The Lincoln regime destroyed the system of federalism, or states’ rights, that was established by the founding fathers. After the war, the union was no longer voluntary, and all states, North and South, became mere appendages of Washington, DC. FULL ARTICLE by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15022/the-great-centralizer-lincoln-and-the-growth-of-statism-in-america/
The Great Centralizer: Lincoln and the Growth of Statism in America
Previous post: NYT on the Health-Care Big Picture
Next post: The Reversal of the Trend toward Freedom
{ 50 comments }
Examining Lincoln’s personal life is a good way to parallel his political life. He was a large and imposing man and was never above using his sheer physical superiority to bully people into falling in line.
The world is truly one large Lincoln nail for Professor DiLorenzo , and he has appointed himself the only hammer.
Abe Lincoln is surrounded by a very high wall of ignorance and myth in the USA. That wall needs a lot more hammering if it is ever to come down. Not for the sake of the lives that were lost, but for the lives that will be lost in the future as long as the wall of lies is allowed to stand.
I want to thank you Mr. DiLorenzo for writing a very important book. I read “The Real Lincoln” a few years ago and although I wasn’t totally naive about Lincoln you opened my eyes. When I talk about Lincoln to friends and such at parties they don’t believe what I say. When I visited D.C. this year and visited the Lincoln Memorial. I looked around like all the other tourists and took a picture. The ironic thing is the memorial is just a few steps away from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (the wall). People need to read and seek the truth when it comes to our presidents. I am currently reading a book about FDR called “New Deal Or Raw Deal,” by Burton W. Folsom Jr. If you really want your eyes opened about FDR and the Great Depression then read this book. I finally figured out why I don’t like the IRS. FDR loved the IRS to take care of his adversaries.
Yeah, “The Real Lincoln” is eye opening – everyone should read it (and take the course!).
Where we are today is what matters. I don’t care what Abe Lincoln’s motives were. We were wrong to tolerate slavery! Slavery and segregation are relics and that’s a great result that took too long to become a reality in our history.
Having a strong union has served us well in times of real crisis but not so great in too many times of feigned crisis. The real danger is that a strong federal government will have destructive values and the power to promote them. I am glad that our federal government isn’t promoting a policy of slavery or segregation. However, recently there has been a trend for the destruction of civil and other human rights in our country. When the government acts to do this I am not happy about it. It is especially at such times that our citizens must stand up and be heard. I think we are seeing more political activism than at any other time in recent history. I think the real danger is the massive money that now is misinforming, distracting and distorting too many of the politically active to work and vote against their own interests and to put too much power into the hands of an elite few. This phenomena transcends federal, state, and local government. These elite special interests, working against the well being of the majority, are the real enemy of the people in the states and the country. I would rather see an evolution to a political process that promotes leaders who offer sensible and fair solutions to all of our problems as opposed to those that further partisan political power through the patronization of plutocratic elite special interests. The revolution that we need in this country is in campaign finance. We need to change to a system that is financed completely and strictly with public funding that facilitates those with brains, integrity, and real concern for our citizens to representative leadersrship roles over those willing to sell their souls to the uber wealthy special interests.
Slavery could have easily been abolished peacefully(outlawing the interstate trade would’ve been a huge nail in the coffin, for one), without the massive centralization Lincoln brought.
But then those states that would have been hurt the most by the new “anti-slavery” legislation would have just seceded from the Union. Besides, wasn’t a large part of the Civil War to prevent the break-up of the United States?
And why did they need to prevent people from peacefully leaving the United States again?
Similar to those attempting to leave the Soviet Union, when they were shot on the fence? Americans seem to have forgotten that the several States of America voluntarily formed a federation of the united States, uniting to severe themselves from England. What had changed that would not allow something that was formed voluntarily to be voluntarily split?
Just because a marriage is voluntary does not mean any party can dissolve it unilaterally.
scineram, have you stopped beating your wife yet? (you know, for trying to leave you)
It would have required no legal action whatsoever. The Constitution was already written that barred any previously freed individual regardless of ethnicity (or race, I hate using that term) from being enslaved. Only through birth were new slaves entered into the system. All an abolition of slavery would have required would be the anti-slave factions to just buy up all the slaves and then declare them free. Once free, that’s it, they and their decendents are forever free. However, anti-slavery forces back then act like poverty warriors do today – they don’t really want to sacrifice their own resources for their beliefs and expect government to use its coercion to get the job done. Additionally, expansion of industry was making slavery an expensive proposition. It was cheaper for plantation owners to hire skilled workers than to keep large stables of slaves. Slavery was on a sharp decline for decades prior to the Civil War, which many historians tend to forget or outright ignore when evaluating the period. Slave owners were, on their own, freeing their slaves to remove the financial burden.
Of course, if this method of abolition actually happened, the Union would have most likely lost the Civil War as the only real rallying cry the Union had was slavery, and that came into being two years into the war when it appeared the Union was losing to the Confederacy.
You reckon the goverment wouldn’t even have the right to outlaw slavery? Just wait for it to be unprofitable? Heaven forbid it should become profitable again.
Try making an argument without going to extremes. Additionally, read the entire post next time. Enslaving previously free individuals is already barred. The moment the last slave is freed, that’s it, no more slaves until government decides it’s OK again, which defeats your argument on the benefits of government. And slavery was never profitable on its own. Another key reason it was failing was because it no longer had government support to continue providing the supply. Slavery only works when you can socialize the cost of obtaining new slaves.
ON THE OTHER HAND, maybe all Lincoln did was to rename slavery. Now days we call it “middle class.” The New England mill owners tried to use slaves in the mills but it wasn’t economical. NOT because black people could not do the work. The Civil Rights Act has demonstrated that black people can do every sort of work that white people can. The reason slavery was not efficient was and is because a slave is an asset but a freed man is a commodity. (The biggest pun of the 20th century was to rename the “personnel department” to the “human resource” department. Stupid citizens forget that “resources” are generally consumed?)
(Except for THIS week ) winters in the south are mild and the slaves could grow their own food and only needed a minimum investment in shelter and clothing. New England winters are vicious. The mill owners had to feed and shelter their slaves even when the mills had no production contracts. It was much more economical to hire free people when there was a contract and lay them off when there was no contract. It didn’t matter if free workers froze and starved . . . the mills never ran out of free workers.
This is the Libertarian Capitalist model, right? Every free worker has the the right to fight his way to the bottom of the food chain, right? You all put it the other way, everyone can fight his way to the top. Right? And every American citizen can grow up to be president. Right? Obama proved it, riiiiiight?
Americans are free because American can own guns, go to church, live in any neighborhood (they can afford), go to any school they can (afford), writer all kinds of anti-government stuff on the Mises blog, right? We must be free because the blog still exists, right? Every 2 years we elect a new government. Only free people can do that, right?
The USofA is still the best place in the the history of the world for the working class and probably will still be the best place in the world for US serfs when a world wide labor parity is established but I wish I was still living in a dreamland.
Now days we call it “middle class.” – because we sooooo live like slaves…
When you ‘were’ living in a dreamland??? I think you may not have left.
If you’re trying to out-idiot Quinn it’s not going to work. That guy has you beat.
Slavery is defined as forced, uncompensated labor. What else can you call an income tax? I’m engaging in labor and I’m not getting paid. It’s either slavery or theft. Pick your poison, it’s undefendable in either case.
Mr. Brezin:
“I don’t care what Abe Lincoln’s motives were.” Well, you should!
“We were wrong to tolerate slavery!” Yes; the U.S. was wrong to tolerate and/or approve of slavery. This doesn’t justify Lincoln’s actions; as has already been posted, other countries had solved this problem WITHOUT WAR!! Furthermore, it would have been nice (and definitely more honorable) if the North had come to these conclusions decades earlier (such as when THEY were profiting off of the slave trade!). Who, exactly, do you think was PRIMARILY responsible for the slave trade? The Northerners and the African tribes! Africans sold the conquered into slavery, and the North (not the South) had the shipping industry to profit from this. Of course, once you sell enough slaves to Southerners, they can continue to meet their needs through simple reproduction. Thus, the greedy Northerner is out of the equation. Convenient, huh? No or little opposition for this institution until you can’t profit from it anymore!!! A couple of other thoughts to leave you with: (1) Slaves were considered property; would it not have been less costly for the North (if this truly was their reason for war…hahaha, eyes roll) to simply buy out the slave owners? (2) Slavery was definitely on its way out of existence; technology would have eventually made it obsolete no matter what happened (think tractor).
“
“I am glad that our federal government isn’t promoting a policy of slavery or segregation.”
Oh, my…..
Your government, since you seem a champion of it, most certainly promotes a policy of slavery and segregation. From local zoning, large-scale institutionalized racism ,and color-counting to wage garnering, war-mongering, and state-first allegiance, aimed at the poorest in the nation.
Your post exposes a sad and deadly level of ignorance and naiveté. You are a slave bowing down to the masters. Instead of fighting the condition, you acquiesce and justify it.
And a P.S. There has been, and continues to be, campaign finance reform with a plethora of new regulations and requirements, promoting a “better democratic way.” How’s that one working out for ya?
Franklin, I doubt you can get the current den of foxes to create a better chicken coop to keep themselves out! My point is all government is tainted by big money today so all your states rights would make no difference if you could get them. Money corrupts everywhere, every country, state and town. What we need is a better, smarter human race and I don’t know how you accomplish that one.
By having federalism. This allows people to easily move with their feet to places with “better” governments. Over time “bad” governments will be forced to make changes, or they will lose all their income stream.
Vermont seems to have a good political atmosphere but I like to play golf year round!
The only hope for good people everywhere as I see it is to vote with our dollars. It’s all about money anymore, as if it wasn’t always, and the ones with the gold make the rules. To overcome the special interests the good people need to unite grassroots style. The special interests know that which is why they spend untold billions on divisive propaganda. Also where do you find enough good people which I define as people with good reasoning and good will towards others who can think critically and not be swayed buy the emotion appealng propaganda of those who would control us?
Vermont has the only communist senator in the nation. He’s listed as a independent but Bernie would love to take your money.
Agree. It will be a more peaceful world when all the serfs have an opportunity to move the jurisdiction which seems to offer the best all around deal. Our owners will still control 90% of the assets but we serfs will feel better about it.
That is probably a place where the lords realize they still need some of us to fix their cars, mow their lawns and wipe their wrinkled old asses when they are too feeble. Trouble is the world is still a jungle with the pretense of being civilized. The strong survive just as they do in the jungle. There are too many of us without real consumer power to make the rich richer so they don’t really give a crap if we die off due to lack of affordable health care. The crime is not just that many of us lack affordable insurance. The crime is that an asprin costs $100 a dose in the hospital.
This is a completely backwards assessment that ignores how markets actually work. The reason prices are too high is never because the rich “don’t really give a crap.”
The rich get rich by providing us high quality goods at low prices. Prices are high becuase bureaucrats want to get rich, and bureaucrats get rich by charging us more for lower quality products.
J Murray:
Yes; the rich get rich by providing quality goods at low prices. However, I think you would agree that there is a huge wealth transfer to the rich in the form of monopoly protection (think patents, copyrights, etc.) and corporatism (i.e. government support of certain industries/companies-think GM, AIG, etc.). All in all, it is my contention that few, if anyone’s, hands are COMPLETELY clean of wealth transfers in the U.S. (or any nation). This is not my argument against the “rich,” it is just a personal belief I hold; I am all for true free trade and true capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less. Without this, though, I am certain that everyone (most?) receive some kind of unwarranted/unearned wealth transfer.
Agreed, and all of what you mentioned are because we allow government to regulate the economy. Block government regulation and those problems vanish.
@ J. Murray:
“Agreed, and all of what you mentioned are because we allow government to regulate the economy. Block government regulation and those problems vanish.”
Absolutely! I agree with you 100%; to be sure, there would still be wealthy (and poor) individuals, but their wealth (or lack thereof) would exist solely on their OWN merit. Wow, what a world that would be!
Corruption is different in different areas. If governments are small then you can move. If they are big it becomes significantly more difficult to get out of the way.
That’s a good point. I used to say the benefit of being an American in America is that you won’t be a victim of our foreign policy but that certainly isn’t true anymore.
Because all government is bad. States rights would make it far more difficult for them to destroy society. So it’d at least be a step forward in my book.
I hope every American gives new thought to what it means when they say they are a United States Citizen. Like the difference between federal and national, there is a major difference between a certain State citizen and a United States Citizen. The United States is no more one nation, than the European Union is one nation. Or at least that was true before the so called “Civil War”, a misnomer for a war between two confederations of (nation) States. Socialism (communism) is centralization, is it not? Gives new meaning to the “reconstruction” period. Imagine a German saying he was a European Union Citizen. Or a United Nations Citizen? Are the Soviet Union, European Union, North American Union following the order of the new world, the United States Union? NWO? Something to think about.
Someone should buy Keith Olbermann a gift certificate to Dr. DiLorenzo’s course. One of the many reasons I loathe the man is his almost fundamentalist zeal at continually harping on the demonstrably phony notion that the so-called Civil War was only about slavery.
What a hoot to see what his response would be.
LvM writes: “It is a very significant fact that the adversaries of the trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against Washington and against Berne”
“Omnipotent Government” was written shortly before the end of WWII AFAIK. What’s up with the mention of Berne? Swiss centralization?
The establishment always makes sure their agenda is right on course. Today the establishemnt controls the schools and the media.
I believe that the number of 50,000 is at the far low end of estimates for Southern civilian deaths. It was so bad that my family left Texas during Reconstruction to live in southern Mexico for a generation. Read The South was Right by the Kennedy Bros. to understand the full terror heaped upon the South. The truth is not taught in US schools and Dixie is rarely heard anymore. When I was young, they ended the broadcast day with Dixie and not the Northern National Anthem. I am now unreconstructed and will never respect TPTB and will support independance movements wherever they may be in the world.
Johnny Rebel:
Excellent post, my friend. And please, people, do read “The South was Right.” It is an excellent book as I had the fortune of finding out about a decade ago; the book made me sick, but it dispelled all of the stupid myths surrounding this just war. I had been brought up on “the war was about slavery;” this was taught to me at a PRIVATE SCHOOL! Instinctively, I always felt this was not the case; however, I couldn’t KNOW for sure until I read “The South was Right!” And truly they were!!
Here is what Thomas DiLorenzo said about Pres. Lincoln’s deportation of Clement L. Vallandigham. In an article published on LewRockwell.com on January 15, 2004 http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html“Such speech was said (by Lincoln) to discourage young Ohio boys from enrolling in the military and, through a Clintonian twist of logic, was therefore treasonous. The Republican Party made a big scene of handing the aged Vallandigham over to Confederate authorities in Tennessee in order to spread the myth that all political dissenters were spies or traitors. But the Confederates wanted nothing to do with Vallandigham, so he fled to Canada for he remainder of the war.”The “aged” Clement L. Vallandigham? Vallandigham was born in 1820 so at the time of his deportation he was 43 years old. Even back then being 43 was not to be “aged”. Also at the time of his deportation Vallandigham was no longer a Congressman. He had lost his reelection bid 1862. Nor did Vallandigham spend the rest of the war in Canada as Mr. DiLorenzo claimed. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=389”
Vallandigham remained active in politics and the Democratic Party for the rest of the war. He returned to the United States in 1864, violating the military court’s order.”What other facts has Mr. DiLorenzo bent to fit his animus against Abraham Lincoln?
In 1860 life expectancy at birth in the USA was 41.8 years. I would think life expectancy was lower for Mr. Vallandigham when he was born. Looks like he was living on borrowed time. (On average) I’m still trying to figure out what Mr. DiLorenzo said that changed what he said about Lincoln? The issue with Mr. Vallandigham was what President Lincoln’s thinking was on the whole matter not whether Vallandigham stayed in Canada for the rest of the war or that he was still a congressman. If this all you can come up with than you protest to much.
Did you know that in 1863 Clement L Vallandigham was the nominee of the Ohio Democrats for governor. That his being “exiled” from the US didn’t hurt his political career. In fact in the long run it enhanced Vallandigham’s political career.
All this article proves is that use of force is at the core of any governance, or that it is at the center of any suffciently large human society.
Had Mr. Lincoln lost, the Good O’ US of A would have been nothing more than what Latin America is today – a bunch of Banana Republic-style entities (former states, in our analogy) vying for regional resources and supremacy…
This is NOT to justify use of force, but merely, to state the obvious.
I think that one outcome is the banana republic version but there were other outcomes that could have come to pass. When the constitution was written it was obvious that the citizens were giving the government the “a monopoly of force.” The whole purpose was to let us be free individuals pursuing what we choose. I seriously doubt that the constitution and new government would have been ratified without the understanding of a state being able to secede. Another scenario with states secedeing it would make the federal government suffer a loss of power and become more honest when they do something illegal and not defined under the constitution. There is no problem with force if it is used to protect individual liberty and the free enterprise system. After all that is why we give up our rights to force in the first place, unless in self defense.
There are dangerous half truths there. No, that was not the nature of what they established but just part of it – a part so incomplete as to be effectively wrong. The other part was that states were only recognised if they formally and informally matched criteria defined by and defining the Union (such as republicanism – formally – and monogamy – informally), a system which worked to reinforce itself much like interlocking directorates; at that level, it merely failed from internal contradictions, but it was never truly voluntary – it just took over places like Utah without letting them be states, denying them that until generations later when they started coming up with the “right” answers.
That’s US-centric tosh. Other countries never needed the USA to lead the way in that. For one thing, they did the same even earlier, and for another, the USA never was used as a cultural primary source by other countries (Hollywood is and was a secondary source).
That happens not to be the case, at any rate not with that emphasis on “peacefully”. It was simply done with lower and less acute but more chronic levels of violence, violence that included:-
- Revolution and massacres in Haiti (and to a lesser and less successful extent elsewhere).
- Regular naval operations (with casualties), particularly off West Africa.
- Colonial wars, undertaken in order to repress local slavery and wider slave trading among other things (Madagascar in particular comes to mind, where the locals cited that as a French motive for invasion).
- Destabilisation leading to regime change in Brazil, with minor violence.
- A minor slave revolt against emancipation, in the British West Indies.
Tom, great post/precis of your book.
I do hope you’ll also take note in your lectures and further writings of how the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment (agreed to by southern states as a condition of ending the Reconstruction) was perverted by the railroads and then other corporations to further liberate shareholders from the control of the states, by preventing states in which they were foreign corporations from treating them differently from locally established (and locally-owned) corporations. (I’ve read that something like 95% of “Equal Protection” jurisprudence involves corporations, not actual persons.)
The result was further expansion :
- of corporate power,
- of the moral hazard they embody via the grant of limited liability of shareholders for injuries to third persons,
- of mass torts by corporations,
- of unions to balance the power of executives,
- of efforts by citizens to run to Washington to seek regulations to rein in corporate excesses,
- of the weakening of the states and the expansion of “Commerce Clause” and “General Welfare” doctrines and
- of the capture of the Federal government by corporate insiders.
More here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/06/corpspeak-on-the-dangers-of-corporations-and-of-the-supreme-court-quot-jefferson-was-right-quot.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited
Yours in striking at the root,
TT
Oops, this is actually relevant too:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/07/06/the-cliff-notes-version-of-my-stilted-enviro-fascist-view-of-corporations-and-government.aspx
Comments on this entry are closed.