Today's Guest:
Tom DiLorenzo
Professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Miss a show? Here's the archive.
Miss a show? Here's the archive.
Books by Thomas DiLorenzo:
**Thanks to John Daubert, Head of Editing and Mastering.**
Other than a book by Stanley W. Campbell, any other documents to support your claim that Lincoln hired federal marshalls to send slaves to the south? Campbell's book has only one review on Amazon, it's not apparently a very popular purchase. Who is Stanley W. Campbell? He has one book selling on Amazon (Slave Catchers published in 2011). How does Campbell have more credibility than the three professors sitting on Stewart's panel? Why believe Campbell instead of these professors?
ReplyDeleteWhy no mention of Lincoln enforcing the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in DiLorenzo's book? DiLorenzo says many times in his book that Lincoln supported the Fugitive Slave Act but no mention of Lincoln using federal marshals and actually enforcing the fugitive slave act.
Lincoln did not threaten military invasion and bloodshed to collect a tariff in his inaugural address.
Lincoln says says there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the federal govt and he will occupy federal property and collect duties and imposts (as he is required to do by law).
"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."
First Inaugural Address
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
DiLorenzo is grossly distorting what Lincoln said in this address. Read the words yourself and compare it to what DiLorenzo says.
His explanation that battleships were present to provoke South Carolina into firing the first shot makes no sense.
From DiLorenzo's book:
"Lincoln had been plainly warned by [his military advisers] that a ship taking provisions to Fort Sumter would be fired on"
So South Carolina was expected to fire on the ships resupplying the fort with food and that means Lincoln provoked a war by providing food to his troops? Don't think so.
Just about everybody knew slavery was immoral and had to go? That's ridiculous.
Read the South Carolina articles of secession. The non-slave states are criticized for having "denounced as sinful the institution of slavery."
Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Typical nonsense from JW. The real question is: is JW delusional, or is he employing the Marxist method of argumentation (which is discussed in the above interview)?
DeleteDid you even listen to the show, JW? All of your objections are easily swept aside.
Your first question, about the fugitive slave act is answered at the 3:35 mark. And if you'd like more documentation, I'd suggest picking up a copy of Campbell's book as opposed to looking up the amazon review (never understood what you think you're proving by quoting from anonymous commenters from Amazon). I'm sure that Campbell has many sources listed in his book, as it was published by a distinguished university press.
Your second objection, about tariffs and Lincoln's inaugural address, is so ridiculous that one only need read your distorted interpretation: "Lincoln says says there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the federal govt and he will occupy federal property and collect duties and imposts..."
The way you've put it, Lincoln is saying two separate things, because you use the word "and" instead of the correct (and obvious) interpretation, which would replace "and" with "due to". What is Lincoln's definition of "bloodshed" being "forced upon the federal government"? Well, it's the refusal to allow him to "occupy federal property (in the south) and collect duties and imposts" (from the south). How is this obvious (to everyone with their heads NOT up their asses)? Again, read the damn quote. Lincoln says: "but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
The answer to your third objection is provided at the 9:56 mark, where DiLorenzo reminds us of Lincoln's letter to his naval commander, in which he thanks him for, wait for it, maneuvering the south into firing the first shot, thus helping to legitimize his invasion in the minds of the public.
As far as your fourth claim goes, about the south explicitly using slavery as their reason for secession, you are ignoring several facts that don't fit that narrative. DiLorenzo goes over these at the 10:48 mark, showing that the Republican Party, and Lincoln specifically, did not oppose southern slavery (and, on the contrary, would amend the constitution to protect it). In Jefferson Davis' confederate presidential inauguration, he mentions slavery exactly ZERO times. To think that whites in the north would willingly fight and die (at record numbers) to eliminate slavery (in the 1800s, mind you) in the south, requires such a stretch of the imagination, that it is beyond absurd.
But, even if the southern states thought (wrongly) that they needed to protect the institution of slavery by seceding, the north did NOT see it that way. Slavery would have been intact with or without secession (as it was in some union states). Unless, that is, you are of the impression that the federal government employs bait n'switch tactics, which, JW, would make you sound somewhat, dare I say, Libertarian.
JW: Troll.
DeleteJust the other day, I quote extensively from Lincoln's own mouth pledging to the support the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution forever. Further, in the same breath, Lincoln said he would not invade the south so long as they collected and paid over their tariff obligations. What more does it take?
Deletehttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/judge-napolitano-gets-set-up-on-daily.html?showComment=1394639876637#c2302597509138340924
Wait a minute, Jerry, are you saying the war was caused solely Lincoln's "duty" to collect tariffs? That was the North's only concern? Not slavery? For whatever reasons the south wanted to secede, there were a number, the north only waged war because of the tariff? Lincoln had no choice?
ReplyDeleteYou are close. The north did want to maintain control of the south, practically all centralized governments have tried to quash secessionists. The north did need the tariff revenue and protection to build its industry and expand westward, exterminating the plains Indians in the process. The north to disguise the fact they were conquering a people who no longer wanted to be joined politically with them, decided using black Americans as pawns in their power mad war. As statists have used black Americans ever since. Unfortunately the enlightened leaders of the north, Sherman, Grant, Sheridan had no use for plains Indians.
The sound of crickets from JW. Imagine that.
ReplyDeletePiety quiz: Everybody take out a sheet of paper. Who said the following: “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—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….” (1) Mahatma Gandhi (2) Mother Teresa (3) Tinker Bell or (4) Abraham Lincoln.
ReplyDeletehttp://takimag.com/article/notes_of_a_fed_up_southerner_fred_reed/print#ixzz2w5otZB9S
Piety quiz: Which of the following in the decades before the Civil War said over and over that he wanted to send all the black folks to Africa? (1) Susan B. Anthony (2) Pallas Athena (3) Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst (4) Abraham Lincoln. Hint….
ReplyDeletehttp://takimag.com/article/notes_of_a_fed_up_southerner_fred_reed/print#ixzz2w5pPECrg
Another quiz:
ReplyDelete“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.” (1) George Wallace (2) David Duke (3) Nathan Bedford Forrest (4) Abraham Lincoln.
Uh-huh. The Great Emancipator. Himself. How I do love goodness.
http://takimag.com/article/notes_of_a_fed_up_southerner_fred_reed/print#ixzz2w5pz5GoZ