the States had very little to do with slavery. It had everything to do with tariffs and controls on the Southern economy. They were being screwed so badly by the Northern industrialists who put Dishonest Abe in office, they couldn't afford to free the slaves if they wanted to - and many did, including Robert E. Lee. The South should have been allowed to leave and solve their own social and economic problems. They would not have been the North's concern. Lincoln would have been a 1-term President, but at least he would have lived to a ripe old age.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous Troll,
      Before you post ignorant remarks, read the title of the post, then read the book linked in the post, after which you may return and attempt to post an intelligent repudiation of the thesis. For extra credit, read Lerone Bennett's Forced Into Glory.

      Delete
    7. @ AnonymousOctober 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

      "Tony, first things first, if the Civil War was not about slavery, please explain what it was about."

      It was about "preserving the union." Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the slaves. The words out of his own mouth make abundantly clear his intentions were not to end slavery. He even wanted to ship them out of America. I suggest you read some history that isn't written by those who adulate Lincoln. There are 'left wingers' like Gore Vidal and 'right wingers' like Thomas DiLorenzo who will tell you it was all about keeping the union together; about making sure no state would secede. Wanting a powerful central government means not allowing secession.
      Here is an article about a book about Lincoln.
      http://mises.org/etexts/ostrowski.asp


      "Second, I mentioned nothing about Lincoln. I mentioned the Republican Party's role in emancipating Southern slaves, which was done through passage of the Thirteenth Amendment."

      You're right. I was so foolish thinking Abe Lincoln, a Republican, played a role in "emancipating slaves" (something all worshippers of Lincoln, including the Republican Party itself, maintain). Seriously, do you know anybody who is not a libertarian, who believes slaves could have been emancipated without the civil war, even if such belief is wrong?

      "Mike, you're a slave? You are currently held in bondage, forced to perform labor for free..."

      Actually, people ARE forced to perform labor for free. If you pay, lets say 40% taxes, it means that 40% out of the year you work for the state. And if you refuse by keeping all your earnings yourself, guess what happens? Lawyer or not. If you're in jail and a big man fancies you, guess what happens? If a crew of thugs in jail dislike you, guess what happens.
      All because you DID NOT want to be slave to the state, and kept your earnings yourself,

      Delete
    8. So much derp, so little time...

      First, I never mentioned Lincoln and neither did the excerpt of Rand Paul's interview with Candy Crowley cited above. Only Bob Wenzel mentioned Lincoln by bringing up Tom DiLorenzo's book. However, that does not change the fact that Rand was right and the Radical Republicans in Congress pushed the Thirteenth Amendment through and abolished slavery throughout the country.

      Second, the Civil War was entirely about slavery. Read the declarations of secession by South Carolina, Georgia, etc. Read Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's VP. Read the Confederate constitution. They all plainly say the the reason for secession was slavery. Moreover, for nearly a half a century before the Civil War, South Carolina continually blackmailed the free states with the threat of disunion to ensure the spread of slavery to newly acquired territory. You say the Southern economy wouldn't allow for the freeing of slaves? That's all the more reason to cheer the destruction of the Confederacy. We should all hate war. And we should all hate the way Lincoln conducted that war. But more than any of that, any decent libertarian should hate the Confederate States of America.

      Third, to the person who said Garrison claimed Lincoln was not an abolitionist.. fair enough, but that could also be a product of the fact that NOBODY was enough of an abolitionist for Garrison. In fact, most abolitionists thought Garrison was a detriment to the cause because he was too radical for them. Still, we all know Lincoln did not have the most enlightened views on race. He was an early proponent of repatriating free slaves to Africa. Of course, if he's not selectively quoted (a la the shoddy scholarship of one Tom DiLorenzo) you do see that his views changed markedly by the time he assumed the presidency and of the course of his administration. But no, Lincoln was no saint and he should not be treated as such. Of course, I didn't bring up Lincoln so it's kinda besides the point...

      Finally, to the person who posted the link to Marx's praise of Lincoln--Stormfront and other white supremacist groups post praise of Ron Paul constantly. What kind of "sign" is that? Personally, I think it doesn't mean much, but according to your standards it tells us all we need to know...

      Delete
    9. Lincoln didn't support sending free slaves "anywhere but here" he supported sending ALL blacks, free or slave, to Haiti, Liberia, or anywhere but here. During his senate race, he repeatedly stated he was against blacks immigrating to Illinois bc they were cheaper labor than whites and would drive poor whites out of jobs.

      If Lincoln fought the war over slavery, why did he openly support a constitutional amendment that would forever make slavery legal?!?!?!? Why did he at the same time threaten invasion on any state not collecting the full tariff rate? You bring up some of what the deep southern states mentioned in secession statements, but those were not all of the states. Virginia for instance, did not invoke this while Lincoln did threaten full scale military invasion on any state not collecting full tariff rates!

      If the war was over Slavery, then why did Lincoln not free a single slave with the EP, and instead exempt down to the county level any area under northern control? You can't say it was respect for the constitution, since he blockaded states that he viewed as still being part of the union, which is a blatant violation. Not to mention the other points Lincoln worshippers like you always avoid - Lincoln throwing people in prison for political speech against him, Lincoln shutting down newspapers for editorializing against him, Lincoln targeting civilians with war crimes, Lincoln spying on the mail for speech against him, Lincoln signing a warrant to arrest a Supreme Court member that was refused, Lincoln bringing troops into a CT election to intimidate it third world style, Lincoln forcing part of Virginia to secede ironically enough, etc.

      If you like Obama and bush and their wars overseas and police state at home, then you have to love Lincoln!

      Delete
    10. Btw, does the Lincoln lover think that the states could not secede from the union?

      Delete
  3. "Mike, you're a slave? You are currently held in bondage, forced to perform labor for free, subject to beatings and sexual abuse with no legal recourse, and liable to sale at the whim of a master who considers you his property because you are a member of a supposedly inferior race? How did that happen?"

    Are you really this delusional? Little child, please start thinking and maybe, just maybe you'll figure out the answer. Moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well argued, I feel so much more enlightened as to your plight...

      Delete
  4. Along with DiLorenzo's books, see the following:

    For the argument that the Civil War had to do with tarriffs and taxation, see Charles Adams "When In the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Sececession"
    http://www.amazon.com/When-Course-Human-Events-Secession/dp/0847697231

    For the view that the Civil War freed some but enslaved all of us, see Jeffrey Hummel, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men"
    http://www.amazon.com/Emancipating-Slaves-Enslaving-Free-Men/dp/0812693124/ref=pd_sim_b_5


    ReplyDelete