Lincoln was not trying to preserve the Union. He had a vendetta against the South, and HE WAS A RACIST. He would have colonized all African Americans if he had lived. He destroyed everything our Revolutionary Patriots fought to create for a free people.
America could never have faced down the Nazi's & Japan in WW2, & the Russians in the Cold War if we were a divided state. Those aggressors would have taken advantage of us just as the British, and the French did to us during the civil war. Can you imagine the Germans aiding the South if it had stayed a separate country and then maybe got them to launch a strike on the North or visa versa. It is conceivable. The Germans tried to turn the Mexicans against us in WW2.
@jimmys1978 WWI, as per the Zimmerman Telegram. But Wilson and the American Gov, was anything but neutral, so in many ways, the Germans were backed into a corner by the pseudo neutral American Gov.
I don't blame the south for going to war on the north. It was their livelihood that was at stake. The south new if slavery was abolished it would destroy the south. They were right. It took the south almost 150 years to gain back what it lost after the abolition of slavery and the war. What is unfortunate is that 500,000 people had to die in this war. But to simply blame Lincoln is incorrect. Lincoln had a duty to preserve the union. America is stronger for it.
The most obvious thing that Mr DiLorenzo overlooks is the absolute strangle hold that slavery had on the southern economy. I find that strange that Mr D, being an economics professor overlooked this obvious problem for the South.Their were 3.5 to 4 million slaves in the South. Their were only 5.5 million whites. So blacks made up to close half the workforce.To suddenly free all these people would have been disasterous for the South.That is why they went to war against the North.It was economics.
Just like marriage, entering into the Union was voluntary, but once you sign those papers, you can't get out of it (not without a lot of heartache and money).
Lincoln didn't start the civil war. The South did when it tried to kill American citizens at Fort Sumter. The south invaded federal property and it invaded NEUTRAL Kentucky. It was the War of Southern Aggression.
I wonder if DR. DiLorenzo could answer the question, if any of the other 3 candidates on the ballot in 1860 had won if the Civil War could have been prevented and slavery would have ended as it did peacfully?
@MikeSears100 To answer that one must know the intentions of the other three you mention. I'm not sure much history (for whatever that is worth, depends on who is writing the history) is on those other three. Was Douglas, Breckinridge, or Bell a classic liberal or a statist? If the other three were statist the answer would probably be no. If anyone was a true classic liberal (libertarian) and defender of the Constitutional principles then there could have been a strong possibility.
In my opinion, the best chance for avoiding the Civil War and freeing the slavies peacfully was if John Bell had won.
The Constitutional Union Party. Its name comes from its extremely simple platform, a simple resolution "to recognize no political principle other than the Constitution...the Union...and the Enforcement of the Laws." ~Wikipedia
@residentzombie Lincoln and Bell were unionists. Breckinridge and Douglas were more libertarian. Bell was from the south and was probably pro-slavery but just didn't address the issue because he wanted more votes from northerners. Douglas thought that each new state should be able to vote whether to become slave or free, but Breckinridge believed that since there were 3 more free states than slave states, all new states should be slave until the number became balanced again.
@MikeSears100 I don't it would've been possible to peacefully end slavery in the 7 deep south states until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker in the 1890s. If any anti-slavery amendment were passed, they'd have been gone. 46.5% of the population in the 7 deep south states was enslaved.
If Douglas had won, the civil war would have simply taken place in the western territories instead of the states. Bleeding Kansas would've spread into Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
@MikeSears100 I meant to write "I don't THINK it would've been possible to peacefully end slavery in the 7 deep south states until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker"
And when I wrote "If any anti-slavery amendment were passed, they'd have been gone" I meant that the 7 deep south states would've seceded.
@KayBeeEee1983 Just read the books The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, you will have a different opinion afterwards. Actually there are a lot of books about the tyranny of Lincoln, but those two I can remember their name. Of course you wont read them since your afraid to hear anything that will prove you wrong.
@RevBillyRayCollins Tyrant or not, Lincoln tried to preserve the Union and the CSA tried to divide it. What makes you think Lincoln wasn't trying to preserve the Union?
@KayBeeEee1983 Because he destroyed the idea that the union was a voluntary association of states by forcing the southern states to stay at gunpoint. He only saved the union in a geographical sense.
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes perpetual union created by Abraham Lincoln. And the Articles of Confederation are no longer around, I dont know if you've noticed the last couple of hundred years or so, but we havent followed that document in a very long time.
@RevBillyRayCollins It proves beyond all doubt that the southern states were perfectly fine with joining a union that was perpetual. XD God you're so dumb!
@RevBillyRayCollins That's not what I said. The Articles of Confederation proves that the southern states wanted a perpetual union and there is no writing which suggests that the "perpetual union" aspect of the Articles was something they wanted to change for the Constitution. The reason it's not in the Constitution is because the Constitution created a single, sovereign, free, independent nation. It was understood, at that time, that secession is revolution and ALWAYS hurts the nation.
@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah and the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation, it is no more. You cant justify anything with that to the War between the States. They formed a new style of govt with the Const and no where in the Const does it state the union is perpetual. Your saying the idea of perpetualism is in the Const by not being in there. It makes no sense. Yes there is one small overarching federal govt but there are also something known as the states which retain power also, it gave the
@RevBillyRayCollins If the union was originally intended to be voluntary, why was there so much debate in the ratification conventions & why did it take so long for some states to ratify it? Rhode Island debated for 2 years! Why didn't they say "lets just sign it & if we don't like it we could just leave the Union anytime we want anyway"? Because they knew that if they ratified it there was no turning back
The states aren't sovereign & independent under the Constitution so perpetuity is implied
@KayBeeEee1983 You think the sole reason behind the debating over the ratification of the Const was just because the states werent sure if they could leave or not? They were a lot of reasons for debate, over the bill of rights, over how much power is to the feds and how much to the states, following the Virginia or the New Jersey plan, obviously settling finally on both, I havent read an account that whether or not they could secede came into question. You also got to look at the history of
@RevBillyRayCollins "You think the sole reason behind the debating over the ratification of the Const was just because the states werent sure if they could leave or not?"
@KayBeeEee1983 states plenty of power and sovereignty over their respective areas. The Const didnt create a single govt, but 14 govts. If secession always hurts the nation then why did America become the greatest superpower the world has ever seen? It was Norway or Sweden which seceded from the other, they are both doing fine. Russia is doing okay when it let many nations secede. WV seceded from VA. The more important question is are the people happy? The people are all that matters. If they are
@KayBeeEee1983 Rhode Island, look at what type of people inhabited that colony, it was a place that was known as being for the rejects, people deemed as heritics and criminals were forced into exile there, it was a place known to have little governing law. Look at NC and why they took a long time, they were a colony which began by people 'illegally' settling there, no original charter, no original govt. Its in their blood to be 'rebels'. Did the Const not create the feds and the states?
@KayBeeEee1983 behind it then so should the govt. Remember that great quote Government of the people by the people for the people, I wonder who said that....
@KayBeeEee1983 If you wait a little bit longer, he actually goes back to talking about how he dislikes idolizing politicians or whatever phrase he used previously.
Article One, Section 9, clause 2 of the Unites States Constitution states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION or invasion the public safety may require it."
@KayBeeEee1983 I'm sorry you see any differing opinion, which does, in fact, state facts, only as propaganda. Seeing as this is your view there is no hope of an actual intellectual discussion on the matter. Best wishes to you for wherever life takes you.
@2ndbase21325 I want FACTS, not opinions. If there are useful facts in those books, state them here. I said that Southerners DO have a point about secession, but usurping US property is a crime. Every time I bring up the fact that attacking the Star-of-the-West and Fort Sumter was criminal, southerners give up and tell me to read a certain book or watch a youtube video but it never has anything to do with US property, it just tries to convince the audience that the South had a right to secede.
@UBSCARED Southerners do have a point about omission. The 10th amendment states,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That could be interpreted to mean that since secession isn't explicitly prohibited, then it's up to each state, or the people, to determine its legality.
But that's irrelevant in the context of the civil war because stealing federal property is a crime.
The southern secession of the 1800's was the real 2nd American revolution. Unfortunately, it was a failed attempt. I am most proud to be a southern man. Long live the confederacy!
@UBSCARED Secession is allowed by omission. The government can do whatever it wants within the confines of the Constitution and absolutely nothing else. Going to war against a state that secedes is not in there. The states can secede if they want.
Maybe it's allowed, maybe it's not. One thing is certain, though: Stealing and/or destroying federal property is illegal, and that's exactly what happened all throughout the South (most famously at Fort Sumter).
Besides, if a minority group can secede from the Union without the consent of the majority, it goes against the principle of majority rule, one of the central traits of democracy.
@KayBeeEee1983 It's not allowed unless in instances of defense of property and personal liberty. The federal government was infringing on the rights of the people and they therefore had the right to fight against it. That is the whole foundation of how the United States was founded- the South's secession was based on the same beliefs as the Founder's secession from England.
If the majority in the state's want secession then it is a democratic process.
@2ndbase21325 What rights and liberties was the government infringing on? South Carolina fired upon the Star of the West on January 9, 1861, before Lincoln even took office.
The Revolution was founded on the idea that if the colonies aren't allowed to have representation in Parliament, then they don't have to follow laws created by Parliament. The colonists did not want to secede from the British Empire at first. It was a last resort. It's the polar opposite of the Southern secession. (cont'd)
@2ndbase21325 If the American colonies had received representation in Parliament, the Revolution wouldn't have happened. The South had representation in Congress. They even had MORE representation than they deserved. Southerners considered slaves to be property, equal to livestock, but each slave counted as 3/5 of a person in the census to determine how much representation each state received in Congress. And then the southern states WILLFULLY LEFT Congress. Polar opposites.
@2ndbase21325 "If the majority in the state's want secession then it is a democratic process."
The majority of states didn't want secession, though. There were a total of 33 states in 1861. 11 seceded, and even if you throw in the 4 border states as sympathizers (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware), that's still less than 50% of the states.
@KayBeeEee1983 I'd recommend you read up on the economic situation of the time with the monopolization by the North and underrepresentation of the south in government ("Tariff of Abomination" etc). I recommend The Costs of War by John Denson and A Century of War also by Denson. The Am. Rev. was about representation and rights. To miss one is to miss the other. Secession is not based on how many states, but how many within the states... Therefore it is a democratic process.
@2ndbase21325 I don't need to read a book of southern propaganda. Just state the facts. If the tariff hadn't been passed, the Northern economy would've been hurt far worse than the southern economy was. It didn't put any southerners out of business, it just meant they had to pay a little bit more for certain goods. Northerners were being put out of business before the tariff. Southerners didn't care about the well-being of the whole nation, they only cared about their own immediate interests.
@2ndbase21325 How was the South underrepresented in the government? Because they lost the presidential election and democrats were no longer the majority in Congress?
@UBSCARED no one who is intellectually honest with themselves would say that the 13 colonies knowingly joined a union that they could never leave. it was mentioned in the ratification discussions that the states could leave at any time.
@23mbtx23 "no one who is intellectually honest with themselves would say that the 13 colonies knowingly joined a union that they could never leave."
LMAO. Have you ever taken a US history course? The first constitution of the United States (ratified in 1781) was called the "Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION". It was right in the title and all 13 colonies ratified it.
@UBSCARED Read the ratification papers of the 13 colonies.. most have a clause that states the State can leave at anytime if the states legislature decides.Read our founding fathers, they all recognized the right for any or all states to leave at ANY TIME. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address that if there were anyone that wishes the union to be dissolved let them stand undisturbed. (speaking to elected members of congress from the states) Supremacy clause doesnt mention secession!
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference ..."
" ... between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
" ... between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Who would want to be known forever as the president who let the union divide? Lincoln disrespected the freedom stated by the constitution of the states to secede if they wanted. So he made a choice that killed a million people. Lincoln was a tyrant period.
4.05 - "The Union of the "Founders" was voluntary" - tell that to the American Loyalists who were terrorized into submission or exile by the revolutionaries in 1781.
Hey, check out my Ron Paul vs Lincoln video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
Lincoln on Slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." --- March 14, 1861
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." --- September 15, 1858
We've been moving steadily towards a Soviet-styled constitution and a Soviet-styled state for some time. When General Patton wanted to push the Soviets back to their original borders after the war, the American media went nuts. The media, the State Department, Eisenhower and Marshall all wanted to sede large amounts of real estate over to the Soviet Union. Things have not changed, alas.
"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have
culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."
@civilwarcow "More Kinds of people(poor whites,blacks women)have more freedoms now then ever in the history of this nation,thanks to Lincoln and the Union soldier" Could you offer any factual substantiation for that remarkable statement. We have fewer freedoms today than we did just 10 yrs ago thanks to a tyrannical Fed Gov't so I would really really be interested in your showing me these greater freedoms.
Thank God for men like professor DiLorenzo. Until Americans get right on the real Lincoln they will continue to lose their freedoms with little hope of ever regaining them. I don't know any Southern Nationalists today that view the Old South with an uncritical eye. We know that slavery was a horrible curse, forcibly imposed by the British King (for profit). Simply put, Lincoln denied the very principle upon which the colonies gained independence, namely, the right to form new government.
@uk6strings "Yes - Hamilton to Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Carter to Obama."
You left out Washington, Madison, and Jackson. The DiLorenzo cult knows nothing about American history before 1860 (and barely knows any American history AFTER 1860).
@Zeeboe I think Lincoln was for Lincoln and that the South was fighting for what broght the USA together... the union of each STATE to join the the federal goverment by CHOICE not force!!
@JoezVendetta - I think slavery was an issue though, and who knows what would have become of the rights of black people if the South did win. I like to think slavery would have ended on it's own at some point, but no one knows for sure, and then what rights black people would have afterwards is also an unknown.
I am reading "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" and I think it is a good book and very well written. I really can't offer anything to argue against it and it does appear that the South did have a legal right to leave the Union and honestly, I do think Lincoln should have just let them go because there was so much suffering in the 1860's. However, I don't support what was once the CSA government at all, but I do agree they had rights.
@Zeeboe thank you for objectively looking at the situation and using common sense to atleast recognize the right to secede. remember britain did not grant independence to the "USA" they granted 13 separate acts of independence to the 13 colonies and only after that point, did the colonies decide to unite and become the USA. at that time it was with the understanding that they could leave at any time they wished. in fact n vermont that was a condition of entering the union that they could leave
@23mbtx23 not vermont. It was Virginia, New York and Rhode Island which ratified the constitution with the specific reservation that they could secede if they chose to. Under the Comity Principle, if those states had that right, then they all did since no state has any rights or powers that others are not entitled to.
One problem: at 18:26, he says "plunging the whole nation into a war".
Meanwhile elsewhere he says "the union was voluntary."
A union cannot be voluntary, if it's a nation, which by definition is a single sovereignty. Only a federal republic of sovereign states can be a voluntary union.
Dilorenzo doesn't know international law, which is the problem, i.e. he doesn't know that the states were sovereign nations unto themselves.
@kungfu2u2 So you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him? Please..
@johnnyutah1605 "you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him"
I believe she can divorce him, but the bible says otherwise & the founding fathers were Christians. Matt 19:6, 9 "they're no longer two, but 1 flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate...anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, & marries another woman commits adultery”
@johnnyutah1605 "So you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him?"
Besides, your analogy doesn't describe the Pre-War relationship between the North and the South at all. The North wasn't oppressing the South.
@kungfu2u2 the 13 original colonies were each separately granted independence by Britain. after that they decided to form the USA.. with the understanding that they can leave whenever they wanted.. the states are soverign
Interesting. This guy is just taking a contrarian view to what has commonly been acknowledged as true by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of reality and the facts of Lincoln's life and his times. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is profitable and popular in our country at the moment.
Er, no. It was over sovereignty-- the states wanted to keep their sovereignty, while the north wanted to destroy it. It was never about slavery, slavery simply became a war-asset, and they freed the slaves in order to gain voters.
There's no point in critiquing a saint until it's proven that he was a murderer. Dilorenzo puts the cart before the horse by bashing Lincoln while claiming that the Union was a nation, and that South Carolina was wrong to defend its territory from invaders. What he NEEDS to do, is prove that each state was a sovereign nation, and thhen the facts will take care of themselves
Religion strives to explain the metaphysical. Science shouldn't. The bread & butter, or nuts & bolts, of science is analysis, trial, replication, practicality, usefulness, utility, application & problem-solving. There's far too much postulating within the monopolistic, corporate/government-funded sciences. Free-market forces are being marginalized as the planet moves towards consolidation of money, might & oil.
The climate changes. We remain well below the high temps recorded during the pre-industrial Medieval warm period. Scientists can't forecast the weather beyond 72 hours. Although when it comes to the events of antiquity, they can tell you what went on as if they were there. It's the attempts to stop flying fists with one's face that avulses many teeth.
Exactly where did the support for Negro-equality emanate from prior to Lincoln's War? From page 607 of "An American Glossary" (1962) by Richard Thornton we find: [1859 The Democratic party can no more run their party without niggers than you could run a steam-engine without fuel. That is all there is to Democracy; and when you cannot raise niggers enough for the market, then you must go abroad fishing through the whole world. — Mr. Wade of Ohio, U.S. Senate, Feb. 25 : id., p. 1354.]
@TransUnicorn That was why they were hiding the truth of the MWP period in the climategate emails
Gore and his banking partners are planning on cashing in bigtime if cap & trade is passed or if what we exhale and plants use for food is declared a pollutant
Its a big scam thats going to squeeze the working/middleclass here and push the last of our industry out of the country
They lied & screwed us with free trade, now they plan on finishing us up with this CO2 pollutant bs
This guy really doesn't have much to say, does he? Why should he? He just began studying Lincoln in the late 1990s. And he wrote two books--presuming an expertise on Lincoln--when? While he was studying, or in the two months after his initial scratch below the surface of what he had been taught in high school? I guess PA schools are not as good as MD schools. We were taught about Lincoln's curtailing of some rights during the civil war.
I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it.
Much is being said about peace; and no man desires peace more ardently than I. Still I am yet unprepared to give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration. -Lincoln
The Confederacy voted for dissolution. The President had no Constitutional authority to wage war against former commonwealths of the United States. The plot to kidnap Lincoln evolved into the successful conspiracy to murder him. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton & California senator (& Lincoln pallbearer) John Conness were intimately involved in securing Booth's access to Lincoln, the disabling the capital's telegraph network and safe passage for the fugitive Booth into Virginia.
The States created the federal government. The States are independent Republics within the Federation of States. In a centralized govt. of the Soviet model, States are held hostage by the tyranny of central planners.
The only tryants you dumb fuck were the slavers, the child sellers, and the traitors. Read Lincoln's full quotes- his full speeches. Not the distorted slivers of shit this dumb fuck slides up your ass.
Since most of you dumb fucks have never read even ONE of Lincoln's full speeches, and you sure as fuck don't know the context, its easy for you dumb fucks to be misled by fucks like DiLorenzo.
Valcar -- sure dumb fuck -- Slave traders were those fucks that bought slaves, sold slaves, raped slaves, whipped slaves, butt fucked slave children, and got rich on slaves. Guys like Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Toombs, Yance -- you know, the Southern elite.
Some slavers lived in the North -- but most were chased out of the North and infected the South. The Confederacy ws FOUNDED on slavery dumb fuck. The US was founded on "all men created equal"
Valacar -- the slavers were from people like you Some lived in Mobile, some lived in NY, some lived in Richmond. The Northern States got rid of slavery
The slavers were heroes - the elite -- of the South. Nearly 100% of Confederate and Southern leaders were slave rapers directly, or came from slave raping families.
The Confederacy was FOUNDED on slavery -- the only nation in world history to literally be FOUNDED on slavery, before or since.
The slave traders were everyone who purchased goods produced by slaves-- i.e. everyone in the western world. Slavery was just part of the global economy, the South simply was the only place where it was profitable.
@Trans dumb fuck - the tyrants you fucking idiot were the slavers -- who not only enslaved 20 million people - they were trying to SPREAD that shit and enslave another 20-100 million fuck face Got that yet, retard?
The same fucks who enslaved millions, stopped free speech and press and stopped real elections in the south from 1820 on, Got that dumb fuck?
@TransUnicorn The biggest crime of the South was the usurpation of federal property located within the southern states. Even if secession were legal, taking Fort Sumter and firing on the Star-of-the-West were criminal acts. That's not debatable.
"The first point. The union was and is indissoluble."
No union of any kind is ever indissoluble. Freedom of association is a choice that cannot be removed by any edict, law or parchment. It is inherent in the human condition, hardwired into our being (reference "inalienable rights") and is always, always a choice open to any man or group of men.
Alcira, not only is your comment despicable and you obviously a repugnant human being, but it is also absolutely stupid to post it HERE! You better watch the video first...
(2) strengthened the legality (through bench law) of this institutionalized abomination. Judge Lincoln, Stalin, Vlad, Pinochet, Thos. Woodrow Wilson & Hitler on their deeds.
(1) Lincoln's adult life was one grand swindle after another. He was not a poor country lawyer. He followed the judges' circuit and out-earned the governor of Illinois. He entered into schemes, using tax money, with crooks, to dig canals across the state. Naturally, as finaglers are wont to do, they took the money and ran. Lincoln was a defender of the Fugitive Slave Act (as he often represented slave owners in court), which
I have a question: If the 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to all of the states, did it not already apply to the states that ratified the Constitution or were there some states that failed to ratify it? By ratifying it did the states that ratify it, accept is preminence? Also, which states did not ratify it until it was forced on them by the 14th Amendment?
DiLorenzo is such a liar. India still has slavery today. I talked to a guy who works at my work, and he plans to go back to India. He was born there, and says he owns slaves. SO these countries all did not stop slavery.
Plus he never talks about the Vatican connection to the SOuth. At least that I know of. Did he ever mention about a central bank being created in the South, the same institution that tried to kill ANdrew Jackson, soame one most of our founders hated?
Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics.
Al of these people being catholic has no significance, They- the Mexicans will infiltrate the govt. to "takeover".
What are they making secret plans in the white house baement?
Of course slavery exists , even in this country. The illegal sex trade of
foreign women here , Even children here, and on the Mexican border sre made sex slaves .Imperiializtion not emperialization.. You need to educate yourself before claiming way out
What way out stories do I have? Try reading some books written by early american founders. Samuel Morse is one. He wrote a book about a Papel Conspriacy to takeover america.
There were many articles in papers written. many other books.
to destroy any country in the world. The Taliban, communists, nazi's -whomever. Once again it has no significance here. This has no bearing on reality. It is good fare for hobbists ie. bigfoot ,UFO's and the like. However I do agree that slavery tragically, does exist. How can it be stopped? People will exploit anything -
Well, I'm just saying, Dilorenzo is a Jesuit. The Jesuits are the ones who plotted against this country and assassinated Lincoln. So I am leary of listening to him talk about "the real Abraham Lincoln".
Plus he is buddies with Michael Peroutka, another Jesuit.
So even the people in alternative media that support Dilorenzo, are also Jesuits.
Just saying, maybe a guy who is tied to a group which killed Lincoln, may not be telling the whole truth.
Lincoln was not trying to preserve the Union. He had a vendetta against the South, and HE WAS A RACIST. He would have colonized all African Americans if he had lived. He destroyed everything our Revolutionary Patriots fought to create for a free people.
bcartner 1 week ago 2
America could never have faced down the Nazi's & Japan in WW2, & the Russians in the Cold War if we were a divided state. Those aggressors would have taken advantage of us just as the British, and the French did to us during the civil war. Can you imagine the Germans aiding the South if it had stayed a separate country and then maybe got them to launch a strike on the North or visa versa. It is conceivable. The Germans tried to turn the Mexicans against us in WW2.
jimmys1978 2 weeks ago
@jimmys1978 How in the world can you be sure there still would have been a world war II?
Miseslibertarian 2 weeks ago
@jimmys1978 WWI, as per the Zimmerman Telegram. But Wilson and the American Gov, was anything but neutral, so in many ways, the Germans were backed into a corner by the pseudo neutral American Gov.
TheHylander1314 4 days ago
I don't blame the south for going to war on the north. It was their livelihood that was at stake. The south new if slavery was abolished it would destroy the south. They were right. It took the south almost 150 years to gain back what it lost after the abolition of slavery and the war. What is unfortunate is that 500,000 people had to die in this war. But to simply blame Lincoln is incorrect. Lincoln had a duty to preserve the union. America is stronger for it.
jimmys1978 2 weeks ago
The most obvious thing that Mr DiLorenzo overlooks is the absolute strangle hold that slavery had on the southern economy. I find that strange that Mr D, being an economics professor overlooked this obvious problem for the South.Their were 3.5 to 4 million slaves in the South. Their were only 5.5 million whites. So blacks made up to close half the workforce.To suddenly free all these people would have been disasterous for the South.That is why they went to war against the North.It was economics.
jimmys1978 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
terrible book
cooljool1 2 months ago
@cooljool1 because it speaks the truth?
swordsallday 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just like marriage, entering into the Union was voluntary, but once you sign those papers, you can't get out of it (not without a lot of heartache and money).
Lincoln didn't start the civil war. The South did when it tried to kill American citizens at Fort Sumter. The south invaded federal property and it invaded NEUTRAL Kentucky. It was the War of Southern Aggression.
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
DiLorenzo rules!!!
risteepeder 5 months ago 2
This interviewer seems supremely unhappy about Mr. DiLorenzo's positions. DiLorenzo rocks.
jpschubbs 6 months ago
Keep researching, your findings are premature. Your book should have been titled "The Real Lincoln, kinda, sorta, I think."
RamsesReturns 6 months ago in playlist Abe Lincoln War Criminal
I wonder if DR. DiLorenzo could answer the question, if any of the other 3 candidates on the ballot in 1860 had won if the Civil War could have been prevented and slavery would have ended as it did peacfully?
1860 election
Stephen A. Douglas
John C. Breckinridge
John Bell
Abraham Lincoln
MikeSears100 7 months ago
@MikeSears100 To answer that one must know the intentions of the other three you mention. I'm not sure much history (for whatever that is worth, depends on who is writing the history) is on those other three. Was Douglas, Breckinridge, or Bell a classic liberal or a statist? If the other three were statist the answer would probably be no. If anyone was a true classic liberal (libertarian) and defender of the Constitutional principles then there could have been a strong possibility.
residentzombie 7 months ago
@residentzombie
In my opinion, the best chance for avoiding the Civil War and freeing the slavies peacfully was if John Bell had won.
The Constitutional Union Party. Its name comes from its extremely simple platform, a simple resolution "to recognize no political principle other than the Constitution...the Union...and the Enforcement of the Laws." ~Wikipedia
MikeSears100 7 months ago
@residentzombie Lincoln and Bell were unionists. Breckinridge and Douglas were more libertarian. Bell was from the south and was probably pro-slavery but just didn't address the issue because he wanted more votes from northerners. Douglas thought that each new state should be able to vote whether to become slave or free, but Breckinridge believed that since there were 3 more free states than slave states, all new states should be slave until the number became balanced again.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@MikeSears100 I don't it would've been possible to peacefully end slavery in the 7 deep south states until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker in the 1890s. If any anti-slavery amendment were passed, they'd have been gone. 46.5% of the population in the 7 deep south states was enslaved.
If Douglas had won, the civil war would have simply taken place in the western territories instead of the states. Bleeding Kansas would've spread into Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@MikeSears100 I meant to write "I don't THINK it would've been possible to peacefully end slavery in the 7 deep south states until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker"
And when I wrote "If any anti-slavery amendment were passed, they'd have been gone" I meant that the 7 deep south states would've seceded.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Look at all these peaceful conversations your having with these people. Why cant you have one with me?
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're a fucking bigot, that's why. Not to mention psychotically hypocritical.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No, you just believe in destroying the country and I believe in preserving it.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're fucking crazy. The confederates tried to destroy the country, and Lincoln tried to preserve it.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Just read the books The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, you will have a different opinion afterwards. Actually there are a lot of books about the tyranny of Lincoln, but those two I can remember their name. Of course you wont read them since your afraid to hear anything that will prove you wrong.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Tyrant or not, Lincoln tried to preserve the Union and the CSA tried to divide it. What makes you think Lincoln wasn't trying to preserve the Union?
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Because he destroyed the idea that the union was a voluntary association of states by forcing the southern states to stay at gunpoint. He only saved the union in a geographical sense.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union destroyed the idea that the union was a voluntary association of states.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes perpetual union created by Abraham Lincoln. And the Articles of Confederation are no longer around, I dont know if you've noticed the last couple of hundred years or so, but we havent followed that document in a very long time.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It proves beyond all doubt that the southern states were perfectly fine with joining a union that was perpetual. XD God you're so dumb!
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Nothing in the US Const states that the union is perpetual, if it does please point it out to me, because I cant find it.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins That's not what I said. The Articles of Confederation proves that the southern states wanted a perpetual union and there is no writing which suggests that the "perpetual union" aspect of the Articles was something they wanted to change for the Constitution. The reason it's not in the Constitution is because the Constitution created a single, sovereign, free, independent nation. It was understood, at that time, that secession is revolution and ALWAYS hurts the nation.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah and the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation, it is no more. You cant justify anything with that to the War between the States. They formed a new style of govt with the Const and no where in the Const does it state the union is perpetual. Your saying the idea of perpetualism is in the Const by not being in there. It makes no sense. Yes there is one small overarching federal govt but there are also something known as the states which retain power also, it gave the
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins If the union was originally intended to be voluntary, why was there so much debate in the ratification conventions & why did it take so long for some states to ratify it? Rhode Island debated for 2 years! Why didn't they say "lets just sign it & if we don't like it we could just leave the Union anytime we want anyway"? Because they knew that if they ratified it there was no turning back
The states aren't sovereign & independent under the Constitution so perpetuity is implied
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 You think the sole reason behind the debating over the ratification of the Const was just because the states werent sure if they could leave or not? They were a lot of reasons for debate, over the bill of rights, over how much power is to the feds and how much to the states, following the Virginia or the New Jersey plan, obviously settling finally on both, I havent read an account that whether or not they could secede came into question. You also got to look at the history of
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "You think the sole reason behind the debating over the ratification of the Const was just because the states werent sure if they could leave or not?"
I'm done.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Is that what you actually think? Man, you need to read up on your history of the Const.
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins You are illiterate.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 states plenty of power and sovereignty over their respective areas. The Const didnt create a single govt, but 14 govts. If secession always hurts the nation then why did America become the greatest superpower the world has ever seen? It was Norway or Sweden which seceded from the other, they are both doing fine. Russia is doing okay when it let many nations secede. WV seceded from VA. The more important question is are the people happy? The people are all that matters. If they are
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Secession doesn't always hurt, I was wrong about that. But secession is revolution.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins "The Const didnt create a single govt, but 14 govts."
That's such an ignorant statement. Read the fucking document.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Rhode Island, look at what type of people inhabited that colony, it was a place that was known as being for the rejects, people deemed as heritics and criminals were forced into exile there, it was a place known to have little governing law. Look at NC and why they took a long time, they were a colony which began by people 'illegally' settling there, no original charter, no original govt. Its in their blood to be 'rebels'. Did the Const not create the feds and the states?
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 behind it then so should the govt. Remember that great quote Government of the people by the people for the people, I wonder who said that....
RevBillyRayCollins 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevBillyRayCollins "Remember that great quote Government of the people by the people for the people, I wonder who said that...."
Lincoln said that you ignorant fool. For the love of God, just shut the fuck up.
KayBeeEee1983 6 months ago
How can this guy have a problem with memorializing presidents on Mount Rushmore but not have a problem with the Lincoln memorial?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 If you wait a little bit longer, he actually goes back to talking about how he dislikes idolizing politicians or whatever phrase he used previously.
RKAddict101 7 months ago
This guy's voice gets under my skin.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
Article One, Section 9, clause 2 of the Unites States Constitution states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of REBELLION or invasion the public safety may require it."
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'm sorry you see any differing opinion, which does, in fact, state facts, only as propaganda. Seeing as this is your view there is no hope of an actual intellectual discussion on the matter. Best wishes to you for wherever life takes you.
2ndbase21325 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 I want FACTS, not opinions. If there are useful facts in those books, state them here. I said that Southerners DO have a point about secession, but usurping US property is a crime. Every time I bring up the fact that attacking the Star-of-the-West and Fort Sumter was criminal, southerners give up and tell me to read a certain book or watch a youtube video but it never has anything to do with US property, it just tries to convince the audience that the South had a right to secede.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
Homeless Christ 02 Colloquium minute 7: on Abraham Lincoln
Colloquium2011 7 months ago
@UBSCARED Southerners do have a point about omission. The 10th amendment states,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That could be interpreted to mean that since secession isn't explicitly prohibited, then it's up to each state, or the people, to determine its legality.
But that's irrelevant in the context of the civil war because stealing federal property is a crime.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
The interviewer seems very cold
thespacialone 8 months ago
I have read both books by DiLorenzo. They are very revealing about the reality of Lincoln. If anyone doubts this, then go read the books yourself.
TheEnigmaCypher 9 months ago 2
The southern secession of the 1800's was the real 2nd American revolution. Unfortunately, it was a failed attempt. I am most proud to be a southern man. Long live the confederacy!
madmite 9 months ago
@UBSCARED Secession is allowed by omission. The government can do whatever it wants within the confines of the Constitution and absolutely nothing else. Going to war against a state that secedes is not in there. The states can secede if they want.
2ndbase21325 9 months ago
@2ndbase21325 "Secession is allowed by omission."
Maybe it's allowed, maybe it's not. One thing is certain, though: Stealing and/or destroying federal property is illegal, and that's exactly what happened all throughout the South (most famously at Fort Sumter).
Besides, if a minority group can secede from the Union without the consent of the majority, it goes against the principle of majority rule, one of the central traits of democracy.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 It's not allowed unless in instances of defense of property and personal liberty. The federal government was infringing on the rights of the people and they therefore had the right to fight against it. That is the whole foundation of how the United States was founded- the South's secession was based on the same beliefs as the Founder's secession from England.
If the majority in the state's want secession then it is a democratic process.
2ndbase21325 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 What rights and liberties was the government infringing on? South Carolina fired upon the Star of the West on January 9, 1861, before Lincoln even took office.
The Revolution was founded on the idea that if the colonies aren't allowed to have representation in Parliament, then they don't have to follow laws created by Parliament. The colonists did not want to secede from the British Empire at first. It was a last resort. It's the polar opposite of the Southern secession. (cont'd)
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 If the American colonies had received representation in Parliament, the Revolution wouldn't have happened. The South had representation in Congress. They even had MORE representation than they deserved. Southerners considered slaves to be property, equal to livestock, but each slave counted as 3/5 of a person in the census to determine how much representation each state received in Congress. And then the southern states WILLFULLY LEFT Congress. Polar opposites.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 "If the majority in the state's want secession then it is a democratic process."
The majority of states didn't want secession, though. There were a total of 33 states in 1861. 11 seceded, and even if you throw in the 4 border states as sympathizers (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware), that's still less than 50% of the states.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'd recommend you read up on the economic situation of the time with the monopolization by the North and underrepresentation of the south in government ("Tariff of Abomination" etc). I recommend The Costs of War by John Denson and A Century of War also by Denson. The Am. Rev. was about representation and rights. To miss one is to miss the other. Secession is not based on how many states, but how many within the states... Therefore it is a democratic process.
2ndbase21325 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 I don't need to read a book of southern propaganda. Just state the facts. If the tariff hadn't been passed, the Northern economy would've been hurt far worse than the southern economy was. It didn't put any southerners out of business, it just meant they had to pay a little bit more for certain goods. Northerners were being put out of business before the tariff. Southerners didn't care about the well-being of the whole nation, they only cared about their own immediate interests.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@2ndbase21325 How was the South underrepresented in the government? Because they lost the presidential election and democrats were no longer the majority in Congress?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
Lincoln was a dictator
fbimostwanted101 9 months ago 2
@UBSCARED no one who is intellectually honest with themselves would say that the 13 colonies knowingly joined a union that they could never leave. it was mentioned in the ratification discussions that the states could leave at any time.
23mbtx23 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@23mbtx23 "no one who is intellectually honest with themselves would say that the 13 colonies knowingly joined a union that they could never leave."
LMAO. Have you ever taken a US history course? The first constitution of the United States (ratified in 1781) was called the "Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION". It was right in the title and all 13 colonies ratified it.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@UBSCARED : You have emotional problems.
TransUnicorn 9 months ago
@UBSCARED Read the ratification papers of the 13 colonies.. most have a clause that states the State can leave at anytime if the states legislature decides.Read our founding fathers, they all recognized the right for any or all states to leave at ANY TIME. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address that if there were anyone that wishes the union to be dissolved let them stand undisturbed. (speaking to elected members of congress from the states) Supremacy clause doesnt mention secession!
23mbtx23 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
100CommonCents 9 months ago
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference ..."
continued
100CommonCents 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100CommonCents
continued
" ... between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
- Abraham Lincoln
100CommonCents 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100CommonCents continued
" ... between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
- Abraham Lincoln
100CommonCents 9 months ago
The quote about the "mystical chords" of the Union spoken in Lincoln's inaugural, came from Secretary of State Seward.
DeLarger 1 year ago
Who would want to be known forever as the president who let the union divide? Lincoln disrespected the freedom stated by the constitution of the states to secede if they wanted. So he made a choice that killed a million people. Lincoln was a tyrant period.
nickvonmises 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The federal government has been too powerful for too long.
nickvonmises 1 year ago
4.05 - "The Union of the "Founders" was voluntary" - tell that to the American Loyalists who were terrorized into submission or exile by the revolutionaries in 1781.
kcirdrab 1 year ago
@kcirdrab That was in reference to states. Obviously, many individuals did not voluntarily support secession from the British Empire.
hungarygator 1 year ago
Hey, check out my Ron Paul vs Lincoln video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
youtube.com/watch?v=oiH_XnqnyHU
ErikLiberty 1 year ago 3
hey Thomas Dilorenzo... your book inspired my newest cartoon video... check it out 'The Real Lincoln'
TNSONSOFLIBERTY 1 year ago
WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO FOLKS!!!!!
IT IS WELL WORTH THE TIME. UNFORTUNATELY THE START IS SLOW, BUT GOOD INFO DOES COME UP!
davfritz 1 year ago 4
Thank God for Thomas DiLorenzo. Great interview!
TigerRifle 1 year ago 3
Thank God for Thomas DiLorenzo.
TigerRifle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lincoln on Slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." --- March 14, 1861
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." --- September 15, 1858
CelestialEmbodiment 1 year ago
Gawd I love this guy-Dilorenzo is a true hero in the liberty/freedom movement and is a fellow at the real free market Mises Institute.
markmnc1 1 year ago 2
We've been moving steadily towards a Soviet-styled constitution and a Soviet-styled state for some time. When General Patton wanted to push the Soviets back to their original borders after the war, the American media went nuts. The media, the State Department, Eisenhower and Marshall all wanted to sede large amounts of real estate over to the Soviet Union. Things have not changed, alas.
MuzzleBlast357 1 year ago
"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have
equsnarnd 1 year ago
culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."
equsnarnd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@civilwarcow "More Kinds of people(poor whites,blacks women)have more freedoms now then ever in the history of this nation,thanks to Lincoln and the Union soldier" Could you offer any factual substantiation for that remarkable statement. We have fewer freedoms today than we did just 10 yrs ago thanks to a tyrannical Fed Gov't so I would really really be interested in your showing me these greater freedoms.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Thank God for men like professor DiLorenzo. Until Americans get right on the real Lincoln they will continue to lose their freedoms with little hope of ever regaining them. I don't know any Southern Nationalists today that view the Old South with an uncritical eye. We know that slavery was a horrible curse, forcibly imposed by the British King (for profit). Simply put, Lincoln denied the very principle upon which the colonies gained independence, namely, the right to form new government.
freevirginia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
RunLiberty 1 year ago
I'm surprised RonPaulHatesBlacks and his other avatars aren't in here trolling.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile "civilwarcow" sounds suspiciously like that idiot
pretorious700 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
SouthernFriedHoney
BIackOp 1 year ago
There is a clear line of statist hegemony from Hamilton to Lincoln to Obama.
pretorious700 1 year ago 17
@pretorious700 Yes - Hamilton to Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Carter to Obama.
uk6strings 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uk6strings "Yes - Hamilton to Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Carter to Obama."
You left out Washington, Madison, and Jackson. The DiLorenzo cult knows nothing about American history before 1860 (and barely knows any American history AFTER 1860).
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
@uk6strings I'd put Clinton and both Bushes in there too
pretorious700 3 months ago
That was a wonderful interview. No matter what you think of Lincoln, I think he is a very cool topic of discussion. :-)
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe I think Lincoln was for Lincoln and that the South was fighting for what broght the USA together... the union of each STATE to join the the federal goverment by CHOICE not force!!
JoezVendetta 1 year ago 4
@JoezVendetta - I think slavery was an issue though, and who knows what would have become of the rights of black people if the South did win. I like to think slavery would have ended on it's own at some point, but no one knows for sure, and then what rights black people would have afterwards is also an unknown.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
I am reading "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" and I think it is a good book and very well written. I really can't offer anything to argue against it and it does appear that the South did have a legal right to leave the Union and honestly, I do think Lincoln should have just let them go because there was so much suffering in the 1860's. However, I don't support what was once the CSA government at all, but I do agree they had rights.
Zeeboe 1 year ago 2
@Zeeboe thank you for objectively looking at the situation and using common sense to atleast recognize the right to secede. remember britain did not grant independence to the "USA" they granted 13 separate acts of independence to the 13 colonies and only after that point, did the colonies decide to unite and become the USA. at that time it was with the understanding that they could leave at any time they wished. in fact n vermont that was a condition of entering the union that they could leave
23mbtx23 11 months ago
@23mbtx23 not vermont. It was Virginia, New York and Rhode Island which ratified the constitution with the specific reservation that they could secede if they chose to. Under the Comity Principle, if those states had that right, then they all did since no state has any rights or powers that others are not entitled to.
hungarygator 11 months ago
One problem: at 18:26, he says "plunging the whole nation into a war".
Meanwhile elsewhere he says "the union was voluntary."
A union cannot be voluntary, if it's a nation, which by definition is a single sovereignty. Only a federal republic of sovereign states can be a voluntary union.
Dilorenzo doesn't know international law, which is the problem, i.e. he doesn't know that the states were sovereign nations unto themselves.
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
@kungfu2u2 So you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him? Please..
johnnyutah1605 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyutah1605 "you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him"
I believe she can divorce him, but the bible says otherwise & the founding fathers were Christians. Matt 19:6, 9 "they're no longer two, but 1 flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate...anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, & marries another woman commits adultery”
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnyutah1605 "So you're saying that if a woman is in a marriage (a union) and her husband beats the everliving shit out of her everyday, that she doesn't have the right to divorce him?"
Besides, your analogy doesn't describe the Pre-War relationship between the North and the South at all. The North wasn't oppressing the South.
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
@kungfu2u2 the 13 original colonies were each separately granted independence by Britain. after that they decided to form the USA.. with the understanding that they can leave whenever they wanted.. the states are soverign
23mbtx23 11 months ago
Interesting. This guy is just taking a contrarian view to what has commonly been acknowledged as true by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of reality and the facts of Lincoln's life and his times. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is profitable and popular in our country at the moment.
kaprow 1 year ago
@kaprow
So because he doesn't conform to the majority of trained sheep, he's wrong?
Boy you are fucked in the head, moron.
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
@kungfu2u2 Nope! Read it again.
kaprow 1 year ago
@kaprow yeah...right...i mean he wrote one of his books in 2002....consider the time put in before....it wasn't popular then...moron
get50007 1 year ago
@get50007 Interesting. So you're saying it wasn't popular to take the contrary stance on Lincoln in 2002? Interesting. How old are you? 14?
kaprow 1 year ago
I thought the Civil War was over tariffs but later it became an excuse to end slavery.
avariceichiban 1 year ago
@avariceichiban
Er, no. It was over sovereignty-- the states wanted to keep their sovereignty, while the north wanted to destroy it. It was never about slavery, slavery simply became a war-asset, and they freed the slaves in order to gain voters.
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
Lincoln Unmasked was amazing. Im a fan of this man from here on out. Very popular and profitable to deify that tyrant.
TheRighteousRuler 1 year ago
@TheRighteousRuler
There's no point in critiquing a saint until it's proven that he was a murderer. Dilorenzo puts the cart before the horse by bashing Lincoln while claiming that the Union was a nation, and that South Carolina was wrong to defend its territory from invaders. What he NEEDS to do, is prove that each state was a sovereign nation, and thhen the facts will take care of themselves
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
Google this:
Call for a Referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris
January 7, 1861
There you will find a southern governor making the case for secession and ciivl war.
If you bother to read it you will find that contemporaneous primary source confirms my view of the war and denies yours.
Do you have a similar document that confirms your view?
SamWiseGingy 1 year ago
Lincoln's aim was to keep new states free OF Negroes, not FOR Negroes.
YTubeArraignment 1 year ago
Religion strives to explain the metaphysical. Science shouldn't. The bread & butter, or nuts & bolts, of science is analysis, trial, replication, practicality, usefulness, utility, application & problem-solving. There's far too much postulating within the monopolistic, corporate/government-funded sciences. Free-market forces are being marginalized as the planet moves towards consolidation of money, might & oil.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
The climate changes. We remain well below the high temps recorded during the pre-industrial Medieval warm period. Scientists can't forecast the weather beyond 72 hours. Although when it comes to the events of antiquity, they can tell you what went on as if they were there. It's the attempts to stop flying fists with one's face that avulses many teeth.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
Exactly where did the support for Negro-equality emanate from prior to Lincoln's War? From page 607 of "An American Glossary" (1962) by Richard Thornton we find: [1859 The Democratic party can no more run their party without niggers than you could run a steam-engine without fuel. That is all there is to Democracy; and when you cannot raise niggers enough for the market, then you must go abroad fishing through the whole world. — Mr. Wade of Ohio, U.S. Senate, Feb. 25 : id., p. 1354.]
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
@TransUnicorn That was why they were hiding the truth of the MWP period in the climategate emails
Gore and his banking partners are planning on cashing in bigtime if cap & trade is passed or if what we exhale and plants use for food is declared a pollutant
Its a big scam thats going to squeeze the working/middleclass here and push the last of our industry out of the country
They lied & screwed us with free trade, now they plan on finishing us up with this CO2 pollutant bs
valacar11 1 year ago
This guy really doesn't have much to say, does he? Why should he? He just began studying Lincoln in the late 1990s. And he wrote two books--presuming an expertise on Lincoln--when? While he was studying, or in the two months after his initial scratch below the surface of what he had been taught in high school? I guess PA schools are not as good as MD schools. We were taught about Lincoln's curtailing of some rights during the civil war.
MsTruNorth 1 year ago
Comment removed
TenTonHorse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it.
-Lincoln
Brincadeiraalso 1 year ago
Comment removed
Brincadeiraalso 1 year ago
Much is being said about peace; and no man desires peace more ardently than I. Still I am yet unprepared to give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration. -Lincoln
Brincadeiraalso 1 year ago
U$A... too big to fail?
rayzn11 1 year ago
Seems like every once in a while, a little truth manages to slip out!
uzijohn 1 year ago
This is a fantastic video.
Thank Mises!
Truth exposed.
Ibringthetruth1 1 year ago
Comment removed
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
Comment removed
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
Comment removed
jmelkis 2 years ago
The Confederacy voted for dissolution. The President had no Constitutional authority to wage war against former commonwealths of the United States. The plot to kidnap Lincoln evolved into the successful conspiracy to murder him. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton & California senator (& Lincoln pallbearer) John Conness were intimately involved in securing Booth's access to Lincoln, the disabling the capital's telegraph network and safe passage for the fugitive Booth into Virginia.
TransUnicorn 2 years ago 3
The first point. The union was and is indissoluble. (see the Articles of Confederation) Where is your evidence for the second point.
backnumber1662 2 years ago
The States created the federal government. The States are independent Republics within the Federation of States. In a centralized govt. of the Soviet model, States are held hostage by the tyranny of central planners.
TransUnicorn 2 years ago 47
The only tryants you dumb fuck were the slavers, the child sellers, and the traitors. Read Lincoln's full quotes- his full speeches. Not the distorted slivers of shit this dumb fuck slides up your ass.
Since most of you dumb fucks have never read even ONE of Lincoln's full speeches, and you sure as fuck don't know the context, its easy for you dumb fucks to be misled by fucks like DiLorenzo.
SouthernFriedHoney 1 year ago
@SouthernFriedHoney You talk allot of shit, why don't you tell the people "Who" the slave traders really were?
You a neo-bolshevik clown
valacar11 1 year ago
Valcar -- sure dumb fuck -- Slave traders were those fucks that bought slaves, sold slaves, raped slaves, whipped slaves, butt fucked slave children, and got rich on slaves. Guys like Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Toombs, Yance -- you know, the Southern elite.
Some slavers lived in the North -- but most were chased out of the North and infected the South. The Confederacy ws FOUNDED on slavery dumb fuck. The US was founded on "all men created equal"
SouthernFriedHoney 1 year ago
@SouthernFriedHoney Hey shit for brains tell the people here who the slave traders were
Your the one who has had his ass jammed by orderlies at the institution where you have been committed.
valacar11 1 year ago
Valacar -- the slavers were from people like you Some lived in Mobile, some lived in NY, some lived in Richmond. The Northern States got rid of slavery
The slavers were heroes - the elite -- of the South. Nearly 100% of Confederate and Southern leaders were slave rapers directly, or came from slave raping families.
The Confederacy was FOUNDED on slavery -- the only nation in world history to literally be FOUNDED on slavery, before or since.
SouthernFriedHoney 1 year ago
@SouthernFriedHoney Who were the slave TRADERS? Tell us who brought the slaves to the US and who sold the slaves to the Slave traders
valacar11 1 year ago
@valacar11
The slave traders were everyone who purchased goods produced by slaves-- i.e. everyone in the western world. Slavery was just part of the global economy, the South simply was the only place where it was profitable.
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
@kungfu2u2 Slave traders, means "those who sold slaves". Look up Professor Tony Martin on that.
valacar11 1 year ago
@Trans dumb fuck - the tyrants you fucking idiot were the slavers -- who not only enslaved 20 million people - they were trying to SPREAD that shit and enslave another 20-100 million fuck face Got that yet, retard?
The same fucks who enslaved millions, stopped free speech and press and stopped real elections in the south from 1820 on, Got that dumb fuck?
SouthernFriedHoney 1 year ago
@SouthernFriedHoney
No man will love you until you bathe.
TransUnicorn 1 year ago
@TransUnicorn
Not quite, the states are SOVEREIGN NATIONS unto themselves, which formed a federal republic, but NEVER relinquishing their sovereignty.
It's more like the model of Hitler invading Poland.
kungfu2u2 1 year ago
@TransUnicorn The biggest crime of the South was the usurpation of federal property located within the southern states. Even if secession were legal, taking Fort Sumter and firing on the Star-of-the-West were criminal acts. That's not debatable.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 : You have no historical perspective. No one was killed at Ft. Sumter.
TransUnicorn 7 months ago
"The first point. The union was and is indissoluble."
No union of any kind is ever indissoluble. Freedom of association is a choice that cannot be removed by any edict, law or parchment. It is inherent in the human condition, hardwired into our being (reference "inalienable rights") and is always, always a choice open to any man or group of men.
fractalchez 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Comment removed
1989Alcira 2 years ago
Alcira, not only is your comment despicable and you obviously a repugnant human being, but it is also absolutely stupid to post it HERE! You better watch the video first...
JuMiRick 2 years ago
(2) strengthened the legality (through bench law) of this institutionalized abomination. Judge Lincoln, Stalin, Vlad, Pinochet, Thos. Woodrow Wilson & Hitler on their deeds.
Asparagusville 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) Lincoln's adult life was one grand swindle after another. He was not a poor country lawyer. He followed the judges' circuit and out-earned the governor of Illinois. He entered into schemes, using tax money, with crooks, to dig canals across the state. Naturally, as finaglers are wont to do, they took the money and ran. Lincoln was a defender of the Fugitive Slave Act (as he often represented slave owners in court), which
Asparagusville 2 years ago
I have a question: If the 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to all of the states, did it not already apply to the states that ratified the Constitution or were there some states that failed to ratify it? By ratifying it did the states that ratify it, accept is preminence? Also, which states did not ratify it until it was forced on them by the 14th Amendment?
Humanist555 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bigger government = heaven on Earth
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
Hell. Go as people who lived during the soviet period.
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago 2
Edward Kennedy: to me, he'll always
be "Tedward" or "Head Wart."
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago 2
What profundity, what a great economy with words.
huckstered 2 years ago
DiLorenzo is such a liar. India still has slavery today. I talked to a guy who works at my work, and he plans to go back to India. He was born there, and says he owns slaves. SO these countries all did not stop slavery.
Plus he never talks about the Vatican connection to the SOuth. At least that I know of. Did he ever mention about a central bank being created in the South, the same institution that tried to kill ANdrew Jackson, soame one most of our founders hated?
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago
Oh wow, look what i just found:
Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics.
Jesuit. no wonder. Typical catholic hatred
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago
Al of these people being catholic has no significance, They- the Mexicans will infiltrate the govt. to "takeover".
What are they making secret plans in the white house baement?
Of course slavery exists , even in this country. The illegal sex trade of
foreign women here , Even children here, and on the Mexican border sre made sex slaves .Imperiializtion not emperialization.. You need to educate yourself before claiming way out
stories .
huckstered 2 years ago 3
What an ignorant hateful person you are.
What way out stories do I have? Try reading some books written by early american founders. Samuel Morse is one. He wrote a book about a Papel Conspriacy to takeover america.
There were many articles in papers written. many other books.
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago
SO what? anyone can and does plot
to destroy any country in the world. The Taliban, communists, nazi's -whomever. Once again it has no significance here. This has no bearing on reality. It is good fare for hobbists ie. bigfoot ,UFO's and the like. However I do agree that slavery tragically, does exist. How can it be stopped? People will exploit anything -
where possible. The environment ,
other people,political power , animals
etc. If there gain
bad people will abuse.
huckstered 2 years ago
Well, I'm just saying, Dilorenzo is a Jesuit. The Jesuits are the ones who plotted against this country and assassinated Lincoln. So I am leary of listening to him talk about "the real Abraham Lincoln".
Plus he is buddies with Michael Peroutka, another Jesuit.
So even the people in alternative media that support Dilorenzo, are also Jesuits.
Just saying, maybe a guy who is tied to a group which killed Lincoln, may not be telling the whole truth.
LiquidSmooth 2 years ago