On July 22, 1862, Lincoln showed a draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. It proposed to emancipate the slaves in all rebel areas on January 1, 1863. ... He issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22. The proclamation warned the Confederate states to surrender by January 1, 1863, or their slaves would be freed.
... Yet he and others feared that Lincoln would give in to pressure from northern conservatives, and would fail to keep his promise. Despite the opposition, however, the president remained firm. On January 1, 1863, he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. With it he officially freed all slaves within the states or parts of states that were in rebellion and not in Union hands. This left one million slaves in Union territory still in bondage.
Shannon Larratt, descended from dishonored German aristocracy (stripped of its titles after political disputes), brother of a world arm wrestling champion, and son of a CSIS agent and TV news anchor, was recently exiled from his homeland after threat of prosecution for "morally endangering youth" and production of "extreme pornography with no redeeming artistic value".
Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."
Q: You have kind of debunked something I have been saying for a long time. People have asked me when the country started to go downhill and when the Framers' model was eviscerated. I always used to say around 1913, with Wilson, but that FDR was the finishing touch. After reading your book, I see I had it wrong. It really started with Lincoln.
A: That's exactly right. That's really what motivated me to write this. I realized that the great breaking point between the old republic of the founders and the mess we are in today was 1865. I can tell you an interesting story. I was giving a talk in Washington, D.C., a few years ago on the optimal size of government. Jack Kemp was in the audience. I was making the argument that I thought the optimal size of government was reached around 1860.
Q: Why 1860?
A: Because that's when we started getting away from the kind of government system that the founding fathers wanted. Jack Kemp, who was in the audience, started booing and hissing so loudly that I had to stop and ask if someone else was scheduled to speak at the same time. Kemp ended up storming out of the room. I took that as a signal that this hits home to some people. It was the breaking point in the republic. Before the war, the only contact the average citizen had with the federal government was mailing a letter, and that was about it. The great wheels of centralization were turning, I argue in "The Real Lincoln," in 1865.
No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution.
The North and South can no longer claim to be one nation. If you want proof, just look at the electoral map from the last presidential election.
He has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln and How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present. He is also outspoken in favor of the formation of the Confederate States of America, claiming that the South had the right to secede and taking a view similar to abolitionist Lysander Spooner.
He has criticized the crediting of the New Deal for ending the Great Depression. DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.
I'm curious about the whole 'legality of secession' thing.
Would russia really have been able to beat germany without the US and UK putting pressure on the western front?
I think you could at least say we slowed them down.
how many Japanese troops were tied down in China fighting the resistance there? I don't know myself, but China is a big place, it could have been hundreds of thousands. Anyone know?
There were very few slaves in (what became) western West Virginia
Southerners furthermore became advocates of inviolate states' rights. What particularly disturbed them was that Tallmadge's amendment would have imposed antislavery upon a full-fledged state, and not just a territory. Previously states' rights had been an ideological issue with support and opposition in all parts of the country. But once the Missouri controversy exposed the South's vulnerability as a minority, states' rights increasingly turned into a sectional issue. Southerners came to realize that only strict limits upon national authority could protect their existing slave system from hostile interference.
« Older nsfw/(Defekto|Vomitus): (presence|representation) ... | Columnist and Pulitzer Prize w... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt