I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.
What is taught to children?
- That President Lincoln's nickname was Honest Abe, yet we understand that most politicians do lie. Why should we view him differently?
The American Indians are led to believe so... - Lincoln saved the Union therefore denying the South the right to secession, yet when Jefferson had installed an embargo on trade with the British the Northeastern states met in convention for secession led by U.S. Senator Timothy Pickering
- Note: Lincoln states he is against state secession in his first Inaugural Address:
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
- Lincoln had abolished slavery, yet in his first Inaugural Address he states:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.
1 comment:
Lincoln is not who the general public believes him to be. He was not a liberator of the slaves nor was he a just fair man. To gain British recognition (British aid) he "abolished" slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation in the South because Great Britain did not support slavery. However, Lincoln was president of the Union, and Jefferson Davis was president of the Confederate states, therefore he had no authority to stop slavery in the South. Lincoln did not abolish slavery in the Union (where slavery was scarce) or the Border States (such as West Virginia) because they would join the South... So essentially, Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Civil War was never a war about the abolition of slavery it was a war based on economics.
Furthermore, during the Civil War Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus - what a wonderful liberator.
Post a Comment