DiLorenzo: There was no need to go to war to "defend slavery." Lincoln guaranteed it in his first inaugural address by endorsing the Corwin Amendment.
Q: South Carolina gave 17 reasons after the 1860 election for seceding, including the protection of slavery. How big a factor was slavery?
A: Why states seceded and why there was a war are two totally different questions. There is no question that Lincoln invaded the South over tax collection, as he promised/threatened in his first inaugural address, his "slavery forever" speech. Tariffs were constitutional, so to justify secession on a constitutional basis some of the southern states cited non-enforcement of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. In the words of Lincoln and the U.S.Congress (read the Crittenden Compromise), slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with why they invaded the southern states.
Q: How much did the prevalence of economic fallacies, especially the uncertainty of what freed blacks would have on the economy, contribute to the war on both sides?
A: Economic fallacy is the ideological bedrock of mercantilism, and mercantilism is what the Republican Party always stood for.
Q: You’ve written about how Lincoln trotted out practically every economic fallacy in the book. Did he actually believe in these fallacies or was he simply a selfish politician pushing a corrupt policy and using any means at his disposal?
A: Lincoln had a long career as a trial lawyer and as you know, most trial lawyers are in the business of throwing rhetorical mud against the wall to see if it sticks to promote their clients' interests, so I suspect he just adopted any economic fallacy that he could find to justify protectionism, corporate welfare, and a national bank run by politicians. He had spent a quarter of a century doing just that before becoming president.
Q: Did Lincoln’s attitude toward Southerners mellow at all during the war and after? It seems he greatly underestimated the cost and time it would take. Did he have any regrets? Had he not been assassinated, would he have handled Reconstruction any differently than the Andrew Johnson administration?
A: Lincoln celebrated Sherman and Sheridan's war crimes up to the very end, he promoted them, and the Republican Party made national heroes out of them. His speech writers like Seward made him sound magnanimous, but look at what he did-- orchestrating total war on Southern CIVILIANS to the very end. The party of Lincoln did what their namesake would have done during Reconstruction -- continue to plunder the South for the benefit of party hacks and the Northern plutocracy while doing next to nothing for the ex slaves.
Duffy: Thank you!
~ Tom DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, answers to questions from Kevin Duffy, January 9, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment