Sun. 10/05/23 10:54 EDT.post #105 Lodatzor:Unless you feel there are other facets which are relevant other than the fact that Lincoln's Federal government was the instrument used to abolish the practice of slavery in States which had chosen not to conform to this (surely libertarian) idea?What, exactly, is that but the use of force to defend liberty?Possibly, a political pretext and justification for starting a civil war?Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery any more than he cared about "defending liberty." He cared about coercing the secessionists to remain in the union, and increasing the power of the federal government while making himself look morally upright, which he succeeded spectaculary in doing.
Lodatzor:Unless you feel there are other facets which are relevant other than the fact that Lincoln's Federal government was the instrument used to abolish the practice of slavery in States which had chosen not to conform to this (surely libertarian) idea?What, exactly, is that but the use of force to defend liberty?
MMMark:Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery any more than he cared about "defending liberty.
"It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace."
Is this some sort of sick joke?
Here is an article written by Don Boudreaux in 2005: Capitalism & Slavery.
Sun. 10/05/23 13:19 EDT.post #106 Snowflake:In his inaugural address, he actually proposed amending the constitution to make slavery unrepealable.You are referring to the Corwin Amendment?According to this wiki article, Lincoln simply stated that he "had no objection" to it.Here is the pertinent text from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
Snowflake:In his inaugural address, he actually proposed amending the constitution to make slavery unrepealable.
Abraham Lincoln:I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
wikipedia:The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery). In particular, the Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit the Congress from banning slavery in those states whose laws permitted it.
edit:I've got this wrong.
What the Corwin Amendment forbade was not "interference with the domestic institutions of the states," but rather, any constitutional amendments granting congress the power to do this.
Sun. 10/05/23.post #107 Donald J. Boudreaux:She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours? Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers? Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.Although logical, Boudreux's answer is too long. He should have said: "Impossible. That capital was all destroyed during the waging of the civil war and the ensuing inflation, death and destruction."
Donald J. Boudreaux:She anticipated my response. "Not directly. But the capital that made these innovations possible was extracted from slave labor. The wealth accumulated by slaveholders is what financed the industrialization that makes today's wealth possible."I looked at her in raw disbelief. (Not a good strategy, by the way, for a public speaker.)Collecting my thoughts, I pointed out that slavery had been an ever-present institution throughout human history until just about 200 years ago. Why didn't slaveholders of 2,000 years ago in Europe or 500 years ago in Asia accumulate wealth that triggered economic growth comparable to ours? Why is Latin America so much poorer today than the United States, given that the Spaniards and Portuguese who settled that part of the world were enthusiastic slavers? Indeed, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil -- in 1888, a quarter-century after U.S. abolition. By American and western European standards, Brazil remains impoverished.And why, having abolished slavery decades before their Southern neighbors, were Northern U.S. states wealthier than Southern states before the Civil War?I don't recall my young challenger's response. I recall only that I was as little convinced by it as she was by my answers.
MMMark: According to this wiki article, Lincoln simply stated that he "had no objection" to it.
i'll think twice before regurgitating dilorenzo in the future...
IIRC there was more to it than that than simply 'no objection'. Don't have the time to look it up now though.
But my point is, also don't be too quick to accept a blank counter-claim.
Sun. 10/05/23 15:25 EDT.post #108 Nielsio:IIRC there was more to it than that than simply 'no objection'.Found this:
Nielsio:IIRC there was more to it than that than simply 'no objection'.
Thomas DiLorenzo calls attention to a vital fact that demolishes the popular view that one of Lincoln’s primary motives for opposing secession in 1861 was his distaste for slavery. Precisely the opposite was the case. It is well known that, in an effort to promote compromise, a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that forever forbade interference with slavery in states where it already existed. Lincoln referred to the proposal, the Corwin Amendment, in his First Inaugural, stating that he was not opposed to the amendment, since it merely made explicit the existing constitutional arrangement regarding slavery. Of course, Lincoln was here characteristically mendacious; nothing in the constitution prior to the amendment prohibited amendments to end slavery. [1]So much is well established, but DiLorenzo adds a surprising touch. Far from viewing the Corwin Amendment with grudging consent, Lincoln was in fact its behind-the-scenes promoter. “As soon as he was elected, but before his inauguration, Lincoln ‘instructed Seward to introduce [the amendment] in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.’ … In addition, Lincoln instructed Seward to get through Congress a law that would make the various ‘personal liberty laws’ that existed in some Northern states illegal. (Such state laws nullified the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to apprehend runaway slaves)” (p. 54, quoting Dorothy Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals).
edit:see also A 'Lincoln Scholar' Comes Cleanand Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abeand Who was this "Great Liberator"?
MMMark:So much is well established, but DiLorenzo adds a surprising touch. Far from viewing the Corwin Amendment with grudging consent, Lincoln was in fact its behind-the-scenes promoter. “As soon as he was elected, but before his inauguration, Lincoln ‘instructed Seward to introduce [the amendment] in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.’ … In addition, Lincoln instructed Seward to get through Congress a law that would make the various ‘personal liberty laws’ that existed in some Northern states illegal. (Such state laws nullified the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to apprehend runaway slaves)” (p. 54, quoting Dorothy Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals).
There was actually a really good Austrian Scholars Conference lecture given by a professor of finance. He discusses this kind of thing and how it relates to the state, explaining why voluntary association is by far the optimal way to organize things. You (Lodatzor) should watch it if you have time. Thanks. I'll check it out.
There was actually a really good Austrian Scholars Conference lecture given by a professor of finance. He discusses this kind of thing and how it relates to the state, explaining why voluntary association is by far the optimal way to organize things. You (Lodatzor) should watch it if you have time.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
I'll check it out too. Thanks.
And wow... I was not aware of Lincoln's inaugural address containing such sentiment. Color me shocked.