Why I don't eat at Lincoln's table
As many of you who have read this know - if there are many - I am a Republican, and engage in Republican activism.
So, it would be expected that I would go to the annual Lincoln day dinner in my county. This, like the Democrat Jefferson-Jackson day dinner, is used to raise money for the party. However, there are three reasons I do not go to these, despite my loyalty to the party:
1) I'm poor
2) I don't have time
3) Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist - nay, white separatist - whose ultimate dream was big government, and he was willing to use a war to promote his statist agenda.
Points 1) and 2) are pretty self-explanatory. Point 3), however, will need some clarification.
If you have read my myraid of posts, you see that I live in the Pacific Northwest. So I must have relatives who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, right? Actually, no. And one of the ancestors of my step-grandfather actually left the south to fight for the north during the war. The reasons were never given, as my step-grandfather died when I was eight, my father (and grandmother) did not have the inclination to determine the motives to fight for the north (he was probably a unionist rather than an abolitionist), and at that time, despite my high level of intelligence, I probably didn't even know what a "civil war" was, and only knew that Lincoln was some great character because he freed the slaves (probably literally, as he went throughout the south taking their shackles off - at least how I might of perceived it then).
Of my actual blood lineages, I know that on my paternal grandmother's side, all those people were peasants in Norway. And on my maternal grandfather's side, his father's family was in Wales (probably mining), and his mother's family was in Germany, doing whatever Germans did at that time. That leaves for my the side of my paternal father's ancestors, who lived in the Indiana area, so they may have fought in the war. I have the early history of that family - the Tearman family - before the civil war, with all the lineages up to my birthday. However, he died when my father was three, so any familial tradition was not passed down - he was raised by my step-grandfather - whose interests in politics was mildly Democratic, except for his strong support of the NRA (I came to that organization thru another avenue; he would certainly be proud that I am a voting member! - although since he was born in 1903, it was not all that unusual for a Democrat of that era to be a strong NRA member). My maternal mother's side was from New England, purportedly; this is the weakest link in my geneological tree (which purportedly goes back to the Caeser family, Charlemaigne, the Merogivianians, and Odin and Freyya is Asgaard - seriously! Some chick in Marysville traced this back this far, and I found a relative in the Leikanger chronicle - a Norweigan geneology which goes back the 16th century -who was at the end of this line). If they were from New England, they would have probably had strong unionist, and possibly abolitionist, intentions. All I know is that they migrated out here before the railroad, so my Northwest roots go deep.
Anyways, enough of tangents. I have never lived in Dixie - the closest I have come to that region is Colorado - and I have no Confederate heritage. And I can guarantee that I do not own a white sheet with holes cut out, nor a Nazi uniform, nor am I a member of any church in Idaho. And, in college, I tutored minorities! So, why do I have such an opinion of Lincoln?
Well, I have studied history. Before the Civil War, the United States was more of a voluntary union. After the war, the Federal Government was much more coercive over the states. Leading to the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society - and the United States being much like the rest of the states around the world today.
While it was undoubtedly good to eliminate slavery, the cost to do so was tremendous. Basically, the end of slavery was a bi-product of Lincoln's drive to create a mercantilist state. Slavery could have been ended thru peaceable emancipation.
Now, while it was calculated that manumission was quite expensive, the civil war was even more expensive than having the federal government purchasing the slaves' freedom. Yes, that is hindsite, and that of course is 20-20.
Unfortunately, the abolitionists were a bunch of extremists who did not always think clearly. But then again, extremists rarely do. They got more voiciferous, and their extremism led to southerners a "circle the wagons" position (a common anthropological model). This position led to a group of people called the "fire eaters". These were southern ideologues who thought not that slavery was a necessary evil - or a "peculiar institution" - but rather thought that African-American slavery was some kind of social good. And by the end of the 1850's, they would start to advocate slave auctions take place on the Boston Common. They led to some of the fuel of the Civil War, and it was Lincoln who exploited this to launch his drive for big government.
If the abolitionists were a little more conservative, they could have had a clear strategy that would have lead to gradual emancipation. What they could have done is, while supporting the Missouri Compromise, raising the funds to manumit the slaves in the state with the least slaves - like, well, Missouri. Then lead to the outlawing of that institution in those states. That would have led to more free states in the Senate, eventually the concentration of that institution in a few states - then to eventual outlawing of that institution. In fact, abolitionist movements were still viable in the south until the 1830's, and Virginia came very close to outlawing slavery in that decade.
Anyways, Abraham Lincoln would be horrified with the positions that the Republican party takes today. It is essentially economically libertarian in spirit, and he would find it's commitment to racial equality horrifying. And it supports free trade, something that he hated (he loved tariffs). He would have has chills down his spine at the anti-government rhetoric that many of it's politicians state. In fact, the only belief that Lincoln had that I agree with - and this was stated early in his career - was that voting rights should be issued to those who are armed.
While I won't go into a book review, one book that must be read by anyone interested in this period is "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. I reviewed one of his other books earlier. It is, well, propaganda, but presents a view that is not addressed. While most anti-Lincoln books are written by racists, he starts out his book with the fact that Lincoln was a racist pig who wanted to deport all blacks to Africa to create a white person's paradise. There is plenty of evidence that Lincoln supported this position (in fact, those who state that Lincoln was a believer in racial equality at the end of his life are Lincoln apologists who are embarrased by his earlier rhethoric). So this position makes Lincoln very qualified to have become a leader of the Aryan Nations. Then, Lincoln wanted to create a mercantilist state, and was willing to trample all over the Constitution to support his position. And his policies not only created big government, but may have poisoned white-black relations in the south for about a century - and lead to the current white bigotry in large sections of the African-American community today (actually, that last part is my analysis).
While writing propaganda, Thomas DiLorenzo is not a total kook. His forward is written by Walter Williams, who has been Rush Limbaugh's Friday fill-in host for over ten years, in fact, he is the person who has had the longest term as fill-in host. Of course if you are a leftist you consider Rush himself to be an extremist, but that is only if you are so blinded by your ideology you cannot make reasonable ideological judgements about people. While the leader of the conservatives, Rush Limbaugh is well within the mainstream of American political thought (and he, by the way, likes Lincoln).
So, as a result, I will not be attending the Snohomish County Lincoln day dinner this Saturday 0r anytime soon. Or ever. However, I may introduce a resolution to change the name to the Lincoln-Reagan day dinner, for Reagan is very much liked by many Americans, and he is largely responsible for the current ideas of the Republican party.
So, it would be expected that I would go to the annual Lincoln day dinner in my county. This, like the Democrat Jefferson-Jackson day dinner, is used to raise money for the party. However, there are three reasons I do not go to these, despite my loyalty to the party:
1) I'm poor
2) I don't have time
3) Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist - nay, white separatist - whose ultimate dream was big government, and he was willing to use a war to promote his statist agenda.
Points 1) and 2) are pretty self-explanatory. Point 3), however, will need some clarification.
If you have read my myraid of posts, you see that I live in the Pacific Northwest. So I must have relatives who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, right? Actually, no. And one of the ancestors of my step-grandfather actually left the south to fight for the north during the war. The reasons were never given, as my step-grandfather died when I was eight, my father (and grandmother) did not have the inclination to determine the motives to fight for the north (he was probably a unionist rather than an abolitionist), and at that time, despite my high level of intelligence, I probably didn't even know what a "civil war" was, and only knew that Lincoln was some great character because he freed the slaves (probably literally, as he went throughout the south taking their shackles off - at least how I might of perceived it then).
Of my actual blood lineages, I know that on my paternal grandmother's side, all those people were peasants in Norway. And on my maternal grandfather's side, his father's family was in Wales (probably mining), and his mother's family was in Germany, doing whatever Germans did at that time. That leaves for my the side of my paternal father's ancestors, who lived in the Indiana area, so they may have fought in the war. I have the early history of that family - the Tearman family - before the civil war, with all the lineages up to my birthday. However, he died when my father was three, so any familial tradition was not passed down - he was raised by my step-grandfather - whose interests in politics was mildly Democratic, except for his strong support of the NRA (I came to that organization thru another avenue; he would certainly be proud that I am a voting member! - although since he was born in 1903, it was not all that unusual for a Democrat of that era to be a strong NRA member). My maternal mother's side was from New England, purportedly; this is the weakest link in my geneological tree (which purportedly goes back to the Caeser family, Charlemaigne, the Merogivianians, and Odin and Freyya is Asgaard - seriously! Some chick in Marysville traced this back this far, and I found a relative in the Leikanger chronicle - a Norweigan geneology which goes back the 16th century -who was at the end of this line). If they were from New England, they would have probably had strong unionist, and possibly abolitionist, intentions. All I know is that they migrated out here before the railroad, so my Northwest roots go deep.
Anyways, enough of tangents. I have never lived in Dixie - the closest I have come to that region is Colorado - and I have no Confederate heritage. And I can guarantee that I do not own a white sheet with holes cut out, nor a Nazi uniform, nor am I a member of any church in Idaho. And, in college, I tutored minorities! So, why do I have such an opinion of Lincoln?
Well, I have studied history. Before the Civil War, the United States was more of a voluntary union. After the war, the Federal Government was much more coercive over the states. Leading to the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society - and the United States being much like the rest of the states around the world today.
While it was undoubtedly good to eliminate slavery, the cost to do so was tremendous. Basically, the end of slavery was a bi-product of Lincoln's drive to create a mercantilist state. Slavery could have been ended thru peaceable emancipation.
Now, while it was calculated that manumission was quite expensive, the civil war was even more expensive than having the federal government purchasing the slaves' freedom. Yes, that is hindsite, and that of course is 20-20.
Unfortunately, the abolitionists were a bunch of extremists who did not always think clearly. But then again, extremists rarely do. They got more voiciferous, and their extremism led to southerners a "circle the wagons" position (a common anthropological model). This position led to a group of people called the "fire eaters". These were southern ideologues who thought not that slavery was a necessary evil - or a "peculiar institution" - but rather thought that African-American slavery was some kind of social good. And by the end of the 1850's, they would start to advocate slave auctions take place on the Boston Common. They led to some of the fuel of the Civil War, and it was Lincoln who exploited this to launch his drive for big government.
If the abolitionists were a little more conservative, they could have had a clear strategy that would have lead to gradual emancipation. What they could have done is, while supporting the Missouri Compromise, raising the funds to manumit the slaves in the state with the least slaves - like, well, Missouri. Then lead to the outlawing of that institution in those states. That would have led to more free states in the Senate, eventually the concentration of that institution in a few states - then to eventual outlawing of that institution. In fact, abolitionist movements were still viable in the south until the 1830's, and Virginia came very close to outlawing slavery in that decade.
Anyways, Abraham Lincoln would be horrified with the positions that the Republican party takes today. It is essentially economically libertarian in spirit, and he would find it's commitment to racial equality horrifying. And it supports free trade, something that he hated (he loved tariffs). He would have has chills down his spine at the anti-government rhetoric that many of it's politicians state. In fact, the only belief that Lincoln had that I agree with - and this was stated early in his career - was that voting rights should be issued to those who are armed.
While I won't go into a book review, one book that must be read by anyone interested in this period is "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. I reviewed one of his other books earlier. It is, well, propaganda, but presents a view that is not addressed. While most anti-Lincoln books are written by racists, he starts out his book with the fact that Lincoln was a racist pig who wanted to deport all blacks to Africa to create a white person's paradise. There is plenty of evidence that Lincoln supported this position (in fact, those who state that Lincoln was a believer in racial equality at the end of his life are Lincoln apologists who are embarrased by his earlier rhethoric). So this position makes Lincoln very qualified to have become a leader of the Aryan Nations. Then, Lincoln wanted to create a mercantilist state, and was willing to trample all over the Constitution to support his position. And his policies not only created big government, but may have poisoned white-black relations in the south for about a century - and lead to the current white bigotry in large sections of the African-American community today (actually, that last part is my analysis).
While writing propaganda, Thomas DiLorenzo is not a total kook. His forward is written by Walter Williams, who has been Rush Limbaugh's Friday fill-in host for over ten years, in fact, he is the person who has had the longest term as fill-in host. Of course if you are a leftist you consider Rush himself to be an extremist, but that is only if you are so blinded by your ideology you cannot make reasonable ideological judgements about people. While the leader of the conservatives, Rush Limbaugh is well within the mainstream of American political thought (and he, by the way, likes Lincoln).
So, as a result, I will not be attending the Snohomish County Lincoln day dinner this Saturday 0r anytime soon. Or ever. However, I may introduce a resolution to change the name to the Lincoln-Reagan day dinner, for Reagan is very much liked by many Americans, and he is largely responsible for the current ideas of the Republican party.
posted by EricMatthew at 9:49 PM
<< Home