Lincoln Letters Reveal Plan to End Slavery the Ron Paul Way

[jmdrake]

Very good post. It truly is a widespread fallacy that A. Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was purely strategical and political, aimed at keeping England from recognizing the Confederacy as a valid country (and to keep them out of the war!). There were many sympathizers for the South in Parliament.

*Yawn* Not true. Lincoln wanted to see slavery ended. He just didn't want to do it immediately and he CERTAINLY didn't want to fight a war over it. In his desire to preserve the union he was no different from Andrew Jackson, a president who most southerners ironically love and admire. The U.S. constitution forbade Lincoln from freeing slaves by decree. When southern states declared themselves no longer a part of the union the constitution no longer applied to them and hence the emancipation proclamation was viable. The fact that Lincoln was willing to put forward a proposal to BUY the slaves EVEN BEFORE THE WAR puts the final nail in the "Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves" coffin. Lincoln wasn't perfect. He was a racist. He did overstep his constitutional bounds (and Andrew Jackson did on occasion). But he did want to see an end to slavery.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[wv@SC]

*Yawn* Not true. Lincoln wanted to see slavery ended. He just didn't want to do it immediately and he CERTAINLY didn't want to fight a war over it. In his desire to preserve the union he was no different from Andrew Jackson, a president who most southerners ironically love and admire. The U.S. constitution forbade Lincoln from freeing slaves by decree. When southern states declared themselves no longer a part of the union the constitution no longer applied to them and hence the emancipation proclamation was viable. The fact that Lincoln was willing to put forward a proposal to BUY the slaves EVEN BEFORE THE WAR puts the final nail in the "Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves" coffin. Lincoln wasn't perfect. He was a racist. He did overstep his constitutional bounds (and Andrew Jackson did on occasion). But he did want to see an end to slavery.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I'm not intending at all to fuel a debate, but if you think that AL was as great as the public history books say, you're eating a crockfull.
Look at this quote again:

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

This shows that Mr. Lincoln had no intention of having anything to do with slavery. He simply did not care! It just helped him in his agenda - he got his war.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Lincoln was definitely a collectivist statist. That may have been what he meant to say.

Please, define the terms liberally enough and you can call anybody but a ZAP anarchist a "collectivist statist". Are you saying Lincoln is one because he's not a Zero Aggression Principle tip-of-the-diamond libertarian? Or are you saying he's one because he actually is a collectivist statist?

As for what he meant to say - I'm challenging his claim for precisely the words he used. Libertarians and Paul supporters are far too flippant in their labeling of anybody who believes in more government than we do.

 

[nate895]

I still despise Lincoln for burning my family's homeland to the ground.

 

[Signzit]

Maybe the same forces that are trying to stop a Ron Paul Presidency

QTF!!!

 

[Signzit]

freeing the slaves was just an excuse; some of us know, it was States Rights. Not the right to say we want slaves but the right to remain free and sovereign countries. Once the South lost the war, their land was mortgaged to finance foreign debt just like the north.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Thanks for the post

 

[Fox McCloud]

Lincoln was a communist? Forgive me, but I really must insist on some evidence you have of this.

No problem.

http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/comments/republican_party_red_from_the_start/

 

[Knightskye]

"Absolutely. 600,000 Americans died in a senseless civil war... Do like the British Empire. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans, and where it lingered for 100 years, I mean the hatred and all that existed. So, every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me; that sounds like a pretty reasonable approach." Ron Paul on 'Meet the Press'

Anyone can list reasonable options. Lincoln chose the wrong one. Guess which option Hillary and Barack are leaving "on the table" - bombing Iran! What's the right one? Diplomacy, talking to them, trading with them, etc.

 

[Nathan Hale]

No problem.

http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/comments/republican_party_red_from_the_start/

Thank you. Your source led me down some good paths (namely to the Marx/Horace Greeley connection), but I consider it suspect, to an extent. Clearly the source is partisan rather than historical, and I uncovered a few pieces of partisanship in the piece that undermine its historical value (such as the "confederate army could do no wrong/federal army was staffed by demons" business), so I am suspicious of the many leaps of faith the author takes in connecting communism to Lincoln and the war.

I am also suspicious of the self-published book that all of this is based on. The authors are both ardent partisans on the issue, and they had to self-publish their book despite many sympathetic publishers in the ether who probably would have gone ahead with such a title.

So thanks for the info, but I don't consider the evidence strong enough for me to scientifically determine that Lincoln was a Marxist (or a communist of any stripe). Though I have confirmed the Horace Greeley connection and, as he was one of the founders of the GOP, I would wager that communists occupied a niche in the party. However, Greeley did turn against Lincoln when he was up for re-election. Don't know how all that plays into things.

 

[familydog]

So if it was president Paul instead of President Lincoln he would have bought all the slaves and set them free? Would he force slave owners to sell? I doubt too many would be anxious to get rid of their slaves. Does the federal government have the authority to "buy people?"

 

[Fox McCloud]

Thank you. Your source led me down some good paths (namely to the Marx/Horace Greeley connection), but I consider it suspect, to an extent. Clearly the source is partisan rather than historical, and I uncovered a few pieces of partisanship in the piece that undermine its historical value (such as the "confederate army could do no wrong/federal army was staffed by demons" business), so I am suspicious of the many leaps of faith the author takes in connecting communism to Lincoln and the war.

I don't think he's saying the South "did no wrong" or that it could do no wrong, I think he's merely pointing out how overblown the civil war is, and that the South isn't as bad as people made it out to be...it was no perfect, but, in no way did I get the sense he was trying to say that.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I don't think he's saying the South "did no wrong" or that it could do no wrong, I think he's merely pointing out how overblown the civil war is, and that the South isn't as bad as people made it out to be...it was no perfect, but, in no way did I get the sense he was trying to say that.

Hmm, from the analogy he presented, it seemed as though he was positing that the southern armies, when in the north, could do no wrong, while the northern armies, when in the south, did as much evil as they could manage.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Hmm, from the analogy he presented, it seemed as though he was positing that the southern armies, when in the north, could do no wrong, while the northern armies, when in the south, did as much evil as they could manage.

I really didn't get that...but I can re-read the article again.

Also, just because the armies "do no evil" doesn't mean the south is "doing no evil".

 

[The Technical]

Why I still don't get, and something that the most ardent Lincoln supporters I've talked to haven't been able to explain to me either is this, why didn't he abolish slavery in the Union BEFORE abolishing it in the Confederacy, a region that was basically another country?

 

[jmdrake]

Why I still don't get, and something that the most ardent Lincoln supporters I've talked to haven't been able to explain to me either is this, why didn't he abolish slavery in the Union BEFORE abolishing it in the Confederacy, a region that was basically another country?

Have you read the first draft of the U.S. constitution? I'm not trying to be funny here. Slavery was expressly protected in the constitution. Amending the constitution requires a 2/3rds vote. Lincoln didn't have that before the rebelling states left. After they left getting a vote on this was problematic because the northern states didn't want to lose any of their allies. Really this is common sense so I don't get why you don't get it. Lincoln tried to get congress to pass compensated emancipation for the slave states that didn't secede but they wanted more money and the congress was only willing to give less. But for the states that did secede? Well you can make any sort of "proclamation" you want about a territory you're at war with. It only counts if you win.

Anyway I have to wonder sometimes if some are more interested in the south "winning" the intellectual battle over the civil war than they are about Ron Paul "winning" the presidency. The fact is that whether you like it or not Lincoln's compensated emancipation plan mirrors the one Ron Paul put forward on MTP and thus takes an attack out of the enemies arsenal.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not intending at all to fuel a debate, but if you think that AL was as great as the public history books say, you're eating a crockfull.
Look at this quote again:

Right. As long as everyone agrees with you there's no need for debate. If you want to project onto me something I never said then you're the one eating a crockfull. And I read your little out of context quote years ago. Probably before you were born. You're missing the point. Lincoln COULD NOT FREE THE SLAVES WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!

Look at it this way. Ron Paul is against abortion. But he's not going to push for an amendment to ban it in all states like Huck would.

Lincoln's plan was to restrict slavery where it already existed. Constitutionally that was all he could do. After the number of "free" states passed 2/3rds all bets were off. The southern states understood that. Apparently you don't. You'll just keep posting the same out of context qoute 1 million times and think that proves what it doesn't. And for the record, no I don't think Lincoln was "as good as the public history says".

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[RPsignwaver]

Lincoln destroyed the republic

Every other slaveholding nation instituted a compensatory program for buying the slaves into freedom and/or gradual emancipation, sometines repatriating the negroes. The US is the only nation that fought a bloody was over the negro, with Whites killing Whites by the thousands. The North claimed it could not afford to buy all four million slaves into freedom, but they could prosecute a four year war in which 600,000 Whites were murdered by other Whites with no problem. The war cost at least four-five times wat it would have cost to end slavery peacefully and gradually and perhaps relocating the negroes to Africa. In the end, it turned out badly for our nation, foremost because there were now over four million illiterate negroes that were freed upon the White South. These negroes wanted revenge upon their former masters and visited it upon the White people of the South with the federal government protecting the negro while raping, robbing and killing Southern Whites. Now of course negroes are doing this all over the nation in this the second reconstruction which began in the 60s and is still going.

Another reason this war turned out badly for us was of course the death of states rights. The fed rules with an iron hand today as they have been for 143 years and counting.

 

[Luis]

paradoxes

Lincoln was definitely a collectivist statist. That may have been what he meant to say.

How else do you save a nation on the verge of splitting into two except by being a "collectivist statist"? Lincoln swore by the Constitution but ignored it under a "war" emergency.

So here we are at this time in history on the verge of breaking up this time into five or six independent republics or at the very least into five or six administrative regions including Mexico and Canada under a North American Union dictatorship of the Anglo-Saxon/Jewish Rockefeller/Rothschild 10,000-Illuminati-strong financier-banking senile oligarchy.

 

[wv@SC]

Right. As long as everyone agrees with you there's no need for debate. If you want to project onto me something I never said then you're the one eating a crockfull. And I read your little out of context quote years ago. Probably before you were born. You're missing the point. Lincoln COULD NOT FREE THE SLAVES WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!

Look at it this way. Ron Paul is against abortion. But he's not going to push for an amendment to ban it in all states like Huck would.

Lincoln's plan was to restrict slavery where it already existed. Constitutionally that was all he could do. After the number of "free" states passed 2/3rds all bets were off. The southern states understood that. Apparently you don't. You'll just keep posting the same out of context qoute 1 million times and think that proves what it doesn't. And for the record, no I don't think Lincoln was "as good as the public history says".

Regards,

John M. Drake

I didnt realize you had replied because this thread must have gotten buried.

If it is the case that you read the mentioned quote before I was born, I respect the grey hairs of your head. But I dont think a quote from the man himself is to be discounted when analyzing his life, especially when his actions agree with it. You need to read more than Carl Sandburg before forming an opinion of Abraham Lincoln.

Of the Constitution, the slave trade (not slavery) was protected until the year 1808 in explicit words. This does not mean that slavery could or would be outlawed in or following that year, but meant that the slave trade (the bringing of slaves into America) could be abolished then. (See Article 1, Section IX, Clause 1)

I am not particularly concerned with convincing you. My experience has shown that argument in less than the most important matters can be nothing more than a waste of energy in most situations. I hope you wont take offense, because if you are as old as you believe in relation to me, I am sure you will concur at least on this.