Today at LRC, the headline article is by Tom DiLorenzo,
entitled “Why
Neocons Are Freaking Out Over Lincoln.”
It is a worthwhile read; yet one sentence really caught my attention. This one sentence reminded me of the kind praise I have for
Mr. Russert. From DiLorenzo:
The neocons are still punch drunk,
in other words, from how the Ron Paul phenomenon, during the congressman’s two
attempts at securing the Republican Party presidential nomination, captured the
imaginations of millions of young people and continues to do so.
Many will remember Ron Paul’s visit to “Meet
the Press” during his presidential run in 2007. This was just after the two large money
bombs, but before any primaries were held.
Russert’s purpose in this interview was the “gotcha,”
throwing out statements and questions that were unquestioned in the mainstream –
the various myths that prop up the American religion. Russert’s task was obvious from his method –
make it clear to so-called serious voters that Ron Paul is a flake.
Most memorable was the exchange
regarding Lincoln:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe
Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe
Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of
slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely.
Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of
the original intent of the republic. I
mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country
of the world. And the way I'm advising
that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, 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.
I am certain that after the interview, Russert got one big
bro hug from his fellow gatekeepers.
They felt certain they had buried the man. There is no doubt that every effort was taken
to do just this, both in 2008 and 2012.
However, instead of burying Dr. Paul, I suggest that what Russert and
his cohorts did was to make him eternal.
The video of this interview was viewed hundreds of thousands
of times. My guess is that 1% of these
views were by Oligarchic, Loudmouth, Despicable Friends and Acquaintances of
Russert, Tim (OLD FARTS). The remaining 99%
of these views were by young people and others who either supported or at least
were open to Ron Paul and his message.
What do you think that 99% did? Probably many of them first said to
themselves “the Lincoln that Ron Paul describes isn’t the one that I know. I wasn’t taught this in school.” After some reflection, and considering that
many of the odd things Ron Paul said certainly held truth when examined, they
then thought, “Maybe I will look into this.”
So they did. They found
books by DiLorenzo: “The
Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln
Unmasked.” After reading these, they
concluded that maybe Ron was onto something, and the Old Farts were lying to
them. “If they are lying about Lincoln, what
else are they lying about?”
For many, this interview with Russert likely caused a desire
to explore other deceptions and myths behind the American religion. More from DiLorenzo’s article at LRC:
In his essay on "The Nature of
the State" Murray Rothbard pointed out that all states, no matter how
tyrannical they may be, rely crucially on inculcating in the minds of the
public the alleged grandiosity of the state and the alleged failures of private
enterprise and the civil society.
Such propaganda is essential to
statism, said Rothbard, because it is essentially an economical way to get the
public to acquiesce in being enslaved by the state.
The neocons are becoming unglued
and freaked out because they no longer control the culture of ideas among
"conservatives"…
I can thank Russert because he certainly helped to
contribute to this loss of faith. Had he
not tried his “gotcha” approach with Ron Paul, it is likely that many of the 99%
would have never looked into the Lincoln myth, and thus might not have found
reason to begin to question the myriad of other myths.
The myths, as Rothbard suggests, provide economical leverage
for those who would control us. Russert,
so caught up in the mainstream, had no idea what he helped to unleash – and leverage,
after all, works both ways.
A prerequisite for the final
collapse of the Soviet Union was the widespread disbelief in all the lies,
myths and superstitions about socialism that the people of the Soviet empire
had been brainwashed into accepting.
I am sure the interview was uncomfortable for Dr. Paul,
despite the man being more courageous than all other members of political
office combined. Yet, just like the Rudy Giuliani moment, in
the most uncomfortable of situations, Dr. Paul likely prompted many people to
say to themselves “I will look into that.”
I still look back fondly on that Tim Russert moment. He certainly helped to bring on the
destruction of one of the most valuable myths
supporting the American religion.
You pasted the same citation twice at the beggining of the post!
ReplyDeleteCorrected (I hope!)
DeleteThank you.
Great stuff as always, BM. I remember this moment fondly. The cringing uneasy feeling I felt when Russert asked the questions; the unhinged feelings of triumph and Dr Paul's truthful and always straight-forward answers. No doubt this moment began a trip down a rabbit hole or two for many.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteI felt bad for Ron Paul when he said that to Tim Russert on the national stage. It was embarrassing. Historians know that Abraham Lincoln loved liberty and the Union created by the founders. The Civil War wasn't Lincoln's War or the War of Northern aggression. Those are lies that have been told to disguise how and why the war started. Libertarians get it wrong with they take Lincoln out-of-context to degrade him.
ReplyDeleteHistory proves that Lincoln did not want to go to war and he went to great lengths to avoid war. His only choice to avoid war in April 1861 would have been to surrender the Union. Lincoln was not elected to surrender the Union and the war would not have been avoided by surrendering the Union anyway. It may have been postponed if Lincoln would have surrendered Fort Sumter to the Confederates, but the war was going to happen anyway because the slave powers needed slavery nationalized.
The war was not fought to free the slaves that much is true. The war was waged on the Union by the CSA in order to nationalize, expand, and perpetuate African slavery as they stated in Article IV of the Confederate Constitution ratified on March 11, 1861. They were not under any immediate threat of invasion when they bombed Fort Sumter. When Lincoln called up Union militia volunteers to defend the Union they stayed in Washington in defense mode until July when they had no choice but to attack or be attacked again. In July, 35,000 well armed Confederate army troops were camped 30 miles from Washington aggressing on the Union.
BJ: Historians know that Abraham Lincoln loved liberty and the Union created by the founders.
DeleteBM: If Lincoln lived liberty, he would have allowed the states that wanted to go another way to do so, peacefully.
BJ: His only choice to avoid war in April 1861 would have been to surrender the Union…. the war would not have been avoided by surrendering the Union anyway….The war was going to happen anyway because the slave powers needed slavery nationalized….The war was waged on the Union by the CSA in order to nationalize, expand, and perpetuate African slavery as they stated in Article IV of the Confederate Constitution ratified on March 11, 1861.
BM: It is immaterial what the Confederate Constitution said. For the claim that the Confederate states were going to fight no matter what in order to take over the government of all of the previously united states, you will need to provide quotes and links - including links to evidence that prominent individuals (including Lincoln) took this threat seriously.
BM: If Lincoln lived liberty, he would have allowed the states that wanted to go another way to do so, peacefully.
ReplyDeleteIf the Southern states would have left peacefully, then that would be true. But the South did not attempt peaceful secession.
Their first action was to cheat the system. Nine states denied Lincoln ballot access. He won the election anyway.
South Carolina Governor Gist began arms build-up in October 1860, before the election, by increasing the militia by 10,000 men and armed them with the help of then Union Secretary of War John B. Floyd who left the Union in disgrace shortly after S.C. seceded and later became a Confederate General. They were preparing for war if Lincoln won the election.
Lincoln called for peaceful solutions to the crisis in speech after speech after he won.
Speech at Independence Hall
February 22, 1861
"Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-at-independence-hall/
Lincoln's first inaugural address March 4, 1861, "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."
After the South lost the election, they sent southern secessionist commissioners throughout the South warning if they did not secede, then the slaves would be set free to rape the women and pillage the lands. It wasn't true, but it worked the people, especially the slave masters, into a frenzy. Secession was not really popular before that.
A month later, South Carolina declared themselves seceded from the Union and confiscated Union property in the process. Stealing property and offering to pay for it later is wrong.
A couple of weeks later when President Buchanan tried to resupply his Union troops stationed at Fort Sumter the South Carolina troops fired upon an unarmed ship (The Star of the West). That is like shooting a man in the back.
Months later, when Lincoln tried to resupply Fort Sumter peacefully they bombed the Union fort and 85 Union men for 36 hours. They did not bomb the fort for a day and a half hoping to not kill anyone. They were not under any immediate threat of invasion. April 8, 1861, Lincoln sent Robert S. Chew to meet with South Carolina Governor Pickens to inform him, "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort''. General Beauregard was there.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:505?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
According to Confederate V.P. Alexander H. Stephens in his "Cornerstone" speech and Article IV of the Confederate Constitution they seceded in order to nationalize, expand, and perpetuate African slavery.
There is nothing peaceful about cheating, stealing, shooting, and bombing in order to enslave an entire race of people. Peaceful secession would have been like Robert E. Lee said, "the consent of all the people in convention assembled." Otherwise "Secession is nothing but revolution."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/lee-on-secession/
Lincoln had to take this threat seriously. Washington only had about 900 Union soldiers at the time to defend the Union capitol and treasury.
ReplyDelete"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."
The Siege of Washington
http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Washington-Untold-Twelve/dp/0199931186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373899256&sr=8-1&keywords=the+siege+of+washington
BJ: There is nothing peaceful about cheating, stealing, shooting, and bombing in order to enslave an entire race of people.
DeleteBM: One sure way to end a dialogue about the events of the war is to wrap it up in slavery. There is no doubt the southern states desired slavery to continue. This was as wrong as it was at the founding of the Republic. There is also no doubt that slavery ended with the North’s victory in the war. This was the one good that came out of the calamity.
But the South had other grievances, and legitimate ones.
As to your descriptions of how politicians connived – cheated the system – is relatively meaningless, don’t you think? Show me an honest politician and an honest political system somewhere, anywhere. For every one you identify, you know there are one hundred that stand opposite this.
Now, to your linked items:
From the book, “The Siege of Washington”: “Historians have long been perplexed over why the South didn't attack Washington, D.C., in the early days of the Civil War. In this absorbing history, the siege of the Union capital and the panic over an expected Confederate attack that never came…”
Don’t you see – the attack never came. Perhaps historians wouldn’t be perplexed if they only considered that there was little desire by the south to do so? So, you can state that those in DC lived in fear for a time; this is reasonable. But once Lincoln summoned an army for defense, he could have left it at this. No?
From the Corner Stone speech: “Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.”
No blood so far.
“As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been.”
This doesn’t sound like fighting words. Nor the words of a man preparing the south to overthrow the north.
“While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch ‘of the accursed soil.’”
Had they parted peacefully with the south, are you certain there would have been 700,000 dead?
From Lee’s letter: “The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say.”
Aggrieved.
“…I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.”
A reasoned statement by the man who would later lead the Confederate army.
“Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none.”
Lee says “…save in defense…” Are you suggesting he lied, and in fact was in pursuit of conquering Washington DC and every northern state?
I am not sure that Alex Stephens wanted to go to war. I am convinced that Jefferson Davis did. He was a West Point graduate, had spent several years at war, and a former Secretary of War. He did order the bombing of Fort Sumter without any immediate threat of invasion.
ReplyDeleteBM: But the South had other grievances, and legitimate ones.
I have not been able to find anyone, in 1860, claiming any of the other grievances were worth seceding over except slavery. Best I can tell is that those trumped up contrivances came after the war as excuses. If you have some proof otherwise please direct me to it.
BM: Don’t you see – the attack never came.
It wasn't for not trying. It was just unsuccessful. That initial attack was foiled by Union soldiers who destroyed all the weapons at Harper's Ferry armory just 70 miles from Washington on April 18. When the Confederate army confiscated Harper's Ferry the next day they found the weapons useless. The Confederate army couldn't march to Washington unarmed. That event bought enough time for Union militia volunteers to beat the Confederate army from reaching Washington first.
BM: Perhaps historians wouldn’t be perplexed if they only considered that there was little desire by the south to do so? So, you can state that those in DC lived in fear for a time; this is reasonable.
It is reasonable because the threat was real. There was indeed some interest in the Confederacy overthrowing the Union. Jefferson Davis had plans.
"Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."
BM: But once Lincoln summoned an army for defense, he could have left it at this. No?
No, I do not see how Lincoln could leave it at that. What do you suppose would have happened if Lincoln would have sent the Union militia volunteers home on July 21, 1861 instead of sending them out to fight? What would the people who elected Lincoln have done? He was committed. Do you think the Confederate army would have just gone home? Why were they even there? Was Lincoln to try and operate the government surrounded by the Confederate army? I do not see that Lincoln had any choice but to defend the Union against aggression by fighting to suppress rebellion.
BM: Lee says “…save in defense…” Are you suggesting he lied, and in fact was in pursuit of conquering Washington DC and every northern state?
I am not suggesting that Lee lied. Lee was loyal to his state. When Virginia seceded Lee went with Virginia. Lee also stood to loose a lot of money if he lost his slaves. I am not sure how big of a role that played in his decision. It would have played a big role in mine if I was in his shoes.
BJ: I am convinced that Jefferson Davis did [want to go to war].
DeleteBM: Please provide links that demonstrate the following: 1) he wanted war even if Lincoln let the South secede peacefully, and b) in order to impose the Confederate Constitution upon the northern states. These were your assertions. Provide facts.
BJ: Best I can tell is that those trumped up contrivances came after the war as excuses. If you have some proof otherwise please direct me to it.
BM: I did not suggest the other grievances were reason for war. Just legitimate grievances. I am working from the links you previously provided. Read the opening paragraphs of the cornerstone speech, where is listed some of the grievances of the South. These are legitimate grievances.
BJ: [The non-attack on Washington] wasn't for not trying. It was just unsuccessful.
BM: I took my statement from the Amazon description of the book – the link you provided. I will quote it again here: “Historians have long been perplexed over why the South didn't attack Washington, D.C., in the early days of the Civil War. In this absorbing history, the siege of the Union capital and the panic over an expected Confederate attack that never came…”
The attack “never came.” Am I making this up? Now, are these historians “perplexed” about something that you are so certain of? Provide evidence, not assertions. Don’t give me links and then criticize me for using the information you provide.
And I go back to my earlier point. Tie this all to your assertion that the South wanted a truly civil war – one to take over the federal government and the northern states – and not merely secession.
BJ: Jefferson Davis had plans.
BM: His wife’s invitation cards are curious. However, if Davis truly intended to attack and take over Washington, would his wife send invitations? There must be more than a wife’s invitations for tea for this to be worth pursuing.
I went to find something about this…and instead stumbled on a couple of points completely counter to earlier assertions and comments of yours. From Wikipedia:
“In meetings of his own Mississippi legislature, Davis had argued against secession, but when a majority of the delegates opposed him, he gave in….Several forts in Confederate territory remained in Union hands. Davis sent a commission to Washington with an offer to pay for any federal property on Southern soil, as well as the Southern portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis
You are losing credibility when I find such statements without even trying.
BJ: I do not see that Lincoln had any choice but to defend the Union against aggression by fighting to suppress rebellion.
BM: This is the most critical issue. This is why you find yourself at a crossroads with libertarians on this subject. Certain states wanted to form a new government – decentralize. Nothing different than 13 colonies did in 1776, and nothing different than Jefferson suggested was a legitimate exercise of power against the state.
Big government types cannot stand this. Saying Lincoln had no choice doesn’t exonerate Lincoln; it merely makes him one more in a long line of big government, centralizing killers. King George had no choice either. Libertarians, on the other hand, find every reason to support decentralization. Small government types find reason to support action at a more local level – state, not federal for example.
Lincoln is perfectly justified if consolidating the power of a central government is seen as a just cause. Libertarians do not see this. This fundamental issue likely lies at the basis of why you make no headway at the Mises site. You won’t make headway with me on this either.
BM: This is the most critical issue. This is why you find yourself at a crossroads with libertarians on this subject. Certain states wanted to form a new government – decentralize. Nothing different than 13 colonies did in 1776, and nothing different than Jefferson suggested was a legitimate exercise of power against the state.
ReplyDeleteYet, instead those states formed a new government which centralize power even more than the Union from which they seceded.
Article IV of the Confederate Constitution nationalized slavery. They initiated conscription nearly a year before the Union and exempted slave owners. Before the war was over the Confederate nation required national business licenses in order to engage in trade. How can any of that possibly be considered 'decentralization'?
BJ: Yet, instead those states formed a new government which centralize power even more than the Union from which they seceded.
DeleteBM: On some things, yes. On others, based on statements in the Cornerstone Speech, no. It seems a bit mixed. But this is neither here nor there for my point.
BJ: How can any of that possibly be considered 'decentralization'?
BM: You seem to be confused about the term “decentralization.”
Smaller republics, smaller states, smaller confederations. One day (God willing), there will be a few million of these - instead of 190-odd that there are today (many of which sing from the same song-book anyway). Even better, no concept of state-monopoly over a physical jurisdiction. Then, people will have real choices about how to live their political lives.
Not every one of these must conform to my version (or yours) of a just society. But there will be infinite possibilities for one to find a form that fits - or (if one believes in miracles) create his own!
That will be decentralization.
Thank you for you civility and your responses. Thank you for allowing me to express myself on your blog. As a follower of Ludwig von Mises and Classical Liberalism, I am of the opinion that in order to help the liberty movement grow it is important to tell the truth as often as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile I simply do not see Abraham Lincoln as anything but a lover of liberty, a principled man, and a failed president, not of his own doing, but because the slave powers waged war on him a month after he took office and then he was killed a week after they surrendered before his mission was fulfilled. I understand how others see him differently. Yet, it is difficult for me to see him as a tyrant because tyrants do not free people. I don't see him as a dictator because dictators do not go to the people for amendments to the laws ... dictators dictate law. I don't see him as a saint or the devil. I see him as a boy who grew up to be a man who made some good choices and some poor choices just like all men.
I do agree with you: BM: "Smaller republics, smaller states, smaller confederations. One day (God willing), there will be a few million of these - instead of 190-odd that there are today (many of which sing from the same song-book anyway). Even better, no concept of state-monopoly over a physical jurisdiction. Then, people will have real choices about how to live their political lives."
I wish you well and will be keeping your blog in my "favorites."
Thank you for the kind comments. And thank you for the conversation.
Delete