Don't Believe Everything You Read On the Internet
Anyone who has read my blog over the last couple of years knows that I have been a sharp critic of Lincoln, It probably started with DiLorenzo's essays (I first became a fan of his work over essays on economic fascism and so-called natural monopolies, only later becoming familiar with his controversial books on Lincoln); I've since read numerous posts and Youtube videos by him on related topics. They have influenced my perspective, but I've also read Lincoln's inaugural address and numerous other writers' work.
I subscribe to a number of pro-liberty emails/digests, and one of them is for Lew Rockwell's own website. (Rockwell is close to Ron Paul, once one of his staffers. He's been in a leadership position with the Mises Institute, with a tilt toward the Austrian School of Economics.) This is rather an idiosyncratic grab bag and an acquired taste, with more mainstream libertarian articles mixed with conspiracy type pieces, and Rockwell has hugely enjoyed Trump's success against the GOP establishment. (I've never quite understood that, because Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist, anti-war while Trump is an authoritarian who basically says that he won't touch entitlements while pushing for an increase in defense spending.) He's got a huge stable of contributors; I'm not sure if it's by invitation; I certainly haven't been asked to contribute, and I didn't see where I could submit a piece. This is not a personal rant (after all, I have my own blog); it's just context for discussing this one article.)
Tara Dodrill wrote "The Whitewashed Tyranny of Abraham Lincoln". I was intrigued, but I had never heard of Ms. Dodrill, who apparently writes for some natural health portal. (Rockwell does seem to have a fondness for the natural health folks, like Dr. Mercola.) Let me first say that this piece is well-written (i.e., readable) from an author's vs. researcher's perspective. I'm not an historian by academic training, but a few obvious things jumped out at me. This is not meant to be a comprehensive critique, but my criticisms are significant enough to call the article into question. Granted, Rockwell has a disclaimer over articles posted to his website:
"After intense debate over a slew of possible candidates, Abraham Lincoln, after three votes were taken, received the nomination. During his one term in the Senate, the press had cast Lincoln as a strong all-American man, with an inspiring pull-yourself-up by the bootstraps story."Abraham Lincoln never served in the US Senate, despite his related 1858 debates against incumbent IL US Senator Stephen A. Douglas (recall state legislators chose the US Senators at the time). The author is probably referring to Lincoln's one term in the US House a decade earlier.
I read a lot of Karl Marx for a course in social philosophy back in college, and that does NOT sound like Marx. The rebellion of slaves vs. slaveholders works right into his theme of class struggle. Keep in mind Marx sold a number of op-ed's to Northern newspapers during the war.
Infamous socialist Karl Marx also saw the Civil War for exactly what it was. He wrote, “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lustfor power.”
Researching the quote, I stumbled upon this discussion (note the posted link to the original material is no longer valid and I have not accessed the original passages, but here is that discussant's commentary:
Like many people, I have seen the quote attributed to Marx ("The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.") bandied about as "proof" that the American Civil War was about "money" or "power" or something else -- anything but slavery. I always felt that sounded odd, not at all like other things I had seen from Marx and Engels over the years in relation to the war, but I have been too lazy to actually look for the original source to see what Marx himself meant and said. Now that you have made it so easy, I have actually gone and read the original -- lo and behold, the snippet of a quote so commonly seen online is taken out of context and is a complete distortion of what Marx was saying.
Actually reading the article Marx wrote in its' entirety makes the distortion of his words usually seen obvious. The whole purpose of his article is to make crystal clear the hypocrisy of those who make the claim that the war is about tariffs or something other than slavery -- yet the two sentences are taken out of context to "prove" that he did. Where a reading of the article makes clear that his words were dripping with sarcasm, the isolated use of the two sentences tries to make it seem he was supporting a view he disagreed with totally.
Let me point out that I completely disagree with idea that this was a holy war against slavery: In fact, Lincoln did seem to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law in Union slave states/DC. But using bogus quotes to embellish one's side of the argument, never mind the dubious endorsement of Karl Marx, is intellectually dishonest.
Then there's this mind-blowing gem:
Another point of fact that modern history textbooks omit is why Fort Sumter was the place that Lincoln chose to make a stand. It was not merely a military fort. Fort Sumter was a tariff collection facility. The president’s attempt to terrorize the South into submission by assaulting Fort Sumter was an epic and very bloody failure.I take this one a little personally because my family visited Ft. Sumter while I was in junior high. First of all, the Union occupied Ft. Sumter; Lincoln did not assault it. It was Confederates who bombarded Ft. Sumter. Lincoln would then use the initial attack on Ft. Sumter to justify invasion of the South. Second, the attack on Ft. Sumter was hardly bloody (no casualties) and ended up in a Union Army surrender.
