I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
The other flaw in the “slavery was on its way out” is the structure of the US Constitution. Our situation wasn’t anything at all the British Empire (no “Capital C” Constitution) banning slavery in its colonies by Act of Parliament.
Public opinion in favor of slavery showed no sign of changing in the south in 1860. Northerners could hem and haw all they want but short of Constitutional Amendment - which was still needed even after the North had won BTW - slavery wasn’t going away.
Where were the 2/3 of the Senate votes going to come from and 3/4 of State legislatures? Point being, the Dirty South could have dragged that process out well into the 20th Century.
The other flaw in the “slavery was on its way out” is the structure of the US Constitution. Our situation wasn’t anything at all the British Empire (no “Capital C” Constitution) banning slavery in its colonies by Act of Parliament.
Public opinion in favor of slavery showed no sign of changing in the south in 1860. Northerners could hem and haw all they want but short of Constitutional Amendment - which was still needed even after the North had won BTW - slavery wasn’t going away.
Where were the 2/3 of the Senate votes going to come from and 3/4 of State legislatures? Point being, the Dirty South could have dragged that process out well into the 20th Century.
Slaves were property. Surely our property rights scholars understand that the peculiar institution wasn’t just going to fade away.
I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
There's only one side, the central banks. Bankers, most of them foreign, still own and control the USA. The Civil War was just another banking war. America never really escaped British rule. America went to war against itself in order to preserve the wealth and power of the Rothschild banking cartel.
Stop showing off! This is Mike’s chance to be nuts.
There's only one side, the central banks. Bankers, most of them foreign, still own and control the USA. The Civil War was just another banking war. America never really escaped British rule. America went to war against itself in order to preserve the wealth and power of the Rothschild banking cartel.
Comments
I haven’t had the time, but there are a couple of books by an economics professor named Thomas DiLorenzo who shares @MikeDamone’s low opinions of Lincoln that I’d like to read out of curiosity, even though I hear they’re pretty bad.
I do disagree with the notion that slavery was on it’s last legs come the time of the Civil War. Even with the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution taking hold, that was mostly in the North. Lands gained from the Mexican-American War were being carved up, and the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into those territories, even eyeing the possibility of taking over Central America and Cuba.
Yes, Lincoln was no angel. He suspended Habeas Corpus and toyed with the idea of shipping slaves to colonies. In most of the biographies it’s pointed out that he could also be coldly calculating at times...he was after all a politician.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lincolns-contested-legacy-44978351/
Still, I would not characterize him as a POS. While it’s true people put him on a pedestal, he was still a great leader, albeit an imperfect one.
Public opinion in favor of slavery showed no sign of changing in the south in 1860. Northerners could hem and haw all they want but short of Constitutional Amendment - which was still needed even after the North had won BTW - slavery wasn’t going away.
Where were the 2/3 of the Senate votes going to come from and 3/4 of State legislatures? Point being, the Dirty South could have dragged that process out well into the 20th Century.