Vanguard News Network

Good essay. But, misses the mark.

DiLorenzo should read up on the Republican leader John C. Fremont who was wildly popular with the German 1848ers in the Mid-West. Fremont besides being a heroic Western explorer, was the guy who ran for President on the slogan, “Free Soil & Free Labor” which meant that the land in the States west of the Mississippi would be homesteaded for free, and the labor used on those homesteads would be freemen not slaves.

Today, the descendents of the German 1848ers, are in politics conservative, corporate, Roman Catholic Republicans. Maybe not as anti-White & allied with the Jews like their Irish & Italian Roman Catholic co-religionists. But, still the 1848ers don’t have a clue for the most part—like Boehner being led around by that Jewboy from Richmond.

Whenever Lincoln comes up in conversation, I usually refer to him as “the tyrant” or “the great dictator.” Whenever I’ve had to pay for something with a $5 bill and I know the person I am paying will appreciate the comment I do the same as in; “I’ll give you the great dictator’s portrait for it.”

One of the many historical figures and causes that I’ve never seemed to figure out. What was so wonderful about the ‘Union?’ Why did it have to be ‘preserved’ – especially at the cost of so many lives North and South? Wouldn’t it have been better to have the South out of the vaunted ‘Union’ anyway? To my way of thinking, if a member of a club is angry at the other members it is usually best for all concerned for that member to leave and go their own way. Everybody’s usually happier that way.

Then again, logic never entered into Lincoln’s bid to enforce a non-existent ‘no exit’ clause from the Articles of Confederation upon the South at gun-point.

“…..a new birth of freedom…” and if you believe our sanctified “rail-splitter” really cared a damn about anyone’s freedom, then I’ve got some great swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you…….

The only chief executive I know of to have overturned Habeus Corpus…..and HE of all people is the one who is held up as a man of vision, compassion, and moral rectitude. We live in an upside-down bizzaro world. Someday, maybe, we’ll see Lincoln for what he truly was.

Dagon Says:

One of the many historical figures and causes that I’ve never seemed to figure out. What was so wonderful about the ‘Union?’ Why did it have to be ‘preserved’ – especially at the cost of so many lives North and South? Wouldn’t it have been better to have the South out of the vaunted ‘Union’ anyway? To my way of thinking, if a member of a club is angry at the other members it is usually best for all concerned for that member to leave and go their own way. Everybody’s usually happier that way.

You have to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln in order to get the necessary historical background. The essential point you must understand is that the effects of the Industrial Revolution mandated economic and organizational changes to the structure of America. There was a conflict between those like Lincoln, who wanted to centralize gov’t in order for the country to grow, and others, mainly in the South, who were loyal to the original idea of the country as a federation of wholly independent states. There was also the issue of protectionism in the North, which was needed in order to develop American industry, since the alternative would have been for America to remain a mercantile economic dependency of Europe, just exporting raw materials and buying finished product from abroad. But Northern protectionism was raising prices on manufactured goods in the agrarian South, which had essentially no industry, and that was a source of considerable antagonism between the two parties. Lincoln and the Republicans also were motiviated to expand federal power and protectionism, too, because it was the framework for a giant political patronage system that they saw could be used to enhance their own power and wealth indefinitely. This was a technical development within the political system of the time which helped to fuel the drive to War. My view is that the Civil War took place in order to resolve these issues; but since human beings are so constructed that no one could actually get worked up over the abstract issues of economics and politics involved enough to die for them, as a practical matter, the people had to be told that the War was fought to free the noble negro. But the time was ripe for the War, and if Lincoln hadn’t forced the issue, the technological system would merely have put forward someone else.

From p.59 of DiLorenzo’s book:

Protectionism is an indirect subsidy to politically influential businesses that comes at the expense of consumers (who pay higher prices) and potential competitors. Because government never has the resources to subsidize all businesses, so-called internal improvement subsidies could never have amounted to anything but selective subsidies to politically favored businesses. And a nationalized bnaking system, which was finally adopted by Lincoln and the Republican Party during the War between the States, has always been used as a means of printing money (and thereby creating inflation) to pay for even more selective special-interest subsidies.

All of these policies tend to generate a centralization of governmental power as well, which is why they were the focus of American politicial debate from the time of the founding until the 1860s. At that poin the debate ended; the consolidators, led by Lincoln and the Republican Party, had won the debate, literally, by force of arms.

The only chief executive I know of to have overturned Habeus Corpus…..and HE of all people is the one who is held up as a man of vision, compassion, and moral rectitude. We live in an upside-down bizzaro world. Someday, maybe, we’ll see Lincoln for what he truly was.

Under the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, passed under GW Bush, habeas corpus was effectively abandoned. See:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts248.html

It must be admitted that the issue is still being contested in the courts and still somewhat up for grabs, but in my opinion it’s clear the trend is away from liberty and other such quaint notions and in favor of more federal power.

@ Ein

Yes, it is ironic, although the situation now is a bit different, since instead of exporting valuable raw materials directly we mainly export just our increasingly worthless dollars, the ink barely dry on them. The strong economy that was created in America by economic protectionism and built her into the premier industrial nation of the world, also ironically, has given her currency reserve status. Yet so long as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency (i.e., the currency in which foreign nations keep their cash reserves), the printing presses will continue to run.

We also see a weird replay of the political issue — technical considerations in politics forcing changes in the country’s economic, racial, and cultural structure. As I mentioned above, Republicans were motivated to start the Civil War because if the “American system” advocated by Lincoln prevailed over rival views, they saw its establishment as increasing their wealth and power indefinitely. They would then have an infinite supply of federal money with which to reward their political friends and attack their political enemies. In the same way, the immigration problem transforming America is being sustained by a technical fact about the political forces. It’s common knowledge that no one even bothers to deny anymore: Republicans want massive non-white immigration as a source of cheap labor for their wealthy elite backers, and Democrats want it because every wetback is another vote for the Democrats. This time, BOTH parties are destroying the country for political gain. And as before, no public figure of note dares to consider and speak for the good of the white race. But of course, that probably would be to no avail even if it happened. Potential defenders of the white race know that their cause would not be a popular one. As I’ve mentioned previously, there’s no reason to think that the good of the white race is something that’s important to most American white people AT ALL. It wasn’t in 1861, it wasn’t in 1917, and it most certainly wasn’t in 1941.

It’s tempting to think that if, by some miracle, American whites could be made to care about the fate of their own race, they might re-institute protectionist policies, and expel the non-white invaders. The first thing that stands out is that such a course of action would involve their acceptance of a precipitous reduction in their standard of living. I don’t see that happening, and anyone who does must be acquainted with a breed of American whites vastly different from the ones I know. The ones I know would easily prefer that their race die if the alternative is that they would be forced to give up their material prosperity.