“Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion.
It appears U.S. fell into a Thucydides trap, given that Russia was perceived as an emerging hegemonic power in the east, and the NATO was committed since the Bucharest Conference of 2008, to including Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, (despite assurances in the 90,s that NATO would not expand one inch further to the east). The assertion that “NATO was not looking ascendant in 2021” is ludicrous. Putin has affirmed repeatedly since 2008, that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO was perceived as an existential threat, and a redline.
The Orange Revolution of 2004 and subsequent regime change coup in 2014, with Victoria Nuland in attendance), was perceived by Russia as a further act of aggression. The Minsk-2 agreements, facilitated by Germany and France, to dissuade Russia retaliation, has also been admitted by Angela Merkel, to be a deception in order to “buy time” for Ukraine. Indeed, NATO has trained and equipped an estimated 10k Ukrainian troops per year from 2014 to 2021.
As to the “unique and sovereign character of Ukraine, consider that Ukraine has shelled the civilian population of Donbas relentlessly since 2014.
Of further note, consider the following:
The Strangelovian Biden administration, just adopted this week, an unprecedented change in nuclear weapons policy doctrine, which clears the way for potential U.S. first strike, tactical nuke attack on Russian territory and forces in Ukraine. Putin countered in a speech this week that Russian policy will now afford preemptive, tactical nuke preemptive retaliation, if U.S. strike is determined to be imminent. What could go wrong?
Such is within context of a massive Winter offensive of 400,000 Russians troops on the immediate horizon, while a humanitarian disaster, with potential of millions of refugees throughout Ukraine unfolds. In Kiev, people are eating dog food, freezing, and shitting in ditches. Meanwhile, Ukrainian strategic stronghold in the city of Bahkmut is collapsing; 800 Ukrainian casualties per day being reported. Severe shortages of weapons, ammo, medical supplies, transportation, food, energy, and shelter. Ukrainian Commander describes situation on the ground as “Catastrophic”. . (Ref: The Duran, on Telegram, for daily updates out of Lindon and Greece). The U.S. UK, and EU have pushed their NATO expansionist, war of aggression wet dream, to the limit and have failed; the neo-con warmongers are now playing the threat of total war, and Nuclear Armageddon card. A Thucydides trap indeed, however, it is my contention that it’s NATO, U.S. UK, and EU that fell into a baited trap are doomed to extinction as hegemonic powers.
For even further research...read "The Man Who Sold Tomorrow," and how the JP Morgan Complex undermined Russia's wish to develop an American like Democracy.
A couple of recent developments for those who aren't yet aware. In view of the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine, Russia has announced that it reserves the right to do likewise in support of US enemies. If recent reports are to be believed, this means that Iran now has the advanced version of the S400 air defence system manned by Russian operators. I doubt Russia would go as far as to enable Iran to attack Israel, but they've certainly provided the means to defend themselves from any retaliation should they decide to do so.
Another promising development. In light of the fact that Russian embassies are backlogged with requests for immigration from western nations, they've begun to reform the arcane immigration procedures they inherited from the Soviet era making it much easier to move there if you live in a western nation. At the same time they've tightened restrictions on immigration from former Soviet Republics such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan who could previously enter Russia to with only a national identity card.
The way I read this is that a) Russia recognizes that their pro-natal policies are falling short, given the need to rapidly expand the population, and b) that the most desirable way to do that is by opening the door to people of similar culture and ethics. They don't seem too concerned if you don't speak Russian, which was an obstacle in the past. Your kids will speak Russian fluently, so that's enough. Also, the influx of people of a more conservative bent is bound to have a positive effect on Russian society itself, some portion of which still foolishly idolizes the West. Hearing what it's really like straight from the horse mouth is likely to change those perceptions.
As always, I look to popular culture as a leading indicator of future change. Can you imagine Taylor Swift, Katy Perry or Lady Gaga putting out something like this?
You don't have to speak Russian to understand the meaning here, and this is not a minor production either. Fabrika are top recording artists familiar to all Russians.
Cynthia, this article is like the piece of a puzzle that joins huge sections together for me. Otis not a complete puzzle yet, but I see more clearly the image that might be on the front of the box.
History seemed so abstract and impersonal in school…It’s obvious now that it’s designed to be that way. Your teachings bring a clarity that inspires me to take part in history unfolding today. What more could a writer hope for, particularly since writing awards seem more like PR stunts. And what more could a reader ask for than the truth revealed?
Excellent read! I think I learned about this bit of history a little while ago from either you or Matt. Maybe in a YouTube video? I can’t remember, but it’s fascinating!
That was extremely interesting! History never interested me when I was younger but it's fascinating to read pieces like yours. The world isn't so big after all. Yes, there are some awful people out there, but there are some great ones, too. Thank you for your reminder!
Thank you Cynthia for your tireless work to provide awareness and truthfulness.
I also follow Tom Luongo and Alex Krainer. From Alex - Last Wednesday (7 Dec. 2022) German magazine Die Zeit published an interview with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which she admitted that, "The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. They used that time to get stronger, which you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/15 is not Ukraine of today." So how does the "Ukraine of today" differ from the one in 2014? During the intervening eight years, Ukraine more than doubled the size of its military:
Ukraine's military personnel 2014 2020
Army 64,000 145,000
Paramilitary units 0 102,000
Air force 45,000 45,000
Navy 7,000 11,000
Airborne troops 5,500 8,000
Total 121,500 311,000
While Merkel's statements got only a scant coverage in western media, they got a lot of attention in China, India, and much of the rest of the world. They confirmed the view of western powers as bad faith actors, willing to enter into agreements they have no intention of honoring.
Although Merkel has maintained a consistent disposition that invokes disappointment, that was a particularly disappointing remark from her. And it just goes to show that it was impossible for Russia to hold any sort of fruitful diplomatic dialogue with these people, they never wanted peace and blame Russia that there is now war.
As a devout Breaking History fan, I did know much of this info. But, once again, Cynthia has eloquently and informatively put this pivotal piece of history into one place, making it easy to share far and wide. I plan to share this with everyone I know! Great work Cynthia 👏
Outstanding article...really ties into the whole Gladio intrigue and the history that both you and your husband have put together. You can clearly see the alliances, hidden agendas, and secret plan unfolding now. Your work is invaluable. I knew, based on my own extensive research going back nearly 25 years now, that somehow this all tied together because the same cast of characters is tied together to the past and their modern bloodlines are continuing onward today.
Wonderful explanation of how the US and (now our enemy “we’re told”) Russia. An additional level of understanding the history of the US and the countries that would have adopted prosperity for theirs. The list of those killed to prevent greater prosperity is long and explains much about the machinations done to prevent our prosperity continuing and to help spread empires (read tyranny). Excellent work! Thank you for sharing! We are still here and as more awaken, we the people will not be enslaved..
I'm sorry to break the news, but Lincoln was not against slavery. He was a racist who was against the intermingling of the "races" (whatever that means) and wanted "them" sent to Africa or a country in the Caribbean. There is no stronger evidence for his hypocrisy then his first inaugural address (1861) where he expressed his full support for the Corwin amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment would have permanently protected slavery by preventing the federal government from interfering in its practice. Additionally, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, he clearly stated that he was not an abolitionist. When his wife Mary Todd inherited slaves they did not free them but instead sold them.
Lincoln was a typical politician who said a lot of contradictory things and did some truly horrible things. Thomas DiLorenzo has written several books refuting the Lincoln myth. A good place to start is "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War".
Overall, Cynthia, I really appreciate your work. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo either has no reading comprehension ability or he is a charlatan. The real Abraham Lincoln was nothing like DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". Have you been fooled?
Master Jack, you made several ad hominem attacks against Mr. DiLorenzo but did nothing to refute the facts I presented about Lincoln.
Regarding the link that you sent, WTF? How is that a refutation of Mr. DiLorenzo? For the benefit of other readers (you have to sign up at the site to see the article) I am posting the entire text to the article you linked to below. Perhaps you posted the wrong article?
"Brother Jonathan posted in Abraham Lincoln 05/03/2022
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally that he may enslave A?
You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is colour, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker?
Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean colour exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them?
Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest', and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another.
Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.” - Abraham Lincoln - 1854"
Here is a quote from Lincoln four years later, in 1958, from the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Please note, dear readers, that these are Lincoln's words, NOT my own!!
“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 in as much 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.”
Sir, this is a Sovren Circle started by Brother Jonathan posting Lincoln's Speeches and Letters for anyone to read Abraham Lincoln's words for themselves. I challenge you to read the Cooper Union Address, Lincoln's Anti-war speech, his House Divided speech, where he called out the conspiracy by the Supreme Court, 2 Presidents, and Senator Douglas to nationalize slavery, or any other speech by Abraham Lincoln and come away with the concept that Lincoln was not against the enslavement of men. One has to be illiterate to see it any other way. That's why I said Thomas James DiLorenzo is either illiterate or a charlatan.
As far as the Corwin Amendment,
"no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, the amendment would forever guarantee the right of the Southern people to own slaves. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.
If the Corwin Amendment had been ratified, then Utah could have kept their tradition of more than one wife, San Francisco could have been openly gay for more than a century now, gambling would have been a State issue, slavery would have been legal in South Carolina if they wanted it, abortion would have been up to the States, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would have never passed, and the Civil War would not have been fought.
"[Lincoln] was the chairman of the Illinois Colonization Society that used tax dollars to deport free blacks out of the state; worked diligently as president to plan the deportation of all blacks (see Colonization after Emancipation by Phil Magness and Sebastian Page); supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited blacks from migrating into the state; enjoyed nothing more than black-face minstrel shows; represented slave owners in court seeking to retrieve their runaway slaves but never a slave; supported the Illinois constitution that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any civil rights including the right to vote; and understood more than anyone that no abolitionist could ever have been elected to anything in Illinois in the first half of the nineteenth century" (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/heres-the-proof-that-lincoln-owned-and-sold-slaves/).
Regarding your last several paragraphs regarding the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln openly supported, what is your refutation of my point that Lincoln advocated permanently protecting slavery by a constitutional amendment? The article you linked to in no way refutes my argument. Here are Lincoln's own words at the very start of his presidency:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them”.
The point of reading Lincoln's anti-slavery speeches for yourself is to learn that DiLorenzo, the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, and the whole gang from the CSA South, including the Abbeville Institute, play their readers for fools. They do not fool all of us. For them "Slavery is Freedom"
I am a huge fan of the Non-Aggression Principal. Most people at Sovren.media agree with the NAP. If you would like to promote the NAP and this discussion at Sovren.media, I will join you there. Just let me know.
It makes no sense for, you, or anyone else to defend both the NAP and CSA Slavery at the same time. The Confederate States of America was the most tyrannical government in the history of the world. The enslavement of people is a direct violation of the NAP.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” - Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens - March 21, 1861
Master Jack, I have been visiting https://LewRockwell.com for over a quarter of a century. Not once in that time did I read anything from him or the Mises Institute indicating any support for slavery, ever. To say that they believe "Slavery is Freedom" is a gross misrepresentation of their character and I refuse to respond to you further.
Neo-con Thomas James DiLorenzo, identifies as an adherent of the Austrian School of economics, also a research fellow at The Independent Institute, a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Board of Advisors member at CFACT, and author of Hamilton’s Curse. British Intelligence Grifter Supreme. Get thee hence troll.
Warren, you did not refute any of my factual statements regarding Lincoln, and to call Mr. DiLorenzo a Neocon is an ad hominem attack that is absolutely absurd. Using the Merriam-Webster definitions for Neocon, in which of either of these two senses does that term apply to him?
1) a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2) a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means.
Mr. DiLorenzo is a libertarian, NOT a neocon. Libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP) which is the happy union of freedom and non-violence, of anarchy and peace. That is about as far away from a neocon as you can get. I hope that you and other readers with take time to learn more about the philosophy of libertarianism at https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com.
With regard to the other "attacks" on Mr. DiLorenzo, yes, he is an adherent to the Austrian School of economics, which is a school of thought supporting free markets and peaceful trade, not the coercive corporatism (ie. fascism) dominating the U.S. and other markets today.
With regard to CFACT, it is not an organization that I am familiar with, but I am curious as to which item from their mission statement, posted on their website, that you have issues with?
"At the heart of CFACT, our goal is to enhance the fruitfulness of the earth and all of its inhabitants. CFACT accomplishes this through four main strategies:
Prospering Lives. CFACT works to help people find better ways to provide for food, water, energy and other essential human services.
Promoting Progress. CFACT advocates the use of safe, affordable technologies and the pursuit of economic policies that reduce pollution and waste, and maximize the use of resources.
Protecting the Earth. CFACT helps protect the earth through wise stewardship of the land and its wildlife.
Providing Education. CFACT educates various sectors of the public about important facts and practical solutions regarding environmental concerns."
You called me a troll. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.
DiLorenzo, von Mises, and CFACT, like the Jefferson radical agrarians are all in for British “Free Trade”,(enslavement) policies, as is the von Mises Institute, and the Austrian School. That’s why the Hate Lincoln. They are opposed to universal scientific, technological, and industrial development. DiLorenzo’s slander of Alexander Hamilton (Hamilton’s Curse) and the Mises Institute’s lauding of Jeffersonian (vs Hamilton and Washington) is their tell.
CFACT’s “promoting progress” and advocating the use of safe, affordable technologies and the pursuit of economic policies that reduce pollution and waste, and maximize the use of resources. Protecting the Earth and WildLife, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig and window dressing advocating for genocidal human eradication, as was the World Wildlife fund, and it’s Neo-Nazi founders and cohorts (Prince Phillip, Prince Bernhardt, and Julian Huxley) . Don’t bother with Merriam-Webster for a fact on Neo-Nazis, they will deflect as with neo-cons. DiLorenzo’s and Mises Institute’s love feast and embrace of Austrian School Free Trade, as with the neo-cons, leads inevitably to war, famine, pestilence, and disease.
To reference Abraham Lincoln: “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not it will be all the same.
To the radical free trader DiLorenzo, von Mises, and the Austrian School, (and Libertarians in General), I would advise: “It’s the economy Stupid!”
Warren, it is getting rather tiring responding to your innuendoes and misinformation. It is really impressive, however, that you are able to get into the minds of DiLorenzo, von Mises, etc. to tell us with utter certainty "That's why the <sic> Hate Lincoln".
For some reason you have decided to insert British trade into this argument. It should be noted that the British abolished slavery throughout their empire in the 1830's and 1840's. They were the first nation in the world to do this, without resorting to war and a full 30 years ahead of the U.S.
Perhaps the reason that DiLorenzo and others are critical of Lincoln is not just for his hypocrisy with regard to slavery but for his actual crimes in office. Lincoln was a tyrant who violated the Constitution at will. While President he suspended habeas corpus, drafted (enslaved) citizens to fight his war, imprisoned thousands of Northern citizens, including newspaper reporters, that were opposed to the war, confiscated private property, deported an Ohio Congressman who was critical of Lincoln, and ordered the censoring of all telegraph communication (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/dilorenzo-vs-his-critics-on-the-lincoln-myth/).
These and many other overt violations of the Constitution, in order to “save the Union”, have the same ironic ring as the quote from the U.S. Major who claimed during the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”. Remember, the British freed all of the slaves in their empire WITHOUT war.
Since you included a quote from Lincoln support a central bank, I need to respond to that. The institution of the federal reserve bank in 1913 has been unmitigated disaster for the common man in this country. By its profligate printing of money, the Fed has allowed the federal government to spend money on wars and other disastrous military interventions it would not have been able to afford otherwise. It does this by inflating the money supply which most severely harms wage earners and people at the bottom of the economic scale. The current 9% inflation rate is a 9% tax on every dollar that workers earn, not just for this year but for every year to come.
The Austrian School is the one school of economics that has been able to rationally explain the boom-and-bust cycle created by the Fed's money printing.
With regard to the article you linked to at the end, I will be happy to discuss and\or debate any specific point you want. I should point out, however, that just because someone says they support Hayek (ex. Dick Armey in the article) does not necessarily mean that they have a real understanding of his ideas. There are plenty of people that claim they are Christians that are way too eager to march to war, apparently oblivious to the actual words and practice of the man from Nazareth.
You obviously do not discern the difference between a National Bank and a Private Central Bank, such as the Federal Reserve, which indicates that you have been indoctrinated and not educated, and choose to remain in ignorance. “The entire ideology of so-called Libertarianism which finds its roots in Classical British Liberalism exponded by the likes of such misanthropic Malthusian twats like Bentham and Hobbes and John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith and Locke and the virulent anti-human Parson Thomas Malthus himself, is the true enemy of the human family.”
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine.
Wow! You claim to represent reason with a Thomas Paine quote after using a barrage of ad hominem attacks such as "misanthropic Malthusian twats", "virulent ant-human" and "so-called Libertarianism" and again calling me a troll. You are practicing sophism, not a reasoned argument. I am done responding to you.
For others who would like to read a calm, reasoned and evidence-based introduction to the philosophy of freedom and peace known as libertarianism, please join me at https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com.
And who are the sponsors behind this book Napster? Get a clue, this is revisionist history written by the tory-brit confederacy, who are trying to cleanse their historical criminality.
I have followed your work on the Russia-America relationship for a while. What is happening is tragic -- we could have had West-leaning Eurasian integration! I believe Putin when he says he only wants a 1962-type deal on Ukraine neutrality and missiles.
Here's my take on the big picture. The Neocons are the root of the problem. WW3 on deck. Comments welcome.
The Wikipedia account is good enough for present purposes, but an in depth study of the Crimean War is essential for an accurate understanding of Russia's role in the US Civil War, as well as its effect on Russia itself. For example:
"The Crimean War marked a turning point for the Russian Empire. The war weakened the Imperial Russian Army, drained the treasury and undermined Russia's influence in Europe. The empire would take decades to recover. Russia's humiliation forced its educated elites to identify its problems and recognise the need for fundamental reforms. They saw rapid modernisation as the sole way to recover the empire's status as a European power. The war thus became a catalyst for reforms of Russia's social institutions, including the abolition of serfdom and overhauls in the justice system, local self-government, education and military service."
Royalty, elites and politicians always couch their motives in humanitarian terms, and liberation of the serfs was no exception. Had the Crimean War not occurred, had Britain not been in direct competition with Russia, attempting to diminish her role in international trade, would serfdom have been abolished? Whose interests would that have served if a direct threat to the status quo didn't exist? Likewise, it's no mystery that Russia came to the aid of the North in the US Civil War as this disrupted trade with her foremost enemy, Great Britain.
In all historic analysis you have to look for the hidden ground, the underlying material causes. You can't rely on the accounts of the principle actors or court historians as they will either couch their motives in flowery rhetoric drawing on humanitarian or religious principles, or at best frame events as necessary evils for which we must all 'put our shoulder to the wheel" or as Kennedy put it, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
The overarching material cause in all political developments since the Napoleonic Wars was industrialization, specifically the introduction of the steam engine in the late 18th Century, first as a stationary plant in industrial production, followed by steam powered ships and railways. This single development profoundly altered the existing power relations between all elements of society and their governing elites. Plenty has been written on the subject so I won't go on, except to emphasize that analyzing history without taking account of the underlying material causes is to miss the entire point.
Last point, which is not a minor quibble. You'll often hear the US Civil War described as the first modern war where mechanization, in particular railroads, played a major role. Not so. The Crimean War holds that distinction and it didn't go unnoticed by those charged with executing war on behalf of the state.
LaRouche talked a lot about these things if I recall correctly. It's been some time since I read him, but wasn't identifying material causes central to his thesis?
Great article. This is why I refer to the 1900s as "The Lost Century" but we've also lost the first quarter of the 21st as well now.
It is my sincere belief and hope that this trend is about to reverse in a profound way, but the world must next best its addiction to the media machine. Don't say we weren't warned about this:
"Thou shalt not create any graven images."
"Thou shalt not make any idols."
Not to mention the behaviors constantly depicted in most media glorifying adultery, covetousness, thievery, murder, etc. Weren't we warned about each of those too?
This single weapon, besides that of public education, is the most dangerous tool used to manipulate mankind against its best interests.
They say Satan was the Prince of Music. I say he is the Prince of Entertainment and the world has witnessed a century of his influence to deleterious effect.
Thank you Cynthia, for this important in-depth and wide-ranging perspective. Regarding the freeing of serfs and slaves, neither Russia nor the United States addressed and resolved the land problem. A free people cannot really be free without free or affordable land access. Sun Yat Sen, and Leo Tolstoy both looked to the American political economist Henry George, author of the great work Progress and Poverty, for this solution. Please learn about our worldwide movement to remove taxes on labor and production and to collect the "commons rent" for the people as a whole. This is a necessary compliment to the Hamiltonian system. See <theIU.org> or my substack Aradhana Airwaves Also the Henry George School of Socil Science.
Corporate governments are literally corporate fictions which create entities they control. Persons, taxpayers, all forms of corporations, etc - governments created these, and they control them. We cannot demand that a creator modify his creations to best suit our purposes.
Instead, the people of this world need only understand the fundamental difference between people, and persons. God created people. Corporation created persons.
Stop agreeing to be a person and liberty is granted. But you won't get far telling persons to give other persons liberty.
To add to The Happy Napster’s citing DiLorenzo and to correct even more Cynthia’s and Warren’s and Master Jack’s bias for Lincoln as Liberator rather than Dictator:
Ken Masugi is partially right about Tom DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2002). It is "awful"—"awful"ly good, even great. Tom DiLorenzo has completely and irrevocably destroyed the myth, the legend, the fable, the fairy tale--the tall tale of Abraham Lincoln, American’s first military dictator and its first Presidente after the violent regime change of 1861.
THE INDICTMENT
Before discussing the reviews and reaction, let’s review DiLorenzo’s findings. He makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:
1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.
2. Opposing racial equality.
3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.
4. Being a racist.
5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.
6. Supporting Clay’s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.
7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.
8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.
9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.
10. Never defending a runaway slave.
11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.
12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.
13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.
14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that "free white people" can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.
15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.
16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere--Lincoln's war was the only "war of emancipation" in the 19th century.
17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.
19. Supporting a conscription law.
20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.
21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.
22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.
23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.
24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.
25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.
26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.
27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.
28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.
29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.
30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.
31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.
32. Illegally declaring martial law.
33. Illegally blockading ports.
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.
35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.
36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.
37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.
38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.
39. Confiscating private property and firearms.
40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.
42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.
43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.
44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.
45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.
46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.
47. Censoring all telegraph communication.
48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.
49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the "indestructible" state of Virginia.
50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.
51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.
52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.
53. Closing churches and arresting ministers.
54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.
55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.
56. Creating an enormous political patronage system.
57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).
59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.
60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.
61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.
62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.
63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.
64. Using civilians as hostages.
65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.
66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln’s allies.
67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.
68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.
69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.
70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.
71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.
THE FIRST DEFENSE—SHOOT THE MESSENGER
Thus, DiLorenzo makes over seventy separate allegations against or about Lincoln or as part of his overall case against Lincoln. (Perhaps I missed a few or possibly there is a little duplication in my list.) What do DiLorenzo's reviewers say about these allegations? Very little. Instead of dealing with these charges, his opponents spent most of their efforts attacking a few citations. The only such alleged error that is anything other than a technicality or difference of opinion concerns Lincoln’s racism.”
We know if a story is only partly true, then it is not true. DiLorenzo is a documented liar. Determining which part is true becomes the task of the reader. Before the Internet it was a tough job. The truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth… or else it is a lie. #26 is an outright lie first told by Murray N. Rothbard, in 1994, before the Internet, and perpetuated by his disciples.
“26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.”
Fort Sumter was not a tax collection fort. It was a defensive fort under construction and unoccupied until after South Carolina “claimed” to secede just before Christmas 1860. President James Buchanan then first attempted to resupply Sumter in early January while Lincoln was still in Springfield, Illinois. The South Carolina militia chased the rescue attempt off by shooting at the unarmed “Star of the West” merchant ship. You can read about it here: http://npshistory.com/publications/fosu/decision.pdf
As demonstrated by Everything Voluntary Jack the lies about Lincoln and the Civil War continue to this day. But now we have the Internet to find out who is lying to fool the readers, and who is telling the truth.
I will post Everything Voluntary Jack’s comment on https://sovren.media/c/american-civil-war to sort this out among interested parties. To me the lies stink like bull#@%*!
It appears U.S. fell into a Thucydides trap, given that Russia was perceived as an emerging hegemonic power in the east, and the NATO was committed since the Bucharest Conference of 2008, to including Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, (despite assurances in the 90,s that NATO would not expand one inch further to the east). The assertion that “NATO was not looking ascendant in 2021” is ludicrous. Putin has affirmed repeatedly since 2008, that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO was perceived as an existential threat, and a redline.
The Orange Revolution of 2004 and subsequent regime change coup in 2014, with Victoria Nuland in attendance), was perceived by Russia as a further act of aggression. The Minsk-2 agreements, facilitated by Germany and France, to dissuade Russia retaliation, has also been admitted by Angela Merkel, to be a deception in order to “buy time” for Ukraine. Indeed, NATO has trained and equipped an estimated 10k Ukrainian troops per year from 2014 to 2021.
As to the “unique and sovereign character of Ukraine, consider that Ukraine has shelled the civilian population of Donbas relentlessly since 2014.
Of further note, consider the following:
The Strangelovian Biden administration, just adopted this week, an unprecedented change in nuclear weapons policy doctrine, which clears the way for potential U.S. first strike, tactical nuke attack on Russian territory and forces in Ukraine. Putin countered in a speech this week that Russian policy will now afford preemptive, tactical nuke preemptive retaliation, if U.S. strike is determined to be imminent. What could go wrong?
Such is within context of a massive Winter offensive of 400,000 Russians troops on the immediate horizon, while a humanitarian disaster, with potential of millions of refugees throughout Ukraine unfolds. In Kiev, people are eating dog food, freezing, and shitting in ditches. Meanwhile, Ukrainian strategic stronghold in the city of Bahkmut is collapsing; 800 Ukrainian casualties per day being reported. Severe shortages of weapons, ammo, medical supplies, transportation, food, energy, and shelter. Ukrainian Commander describes situation on the ground as “Catastrophic”. . (Ref: The Duran, on Telegram, for daily updates out of Lindon and Greece). The U.S. UK, and EU have pushed their NATO expansionist, war of aggression wet dream, to the limit and have failed; the neo-con warmongers are now playing the threat of total war, and Nuclear Armageddon card. A Thucydides trap indeed, however, it is my contention that it’s NATO, U.S. UK, and EU that fell into a baited trap are doomed to extinction as hegemonic powers.
We The People should come to the aid of Russia. We owe them that.
For even further research...read "The Man Who Sold Tomorrow," and how the JP Morgan Complex undermined Russia's wish to develop an American like Democracy.
A couple of recent developments for those who aren't yet aware. In view of the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine, Russia has announced that it reserves the right to do likewise in support of US enemies. If recent reports are to be believed, this means that Iran now has the advanced version of the S400 air defence system manned by Russian operators. I doubt Russia would go as far as to enable Iran to attack Israel, but they've certainly provided the means to defend themselves from any retaliation should they decide to do so.
Another promising development. In light of the fact that Russian embassies are backlogged with requests for immigration from western nations, they've begun to reform the arcane immigration procedures they inherited from the Soviet era making it much easier to move there if you live in a western nation. At the same time they've tightened restrictions on immigration from former Soviet Republics such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan who could previously enter Russia to with only a national identity card.
The way I read this is that a) Russia recognizes that their pro-natal policies are falling short, given the need to rapidly expand the population, and b) that the most desirable way to do that is by opening the door to people of similar culture and ethics. They don't seem too concerned if you don't speak Russian, which was an obstacle in the past. Your kids will speak Russian fluently, so that's enough. Also, the influx of people of a more conservative bent is bound to have a positive effect on Russian society itself, some portion of which still foolishly idolizes the West. Hearing what it's really like straight from the horse mouth is likely to change those perceptions.
As always, I look to popular culture as a leading indicator of future change. Can you imagine Taylor Swift, Katy Perry or Lady Gaga putting out something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb3PYFr5y98
You don't have to speak Russian to understand the meaning here, and this is not a minor production either. Fabrika are top recording artists familiar to all Russians.
Same theme, a bit more lighthearted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuSf1UcFRq0
Most excellent analysis. 5 Stars! Upgrading to paid.
Cynthia, this article is like the piece of a puzzle that joins huge sections together for me. Otis not a complete puzzle yet, but I see more clearly the image that might be on the front of the box.
History seemed so abstract and impersonal in school…It’s obvious now that it’s designed to be that way. Your teachings bring a clarity that inspires me to take part in history unfolding today. What more could a writer hope for, particularly since writing awards seem more like PR stunts. And what more could a reader ask for than the truth revealed?
Many thanks for your dedication.
Excellent read! I think I learned about this bit of history a little while ago from either you or Matt. Maybe in a YouTube video? I can’t remember, but it’s fascinating!
That was extremely interesting! History never interested me when I was younger but it's fascinating to read pieces like yours. The world isn't so big after all. Yes, there are some awful people out there, but there are some great ones, too. Thank you for your reminder!
Nice slice of history about the repeated hegemony of nations. It’s wonderful opening this window on the past about Russia.
Thank you Cynthia for your tireless work to provide awareness and truthfulness.
I also follow Tom Luongo and Alex Krainer. From Alex - Last Wednesday (7 Dec. 2022) German magazine Die Zeit published an interview with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which she admitted that, "The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. They used that time to get stronger, which you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/15 is not Ukraine of today." So how does the "Ukraine of today" differ from the one in 2014? During the intervening eight years, Ukraine more than doubled the size of its military:
Ukraine's military personnel 2014 2020
Army 64,000 145,000
Paramilitary units 0 102,000
Air force 45,000 45,000
Navy 7,000 11,000
Airborne troops 5,500 8,000
Total 121,500 311,000
While Merkel's statements got only a scant coverage in western media, they got a lot of attention in China, India, and much of the rest of the world. They confirmed the view of western powers as bad faith actors, willing to enter into agreements they have no intention of honoring.
Although Merkel has maintained a consistent disposition that invokes disappointment, that was a particularly disappointing remark from her. And it just goes to show that it was impossible for Russia to hold any sort of fruitful diplomatic dialogue with these people, they never wanted peace and blame Russia that there is now war.
As a devout Breaking History fan, I did know much of this info. But, once again, Cynthia has eloquently and informatively put this pivotal piece of history into one place, making it easy to share far and wide. I plan to share this with everyone I know! Great work Cynthia 👏
Outstanding article...really ties into the whole Gladio intrigue and the history that both you and your husband have put together. You can clearly see the alliances, hidden agendas, and secret plan unfolding now. Your work is invaluable. I knew, based on my own extensive research going back nearly 25 years now, that somehow this all tied together because the same cast of characters is tied together to the past and their modern bloodlines are continuing onward today.
Wonderful explanation of how the US and (now our enemy “we’re told”) Russia. An additional level of understanding the history of the US and the countries that would have adopted prosperity for theirs. The list of those killed to prevent greater prosperity is long and explains much about the machinations done to prevent our prosperity continuing and to help spread empires (read tyranny). Excellent work! Thank you for sharing! We are still here and as more awaken, we the people will not be enslaved..
God bless you.🙏🙏
I'm sorry to break the news, but Lincoln was not against slavery. He was a racist who was against the intermingling of the "races" (whatever that means) and wanted "them" sent to Africa or a country in the Caribbean. There is no stronger evidence for his hypocrisy then his first inaugural address (1861) where he expressed his full support for the Corwin amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment would have permanently protected slavery by preventing the federal government from interfering in its practice. Additionally, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, he clearly stated that he was not an abolitionist. When his wife Mary Todd inherited slaves they did not free them but instead sold them.
Lincoln was a typical politician who said a lot of contradictory things and did some truly horrible things. Thomas DiLorenzo has written several books refuting the Lincoln myth. A good place to start is "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War".
Overall, Cynthia, I really appreciate your work. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Kind regards,
Andrew - TheNAP.org
Thomas J. DiLorenzo either has no reading comprehension ability or he is a charlatan. The real Abraham Lincoln was nothing like DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln". Have you been fooled?
https://sovren.media/c/abraham-lincoln/128876/fe8c05f632547717fd68b298ba000ae4
Master Jack, you made several ad hominem attacks against Mr. DiLorenzo but did nothing to refute the facts I presented about Lincoln.
Regarding the link that you sent, WTF? How is that a refutation of Mr. DiLorenzo? For the benefit of other readers (you have to sign up at the site to see the article) I am posting the entire text to the article you linked to below. Perhaps you posted the wrong article?
"Brother Jonathan posted in Abraham Lincoln 05/03/2022
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally that he may enslave A?
You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is colour, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker?
Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean colour exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them?
Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest', and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another.
Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.” - Abraham Lincoln - 1854"
Here is a quote from Lincoln four years later, in 1958, from the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Please note, dear readers, that these are Lincoln's words, NOT my own!!
“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 in as much 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.”
https://sovren.media/c/abraham-lincoln
Sir, this is a Sovren Circle started by Brother Jonathan posting Lincoln's Speeches and Letters for anyone to read Abraham Lincoln's words for themselves. I challenge you to read the Cooper Union Address, Lincoln's Anti-war speech, his House Divided speech, where he called out the conspiracy by the Supreme Court, 2 Presidents, and Senator Douglas to nationalize slavery, or any other speech by Abraham Lincoln and come away with the concept that Lincoln was not against the enslavement of men. One has to be illiterate to see it any other way. That's why I said Thomas James DiLorenzo is either illiterate or a charlatan.
As far as the Corwin Amendment,
"no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, the amendment would forever guarantee the right of the Southern people to own slaves. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.
Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment
From <https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html>
If the Corwin Amendment had been ratified, then Utah could have kept their tradition of more than one wife, San Francisco could have been openly gay for more than a century now, gambling would have been a State issue, slavery would have been legal in South Carolina if they wanted it, abortion would have been up to the States, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would have never passed, and the Civil War would not have been fought.
Master Jack, what is the point of listing a bunch of speeches by a lying politician when their actions speak louder than words? The most damning fact is that, when his wife inherited slaves, they were sold rather than freed (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-preacher-who-stole-lincolns-past-by-the-carload/).
Additional facts about Lincoln include:
"[Lincoln] was the chairman of the Illinois Colonization Society that used tax dollars to deport free blacks out of the state; worked diligently as president to plan the deportation of all blacks (see Colonization after Emancipation by Phil Magness and Sebastian Page); supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited blacks from migrating into the state; enjoyed nothing more than black-face minstrel shows; represented slave owners in court seeking to retrieve their runaway slaves but never a slave; supported the Illinois constitution that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any civil rights including the right to vote; and understood more than anyone that no abolitionist could ever have been elected to anything in Illinois in the first half of the nineteenth century" (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/heres-the-proof-that-lincoln-owned-and-sold-slaves/).
Regarding your last several paragraphs regarding the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln openly supported, what is your refutation of my point that Lincoln advocated permanently protecting slavery by a constitutional amendment? The article you linked to in no way refutes my argument. Here are Lincoln's own words at the very start of his presidency:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them”.
The point of reading Lincoln's anti-slavery speeches for yourself is to learn that DiLorenzo, the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, and the whole gang from the CSA South, including the Abbeville Institute, play their readers for fools. They do not fool all of us. For them "Slavery is Freedom"
I am a huge fan of the Non-Aggression Principal. Most people at Sovren.media agree with the NAP. If you would like to promote the NAP and this discussion at Sovren.media, I will join you there. Just let me know.
It makes no sense for, you, or anyone else to defend both the NAP and CSA Slavery at the same time. The Confederate States of America was the most tyrannical government in the history of the world. The enslavement of people is a direct violation of the NAP.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” - Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens - March 21, 1861
https://sovren.media/p/231494/ef41ddfe9ad7bcef0e6c2939efbc7c60
Master Jack, I have been visiting https://LewRockwell.com for over a quarter of a century. Not once in that time did I read anything from him or the Mises Institute indicating any support for slavery, ever. To say that they believe "Slavery is Freedom" is a gross misrepresentation of their character and I refuse to respond to you further.
Neo-con Thomas James DiLorenzo, identifies as an adherent of the Austrian School of economics, also a research fellow at The Independent Institute, a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Board of Advisors member at CFACT, and author of Hamilton’s Curse. British Intelligence Grifter Supreme. Get thee hence troll.
Warren, you did not refute any of my factual statements regarding Lincoln, and to call Mr. DiLorenzo a Neocon is an ad hominem attack that is absolutely absurd. Using the Merriam-Webster definitions for Neocon, in which of either of these two senses does that term apply to him?
1) a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2) a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means.
Mr. DiLorenzo is a libertarian, NOT a neocon. Libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP) which is the happy union of freedom and non-violence, of anarchy and peace. That is about as far away from a neocon as you can get. I hope that you and other readers with take time to learn more about the philosophy of libertarianism at https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com.
With regard to the other "attacks" on Mr. DiLorenzo, yes, he is an adherent to the Austrian School of economics, which is a school of thought supporting free markets and peaceful trade, not the coercive corporatism (ie. fascism) dominating the U.S. and other markets today.
With regard to CFACT, it is not an organization that I am familiar with, but I am curious as to which item from their mission statement, posted on their website, that you have issues with?
"At the heart of CFACT, our goal is to enhance the fruitfulness of the earth and all of its inhabitants. CFACT accomplishes this through four main strategies:
Prospering Lives. CFACT works to help people find better ways to provide for food, water, energy and other essential human services.
Promoting Progress. CFACT advocates the use of safe, affordable technologies and the pursuit of economic policies that reduce pollution and waste, and maximize the use of resources.
Protecting the Earth. CFACT helps protect the earth through wise stewardship of the land and its wildlife.
Providing Education. CFACT educates various sectors of the public about important facts and practical solutions regarding environmental concerns."
You called me a troll. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.
DiLorenzo, von Mises, and CFACT, like the Jefferson radical agrarians are all in for British “Free Trade”,(enslavement) policies, as is the von Mises Institute, and the Austrian School. That’s why the Hate Lincoln. They are opposed to universal scientific, technological, and industrial development. DiLorenzo’s slander of Alexander Hamilton (Hamilton’s Curse) and the Mises Institute’s lauding of Jeffersonian (vs Hamilton and Washington) is their tell.
CFACT’s “promoting progress” and advocating the use of safe, affordable technologies and the pursuit of economic policies that reduce pollution and waste, and maximize the use of resources. Protecting the Earth and WildLife, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig and window dressing advocating for genocidal human eradication, as was the World Wildlife fund, and it’s Neo-Nazi founders and cohorts (Prince Phillip, Prince Bernhardt, and Julian Huxley) . Don’t bother with Merriam-Webster for a fact on Neo-Nazis, they will deflect as with neo-cons. DiLorenzo’s and Mises Institute’s love feast and embrace of Austrian School Free Trade, as with the neo-cons, leads inevitably to war, famine, pestilence, and disease.
To reference Abraham Lincoln: “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not it will be all the same.
To the radical free trader DiLorenzo, von Mises, and the Austrian School, (and Libertarians in General), I would advise: “It’s the economy Stupid!”
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/educ/hist/1995/von_hayek.html

Warren, it is getting rather tiring responding to your innuendoes and misinformation. It is really impressive, however, that you are able to get into the minds of DiLorenzo, von Mises, etc. to tell us with utter certainty "That's why the <sic> Hate Lincoln".
For some reason you have decided to insert British trade into this argument. It should be noted that the British abolished slavery throughout their empire in the 1830's and 1840's. They were the first nation in the world to do this, without resorting to war and a full 30 years ahead of the U.S.
Perhaps the reason that DiLorenzo and others are critical of Lincoln is not just for his hypocrisy with regard to slavery but for his actual crimes in office. Lincoln was a tyrant who violated the Constitution at will. While President he suspended habeas corpus, drafted (enslaved) citizens to fight his war, imprisoned thousands of Northern citizens, including newspaper reporters, that were opposed to the war, confiscated private property, deported an Ohio Congressman who was critical of Lincoln, and ordered the censoring of all telegraph communication (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/dilorenzo-vs-his-critics-on-the-lincoln-myth/).
These and many other overt violations of the Constitution, in order to “save the Union”, have the same ironic ring as the quote from the U.S. Major who claimed during the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”. Remember, the British freed all of the slaves in their empire WITHOUT war.
Since you included a quote from Lincoln support a central bank, I need to respond to that. The institution of the federal reserve bank in 1913 has been unmitigated disaster for the common man in this country. By its profligate printing of money, the Fed has allowed the federal government to spend money on wars and other disastrous military interventions it would not have been able to afford otherwise. It does this by inflating the money supply which most severely harms wage earners and people at the bottom of the economic scale. The current 9% inflation rate is a 9% tax on every dollar that workers earn, not just for this year but for every year to come.
The Austrian School is the one school of economics that has been able to rationally explain the boom-and-bust cycle created by the Fed's money printing.
With regard to the article you linked to at the end, I will be happy to discuss and\or debate any specific point you want. I should point out, however, that just because someone says they support Hayek (ex. Dick Armey in the article) does not necessarily mean that they have a real understanding of his ideas. There are plenty of people that claim they are Christians that are way too eager to march to war, apparently oblivious to the actual words and practice of the man from Nazareth.
You obviously do not discern the difference between a National Bank and a Private Central Bank, such as the Federal Reserve, which indicates that you have been indoctrinated and not educated, and choose to remain in ignorance. “The entire ideology of so-called Libertarianism which finds its roots in Classical British Liberalism exponded by the likes of such misanthropic Malthusian twats like Bentham and Hobbes and John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith and Locke and the virulent anti-human Parson Thomas Malthus himself, is the true enemy of the human family.”
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine.
Fini with you Troll.
Wow! You claim to represent reason with a Thomas Paine quote after using a barrage of ad hominem attacks such as "misanthropic Malthusian twats", "virulent ant-human" and "so-called Libertarianism" and again calling me a troll. You are practicing sophism, not a reasoned argument. I am done responding to you.
For others who would like to read a calm, reasoned and evidence-based introduction to the philosophy of freedom and peace known as libertarianism, please join me at https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com.
May peace be with you all.
Napster they banned it in their own country only to own and control the industry in every other nation on earth.
And who are the sponsors behind this book Napster? Get a clue, this is revisionist history written by the tory-brit confederacy, who are trying to cleanse their historical criminality.
I have followed your work on the Russia-America relationship for a while. What is happening is tragic -- we could have had West-leaning Eurasian integration! I believe Putin when he says he only wants a 1962-type deal on Ukraine neutrality and missiles.
Here's my take on the big picture. The Neocons are the root of the problem. WW3 on deck. Comments welcome.
https://elliottmiddleton.substack.com/p/the-narrative-pivots
A huge piece of the narrative is missing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
The Wikipedia account is good enough for present purposes, but an in depth study of the Crimean War is essential for an accurate understanding of Russia's role in the US Civil War, as well as its effect on Russia itself. For example:
"The Crimean War marked a turning point for the Russian Empire. The war weakened the Imperial Russian Army, drained the treasury and undermined Russia's influence in Europe. The empire would take decades to recover. Russia's humiliation forced its educated elites to identify its problems and recognise the need for fundamental reforms. They saw rapid modernisation as the sole way to recover the empire's status as a European power. The war thus became a catalyst for reforms of Russia's social institutions, including the abolition of serfdom and overhauls in the justice system, local self-government, education and military service."
Royalty, elites and politicians always couch their motives in humanitarian terms, and liberation of the serfs was no exception. Had the Crimean War not occurred, had Britain not been in direct competition with Russia, attempting to diminish her role in international trade, would serfdom have been abolished? Whose interests would that have served if a direct threat to the status quo didn't exist? Likewise, it's no mystery that Russia came to the aid of the North in the US Civil War as this disrupted trade with her foremost enemy, Great Britain.
In all historic analysis you have to look for the hidden ground, the underlying material causes. You can't rely on the accounts of the principle actors or court historians as they will either couch their motives in flowery rhetoric drawing on humanitarian or religious principles, or at best frame events as necessary evils for which we must all 'put our shoulder to the wheel" or as Kennedy put it, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
The overarching material cause in all political developments since the Napoleonic Wars was industrialization, specifically the introduction of the steam engine in the late 18th Century, first as a stationary plant in industrial production, followed by steam powered ships and railways. This single development profoundly altered the existing power relations between all elements of society and their governing elites. Plenty has been written on the subject so I won't go on, except to emphasize that analyzing history without taking account of the underlying material causes is to miss the entire point.
Last point, which is not a minor quibble. You'll often hear the US Civil War described as the first modern war where mechanization, in particular railroads, played a major role. Not so. The Crimean War holds that distinction and it didn't go unnoticed by those charged with executing war on behalf of the state.
LaRouche talked a lot about these things if I recall correctly. It's been some time since I read him, but wasn't identifying material causes central to his thesis?
Great article. This is why I refer to the 1900s as "The Lost Century" but we've also lost the first quarter of the 21st as well now.
It is my sincere belief and hope that this trend is about to reverse in a profound way, but the world must next best its addiction to the media machine. Don't say we weren't warned about this:
"Thou shalt not create any graven images."
"Thou shalt not make any idols."
Not to mention the behaviors constantly depicted in most media glorifying adultery, covetousness, thievery, murder, etc. Weren't we warned about each of those too?
This single weapon, besides that of public education, is the most dangerous tool used to manipulate mankind against its best interests.
They say Satan was the Prince of Music. I say he is the Prince of Entertainment and the world has witnessed a century of his influence to deleterious effect.
Thank you Cynthia, for this important in-depth and wide-ranging perspective. Regarding the freeing of serfs and slaves, neither Russia nor the United States addressed and resolved the land problem. A free people cannot really be free without free or affordable land access. Sun Yat Sen, and Leo Tolstoy both looked to the American political economist Henry George, author of the great work Progress and Poverty, for this solution. Please learn about our worldwide movement to remove taxes on labor and production and to collect the "commons rent" for the people as a whole. This is a necessary compliment to the Hamiltonian system. See <theIU.org> or my substack Aradhana Airwaves Also the Henry George School of Socil Science.
Corporate governments are literally corporate fictions which create entities they control. Persons, taxpayers, all forms of corporations, etc - governments created these, and they control them. We cannot demand that a creator modify his creations to best suit our purposes.
Instead, the people of this world need only understand the fundamental difference between people, and persons. God created people. Corporation created persons.
Stop agreeing to be a person and liberty is granted. But you won't get far telling persons to give other persons liberty.
To add to The Happy Napster’s citing DiLorenzo and to correct even more Cynthia’s and Warren’s and Master Jack’s bias for Lincoln as Liberator rather than Dictator:
DiLorenzo and His Critics on the Lincoln Myth Mises.org 04/15/2003 James Ostrowski https://mises.org/library/dilorenzo-and-his-critics-lincoln-myth
“INTRODUCTION
Ken Masugi is partially right about Tom DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2002). It is "awful"—"awful"ly good, even great. Tom DiLorenzo has completely and irrevocably destroyed the myth, the legend, the fable, the fairy tale--the tall tale of Abraham Lincoln, American’s first military dictator and its first Presidente after the violent regime change of 1861.
THE INDICTMENT
Before discussing the reviews and reaction, let’s review DiLorenzo’s findings. He makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:
1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.
2. Opposing racial equality.
3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.
4. Being a racist.
5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.
6. Supporting Clay’s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.
7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.
8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.
9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.
10. Never defending a runaway slave.
11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.
12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.
13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.
14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that "free white people" can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.
15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.
16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere--Lincoln's war was the only "war of emancipation" in the 19th century.
17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.
19. Supporting a conscription law.
20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.
21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.
22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.
23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.
24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.
25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.
26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.
27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.
28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.
29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.
30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.
31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.
32. Illegally declaring martial law.
33. Illegally blockading ports.
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.
35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.
36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.
37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.
38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.
39. Confiscating private property and firearms.
40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.
42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.
43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.
44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.
45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.
46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.
47. Censoring all telegraph communication.
48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.
49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the "indestructible" state of Virginia.
50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.
51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.
52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.
53. Closing churches and arresting ministers.
54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.
55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.
56. Creating an enormous political patronage system.
57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).
59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.
60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.
61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.
62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.
63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.
64. Using civilians as hostages.
65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.
66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln’s allies.
67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.
68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.
69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.
70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.
71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.
THE FIRST DEFENSE—SHOOT THE MESSENGER
Thus, DiLorenzo makes over seventy separate allegations against or about Lincoln or as part of his overall case against Lincoln. (Perhaps I missed a few or possibly there is a little duplication in my list.) What do DiLorenzo's reviewers say about these allegations? Very little. Instead of dealing with these charges, his opponents spent most of their efforts attacking a few citations. The only such alleged error that is anything other than a technicality or difference of opinion concerns Lincoln’s racism.”
I see you follow Alex Krainer. So do I. He is brilliant.
I strive to be a critical thinker and my rule #1 is "Strive to prove your hypothesis/premise wrong." You have provide much to ponder.
We know if a story is only partly true, then it is not true. DiLorenzo is a documented liar. Determining which part is true becomes the task of the reader. Before the Internet it was a tough job. The truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth… or else it is a lie. #26 is an outright lie first told by Murray N. Rothbard, in 1994, before the Internet, and perpetuated by his disciples.
“26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.”
Fort Sumter was not a tax collection fort. It was a defensive fort under construction and unoccupied until after South Carolina “claimed” to secede just before Christmas 1860. President James Buchanan then first attempted to resupply Sumter in early January while Lincoln was still in Springfield, Illinois. The South Carolina militia chased the rescue attempt off by shooting at the unarmed “Star of the West” merchant ship. You can read about it here: http://npshistory.com/publications/fosu/decision.pdf
https://sovren.media/c/american-civil-war/222582/2d532b47fb553b15a840a8c2f3a67c4d
As demonstrated by Everything Voluntary Jack the lies about Lincoln and the Civil War continue to this day. But now we have the Internet to find out who is lying to fool the readers, and who is telling the truth.
I will post Everything Voluntary Jack’s comment on https://sovren.media/c/american-civil-war to sort this out among interested parties. To me the lies stink like bull#@%*!