Author:
Kevin Joseph Tull
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:23:52 10/25/02 Fri
In reply to:
sofla
's message, "Lincoln no fascist" on 14:29:11 10/16/02 Wed
--Sofla, my statements in response to your blog are seperated from yours by:--
While Lincoln took many tyrannical steps, the suspension of the right of habeus corpus is probably not one of them. The Constitution itself recognizes the suspension of that in wartime as appropriate.
--Please! If the suspension of a writ of habeus corpus to arrest clear subversives or enemy soldiers was the concern there would be few arguments against it alone, but when the writ of habeus corpus is suspended to arrest publishers, columnists and printers and shut down newspapers critical of the Commander in Chief that, my friend, is tyranny. It would be the equivalent of President Bush shutting down libertyforall.net and jailing all its creators and writers; shipping us all off to Guantanimo Bay without so much as a warrant. But, following your logic, that would be OK because we’re at war.--
Nor was Lincoln some business toady. He saw the war profiteering by the ammo makers, the gun makers, and the bankers, taking advantage of the nation's need for financing by charging usurious rates of interest, and was appalled.
--Yes, only the north should have been able to charge usurious rates of tariffs. The war profiteering was costing the Union far too much and if Lincoln couldn’t stop it he would control it like a facist or is that more a socialistic act when government doesn’t just seek to join forces with industry but control it?--
He even went outside the money changer system, the pinnacle of the businessmen's tyranny over this nation and the world, by issuing debt-free 'Greenback' dollars.
--Again, not satisfied with the limitations of paper notes backed by specie, Lincoln realized he could tax the people and spend their money by printing up fiat. I like the way you call them "debt-free," I guess money does just grow on printing presses. Watch out for that inflationary bubble.--
From a private letter, since put into the public domain:
"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy. More insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future, a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."
--Marx couldn’t have said it better! Here’s a little more insight into Lincoln from an article by Adam Young called "Abraham Lincoln In His Own Words" : "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities." "I... would continue (trade) where it is necessary, and discontinue it, where it is not. As instance: I would continue commerce so far as it is employed in bringing us coffee, and I would discontinue it so far as it is employed in bringing us cotton goods." "This starkly illustrates Lincoln's dictatorial mentality. He will place his subjective impressions over the decisions of individual consumers. Lincoln proposed that he, rather than consumers, would determine which goods and services would exist. This is Lincoln as amateur Soviet-style central planner. There is a myth that Lincoln's administration helped the development of capitalism, but his own comments reveal his anti-free trade and mercantilist statism."(end)--
Lincoln also stated that no foreign power could, by force, march along our lands, or take a drink from one of our rivers, but that if ever the nation were to be defeated, it would be from internal treachery.
--So what are you trying to say that it is better to have government controlled business rather than business controlled government? I would choose neither. I believe the tighter the chains of the constitution are upon government the less chance of business influencing government or government influencing business. Unfortunately it seems that both business and government have perverted any resemblance we may have once had to a constitutionally bound republic.--
Given such clear sighted insights, I think Lincoln redeems himself in the end. Despite the warts (literally and figuratively), Lincoln stands convicted not of fascism (the unholy union of government and private business interests), which he clearly opposed, but of patriotism to the Union, and overzealousness in that pursuit.
--Gosh, thinking like that could redeem Hitler. Maybe not, after all Lincoln didn’t gas the rebels.--
His abuses should be condemned, but with a sharp eye as to accurately characterizing his motivations, which were American nationalism-- statism, if you wish to call it that, but not fascism or corporatism, which his nationalism would oppose. Just as Jefferson's decision to make the Louisiana Purchase may have been unConstitutional, but with a nationalist motivation.
--What an apologist! To compare the act of purchasing the Louisiana Territory from the French without congressional approval to Lincoln’s trashing of the Constitution and violating the citizens rights in his zeal to preserve the union, is absurd to say the least. You must have loved the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 because even though it was a bad thing to do, FDR was just doing his patriotic duty as he saw it.--
Statists and nationalists are motivated by the public good, whereas fascists and corporatists favor the private good over the public good. The former may use bad methods, and get bad results, but at least they are not intentionally the enemies of the public good, as the latter are.
--Bull! All of the aforementioned are enemies of the public good, they are blinded by their lust for power and they have a large segment of society that somehow believes their acts are good because they are based on what society perceive as "good intentions." I for one am tired of evil succeeding because those who practice it can make statements like "Its for the children" or "Their intentions were good."--
It is a mistake to put Lincoln in the latter camp.
--It is a mistake to have eyes and not see; ears and not hear.--
--Look Sofla, I don’t want to anger you. And I know my statements have been argumentative, but freedom is my goal and if history shows us that American Icons like Lincoln or even Jefferson have committed horrible acts then we cannot excuse them so easily. We are making the grave mistakes of the past if we sanction their acts by saying their mindset excuses them. I would also suggest that you check again to see how "accurately" you are "characterizing" Lincoln’s "motivations." --
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 
Lincoln no fascist, only because the term hadn't been invented yet.