# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Why do Neocons hate LewRockwell.com?

## itshappening

Why Do the Neocons Hate LRC?

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The other day, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovered a set of ideas that had to be stomped out of existence: anarcho-capitalism. Thats LewRockwell.com, of course. But the SPLC will have to get in line behind the rest of the neocons: the NY Times, the Washington Post, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the rest of the gang  none of them much like this site.

Is that a reason to despair, or crow? Well, lets examine the neocons. As Ron Paul has pointed out, they call themselves big-government conservatives and national greatness conservatives. This bunch, which runs the Republican party, the conservative movement, and some of the left, too, has been Rons most vicious enemy. They know how close he is to LRC, and that he's said it's the first site I read every morning.

Neocons believe deeply in militarism, the corporate State, the police State, the welfare State, the national security State, permanent war, ultra-nationalism, central banking, global empire, and the noble lie. The noble lie, by the way, is any propaganda that helps foist their rule on us, and is therefore justified. In other words, theyre fascists.

And whom do the neocons hate the most? Whom do they feel most threatened by? Libertarians. Not the libertarians paid by the Koch Bros., who are effective allies of the neocons. But Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, we who advocate Austrian economics, truth-telling history, and real freedom and property. We who understand that society does not need a set of despicable overlords, and that  in Murray Rothbards words  the State is a gang of thieves writ large. We who hold that the moral law applies across the board, and that one is not exempted from it by a government suit.

If something is wrong for you or me, it is also wrong for the cop, the soldier, the mayor, the governor, the general, the Fed chairman, the president. Theft does not become acceptable when they call it taxation, counterfeiting when they call it monetary policy, kidnapping when they call it the draft, mass murder when they call it foreign policy. We understand that it is never acceptable to wield violence nor the threat of violence against the innocent, whether by the mugger or the politician.

When it comes to that cabal of plutocrats and their henchmen known as Washington, DC, we do not salute . We do not consent to their dastardly deeds, nor their rule over us. And we never refer to the government as we.

So why is LRC in particular so hated by the neocons, the fascists, the commissars, the reich-wingers? Well, we only have to ask: what is the world center of anarcho-capitalism? What has turned more neocons into libertarians than anything else? What teaches the philosophy of freedom, real ecoomics, and truthful history to millions all over the world? What exposes everything from the Pentagon to Big Pharma, official historians to Keynesian economists? What is the largest circulation anarcho-capitalist publication in history? What, that is, makes the neocons spitting mad? Well, its LRC.

Ever since I turned my rolodex into an email list and then into a website, weve been making real progress, especially among the young, in this country and many others. You should see the moving and thrilling emails I get. People credit LRC with changing their lives. And that is what infuriates  and scares  the neocons. They want to shut LRC down.

So, what should we do about it? For you, as for me, there is only one answer: carry the intellectual fight into their homeland. Never despair. Never stop. Never give up. Never retreat. For we have the truth on our side. We have the great ideas.

I would be so grateful to have your help in telling the neocons: Get lost. Indeed, I cant do it without you. Once a year I ask for your help in keeping this site not only on the air, but growing and more influential. Please, bug the neocons and all who want their boots on our necks. Help LRC make 2013 our most effective year for freedom since our founding in 1999.

The huge, centralized army of the bad guys appears to be winning. But our guerillas are driving them crazy. And guerrillas always beat big, centralized armies. As Ron Paul showed, the young are increasingly with us. The neocons are yesterdays men.

Every dollar you send is a slap in the face to the arrogant enemies of liberty, to those who say, with Mussolini, Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. If you know the State is our greatest enemy on earth, if you appreciate LRC as its opponent, if you support our fight, if you stand with us, if you want to be able to continue to read a new LRC 6 days a week, please make a generous gift. I would be so grateful.

http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neoc...te-lrc204.html

-

I don't like it when their writers knock Rand or Amash who I think are doing the best they can but I have made a *one time donation* to them today via PayPal since I read it nearly every day and it's free and worthwhile.  

I suggest everyone does the same if you can afford 10 or 20 bucks or whatever.

----------


## Aratus

lew rockwell makes people think deeply even if they seldom agree with him 
...and yes... crypto-fascists are often anti-intellectual and into a mob-o-cracy!

----------


## Travlyr

I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.

----------


## klamath

> I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.


Pretty much this.

----------


## itshappening

Lewrockwell.com is taking the fight to the neocons and the Federal Reserve who plunge us into senseless wars or in the Feds case enables the financing of them and what is effectively an empire and a very costly mistake.  No one else calls them out as frequently or exposes them like LRC.

That's why I donated to them & hope others do the same.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I see so many "causes" and I've seen little results from any of them.

Curing cancer and diabetes would put a lot of huge buildings into disrepair and increase the unemployment rate.  Curing "things" is not profitable.

----------


## awake

Because it reminds them of how evil they act. They hate it because it reveals them not only onto themselves, but to all others who want to see.

----------


## ptruthp34

> Pretty much this.


Can you please elaborate?  In what ways does LRC lie?  Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?

The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.

----------


## klamath

> Can you please elaborate?  In what ways does LRC lie?  Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?
> 
> The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.


Read a broad cross section of news and draw your own conclusions. I don't follow talking heads on TV nor do I follow talking head blogs on the net. Nobody tells me how to think or what to think about events in the world.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Don't know why neocons hate him or even if they do. I do know that it would appear that some would like to say they do though for whatever remedial social media effect it may create.

----------


## Travlyr

> Can you please elaborate?  In what ways does LRC lie?  Can you recommend some other worthwhile places to get dailly news and libertarian perspective?
> 
> The questions apply to anyone. Thanks for your time.


Do you ever hear Lew Rockwell talk about how Ludwig von Mises believed, "_National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment._"? 

I don't. All I ever read on LRC is anti-State hate.




> *Liberalism*
> Introduction
> 3. Rationalism
> The organization of human society according to the pattern most suitable for the attainment of the ends in view is a quite prosaic and matter-of-fact question, not unlike, say, the construction of a railroad or the production of cloth or furniture. National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment. But however lofty may be the sphere in which political and social questions are placed, they still refer to matters that are subject to human control and must consequently be judged according to the canons of human reason. In such matters, no less than in all our other mundane affairs, mysticism is only an evil. Our powers of comprehension are very limited. We cannot hope ever to discover the ultimate and most profound secrets of the universe. But the fact that we can never fathom the meaning and purpose of our existence does not hinder us from taking precautions to avoid contagious diseases or from making use of the appropriate means to feed and clothe ourselves, nor should it deter us from organizing society in such a way that the earthly goals for which we strive can be most effectually attained. *Even the state and the legal system, the government and its administration are not too lofty, too good, too grand, for us to bring them within the range of rational deliberation.* Problems of social policy are problems of social technology, and their solution must be sought in the same ways and by the same means that are at our disposal in the solution of other technical problems: by rational reflection and by examination of the given conditions. All that man is and all that raises him above the animals he owes to his reason. Why should he forgo the use of reason just in the sphere of social policy and trust to vague and obscure feelings and impulses? - Ludwig von Mises


We ought to be having a rational discussion about "Liberalism, State, and Government" by Ludwig von Mises but they are all Rothbardians now focused on the Non-Aggression Principle.

----------


## green73

> I'm not a neo-con and I no longer read LewRockwell.com everyday because they are just like TV media. They are not always "truth-telling history" writers. As a matter of fact they promote lies just like the regular media. The philosophy promoted by Rothbardians is not the philosophy of Classical Liberals. If they really did focus on telling the truth, if they actually did stick to the philosophy of Mises, then I would donate. Until they do, I'm not going to go there every day to get my news.


Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them exposing Lincoln, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection.  Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST. 

Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.

----------


## ptruthp34

> Do you ever hear Lew Rockwell talk about how Ludwig von Mises believed, "_National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment._"? 
> 
> I don't. All I ever read on LRC is anti-State hate.
> 
> 
> We ought to be having a rational discussion about "Liberalism, State, and Government" by Ludwig von Mises but they are all Rothbardians now focused on the Non-Aggression Principle.


Can the "state" exist if it does not employ coercion and aggression to achieve its ends?  If so, then why can't voluntary government coexist with Rothbardian non-aggression?  I think LRC is being realistic when it characterizes the state as "legal monopoly on the use of force".  Until the state and the government can be defined in other terms, then it should rightfully be identified for what it is.

----------


## Travlyr

> Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them exposing Lincoln, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection.  Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST. 
> 
> Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.


Hoppe's lies.
Mises was an anarchist... lie

DiLorenzo's lies.
"The American System" = "The Federal Reserve System" ... Lie
Lincoln did not want an audit of the bank. .. Lie
Lincoln was not morally opposed to slavery... Lie
Lincoln is responsible for the strong central government of today... Lie
Lincoln was responsible for the evils during "Reconstruction" ... Lie
His entire book, "The Real Lincoln" is so factually inaccurate it falsely portrays what the U.S. Constitution and our founding fathers did for liberating the common man.

----------


## Travlyr

> Can the "state" exist if it does not employ coercion and aggression to achieve its ends?  If so, then why can't voluntary government coexist with Rothbardian non-aggression?  I think LRC is being realistic when it characterizes the state as "legal monopoly on the use of force".  Until the state and the government can be defined in other terms, then it should rightfully be identified for what it is.


Read "Liberalism, State and Government" for yourself. Mises explains all your objections much better than I can.

----------


## ptruthp34

Fair enough.  Thanks for the link.

----------


## Travlyr

> Pawlease. You're just butthurt over them *exposing Lincoln*, whom you have had a lifelong bias for because of some apparent family connection.  Also, I don't suppose you care that Rothbard is one of the primary influences on Ron Paul. Nope, for you the philosophy achieved perfection with Locke. If it's so perfect than why did it so miserably fail? And WOULD PLEASE stop characterizing Mises as a philosopher? He was an ECONOMIST. 
> 
> Oh, and please list these lies that LRC spreads.


Exposing Lincoln? Really? That is just dumb. Anybody, who is literate, can read Lincoln's own words for themselves. Lincoln exposed himself. DiLorenzo lies about him, takes his quotes clear out of context, promotes his lies as if he is a scholar knowing full well most people are too lazy to read the source documents. DiLorenzo exposed him ... LOL... you got a bridge to sell?

----------


## green73

> Exposing Lincoln? Really? That is just dumb. Anybody, who is literate, can read Lincoln's own words for themselves. Lincoln exposed himself. DiLorenzo lies about him, takes his quotes clear out of context, promotes his lies as if he is a scholar knowing full well most people are too lazy to read the source documents. DiLorenzo exposed him ... LOL... you got a bridge to sell?


Yeah right. That's why there's been no scholarly refutation of his work.  

Really, it's so pathetic having to read your endless twaddle. You just ignore the countless times facts having been given to you and continue to repeat the same baseless claims. But in the final analysis it beggars belief that you would be such a staunch defender of a man who was so obviously an opponent of your precious 'classical liberalism'.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah right. That's why there's been no scholarly refutation of his work.


While I do not agree with everything Brandt writes, his scholarly refutation of DiLorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln" is at least honest,
Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln
Dennis W. Brandt (Author)




> "DiLorenzo's books and Internet posts arguably have made him the most famous Lincolnphobe in history, yet the academic world largely dismisses him along with other South-was-right evangelicals. That is a mistake. Ultralibertarians and neo-Confederate voices have united to sing _Hallelujah!_ at his every historical misstep, and the list of converts is growing." - Dennis W. Brandt


DiLorenzo is making people in the liberty movement look like a bunch of illiterate dummies who won't do their history homework and will not abide by the rules of ethics. Taking quotes out-of-context and promoting them as if they accurately portray the intended meaning is what DiLorenzo does throughout "The Real Lincoln", and it is unethical writing. The point being, if you wish to know the truth about Lincoln, read his words, his letters, and his legislation. Lincoln's own words are documented for posterity.




> Really, it's so pathetic *having* to read your endless twaddle. You just ignore the countless times facts having been given to you and continue to repeat the same baseless claims. But in the final analysis it beggars belief that you would be such a staunch defender of a man who was so obviously an opponent of your precious 'classical liberalism'.


You don't HAVE to read my posts.

Lincoln was not a perfect defender of Classical Liberalism, that is true, but he was much more closely aligned to Classical Liberalism than Rothbard by a long shot. Mises himself rejected anarchy and so did Lincoln because he lived during a time of anarchy. Lincoln admired the works of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson (until he ended the banks), Taylor, and many other presidents. Lincoln loved the free country formed by the U.S. Constitution and would have abided by it strictly if the South would not have fired upon Fort Sumter. He said that and he had a life long history of honoring his word. 




> "Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism." - Ludwig von Mises


Maybe Rothbard didn't read "Liberalism" by Mises, or maybe he just rejected it because, according to green73, Mises wasn't a "philosopher." Which begs the question: If Mises was not a philosopher, then why would they name a philosophy institution after him?

But I digress. Lincoln knew what anarchy was like first hand,




> "I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice." - A. Lincoln (1837)

----------


## liveandletlive

> While I do not agree with everything Brandt writes, his scholarly refutation of DiLorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln" is at least honest,
> Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln
> Dennis W. Brandt (Author)
> 
> 
> 
> DiLorenzo is making people in the liberty movement look like a bunch of illiterate dummies who won't do their history homework and will not abide by the rules of ethics. Taking quotes out-of-context and promoting them as if they accurately portray the intended meaning is what DiLorenzo does throughout "The Real Lincoln", and it is unethical writing. The point being, if you wish to know the truth about Lincoln, read his words, his letters, and his legislation. Lincoln's own words are documented for posterity.
> 
> 
> ...


this, Lincoln has been getting a bad rap by libertarians who fail to put things into their proper context. the real enemy of liberty is FDR: devaluing our money and locking up American citizens into concentration camps. a foreign policy of mass murder (Haiti) if J Edgar Hoover had an equivalent in the oval office it would be FDR

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> this, Lincoln has been getting a bad rap by libertarians who fail to put things into their proper context. the real enemy of liberty is FDR: devaluing our money and locking up American citizens into concentration camps. a foreign policy of mass murder (Haiti) if J Edgar Hoover had an equivalent in the oval office it would be FDR


  Every president sucked.  http://www.whyeverypresidentsucked.com/#  Abe is notable because he was a mass murderer domestically instead of abroad.  The reason libertarians focus on Lincoln is to counter the State propaganda about "The Great Emancipator"  that has been drilled into American "common knowledge" and distorts their view of classical American civic philosophy.  

Look at the upside, though.  You folks defending Dishonest Abe have found quite a bit of common ground with Neocons and their mouthpieces like Billy O'Reily.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah right. That's why there's been no scholarly refutation of his work.  
> 
> Really, it's so pathetic having to read your endless twaddle. You just ignore the countless times facts having been given to you and continue to repeat the same baseless claims. But in the final analysis it beggars belief that you would be such a staunch defender of a man who was so obviously an opponent of your precious 'classical liberalism'.


He doens't have his facts and is just here to push his silly establishment agenda and propaganda.  Just put him on ignore like I do.  Saves a lot of headaches.

----------


## green73

Listen Trav, what makes Dilorenzo's body of work so powerful is that it is solidly rooted in documented facts. That from day one he was an unabashed Whig supporting a central bank, corporate welfare, and high protective tariffs alone proves he was a strong opponent of the liberals. That you say he was more in line with CL than Rothbard is just another in an endless series of laughable and ill-conceived statements that you make. The man was a white supremacist, who time and time again defended slave owners in their attempts to re-acquire run away slaves. He never once defended a slave. But why would he? It's well documented that he thought they were an inferior race, and he was even working to have them all deported to his dying day. He was a crony capitalist who worked on the behalf of the crony railroads. He bought up land in Council Bluffs IA only to later make that the starting point of the transcontinental railroad. And I hope don't have to again list the treason and tyranny he committed as president. 

Lincoln was for a strong central government, the antithesis of classical liberal philosophy. That you don't get this either proves how willfully ignorant you are or something worse. I hope you are just kicking and screaming because it's too much of an emotional shock to you given what you've said of your family's connection to him. Hell, it was a shock to me in the beginning, but facts don't lie. Hooey to your empty statement that he takes things out of context. He very methodically does the opposite. 

As for that book, here's the description: 



> Secession is no longer your ancestor’s concept. Demagogues with a yearning to carve the United States into fragments are at work today. Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s prolific work attacking the memory of Abraham Lincoln has made him the titular head of a modern I-hate-America separatist movement. Armed with a long and varied list of sources, this third of Dennis W. Brandt’s books launches a full-frontal assault on DiLorenzo’s lines and point by historical point dissects his Lincolnphobic falsehoods. Readable, factual, and provocative, Brandt conceived Shattering the Truth as a one-stop antidote to those whose path to destroying America begins with slandering Abraham Lincoln.


LO friggin L.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> this, Lincoln has been getting a bad rap by libertarians who fail to put things into their proper context. the real enemy of liberty is FDR: devaluing our money and locking up American citizens into concentration camps. a foreign policy of mass murder (Haiti) if J Edgar Hoover had an equivalent in the oval office it would be FDR


FDR just set the American Fascism he inherited from Lincoln into stone with nice definition.  (note the Roman Fasces behind Lincoln in his memorial sometime.  They're there for a reason)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

BTW, I have donated to LRC in the past.  A worthwhile investment.

----------


## green73

When I'm not donating to LRC, I make sure to make all my Amazon purchases through their site. I believe about 8% goes to them (at no cost to me!)

----------


## itshappening

Lincoln also destroyed the Jeffersonian concept of a voluntary union where states were allowed to separate if they wish. This is what the seccesionists believed in and that's why they did what they did.  They believed they had, correctly, an inherent right to self-determination i.e a right not to be part of the American Union. 

Funnily enough this has been affirmed by the US government as it sits as a permanent member of the U.N Security council who believe in the right of self-determination.  The US gov't fought a war defending secession when Kosovo threatened to secede from Yugoslavia and Milosevic invaded them.  NATO bombed them for months, does anyone remember it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

somewhat related-

----------


## itshappening

Now that Trav the troll has found this thread I expect it to end up 10+ pages.  How long before he starts pasting constitutions of the era? 

He hates Thomas Dilorenzo, one of Lewrockwell.com's most prolific contributors, best selling author and a professor of economics. 

Please keep this on topic.  This thread is to support Lewrockwell.com. A vital source on the internet that deeply troubles the powers that be.  They have countless well funded publications.  We don't.  Lewrockwell.com survives on the good will of its readership and is having a huge impact.  Many of the contributors and editors donate their time for free to make it what it is.  Ron Paul reads it every day and that's good enough for me :-)

----------


## Romulus

Lew is good people. He an anarchist, which seems to rub some people the wrong way. You know, all those pitchforks and fiery torches that they carry around.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now that Trav the troll has found this thread I expect it to end up 10+ pages.  How long before he starts pasting constitutions of the era? 
> 
> *He hates Thomas Dilorenzo*, one of Lewrockwell.com's most prolific contributors, best selling author and a professor of economics. 
> 
> Please keep this on topic.  This thread is to support Lewrockwell.com. A vital source on the internet that deeply troubles the powers that be.  They have countless well funded publications.  We don't.  Lewrockwell.com survives on the good will of its readership and is having a huge impact.  Many of the contributors and editors donate their time for free to make it what it is.  Ron Paul reads it every day and that's good enough for me :-)


This is how anarchists work and it is unethical. itshappening claims that I hate DiLorenzo. I don't even know DiLorenzo. I read his book, "The Real Lincoln", and I have been studying Lincoln for several decades, so I know DiLorenzo is lying about Lincoln just like itshappening is lying about me. I don't hate Thomas DiLorenzo. I hate the lie about others.

----------


## Travlyr

> Listen Trav, what makes Dilorenzo's body of work so powerful is that it is solidly rooted in documented facts. That from day one he was an unabashed Whig supporting a central bank, corporate welfare, and high protective tariffs alone proves he was a strong opponent of the liberals. That you say he was more in line with CL than Rothbard is just another in an endless series of laughable and ill-conceived statements that you make. The man was a white supremacist, who time and time again defended slave owners in their attempts to re-acquire run away slaves. He never once defended a slave. But why would he? It's well documented that he thought they were an inferior race, and he was even working to have them all deported to his dying day. He was a crony capitalist who worked on the behalf of the crony railroads. He bought up land in Council Bluffs IA only to later make that the starting point of the transcontinental railroad. And I hope don't have to again list the treason and tyranny he committed as president. 
> 
> Lincoln was for a strong central government, the antithesis of classical liberal philosophy. That you don't get this either proves how willfully ignorant you are or something worse. I hope you are just kicking and screaming because it's too much of an emotional shock to you given what you've said of your family's connection to him. Hell, it was a shock to me in the beginning, but facts don't lie. Hooey to your empty statement that he takes things out of context. He very methodically does the opposite. 
> 
> As for that book, here's the description: 
> 
> 
> LO friggin L.


Lazy in history. DiLorenzo's work is not powerful. It is a shame to the Liberty movement. As time goes on they will purge him for his lack of ethics. His "Real" Lincoln is not anything like Abraham Lincoln. Only people who have not studied Lincoln believes the tales DiLorenzo tells.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

I never read his book, but what did he get wrong about Lincoln?  I'm curious.

----------


## Travlyr

> I never read his book, but what did he get wrong about Lincoln?  I'm curious.


DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln couldn't care less about slavery, yet Lincoln abhorred slavery.
DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln did not favor auditing the Illinois State Bank, but Lincoln wrote an amendment to audit the bank in 1835.
DiLorenzo claimed that Lincoln was responsible for "the centralized state that we labor under today." When in fact we labor under the international banker's "Federal Reserve System of 1913" of counterfeit money and debasement of currency
DiLorenzo claimed Lincoln is responsible for the evils of "Reconstruction" when in fact Lincoln vetoed the "Wade-Davis Bill" and was hated by the Republicans for it.
DiLorenzo claims that Lincoln is responsible for 800,000 dead Americans when the entire country was ready for war. 
DiLorenzo claims that the South seceded for voluntary associaltions when in fact the South's own secession statements specifically state that they seceded in order to "preserve the blessings of African slavery." And the Confederate Constitution does not allow for secession. 

The whole book is a distortion of the truth and makes the people in the liberty movement sound illiterate and lacking in knowledge of history.

----------


## green73

Weak sauce.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Weak sauce.


This^^

----------


## WilliamShrugged

I personally like his book "Lincoln unmasked" more than "the Real Lincoln"

----------


## Travlyr

> Weak sauce.


??

It is not weak sauce. For some reason, DiLorenzo wants you to focus on hating the state and hating Lincoln when you should be writing a thread a day to end the counterfeiting techniques of the Federal Reserve System to debase currency ... if you really want to enjoy liberty. 

The Federal Reserve System is how the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and social security and welfare, corporate welfare, the war economy is funded, and on and on.

----------


## Travlyr

> This^^


What do you know? Just a couple of day's ago you admitted you had not read the book. You don't know what you are talking about if you haven't read the book or Lincoln's speeches, letters, or legislation. Like I said earlier. The sheep in the liberty movement are looking like illiterate dummies. That is why people don't take them seriously. Lew Rockwell and Jeffery Tucker promoting DiLorenzo will only continue to discredit the liberty movement.

I wonder why LewRockwell.com is asking for donations to promote the deception of truth.

----------


## itshappening

And Lincoln supported a national bank! 

He would have loved the Fed.  It would enable his big government agenda.  He would have also loved the income tax.

----------


## Travlyr

> And Lincoln supported a national bank! 
> 
> He would have loved the Fed.  It would enable his big government agenda.  He would have also loved the income tax.


Lincoln supported, at age 26, an audited State Bank of Illinois. He also supported internal improvements greater than what was literally possible... as did *almost everyone* in the legislatures of the young States at the time. Read history and you'll learn just how popular internal improvements were in the United States in the 1830s. The lesson he learned from that, the lesson that all the legislators of the time learned from that, was that over expansion, too much spending, too big of ideas, was counterproductive. As a consequence of their (virtually everyone's) hope for progress at the time, (when Jackson ended the banks) the States began a program of outlawing internal improvements except for road building, river and harbor improvements, and railroad building. Lincoln loved the Constitution and would have obeyed it faithfully if not for the South firing on Fort Sumter. Of course you wouldn't know any of that because you read DiLorenzo's lies and ignore Lincoln's documented history. Your claims are unfounded. Lincoln was a strong States Rights defender.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And Lincoln supported a national bank! 
> 
> He would have loved the Fed.  It would enable his big government agenda.  He would have also loved the income tax.


Not surprisingly, Aaron Copland supported the war (WWII) effort by writing "Lincoln Portrait"-a classic propaganda piece.  Who better to inspire a piece for a war of aggression like WWII than the first great aggressive war-mongering POTUS.

----------


## Ender

> Lincoln supported, at age 26, an audited State Bank of Illinois. He also supported internal improvements greater than what was literally possible... as did *almost everyone* in the legislatures of the young States at the time. Read history and you'll learn just how popular internal improvements were in the United States in the 1830s. The lesson he learned from that, the lesson that all the legislators of the time learned from that, was that over expansion, too much spending, too big of ideas, was counterproductive. As a consequence of their (virtually everyone's) hope for progress at the time, (when Jackson ended the banks) the States began a program of outlawing internal improvements except for road building, river and harbor improvements, and railroad building. Lincoln loved the Constitution and would have obeyed it faithfully if not for the South firing on Fort Sumter. Of course you wouldn't know any of that because you read DiLorenzo's lies and ignore Lincoln's documented history. Your claims are unfounded. Lincoln was a strong States Rights defender.


Fort Sumter was a setup by Lincoln to justify war. Lincoln did NOT love the Constitution and is the president most responsible for the destruction of said document and the loss of freedom of the states. 

It is obvious that ya'll have an agenda against real history and love to flaunt some of Lincoln's words when it is well known that the man used his words to further his agenda, just like all politicians. How did one know Lincoln was lying? His lips were moving.

Why don't you start your own anti-freedom Lincoln blog and stop with the trillion Lincoln threads on this forum?

----------


## itshappening

Lincoln loved the constitution! 

I can't stop laughing! 

He loved it except for the first amendment, the second, the fourth and so on... 

He probably violated it more than any president in history and destroyed the principle that the American Union was explicitly voluntary and the states were (are) sovereign entities.

----------


## talkingpointes

Travlyr - Do you realize it's Lew that made the Mises Institute and has made it now what it is. (With Ron's help of course)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lincoln loved the constitution! 
> 
> I can't stop laughing! 
> 
> He loved it except for the first amendment, the second, the fourth and so on... 
> 
> He probably violated it more than any president in history and destroyed the principle that the American Union was explicitly voluntary and the states were (are) sovereign entities.


+rep  He loved it so much he killed it  :P

----------


## Travlyr

> Fort Sumter was a setup by Lincoln to justify war. Lincoln did NOT love the Constitution and is the president most responsible for the destruction of said document and the loss of freedom of the states. 
> 
> It is obvious that ya'll have an agenda against real history and love to flaunt some of Lincoln's words when it is well known that the man used his words to further his agenda, just like all politicians. How did one know Lincoln was lying? His lips were moving.
> 
> Why don't you start your own anti-freedom Lincoln blog and stop with the trillion Lincoln threads on this forum?


The facts of history do not support your nonsense.

----------


## Ender

> The facts of history do not support your nonsense.


The facts of history certainly do.

Real history is a bit different than your high school history education. Sorry about that.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr - Do you realize it's Lew that made the Mises Institute and has made it now what it is. (With Ron's help of course)


By going against the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises? 



> The organization of human society according to the pattern most suitable for the attainment of the ends in view is a quite prosaic and matter-of-fact question, not unlike, say, the construction of a railroad or the production of cloth or furniture. *National and governmental affairs are, it is true, more important than all other practical questions of ' human conduct, since the social order furnishes the foundation for everything else, and it is possible for each individual to prosper in the pursuit of his ends only in a society propitious for their attainment.* But however lofty may be the sphere in which political and social questions are placed, they still refer to matters that are subject to human control and must consequently be judged according to the canons of human reason. In such matters, no less than in all our other mundane affairs, mysticism is only an evil. Our powers of comprehension are very limited. We cannot hope ever to discover the ultimate and most profound secrets of the universe. But the fact that we can never fathom the meaning and purpose of our existence does not hinder us from taking precautions to avoid contagious diseases or from making use of the appropriate means to feed and clothe ourselves, nor should it deter us from organizing society in such a way that the earthly goals for which we strive can be most effectually attained. Even the state and the legal system, the government and its administration are not too lofty, too good, too grand, for us to bring them within the range of rational deliberation. Problems of social policy are problems of social technology, and their solution must be sought in the same ways and by the same means that are at our disposal in the solution of other technical problems: by rational reflection and by examination of the given conditions. All that man is and all that raises him above the animals he owes to his reason. Why should he forgo the use of reason just in the sphere of social policy and trust to vague and obscure feelings and impulses?


I think not.

----------


## Travlyr

> The facts of history certainly do.
> 
> Real history is a bit different than your high school history education. Sorry about that.


Read the Confederate Constitution. Where is secession allowed?

----------


## Travlyr

> The facts of history certainly do.
> 
> Real history is a bit different than your high school history education. Sorry about that.


Read the words of Lincoln. Does this sound like a warmonger to you?



> In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
> 
>   I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln loved the constitution! 
> 
> I can't stop laughing! 
> 
> He loved it except for the first amendment, the second, the fourth and so on... 
> 
> He probably violated it more than any president in history and destroyed the principle that the American Union was explicitly voluntary and the states were (are) sovereign entities.


^^^ Does not like history homework.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Lincoln supported, at age 26, an audited State Bank of Illinois. He also supported internal improvements greater than what was literally possible... as did *almost everyone* in the legislatures of the young States at the time. Read history and you'll learn just how popular internal improvements were in the United States in the 1830s. The lesson he learned from that, the lesson that all the legislators of the time learned from that, was that over expansion, too much spending, too big of ideas, was counterproductive. As a consequence of their (virtually everyone's) hope for progress at the time, (when Jackson ended the banks) the States began a program of outlawing internal improvements except for road building, river and harbor improvements, and railroad building. Lincoln loved the Constitution and would have obeyed it faithfully if not for the South firing on Fort Sumter. Of course you wouldn't know any of that because you read DiLorenzo's lies and ignore Lincoln's documented history. Your claims are unfounded. Lincoln was a strong States Rights defender.


The number of people that are finally going to ignore you might actually picque with this number. Also before you call DiLorenzo a liar maybe you can post your book about Lincoln, or proof that he is fabricating stories in his book. You quite often piece together things that have no correlation and logic, but this just seems like you might be butthurt people question your idol and in the process you have lost it trying to take down people far bigger and more important than yourself to try to give yourself the same stature - I don't buy it./

----------


## Travlyr

> The number of people that are finally going to ignore you might actually picque with this number. Also before you call DiLorenzo a liar maybe you can post your book about Lincoln, or proof that his is fabricating stories in his book. You quite often piece together things that have no correlation and logic, but this just seems like you might be butthurt people question your idol and in the process you have lost it trying to take down people far bigger and more important than yourself to try to give yourself the same stature - I don't buy it./


Don't be stupid. Lincoln is not my idol. Lincoln was a man that does not deserve to be trashed by lies of liars. History proves that Lincoln was nothing like DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln." Only people who don't like history homework buy into his lies.

----------


## Travlyr

> Fort Sumter was a setup by Lincoln to justify war. Lincoln did NOT love the Constitution and is the president most responsible for the destruction of said document and the loss of freedom of the states. 
> 
> It is obvious that ya'll have an agenda against real history and love to flaunt some of Lincoln's words when it is well known that the man used his words to further his agenda, just like all politicians. How did one know Lincoln was lying? His lips were moving.
> 
> Why don't you start your own anti-freedom Lincoln blog and stop with the trillion Lincoln threads on this forum?


I ask you, and I have asked this of several people here to tell us "What would you have done if you were in Lincoln's shoes on March 4, 1861?" No one seems to be able to answer that question.

Also, smarty pants, what aggressive act did Abraham Lincoln commit against ANY human being prior to April 12, 1861? If you don't come up with one, then I'll know you have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr - Do you realize it's Lew that made the Mises Institute and has made it now what it is. (With Ron's help of course)


You negative rep me because I did not post "proof" that Abraham Lincoln wrote audit the bank legislation? How childish. Do you have Google where you live?

Here you go lazy in history homework dude.

It is public record. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/...;view=fulltext




> Amendment to an Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the State of Illinois [1]
> 
> [December 22, 1835]
> SEC 5 The said corporation shall, at the next session of this General Assembly, and at each subsequent general session, during the existence of it's charter, report to the same, the amount of debts due from said corporation, the amount of debts due to the same, the amount of specie in it's vaults, and and [sic] an account of all lands then owned by the same, and the amount for which such lands have been taken: and moreover, if said corporation shall, at any time neglect or refuse, to submit it's books, papers, and all and every thing necessary to a full and fair examination of it's affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the General Assembly for the purpose of making such examination, the said corporation shall forfeit it's charter. - A. Lincoln

----------


## mac_hine

Travlyr, Either you're intellectually blind, a liar, or just a troll. Either way, Lincoln, beyond any doubt, was a tyrant and a racist. 

*That is a fact.*




> I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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; 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 everything.~The Great Emancipator


Your dislike of Dilorenzo/Rockwell is irrational.







> We don't beg for scraps at the imperial table.
> 
> We don't seek a seat at that table.
> 
> We want to knock the table over. ~Lew Rockwell

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Read DiLorenzo!


 -Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, Either you're intellectually blind, a liar, or just a troll. Either way, Lincoln, beyond any doubt, was a tyrant and a racist. 
> 
> *That is a fact.*
> 
> Your dislike of Dilorenzo/Rockwell is irrational.


Baloney. I invite you to go to Charleston, Illinois, a college town, and look at the 1960 yearbooks. I will bet you one silver dollar that you will not find more than 5 black folks in the 1960 High School yearbook. You may not find any. That is 100 *years* after Lincoln debated Douglas at the County Fair.  

I do not have a dislike for DiLorenzo. I have a hate for his lies about Lincoln just like I have a hate for the 2012 media lies about Ron Paul.

----------


## mac_hine

Travlyr, Do you have a problem with Jeffrey Tucker or Joseph Fallon as well?




Laissez Faire Books' Jeffrey Tucker meets with Joseph Fallon, author of Lincoln Uncensored -- selections from 10 volumes of Lincoln's own speeches and letters -- which is distributed by the Laissez Faire Club (LFB.org/club). The book is free with Club membership. His book is also available through Amazon.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, Do you have a problem with Jeffrey Tucker or Joseph Fallon as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laissez Faire Books' Jeffrey Tucker meets with Joseph Fallon, author of Lincoln Uncensored -- selections from 10 volumes of Lincoln's own speeches and letters -- which is distributed by the Laissez Faire Club (LFB.org/club). The book is free with Club membership. His book is also available through Amazon.


Indeed I do. I will not be buying Fallon's book. I have no use to further that agenda. It is bad history.

----------


## mac_hine



----------


## Travlyr

> 


This is what the world sees when they see the sheep of the liberty movement. Illiterate lazy in history yes boys.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Baloney. I invite you to go to Charleston, Illinois, a college town, and look at the 1960 yearbooks. I will bet you one silver dollar that you will not find more than 5 black folks in the 1960 High School yearbook. You may not find any. That is 100 *years* after Lincoln debated Douglas at the County Fair.  
> 
> I do not have a dislike for DiLorenzo. I have a hate for his lies about Lincoln just like I have a hate for the 2012 media lies about Ron Paul.


Huh.  A guy who lies about his opponents (especially anarchists) also hates liars.  Irony of ironies!

----------


## NoOneButPaul

Another example of someone coming on too strong and not always backing his claims up with facts...

I like Lew, but he can be quite destructive and foolish- that's in part why NeoCons don't like him. 

Not sure why that even matters though or why we should care about what that 24% that can't win anything thinks...

----------


## Travlyr

> Huh.  A guy who lies about his opponents (especially anarchists) also hates liars.  Irony of ironies!


This is the intelligence level of the sheep in the liberty movement. Nonsensical nonsense. Unintelligible banter. More like cheerleader stuff.

----------


## talkingpointes

> You negative rep me because I did not post "proof" that Abraham Lincoln wrote audit the bank legislation? How childish. Do you have Google where you live?
> 
> Here you go lazy in history homework dude.
> 
> It is public record. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/...;view=fulltext


I said proof DiLorenzo is a liar. I could of google'd that. No need to call anyone stupid.

----------


## talkingpointes

> This is the intelligence level of the sheep in the liberty movement. Nonsensical nonsense. Unintelligible banter. More like cheerleader stuff.


I hope the ease and comfort in which you find errors in others arguments, you can find in your own. You are the one calling others names and in general being rude.

----------


## Travlyr

> I said proof DiLorenzo is a liar. I could of google'd that. No need to call anyone stupid.


Proof: Abraham Lincoln wrote audit the bank legislation. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/...;view=fulltext

Is that what you are looking for or do you need more proof of DiLorenzo's lies?

----------


## talkingpointes

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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; 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 everything.”

Yeah, trav you know -- your right. That sounds like the kind of guy I want running the show. And to drink a beer with.

----------


## Travlyr

> I hope the ease and comfort in which you find errors in others arguments, you can find in your own. You are the one calling others names and in general being rude.


RUDE? DiLorenzo wrote an entire book lying about Abraham Lincoln. I have a right to be rude if he has a right to promote stupidity.

----------


## talkingpointes

> RUDE? DiLorenzo wrote an entire book lying about Abraham Lincoln. I have a right to be rude if he has a right to promote stupidity.


Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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; 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 everything.”

Because in order to call someone a LIAR you have to prove it, unless you'll admit to just slinging mud. Or that is just being libelous.

----------


## Travlyr

> Abraham Lincoln Quote
> 
> “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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; 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 everything.”
> 
> Yeah, trav you know -- your right. That sounds like the kind of guy I want running the show. And to drink a beer with.


Again, the intelligence level of the sheep in the liberty movement is appalling. Do you think the Irish liked the English in 1860? French liked the Spanish? Indians liked the Europeans? Whites liked the blacks? The Germans liked the Russians? Being lazy in history does not cut the mustard in the 21st century.

----------


## TheTexan

> 


That's quite the harsh rebuke... hadn't seen that before +rep

----------


## Travlyr

> That's quite the harsh rebuke... hadn't seen that before +rep


Lazy in history.

----------


## TheTexan

> Lazy in history.


You're calling Andrew Napolitano lazy in history, without even backing it up?  Hmm.  Ok.

It is interesting how you seem to have so little regard for your credibility!

----------


## Travlyr

> You're calling Andrew Napolitano lazy in history, without even backing it up?  Hmm.  Ok.
> 
> It is interesting how you seem to have so little regard for your credibility!


Question! Have you read Lincoln's words?

----------


## TheTexan

> Question! Have you read Lincoln's words?


No, I haven't read anything Travlyr.  Neither has Ron Paul, nor Napolitano, nor 90% of the people in this thread.  And especially not DiLorenzo

We just haven't read Lincoln's words.  Our mistake.  Please, continue.  Your trolling is humorous

----------


## Travlyr

> No, I haven't read anything Travlyr.  Neither has Ron Paul, nor Napolitano, nor 90% of the people in this thread.  And especially not DiLorenzo
> 
> We just haven't read Lincoln's words.  Our mistake.  Please, continue.  Your trolling is humorous


If you have not read his words, then why are you promoting the lies?

----------


## TheTexan

> If you have not read his words, then why are you promoting the lies?


Bored I guess.  Thank you for pointing out my mistake.  I'm eternally grateful

----------


## Slutter McGee

I really don't have too much of opinion on this subject but I do find the absolute hatred for Lincoln completely silly. I am going to take a look into what Trav is saying, if only because he is the only person not coming off as a self-righteous know it all jackass. Dude is trying to debate honestly, and the rest of you $#@!s are throwing out logical fallacies. The judge said it...do you disagree...as if that is a horrible thing. Who the $#@! says there can't be disagreement among people who support liberty?

I disagree with 99% of the people here. I support the death penalty (at the state level.) I am pro-choice. I vote Republican even if I don't always like them. I am a Federalist with a paleo-conservative bend (minus hard headed protectionism.) I think 911 was not an inside job and I think I am smarter than all of you. 

Yet, you insist on calling this guy a troll because he disagrees. Why don't you just $#@!ing debate. The election is over, have some fun with some $#@!ing good arguments instead of throwing out nothing but logical fallacies. 

That being said, let us look at this from a common sense perspective instead of a historical one. Insulting Lincoln is $#@!ing stupid (out side of a polite debate) and lends no credibility to us (right or wrong). Lincoln's actions freed millions of human beings being held in bondage which is wonderful. Lincoln's actions also set the stage for Federal overreach in power, partially contributing the situation today. 

Yet you $#@!s (on both sides) see everything in black and white. Honestly, Don't take that as a pun. If it was, it would be much more clever.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## TheTexan

> Dude is trying to debate honestly


Slutter McGee has jokes!  

No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break.  If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.  

I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Slutter McGee has jokes!  
> 
> No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break.  If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.  
> 
> I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"


Oh yeah, I am brand spanking $#@!ing new. By dishonest, you mean he replies to challenges of his ideas (right or wrong) while the rest of you spew vile and try to demean him? I don't have a $#@!ing clue who he is. I don't $#@!ing care. I can tell you that if any honest person who knew little about libertarianism read this thread, he would think you are all goddamn nuts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## Travlyr

> I really don't have too much of opinion on this subject but I do find the absolute hatred for Lincoln completely silly. I am going to take a look into what Trav is saying, if only because he is the only person not coming off as a self-righteous know it all jackass. Dude is trying to debate honestly, and the rest of you $#@!s are throwing out logical fallacies. The judge said it...do you disagree...as if that is a horrible thing. Who the $#@! says there can't be disagreement among people who support liberty?
> 
> I disagree with 99% of the people here. I support the death penalty (at the state level.) I am pro-choice. I vote Republican even if I don't always like them. I am a Federalist with a paleo-conservative bend (minus hard headed protectionism.) I think 911 was not an inside job and I think I am smarter than all of you. 
> 
> Yet, you insist on calling this guy a troll because he disagrees. Why don't you just $#@!ing debate. The election is over, have some fun with some $#@!ing good arguments instead of throwing out nothing but logical fallacies. 
> 
> That being said, let us look at this from a common sense perspective instead of a historical one. Insulting Lincoln is $#@!ing stupid (out side of a polite debate) and lends no credibility to us (right or wrong). Lincoln's actions freed millions of human beings being held in bondage which is wonderful. Lincoln's actions also set the stage for Federal overreach in power, partially contributing the situation today. 
> 
> Yet you $#@!s (on both sides) see everything in black and white. Honestly, Don't take that as a pun. If it was, it would be much more clever.
> ...


+ rep

Thanks Slutter McGee!

----------


## Ender

-- Reflections --

Lincoln Provoked the War

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter,"pp. 259-88.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Slutter McGee has jokes!  
> *
> No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break.  If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time*.  
> 
> I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"


This^^

----------


## Travlyr

> Slutter McGee has jokes!  
> 
> No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break.  If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.  
> 
> I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"



Yeah. Go to your corner or take your ball and go home because you get you information, not from the source documents, but from TV. Gotta love the TV for truth.

----------


## Travlyr

> This^^


Do you ever read anything? Anything at all? Your cheerleading is unbecoming of a man.

----------


## Ender

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.” 

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,
> 
> “Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.” 
> 
> “Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”
> 
> “If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”


+rep

----------


## Ender

Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.” 

 Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

By the standard definition, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances?  These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln. 

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln. 

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion that we live with today.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.” 
> 
>  Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,
> 
> “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
> 
> By the standard definition, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,
> 
> “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
> ...


But the question is: Can you answer my earlier questions?

----------


## Travlyr

> +rep


Rah Rah Rah... Shish Boom Bah!

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,
> 
> “Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.” 
> 
> “Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”
> 
> “If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”


He also gave freedom to millions of black slaves. This is not bad. The end results, and the precedent it set maybe. The civil war is an ethical quandary. Lincoln was on the morally and philosophically correct side, and the Confederacy was on the legally and also philosophically correct side. It is unfortunate that this moral action (which won) also determined legal precedent.

Slutter McGee

----------


## Travlyr

> That's quite the harsh rebuke... hadn't seen that before +rep


"hey man, I asked for info on what you didn't like about what napolitano said, all you had to say was "can you read?" ... give me something of substance and I'll address your points"

You want substance? Why is Lincoln responsible for these deaths? POW camp Sumter, Andersonville?

----------


## Travlyr

> +rep


Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah. What size skirt do you wear HB? I'll get you a new one for Christmas.

----------


## Travlyr

> Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah. What size skirt do you wear HB? I'll get you a new one for Christmas.


Do you like plaid or plain? If you would like provide the forum with substance of argument in the discussion, then please do respond with an intelligent response. If you would like to be a cheerleader + repping all my opponents, then let us know what size skirt you like to wear. I will get you a new one. Plain or Plaid? What size?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *He also gave freedom to millions of black slaves*. This is not bad. The end results, and the precedent it set maybe. The civil war is an ethical quandary. Lincoln was on the morally and philosophically correct side, and the Confederacy was on the legally and also philosophically correct side. It is unfortunate that this moral action (which won) also determined legal precedent.
> 
> Slutter McGee


Sort of.  He expanded the plantation so that everyone could be equally enslaved (what's now called "free-range slavery")-only to the regime instead of private slavers.  Not a great tradeoff, IMO.  I would prefer RP's solution of buying the slaves and emancipating them (although Lincoln's own voiced opinion on the subject tell me ending the practice was at best a secondary goal)

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## acptulsa

> Sort of.  He expanded the plantation so that everyone could be equally enslaved-only to the regime instead of private slavers.  Not a great tradeoff, IMO.


And what of the period of nearly half a century between 1865 and 1913?  Yes, Lincoln 'set precedents', but no, Lincoln did not set precedents.  What Lincoln did he did during wartime.  It took Constitutional amendments to enable Wilson to get away with it during peace time.

Lincoln was in an unenviable situation.  He was sworn in as president of a nation with 33 states, and he wanted to leave office with 33 states (at least) in the Union.  It's understandable.  Was that goal worth the lives lost?  Many believe so.  Many don't.

Slavery was reprehensible.  In the Age of Enlightenment, it had to go.  The issue was coming to a head.  Lincoln wouldn't have won the election if it weren't.

Why do neocons hate that site?  It makes people think?  It exposes neocons as something other than conservative?  It has no respect for conventionality, which is something conservatives are known to value?  It displays all the sensitivity and tact of a badger?  I don't know.  But I do know this:  If I had a time machine and the ability to torpedo a historical political career in it's infancy, my target would be Wilson, not Lincoln.

----------


## QuickZ06

Well this thread is interesting.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *And what of the period of nearly half a century between 1865 and 1913?  Yes, Lincoln 'set precedents', but no, Lincoln did not set precedents.  What Lincoln did he did during wartime.  It took Constitutional amendments to enable Wilson to get away with it during peace time.*
> 
> Lincoln was in an unenviable situation.  He was sworn in as president of a nation with 33 states, and he wanted to leave office with 33 states (at least) in the Union.  It's understandable.  Was that goal worth the lives lost?  Many believe so.  Many don't.
> 
> Slavery was reprehensible.  In the Age of Enlightenment, it had to go.  The issue was coming to a head.  Lincoln wouldn't have won the election if it weren't.
> 
> Why do neocons hate that site?  It makes people think?  It exposes neocons as something other than conservative?  It has no respect for conventionality, which is something conservatives are known to value?  It displays all the sensitivity and tact of a badger?  I don't know.  But I do know this:  If I had a time machine and the ability to torpedo a historical political career in it's infancy, my target would be Wilson, not Lincoln.


With regard to what?  Are you asking me if noone else contributed to the problem?  If so, of course.  Every president thus far has been awful.  Lincoln especially so though, because whenever something like states' rights comes up, the typical answer (even from learned folks who should know better) is "that was settled by the civil war".  The reason Lincoln's face is on Mt Rushmore is because his presidency was pivitol in the course of history.  Wilson is somewhat more relevant to our current situation and his role obviously can't be ignored.  Were it not for the house and senate banking committees, Wilson couldn't have created the bank.  Lincoln acted much more unilaterally/dictator-like, so he wins worst of the two IMO.  Remember also that banking interests like Rockefeller and Aldrich were making things happen behind the scenes in congress in ~1913.

ETA: the Age Of Enlightenment had ended ~50 years before Lincoln's regime (depending on which historian you ask), so I don't understand the connection you're trying to make there.  Explain, plz?

----------


## Ender

"The importance of the Civil War for America's elite structure was the commanding position that the new industrial capitalists won during the course of the struggle. . . . The economic transformation of the United States from an agricultural to an industrial nation reached the crescendo of a revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century."

"Civil War profits compounded the capital of the industrialists and placed them in a position to dominate the economic life of the nation. Moreover, when the Southern planters were removed from the national scene, the government in Washington became the exclusive domain of the new industrial leaders." 

"[T]he industrial elites saw no objection to legislation if it furthered their success in business. Unrestricted competition might prove who was the fittest, but as an added precaution to insure that the industrial capitalists themselves emerged as the fittest, these new elites also insisted upon government subsidies, patents, tariffs, loans, and massive giveaways of land and other natural resources."

"The Irony of Democracy" by Thomas R. Dye & T. Harmon Zeigler

----------


## Ender

From the book, Origins of the American Civil War, by Brian Holden Reid, chapter 8, pg. 314:

"...In January 1860 northern public opinion, in so far as it can be measured, seemed to smile on the Crittenden Compromise.  In New York City alone 63,000 people signed a petition supporting the passage of the Compromise.  A further petition included another 14,000 female signatures.  St. Louis addressed to the president a list of names 100 pages long shrouded in an American flag.  Business in the north eastern states quivered at the thought of losing $150 million in southern debts let alone double that sum lost in lucrative business with the South.  Wall Street feared the onset of 'creeping economic paralysis'. "

----------


## Ender

Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

----------


## Ender

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled. "*The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:
> 
> "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."


+rep for bringing that out of the memory hole.

----------


## Ender

And, speaking of Lew Rockwell, here is Lew & the Judge:

NAPOLITANO: You know, Lincoln did a lot of horrible things during the Civil War and, as a result of much of what he did, it is now estimated that about 750,000 Americans lost their lives. But one of the things that he did was to incarcerate people without trial. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

And in a famous decision after Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court, half of which he had appointed, said the Constitution applies in good times and in bad, for rulers and for ruled, for those in office and those who are not in office, for Americans and for non-Americans. There is no exception to its protections for bad times.

How easily those who love and praise Lincoln seem to forget this rebuke by his own Supreme Court. It's a famous case  anybody can read it  called In Re Milligan, which stands for the proposition that there is no exception to the Constitution. It protects all persons who come in contract with the government, whether they're Americans in Yemen or Americans in Yosemite. But the government doesn't like to follow these rules that are obstacles to its totalitarian ways.

ROCKWELL: Under Lincoln, there were actually people arrested and jailed without trial for the crime of being present when Lincoln's policies were criticized and not defending them.

NAPOLITANO: Right. Right. He, of course, jailed newspaper publishers who disagreed with him. But this jailing people who failed to defend him, of course, was absurd. I mean, he was a tyrant and a dictator.

But not to dwell too much on history, he was severely and soundly and roundly rebuked by this In Re Milligan decision, which, of course, resulted in freeing thousands of people who were still in jail in 1866, a year after Lincoln had died and a year after the peace had come to pass between the North and the South. These people were still in jail. This is the Andrew Johnson administration now before the Supreme Court that Lincoln had appointed.

So, look, it demonstrates the point that, on paper, judges have steadfastly ruled that the Constitution applies to every human being who comes in contact with the government under every circumstance.

----------


## itshappening

I told you it would get to 10 + pages with Trav finding the thread.. I'm surprised he hasn't started pasting the constitutions yet to "prove" his point.

Please donate to Lewrockwell.com and keep annoying people like Trav!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I told you it would get to 10 + pages with Trav finding the thread.. I'm surprised he hasn't started pasting the constitutions yet to "prove" his point.
> *
> Please donate to Lewrockwell.com and keep annoying people like Trav!*


Will do!  Freedom FTW!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Truth will prevail, if only in the minds of the honest and fearless.  Thank you, guys, for defending the truth: Lincoln was a mass-murdering monster.  Lew Rockwell is a hero and a stalwart.  Yipping dogs will yip, but the great caravan of liberty moves forward.  Critics(such as SPLC, the neo-cons, and those in this thread), so easily shown to be ignorant, will not hinder it in the least.  

Carry on, men.  And long live Lew Rockwell.

----------


## Travlyr

> Truth will prevail, if only in the minds of the honest and fearless.  Thank you, guys, for defending the truth: Lincoln was a mass-murdering monster.  Lew Rockwell is a hero and a stalwart.  Yipping dogs will yip, but the great caravan of liberty moves forward.  Critics(such as SPLC, the neo-cons, and those in this thread), so easily shown to be ignorant, will not hinder it in the least.  
> 
> Carry on, men.  And long live Lew Rockwell.


The truth will prevail. Lincoln was not only not a mass murdering monster he was not even an aggressor. He was a defender of truth, law, and justice. Lincoln had sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That he did and God knows it. 




> "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."


Not one of you dumbed down libertarians can answer the question: "What would you have done on March 4, 1861 if elected president of the United States of America?" And not one of you can demonstrate any aggressive act Lincoln committed to any human being prior to April 12, 1861. I used to believe that most of the people on this forum were hard working truth seekers, but your attitudes toward Lincoln demonstrates that you neither love liberty for everyone, nor do you do your own history homework. I suspect it is because you don't have the literacy level to read Mises or Lincoln's own words yourself therefore you must rely on Rothbard and DiLorenzo to interpret for you.

Someday you will know that the pre-Civil War Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful man of honor because the Internet is the truth machine. The truth will prevail.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

To those who disagree with Travlyr, can you please explain why?  I've been trying to follow this, and I only really see one side being articulated, and that's Travlyr's.  I don't doubt that there are arguments on the other side but for the unaware such as myself, I'd just like to see them.

----------


## Travlyr

> -- Reflections --
> 
> Lincoln Provoked the War
> 
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
> 
> Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
> 
> Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.
> ...


Thanks for posting this. This has to be one of the most twisted views of self-defense I have ever read in my life. To summarize: "We had to fire upon a virtually defenseless fort of 86 Union men who were running out of supplies for 34 hours because it is our fort now and if we don't take it now then the Union will likely resupply it later. 




> Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."


Yet, just 4 months earlier, they fired upon an unarmed merchant ship (Star of the West) delivering food and supplies to the same fort under President Buchanan. So that should have been Buchanan's fault but it's not. It is Lincoln's fault. It is amazing the degree of denial people will go to justify their actions. Yeah, we fired cannons at an unarmed merchant ship in self-defense. Yeah, we bombed the hell out of Major Anderson and his troops for 34 hours in self-defense. Yeah, we killed Elmer Ellsworth when he took the Confederate flag down but in self-defense. He had no right to take that flag down. Pathetic justification. It is all Lincoln's fault.

Fine man that Alexander Stephens guy was. The great truth-telling defender of liberty for the white guy.



> Excerpt from Cornerstone Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens 
> March 21, 1861
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> To those who disagree with Travlyr, can you please explain why?  I've been trying to follow this, and I only really see one side being articulated, and that's Travlyr's.  I don't doubt that there are arguments on the other side but for the unaware such as myself, I'd just like to see them.


 No one disagrees with Travlyr,  atleast I know I don't.   Travlyr has no reasonable and coherent position worth disagreeing with. He seems to somehow be pro- Lincoln, in a cartoonish and over-the-top way which is so far from any reality or recent scholarship on the matter it is not even worth addressing.   His view is not interfacing with reality.   He is on his own plane of existence.   We cannot interface with him.   And there is no reason to try. 

If you want to know about Lincoln,  just do some research.

----------


## green73

I wonder if he's a paid troll or just insane.

----------


## Ender

> The truth will prevail. Lincoln was not only not a mass murdering monster he was not even an aggressor. He was a defender of truth, law, and justice. Lincoln had sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That he did and God knows it. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one of you dumbed down libertarians can answer the question: "What would you have done on March 4, 1861 if elected president of the United States of America?" And not one of you can demonstrate any aggressive act Lincoln committed to any human being prior to April 12, 1861. I used to believe that most of the people on this forum were hard working truth seekers, but your attitudes toward Lincoln demonstrates that you neither love liberty for everyone, nor do you do your own history homework. I suspect it is because you don't have the literacy level to read Mises or Lincoln's own words yourself therefore you must rely on Rothbard and DiLorenzo to interpret for you.
> 
> Someday you will know that the pre-Civil War Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful man of honor because the Internet is the truth machine. The truth will prevail.


Talk about dumbed down- any self respecting libertarian would never have had to deal with April 12th, 1861. 

In the first place, there would have been no outrageous tariffs inflicted on the South so that the South would probably never have wanted to secede in the first place.

Second, if the South still wanted to leave, a libertarian would have allowed it- you know, Constitution and all?

Third, a true libertarian would not have used slavery as an excuse to kill 100's of 1000's of people in order to strengthen and secure the government hold on money and profit. The reason slavery was not allowed to go west was NOT altruistic; it was because of the hatred Lincoln and others had for the blacks. They didn't want them dirty inferior "niggahs" to mix with the superior intelligent white folk.

Fort Sumter was a set up to give the Northern aggression credence. 

The War Between the States was about MONEY and your hero was at the helm of that.

----------


## green73

The main reason they didn't want slavery in the West is because those states would end up siding with South and shift the balance in Congress.

----------


## Travlyr

First of all Lincoln is not my hero. He is getting trashed by liars who revise history. I am simply defending him against unethical people who trash others reputation with lies to further their own agenda.




> Talk about dumbed down- any self respecting libertarian would never have had to deal with April 12th, 1861.


 So you would have what? Given Fort Sumter to South Carolina? Do you think you might have run into some problems with the people who had elected you as president? I don't think Lincoln really had that option.  




> In the first place, there would have been no outrageous tariffs inflicted on the South so that the South would probably never have wanted to secede in the first place.





> "The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an American protective tariff law adopted on March 2, 1861 during the Buchanan Administration and signed into law by President James Buchanan, a Democrat."


 But that's Lincoln's fault.




> Second, if the South still wanted to leave, a libertarian would have allowed it- you know, Constitution and all?


The South seceded, by their own secession statements, in order to "preserve the blessings of African slavery." Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address. I'm paraphrasing here: That is just fine. Just don't shoot at us. Don't become the aggressor, but we are also not going to nationalize slavery. The free states can remain free as long as they wish. However, if you take your slaves into a free state and they get captured, then you will have to abide by the laws of the state you were in. For example, the State of Illinois would let slave owners travel through the state but if the Slave Master lingered or made the slaves work in Illinois, then abolitionists would set them free and Illinois State law would back them up. 




> Third, a true libertarian would not have used slavery as an excuse to kill 100's of 1000's of people in order to strengthen and secure the government hold on money and profit. The reason slavery was not allowed to go west was NOT altruistic; it was because of the hatred Lincoln and others had for the blacks. They didn't want them dirty inferior "niggahs" to mix with the superior intelligent white folk.


This ^^ demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge. You are going to have to hit the history books before I address such nonsense. 




> Fort Sumter was a set up to give the Northern aggression credence.


Yeah... yeah. It is okay, for libertarians, to fire on unarmed men for the cause of liberty.




> The War Between the States was about MONEY and your hero was at the helm of that.


Right it was about money. Slavery was at the heart of money for the South. They clearly stated that in their secession statements. No doubt the Northerners saw profit from a war economy as well.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862:
> 
> "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."


And when one uses ethics in writing then the true intent surfaces. Taking quotes out-of-context is a favorite of unethical liars. Here is the letter in its entirety. 




> Executive Mansion,
> Washington, August 22, 1862.
> 
> Hon. Horace Greeley:
> Dear Sir.
> 
> I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
> 
> As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
> ...


"I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." A. Lincoln

Why oh why would somebody leave that last sentence out when misquoting Lincoln? Because it doesn't fit their agenda.

----------


## Natural Citizen

http://www.teddekker.com/theunderground/

----------


## airborne373

Why do vampires hate the light of day?

----------


## Aratus

> Read "Liberalism, State and Government" for yourself. Mises explains all your objections much better than I can.


lew rockwell often licks the tip of his finger, points it skyward and tests the breeze... even so, 

he often infuriates the typical jingoistic bloodthirsty neo~con! methinks anyone can set them off!

lew rockwell very clearly politically times his missives and brainfreezes, whereas Mises is theory!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Every dollar you send is a slap in the face to the arrogant enemies of liberty, to those who say, with Mussolini, Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. If you know the State is our greatest enemy on earth, if you appreciate LRC as its opponent, if you support our fight, if you stand with us, if you want to be able to continue to read a new LRC 6 days a week, please make a generous gift. I would be so grateful.
> 
> http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neoc...te-lrc204.html
> 
> -
> 
> I don't like it when their writers knock Rand or Amash who I think are doing the best they can but I have made a *one time donation* to them today via PayPal since I read it nearly every day and it's free and worthwhile.  
> 
> I suggest everyone does the same if you can afford 10 or 20 bucks or whatever.


We Made It! January 1, 2013 11:30 AM:



> As  of today, the total raised for LRC in this  year-end appeal is  $61,467,  beating our goal of $57,000. Thanks so  much to all our great   supporters, especially in these unsure economic  times. For our part, in   2013, LRC will continue to defend freedom and  peace, unstintingly and   without compromise, and to give hot-feet to  the neocons and all the   other goose-steppers.

----------


## itshappening

I'm pleased they made their target and are going to annoy the hell out of everyone for another year

----------

