tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post4982998849679575159..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Off Topic Tuesday: Lincoln, O'Reilly and the Unneccessary WarMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-49571977971303340322016-02-07T15:22:00.139-06:002016-02-07T15:22:00.139-06:00I'm not making any requests, just voicing a ge...I'm not making any requests, just voicing a general puzzlement.<br /><br />I've definitely seen pro-Confederate sentiment on Catholic and monarchist blogs and other sources, and that prompted me to look into the constitutional law and the history behind the conflict, but while I have seen them condemn slavery, I don't recall seeing as much in the way of condemnation of the Lincoln assassination.<br /><br />Again, no requests being made--what you said about its being a tragedy and being as bad for the South as for the North is probably all I might expect--but I wonder about that. Based on what you said about Brutus and Cassius I have no sympathy for a man like John Wilkes Booth who knowingly and deliberately emulated Brutus, even if the bad results for the South hadn't happened (since we can't always predict the results of our actions), and irrespective of the bad things President Lincoln did. And I hate vigilante justice.<br /><br />I used to look at a website about the League of the South, and I thought their ideals looked good despite their lack of Catholicism and monarchy--but I've since rejected it since I found out one of the people in charge of it regards Booth as some kind of "hero". I have no respect for such a view, any more than I would have if he'd said that black people were inferior and only good for slavery. (I don't think he either said that or believes it.)<br /><br />Just curious as to why so few Catholic or monarchist blogs that I've seen said anything about the matter--in fact, I think yours is the only one to address the Lincoln assassination in any capacity that I'm aware of. I wonder why that is.Michael E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03388855678756001137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-64058575493145641752011-10-07T22:14:53.886-05:002011-10-07T22:14:53.886-05:00I should also add that, being a monarchist, I obvi...I should also add that, being a monarchist, I obviously do not hold a very high opinion of most presidents. This post was only a response to the latest effort at what I see as trying to make a 'political saint' out of someone I consider far from perfect. There are plenty of other examples. Andrew Jackson, a southerner, an adamantly pro-Union guy who certainly would have used force if anyone had seceded under his watch, had some admirable qualities in my opinion. However, what he did to the Indians would prevent me from ever considering him a model of presidential leadership. And there are plenty of other examples.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-14481680307117681982011-10-07T16:25:59.564-05:002011-10-07T16:25:59.564-05:00The attitudes of other Northern politicians are a ...The attitudes of other Northern politicians are a whole different messy issue. I agree, they often seemed bizarre, contradictory and rather vindictive.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-91998296681432263072011-10-07T14:54:17.282-05:002011-10-07T14:54:17.282-05:00Seems like sophistry to me. So, he 'had no pla...Seems like sophistry to me. So, he 'had no plans to interfere' until he had a plan to interfere. I suppose then his promise that there could be no conflict without the south being the aggressor was not meant to imply that he would not invade them unless they tried to take control of federal property within their states at which point they would be the aggressors even though he was invading the south rather than the south invading the north. Seems an odd argument to me but if that is what one considers the "gold standard of presidential leadership" I will not be able to dissuade, only disagree.<br /><br />Btw though, if the north had stuck to Lincoln's logic (that the union is a suicide pact one can never leave once joining) the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment would not have been so dubious. As it happened, after his death, the north said that the southern states HAD seceded and that in order to be readmitted to the Union they would have to ratify the XIIIth -even though one has to BE a state in order to ratify an amendment. See the contradiction? But, if they had stuck to Lincoln's original argument they would have had a much harder time 'punishing' the south for their sins.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-19742566002775381692011-10-07T13:22:03.013-05:002011-10-07T13:22:03.013-05:00I understand your position. But what I meant by &q...I understand your position. But what I meant by "interfere with slavery in the South" was to directly outlaw slavery by action of the federal government, over the heads of the states. I think at that point, he was still hoping to foster conditions which would eventually lead to the states themselves abolishing slavery.<br /><br />He was quite upfront, before the war, in saying that he did, indeed, hate slavery in the abstract and want it to disappear in the end, and that this was his reason for trying to at least stop its spread into the territories. But he was equally upfront in saying that he did not believe that he, or the federal government, had a legal right to directly outlaw slavery in the Southern states. The proposed Corwin amendment, which he endorsed before the war, as you mentioned, would have made this explicit. But he seems to have considered it implied constitutional law already. <br /><br />That's what I think of his attitude before the war and for the first part of it. As a result of later events, however, he obviously came to the point of deciding that immediate emancipation by federal authority was indeed the way to go since it seemed the only way of decisively undermining the Confederacy and taking away the long-standing bone of contention between North and South. Hence the Emancipation Proclamation by the Commander-in-Chief, legally justified, according to his view, as a 'war measure', and the Thirteenth Amendment as the 'king's cure for all evils', as he called it.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-11171276710314732262011-10-07T11:08:41.223-05:002011-10-07T11:08:41.223-05:00But how can you say he was being honest when he sa...But how can you say he was being honest when he said he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the south and then say that his goal in preserving the union was to abolish slavery everywhere in the end?<br /><br />Lincoln certainly had the worst position of any new president coming into office. He used military force to win what would have been a no-win situation by purely legal means. I don't see how he could not have been dishonest at some point given his statements but, my God, that hardly makes him the only dishonest president or dishonest man in history. I just don't think he should be upheld as the greatest of all time.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-85707412335017458212011-10-07T00:52:42.507-05:002011-10-07T00:52:42.507-05:00I think you definitely have a point re: Lincoln be...I think you definitely have a point re: Lincoln being more radical on the subject of slavery than he sometimes let on. I have read a number of his pre-war speeches on the topic and I certainly sensed ferocity, mixed in with gentler, more moderate and conciliatory passages, which make the fierce parts all the more startling. At one point, he remarks that those who deny the humanity of slaves deserve to be kicked and beaten to death. Another time, he suggests that his audience should just go ahead and tear up the Declaration of Independence, if they don't really believe all men are created equal after all. In some fragmentary notes, he bursts out in indignation at the theory that it is good for some people to be slaves: "Wolves devouring lambs, not for their own greedy maws, but for the good of the lambs!!!". Not to mention comments to the effect that those who enslave others deserve to be enslaved themselves. I can see why his election alarmed Southerners.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I tend to think he was honest when he said in his inaugural address that he did not intend to interfere with slavery in the South. I don't think he had any intent to launch a federal abolitionist program. It would have been political suicide as well as totally destructive of the Union which he was obviously determined to hold together. I think he did believe, at that point, that phasing slavery out slowly, beginning with restricting its spread into the territories, was the safest and surest way to go.<br /><br />Many people ask: which was more important to him, preserving the Union or ending slavery, but I think it's a false dichotomy. I think he thought he had to preserve the Union first in order to end slavery in the long run. There is a letter, often quoted, where Lincoln claims that his only purpose in the war is to 'save the Union', but those who quote this letter often omit the ending, where he distinguishes between his purpose in his official capacity and his personal wish that all men should be free.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-35792635222600972292011-10-06T22:12:04.934-05:002011-10-06T22:12:04.934-05:00But most rulers don't govern countries that we...But most rulers don't govern countries that were founded by a voluntary coming together of independent states. And as for what he said in his first inaugural, I could give him credit for that but then I would have to take away some kudos for his opposition to slavery. If he was as devoted to abolishing slavery as I would give him credit for then he would have to accept criticism for being totally dishonest in his efforts to placate the south. I tend to think he was a true believer on the abolition of slavery and I simply don't believe he meant what he said. Evidently the south didn't either or else the war really wasn't about fear of losing their slaves. He can't have it both ways.<br /><br />On the overall point, I would have to admit that this comes down to a fundamental disagreement on my part with Lincoln. I would hold that the U.S. was at least supposed to be the sort of country where a large portion could go off on their own and if that is what they wanted to do, nothing should stop them. Lincoln, obviously, disagreed. Based on my understanding of how the United States was founded I cannot view secession as being treasonous. Lincoln did. I will agree with him on slavery (assuming he was truly sincere) but even then I cannot grasp correcting the evil of depriving someone of their freedom by depriving someone else of their life.<br /><br />Again, there is the "save the union vs states rights vs ending slavery" etc debate. If his paramount goal was to end slavery no matter what it took I can at least admire his cause on that front. My 'beef' with O'Reilly was holding Lincoln up as the "gold standard of presidential leadership" when his method of ending slavery and uniting the nation was to kill everyone who disagreed with him.<br /><br />Like many southerners at the time, I would have hated that things reached the point of secession. Americans killing Americans on a scale no foreign enemy has ever matched, was just such a horror and left such nasty scars I simply cannot hold up anyone (on either side) who presided over that as the best examples of presidential leadership in American history.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-41596168666903453652011-10-06T18:49:35.324-05:002011-10-06T18:49:35.324-05:00MM, with all due respect, most rulers don't le...MM, with all due respect, most rulers don't let large portions of their countries go off in the vague hope that they will come back someday. And even though a number of states had already seceded before his inauguration, Lincoln was still trying to placate the South in his First Inaugural Address, bending over backwards to say he didn't intend to interfere with slavery where it already existed and so on, and that matters could still be arranged amicably. I don't see that there was much more he could have done but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. <br /><br />Incidentally, I think your post is one of the more fair-minded of the anti-Lincoln articles (or, at any rate, articles critical of Lincoln) that I have seen. I agree with what you say about the black prisoner exchange issue, and also that the Union war effort was too harsh.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-9045921869309399282011-10-05T03:42:55.954-05:002011-10-05T03:42:55.954-05:00Well that's a shame. I suppose everybody needs...Well that's a shame. I suppose everybody needs a "hero" of some sort. It makes me wonder what would have happened if Hitler had succeeded in fostering the Third Reich; would he have been considered their hero too? Isn't Benito Juarez regarded highly and whatnot in Mexico? And revolutionaries in general are national heroes as well (Garibaldi comes into mind)? I'm sure George Washington is pretty much "the god of the Yankees" in some way.<br /><br />I did not believe your intention was to make people hate Lincoln, but I can see that there's not really much to admire about his actions.Le Petit Princehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13396710488106186707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-70260363609563314282011-10-04T22:23:41.341-05:002011-10-04T22:23:41.341-05:00Had a look, didn't interest me that much. Thei...Had a look, didn't interest me that much. Their main point seemed to be that the war was about slavery because the Confederate Constitution made slavery legal -which I don't think there has ever been any doubt about. Even the most ardent states' rights advocates have to admit that one of those rights was slavery. Again, if all Lincoln had done was free the slaves, with no malice or bloodshed, he would have much better grounds for being called the greatest ever. That's not what happened though.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-49570909930898372682011-10-04T22:02:42.342-05:002011-10-04T22:02:42.342-05:00LP Prince, the south is less and less distinct the...LP Prince, the south is less and less distinct these days due to immigration from the north and foreign countries, Lincoln is widely adored down south too. However, to your last paragraph, it was not my intention to make anyone "hate" Lincoln, there are aspects of the man I do like and his murder was terrible for everyone, north and south, my only point was that he should not be held up as the "greatest" President of all time. The greatest would have prevented the crisis in the first place or found a peaceful solution.<br /><br />Matterhorn, I've had a look, but I've read so many different things about what Lincoln (and many other historical figures) have said or were reported to have said that after a while I have to stop listening and just look at what they actually *did*. The way Lincoln enacted emancipation was bad, even after his death when it was totally abosished it was done in a way that smells a little funky in legal, constitutional terms. However, as I stated, it is not his title of "the Great Emancipator" that I have a problem with. He deserves that. What I disagree with is his being held up as an example of what a great American president should be. A great president should never be one who made war on people who were (according to his point of view, not the south's remember) his own countrymen.<br /><br />I do not blame him alone for the crisis (he was certainly part of it in my opinion but most of the damage was done before his election) but he might have at least tried to talk, tried to come to some understanding or even just let the south go for a while (many historians even today think if secession had worked the states would have come back together) rather than immediately called for 75,000 troops to invade the south and force them to submit to an administration that they had zero support for.<br /><br />The fact that he was elected without enough support to even appear on the ballot in most southern states shows, not only how divided the country was, but how he needed to tread softly and carefully with the south if he wanted to keep them on board. He may have had the best of intentions in the world, but (in my opinion at least) the greatest president of all time would have done something other than immediately launch an invasion.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-47789039037806778162011-10-04T21:57:41.690-05:002011-10-04T21:57:41.690-05:00The following site has a sarcastic tone, but nonet...The following site has a sarcastic tone, but nonetheless provides an interesting side-by-side, clause-by-clause comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions:<br /><br />http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htmMayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-26246261369128806972011-10-04T19:55:59.166-05:002011-10-04T19:55:59.166-05:00I agree with you, MM, that emancipation in the US ...I agree with you, MM, that emancipation in the US came in the worst possible manner. However, Lincoln had actually advocated gradual, compensated emancipation repeatedly. Here are some articles on the topic:<br /><br />http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3<br /><br />http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/05/emancipation.htmlMayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-48350618719466944992011-10-04T19:37:28.003-05:002011-10-04T19:37:28.003-05:00Ah Honest Abe, the very man that we are told is a ...Ah Honest Abe, the very man that we are told is a good man and an exemplar president of the U.S.A. of all times... I was rather devastated a long time ago when I realised he was not the great man that he was made out to be. All these church sermons I hear still use him as the paragon of Biblical faith and his humble origins in the log cabin and whatnot, and I grew up listening to these sermons and everybody still thinks so it seems. But in the end I decided to look objectively and what he did just cannot be justified. He had way too much power during his tenure. The South calls the American Civil War by another name; the War of Northern Aggression. Isn't that funny? In fact, I think the South pretty much knows about the myth of Lincoln.<br /><br />So why was south all so racist against the 'coloured people'? Because the abolishing of the slaves was COERCED; if that happens they will replace that system with another and will always look unfavourably towards the former slaves who have gained their independence through a farce.<br /><br />In the end, the war seems to have been a struggle not just for slavery or the preservation of the Union, but a battle between a centralised government and a decentralised one (where the states mandate their rights). The south probably thought "who are you to tell us how to run our economy?" and so seceded. I'm sure it was legal because they joined the Union voluntarily and so they had just the same rights to secede. The horrible war crimes Lincoln has committed is just atrocious... really encouraging the plunder and rape of southern villages. It seems that Americans are very good at propaganda; they do a good job on making people think the other side is truly a monster, when they are just about human as they are. Wilhelm II was not a monstrous ogre that the Americans painted him to be, for example. I find it quite disturbing that many Americans fight for something without finding out the underlying cause behind it and fighting for the sake of... patriotism, democracy, etc... it's rather sickening and in the end it destroyed the very exotic cultural world that once existed and has become the "gold standard democratised" world.<br /><br />Regrettably I used to cheer for the North only because of that whole slavery issue... but I did not know better when I was 7 years old. Now looking objectively, the very sides that I had rooted for in the past all of a sudden look like villains to me. If only the Confederates had won this one, things would have been different. Heck, maybe the Empire of Mexico would have lasted until now even. Ugh Napoleon Napoleon... why leave poor Maxie down in Mexico all alone? If you had kept your troops there those American/Juarista force would not have stood a chance and surely Mexico would have been a better place.<br /><br />And here I am ranting about random stuff again... sorry about that. I've always been told that the American Civil War under Lincoln was the "Second American Revolution" and I still don't know what that was supposed to mean. And yet... I am very conflicted about Lincoln, not because I think he was a good guy but rather... I just don't know if I can make myself hate him for trying to preserve the Union or whatnot. He was still a human being after all, but certainly not the best of the U.S. presidents. Even the revolutionary Washington was actually a decent president I think. I'm not too sure who I think is the best U.S. President though; all of them had their massive faults for me to even consider them my heroes of some kinds. That's why I'll stick with the more stable monarchs of actual character and integrity. :|Le Petit Princehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13396710488106186707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-40165794835750216172011-10-04T17:44:19.455-05:002011-10-04T17:44:19.455-05:00I find it interesting that the last two comments b...I find it interesting that the last two comments both mentioned FDR. It makes sense as each represent a big change for the nature of the US. Washington created it, Lincoln re-created it and FDR re-created it again. Few people are aware (except maybe Libertarians as I've heard Ron Paul mention him) of the strident abolitionist (and really anarchist) Lysander Spooner. He was one of the most staunch and *active* abolitionists in the USA and yet he opposed Lincoln's war. The reason he gave was that to use force to coerce states into staying in the Union was just as unacceptable as the southern states using force to coerce people into slavery. Both were based on forcing people to do something against their will. I should add that his favored method for abolishing slavery was "compensation emancipation" -effectively buying the slaves from their owners and setting them free.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-63423262976532131242011-10-04T17:25:35.038-05:002011-10-04T17:25:35.038-05:00As my mother is from North Carolina, at the time, ...As my mother is from North Carolina, at the time, I would probably have been a Confederate-sympathizer in France (like our government - pragmatically on the Confederate team due to our attitude vis-a-vis Mexico).<br />I think the Lincoln-worship is due to America's need to assert itself as a nation with a history on par with Europe's, hence the need to manufacture heroes. Problem is, independent America has always been a republic, hence its leaders change often, and thus most of them aren't remembered very well as heroes, unless they are rather non-republican in nature (Lincoln, FDR).<br />I should note my favorite president from the U.S. is Nixon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-36798233997576076412011-10-04T17:19:51.069-05:002011-10-04T17:19:51.069-05:00I've long held to the belief that what Abraham...I've long held to the belief that what Abraham Lincoln started, Franklin Roosevelt pretty much finished - in terms of inverting the constitution by establishing federal primacy over the states. <br /><br />Basically, the states declared their independence from Great Britain not as one nation, but as 13 individual sovereign states. <br /><br />Those states then entered into a voluntary federation in the belief that their own interests were best served by belonging to the United States as opposed to going it alone. <br /><br />That's how the US came into being, and that being the case, why on earth would any rational person argue that states have no right of succession? <br /><br />The states created the union to advance their own interests, they joined it voluntarily, and if, at any time, a state feels membership in the United States no longer serves its interests, that state should be able to leave. <br /><br />That's always been my biggest issue with Lincoln. He pretty much single-handedly changed the way the Constitution would be interpreted and enforced for the next 150 years and set up a system where the states serve the union, rather than the other way around as intended. <br /><br />True, slavery was a deplorable evil that should have never been tolerated in the first place, and I would have been all for ending it as quickly and efficiently as possible, but that's not really what the war was fought over. It was fought to abolish state sovereignty, and was unfortunately very successful in that regard.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368547834849724343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-32659244246523793032011-10-04T11:24:02.237-05:002011-10-04T11:24:02.237-05:00Based on my own assessment? Yes, I have the crazy ...Based on my own assessment? Yes, I have the crazy notion that a great leader is not one who slaughters his own people in record numbers -just weird that way I guess. As for B. Hussein Obama, I have already given my opinion of him plenty of times. The current Van Jones protest movement is not hard to understand. The man is a Marxist and his followers are no different than the Bolsheviks who destroyed Holy Russia.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-28020579392363176702011-10-04T10:47:26.758-05:002011-10-04T10:47:26.758-05:00Based on your own assessment. You will be scutiniz...Based on your own assessment. You will be scutinizing Barack Hussein Obama for his lack of soothing speak (or acknowledgement at all) regarding the current and escalating uprise of Anonymous and Van Jones' movement against Wall Street to create class warfare. I anxiously await your article concerning this matterFreedom Re-Foundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16897436171555670114noreply@blogger.com