this is a very interesting read....

Mises link about Lincoln (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=973&FS=Confronting+the+Lincoln+Cult)

Ok I was not born in the south, but i have lived here for 18 years. i have been thought in school that lincon was the man who freed the slaves, bla bla bla. now looking into the facts and myth surrounding i began to wonder.

the article cited the question: When the Soviet Union was breaking up, didn’t Gorbachev cite the Lincoln precedent to justify that empire?

i remember those days and i remeber gorbie talking about Lincoln. i asked my teachers about it and they just changed the subject. i went back to look at the books and i have come up with some interesting things that our beloved school systems never teach us. like the fact that there was a black army that fought for the south. after the slaves were "freed" they were taken up north to work in factories as laborers (aka wage slaves) other facts like:

After the election and just before Lincoln’s inauguration, the House passed the Morrill tariff which elevated the rate to 47.06 percent--

looking back to his policies the really tried to turn to turn America into a police state. also the most of the southern generals did not even own slaves while Ulesses and sherman owned slaves. i do not recall my teachers telling me that.

i wonder what other facts have been left out or edited out of our books?

Throughout history, the winners have written the "official" books/versions/etc...

Welcome to the world of PC-lib.

Before the civil rights 60's, it was possible to study the War of Northern Aggression and determine that Lincoln's priority was to preserve the Union at the expense of States' rights.

Slavery was a minor issue, given more & more political lip service as the War transpired. The institution was already un-economic in the north, and rapidly becoming so even in the basically agricultural south.

Blame Eli Whitney's invention as reason cotton became more profitable, and vastly increased the need for cheap field labor.

Lincoln did try to turn us into a police state, though, it is often 'accepted' it was neccessary due to the circumstances at hand (i.e civil war...)

Wasn't that period the only time in our history that habius corpus was suspended?

too bad the south didn't finish up with the battle of masnas and forced lincoln into signing an agrement.

Originally posted by Manu
Lincoln did try to turn us into a police state, though, it is often 'accepted' it was neccessary due to the circumstances at hand (i.e civil war...)

Wasn't that period the only time in our history that habius corpus was suspended?

Yes, Lincoln did suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Here's the order...

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, April 27, 1861.

The undersigned, General-in-Chief of the Army, has received from the President of the United States the following communication:

COMMANDING GENERAL ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:

You are engaged in repressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of the military line which is now used between the city of Philadelphia via Perryville, Annapolis City and Annapolis Junction you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs are authorized to suspend that writ.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/Writ.htm


Writ of Habeas Corpus

Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"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. "

Definition:

[New Latin, literally, you should have the body for submitting]

First appeared 1768

: a writ for inquiring into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody


http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/writ_of_habeas_corpus.htm

Originally posted by hammegk
Welcome to the world of PC-lib.

Before the civil rights 60's, it was possible to study the War of Northern Aggression and determine that Lincoln's priority was to preserve the Union at the expense of States' rights.

Slavery was a minor issue, given more & more political lip service as the War transpired. The institution was already un-economic in the north, and rapidly becoming so even in the basically agricultural south.

Blame Eli Whitney's invention as reason cotton became more profitable, and vastly increased the need for cheap field labor.

This is very true. The Civil War was about the struggle - politically - over States' Rights vs. the Union or Federal power over the States.

I read that article thoroughly. I also did some checking on the website it was posted on. It seems that this was written from a rather conservative point of view. I also read more leftist oriented articles which drew the same conclusion about Lincoln. I do know that Lincoln and the Republican Party drew a great deal of support from Northern Industry and railroad interest. The Southern Historian Shelby Foote was quoted as saying when asked who won the Civil War, "...It was Rockerfeller, Jay Gould, Cornelius VanDerBuilt and Andrew Carnagie".

In modern times it is popular to think of the Civil War as the war that ended slavery. In fact the goal of the Union had nothing to do with slavery but to restore the Union. If we look at our history we would remember that one of the goals of the British in the War of Independance was the abolition of slavery in the colonies. This was also true of the Mexicans in the Texas War of Independence. In the War of 1812, British tried to recruit fugative slaves to fight in their armies, along with native americans and others. Yet, because the cause of the Union was successful, we do not see the cause of the Confederacy to be as honorable as that of the Texans at the Alamo. In short, history always favors the victors and damm the defeated.

I would not says that the end of slavery was a bad idea by any means, but I do believe that slavery would have ended in the US anyway. It would have ended because it was economically unsound. The Confederacy, would they have been successful would eventually end slavery and would in the end become a economic colony of the United States, just as the nations of latin america would eventually become. The actual aftermath of the Civil War did not really benifit southern blacks. In fact their poverty continued as many became share croppers, in a state of debt slavery. For many of them, economic enfranchisement did occur in the form of emigration to northern cities where ghettos were established.

Originally posted by Criminal
I read that article thoroughly. I also did some checking on the website it was posted on. It seems that this was written from a rather conservative point of view. I also read more leftist oriented articles which drew the same conclusion about Lincoln. I do know that Lincoln and the Republican Party drew a great deal of support from Northern Industry and railroad interest. The Southern Historian Shelby Foote was quoted as saying when asked who won the Civil War, "...It was Rockerfeller, Jay Gould, Cornelius VanDerBuilt and Andrew Carnagie".

In modern times it is popular to think of the Civil War as the war that ended slavery. In fact the goal of the Union had nothing to do with slavery but to restore the Union.

Well, everything comes from some kind of point of view. History's ALWAYS been biased. The fact remains, as you stated, that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. The war was about States' Rights vs. maintaining the Union.

Shelby Foote is an amazing historian. One of the best on the Civil War, and he's by far the most learned about the South's viewpoint. His books on the Civil War are true treasures. In a sense, Foote's right when he names the Northern industrialists as the winners. The North was a burgeoning industrial society compared to the primarily rural agrarian world of the South. The North's industrial might and railroad system helped its war machine immensely.

Lincoln put more Americans in prison than Mussolini did Italians in the Second World War. Lincoln was one of the first modern fascists. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, in fact in early 1861 Lincoln proposed an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have preserved the institution forever. Lincoln was more than willing to let the South keep slavery. This amendment, the original 13th Amendment, was in fact ratified by several states. The Civil War was in fact the fruition of the tariff dispute that had been going on since the 1830's. Money makes the world go round. Like the Gulf War, the Civil War, was not fought for any principal, but was in fact fought because Union for the South meant the loss of millions of dollars and Secession for the North meant a competing low Southern tariff to free trade zone. This is the exact way both Charles Dickens and Karl Marx saw the topic too. I highly suggest Charles Adam's book, When in the Course of Human Events.

I forgot to mention that Lincoln has been cited by the Russians to crush Chechnya and also by the Chinese as a pretext to take back Taiwan.