Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority.
– Karl Marx letter to Abe Lincoln, November 1864
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayOctober 14th, 2006 |
 27 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Now this is interesting….
The person whose ideas ultinmately enslaved billions, congratulates the person whose ideas freed slaves.
Uain, Lincoln’s ideas didn’t free anyone. Lincoln was a white supremacist who supported a constitutional amendment that stated the federal government had no authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed; he favored the deportation of all blacks, and his original plans for this involved compensation to the slave-owners. Every other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without a shot being fired, but Lincoln’s blood-stained administration instead started the most vicious war of the 19th century.
By the way, Lincoln was also Hitler’s favorite president, receiving much praise in Mein Kampf over his centralizing tendencies.
In one of Harry Turtledove’s alternative history books Lincoln, having lost the civil war, became a communist (OK proto-communist socialist). I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not this was likely, but Turtledove does seem to put a lot of research into his books.
Lincoln was a great big statist-centralist and I guess Marx was too, as a means to an end.
Fiona: the British Empire paid compensation to slave owners when it abolished slavery. Quite right too, and vastly cheaper in blood and treasure than fighting a bloody war about it.
dearime, I have no problems with compensation. What I have problems with is the idea that the ideas of America’s first dictator somehow freed slaves.
Fiona, while he may not have been inclined towards such, and while he may have done so badly and done many other bad things, it seems tough, to me, to claim that the emancipation proclamation either a: did not free slaves or b: was not Lincoln’s.
As an aside, I’m with Kojeve that the United States has been the Marxist utopia since the 50s. The largest class (middle) control the means of production. There is no starvation, no real oppression. Marx thought that the working class would have to revolt to become the ruling class. Instead they were absorbed, much like the middle classes were with the transfer to capitalism.
Out and out communists such as Joseph Wedemeyer (a friend of Marx) were ranked officers in the Union Army. One might quibble about other 1848 German refugees ranked in the Grand Army of the Republic were communists, but they certainly were highly socialistic (e.g. Carl Schurz – incedentally whose wife founded the first Kindergarten in the US).
“Sir:
I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Adams
Here is more information on Mr. Adams, US Minister to England in the Civil War era.
Wow, Turtledove isn’t the only one who lives in an alternate universe.
I’ve actually only read the invasion series… but I can say from that Turtledove really digs into the psychology and motivations of his characters such that his alternate history projections are as realistic as possible. It doesn’t surprise me in the least if he researched some of these historical items, although I must admit I have not read the alternate civil war history series.
Fiona,
As pointed out by dearieme, the British wisely bought the freedom of those held as slaves in the early 1800’s.
I believe it coincided with one of those nasty Christian revivals that affects peoples world view.
And yes, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclimation did free the slaves in that the institution of slavery was no longer legally recognized by the US government.
Our first dictator? Maybe in the heated imaginations of those who wistfully think of an anti-bellum Old South with happy darkies toiling away on the plantation.
Despite the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln was more concerned about keeping the Union together than he was freeing slaves. People seem to think that the war between the States was all about slavery but it wasn’t. But I don’t see how the hell Lincoln could be labeled a dictator.
One question. If the English are so concerned about the oppressed, then why did England support the slave owning South during that time? I’ll tell you why. It was to aid in the destruction of the Union. The very Union that exists today, I might add. And when I hear what the BBC has to say, along with the Guardian, certain politicians, and many people, including some who post here, I see that some things never change.
Uian and Denise:
” I don’t see how the hell Lincoln could be labeled a dictator. ”
Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, as called for in the Constitution; declared martial law; blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure Republican Party victories; deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies (especially protectionist tariffs and income taxation) on the floor of the House of Representatives; confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
That enough for you?
He is also on record as saying if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves he would do so. And if you read the prrocalmation carefully, it applied only to states “in rebellion” i.e. under Confederate, not Union control. This proclamation was not worth the paper it was written on, and freed not one soul. Conversely, runaway negroes were often ‘enslaved’ again by being drafted to perform heavy manual labor for Unnion forces in the field.
It is my impression the Proclamation was nothing more than a tactical element in Lincoln’s war, intended to stir up rebellion inside the section of the Confederacy which was thus far unconquered.
It did not apply to slaves in slave states which had not seceded; it did not apply to slaves in ares of the Confederacy already under Union control.
If his war had been anything other than a power grab, he could have focussed on economic measures to make the seceeded states pay a terrible economic price.
Had I been in his position, I would have immediately repealed the Fugtive Slave act; I would have declared that any slave which makes it across the border is automatically free; I would have taken measures to spread a rumour of that amongst the enslaved and would have encouraged citizens of all civilized nations to boycott Confederate goods.
Or as an alternative, I might have encouraged production of really cheap cotten gins and sold them to the south at cost…
Slaves are useless in an industrial economy where workers must be educated to do anythng useful; and once they’ve been educated, you are facing slave rebellions right and left… aided of course, by Northern and British agents provacateurs.
Slavery already had the economic shot to the heart in flight by 1860. I seriously doubt the institution could have lasted until 1880 even without secession; with secession it was dead already and needed only the slighttest of pushes to topple the corpse.
Although I totally reject any implication that Lincoln (or those close to him) were Marxists or nonMarxist socialists (supporting some statism does not mean supporting total statism, and nor does even supporting a lot of statism in time of war – and there was more statism during the war by the Confeds than by Lincoln, more income taxation, more fiat money inflation, more…….), I agree about that Lincoln was a statist and I agree about slavery.
Lincoln was no Salmon P. Chase, he had no long record of opposing slavery (I think the first time he even mentioned it in a political speech was in 1854) and he was not consistent supporter of liberty (he was a Henry Clay Whig supporting the corporate welfate of “internal improvements”, a national bank and higher taxes on imports).
Lincoln most likely did think that slavery was a bad thing – but it was also a useful stick to beat the South with (after all if the Southern States left the Union it was lose a lot of tariff revenue).
Lincoln also most likely thought that the war would not cost about 600,000 lives (out of population of about 35 million people). He may have had in mind a power grap to strengthen central government on the lines of the Swiss experience of 1848 (when there was not much resistance by those Cantons who did not want a strong central government). The terrible war may have been a shock to him (but he who uses war as a way to gain more power is to blame even if he did not want the scale of war that comes to pass).
A stronger national government was a common idea in 1861 (nothing much to do with Karl Marx) Cavour in Italy and Bismark in Germany were thinking on similar “nation building” lines (and both were happy to subsidize business interests that supported them).
On slavery:
Yes if the fugitive slave laws had been got rid of it is hard to see how slavery could have survived. The border between the United States and the Confederate States of America would have been many hundreds of miles long (and fairly open). The Confederates could not have prevented slaves crossing this border, even if they had the resources or desire to set up a centralized police state (which they did not).
When a single state in Brazil got rid of slavery (in the 1880’s) the movement of slaves led to the collapse of the whole insitution (although there was still a formal legal proclamation of the end of slavery – one of the last things the Empire of Brazil did before its end in 1889).
1.) Repeal of fugitive slave laws; probably little effect. By the 1850-60 there was quite the cottage industry of slave trackers who used bloodhounds (used to be called slave dogs) to track them down and bring them back to Mas-ah for the bounty. If the slave was a “problem runaway” the dogs would be allowed to kill him/ her with their maimed bodies brought back as warning to other slaves. Majority of runaways were lucky to make a fews miles before being caught, let alone 100’s miles to the Mason-Dixon line. And once across more than a few people would bring them back for the bounty, Fugitive Slave Laws or not.
2.) Dale said “he could have focused on economic measures” …. right! Like oil – for – food? Recall that by 1860, there had been a huge influx of immigrants, Germans and Irish who were looking to survive and had no bond to America. There was also the English supporting the confederacy precisely because a break up of the US would re-open the door to re-acquisition of the lost colonies. Also Spain was to the South and would not mind getting their former colonies back. So Lincoln did what any intelligent leader who saw the mortal danger that a breakaway confederacy would cause. What would be next, Germans wanting the mid-west as their own country?
As I said before, those who talk of Lincoln as a dictator,
in my (albeit limited) experience tend to be Old South nutters who long for the bad old days.
ridiculous. the brits had no interest in reconquering the usa, they wanted to see the usa break up so that there would be less of a threat to canada.
“those who talk of Lincoln as a dictator, experience tend to be Old South nutters who long for the bad old days.”
You keep repeating this mantra, but produce no evidence to back it up. The fact that dogs were used to track fugitives doesn’t somehow trump all other argument – even supposing (as you seem to suggest) that ‘border control’ was a lot more efficient in the 1850’s that is is today….!
The Civil War was, in fact, about slavery. ‘States’ rights’ is a smoke screen. The most obvious evidence of slavery’s central role in the southern states’ attempt to establish their own nation can be found in the secession conventions. Go back to the primary sources, read the texts. By far the majority of delegates’ speeches read like this: ‘We must secede in order to protect slavery.’ This might offend adherents of the lost cause, but it has the virtue of being true.
Dale, slavery was more robust and succesful as an economic system than you grant. ‘Time on the Cross(Link)‘ has its flaws, as a multitude of critics over the last two decades have pointed out, but it certainly complicates the argument that slavery was incompatible with an industrial economy and was on its way out by 1861.
The American Civil War was fundamentally about slavery. As wilkins mentions above, even a cursory examination of the documents produced on the eve of the war point at slavery as the fundamental point of division, with the South repeatedly decrying the abolitionist sentiments that predominated in the North. From a coldly rational perspective, the dispute did not need to lead to bloodshed, but slavery served as a proxy for all the concerns of the South about being progressively overshadowed in their old aristocratic control of the government.
The rule of Congress was passing out of the hands of the southern states and into the hands of the prospering states of the North and West, and the vigorous opposition to slavery born of immigrant dread of cheap labor looked to be one of the first things that a Northern-dominated Congress was going to address. When Lincoln won the 1860 election, the South took it as a sign that it was all over for them and promptly declined to recognize the results of the election. Sentiment in some quarters is that Lincoln should’ve just spread his hands sorrowfully and watched the South go forth in defiance of the election in which they’d just participated. The Americans who elected him were not of that mind.
The American Civil War was over slavery in the same way that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was over WMDs. It was a casus belli, not the real reason.
Phelps, what is your evidence? I’m willing to be convinced, but I haven’t heard anything compelling enough to contradict what Southern leaders, in the most fundamental and wide-ranging discussion of the causes of secession (the state conventions), actually said. Are you arguing that the leaders of southern states…weren’t actually concerned about slavery, that slavery was a pretext, and the ‘real’ reason was states’ rights? That’s a bold claim.
“Had I been in his position, I would have immediately repealed the Fugtive Slave act; I would have declared that any slave which makes it across the border is automatically free; I would have taken measures to spread a rumour of that amongst the enslaved”
That’s pretty much what the Emancipation Proclamation did. Slaves from territory still in rebellion were free the minute they got to US soil, or the minute that US troops reached them.
“and would have encouraged citizens of all civilized nations to boycott Confederate goods.”
That was accomplished by a naval blockade.
All this goes to prove , as they say down heah, “it ain’t over yet!”