Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

Jim C. Once again you prove your lack of historical facts.

The Civil War was about Northern demands for southern cotton. The doubling of tariffs was to force the price of cotton so high that the only buyers left would be those mills in the north that didn't have to pay the tariff. The nation's bills were already getting paid, but northern republicans (elected and business leaders) wanted to increase the size of government. The Civil War accomplished that quite handsomely.

Next, during the campaign between Lincoln and Douglas, good ole honest (?) Abe made it quit clear that he had no problem with slavery.

You really need to read some unrevised history. Always remember, the victor writes the history and sanitizes it. Ergo we read little about the rape and pillage of the south by Sherman's Army on their march to the sea. We get only a brief overview of how many deaths and cripples the war created. Few ever talk about the bankrupting of the north and south. Nobody talks about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus (albeit permitted under the Constitution under certain circumstances) that resulted in the arrest and deportation of Vallandigham for speaking out against Lincoln and his republican cronies. You barely mention conscription that resulted in severe hardships for the northern families. I contend Lincoln was the worse POTUS this nation has ever been forced to endure.

Next, you need to study logic. Your rant over slavery is a red herring argument. I admit that I can drift on subject, but wow dude. You just can't stop dragging up the slavery issue every time DiLorenzo posts anything.

Slavery was already on its way out and in just a couple more decades would have eliminated itself with the rise of the industrial revolution and its affect down on the farm.

This is 2013, slavery was eliminated in 1865 by the XIIIth Amendment. After almost 150 years, you are ranting? Either you are almost as old as Methuselah or not old enough to have discarded the hero-worship propaganda espoused in the US educational system.

You rant about pre-1865 slavery and say nothing about the current slavery of everyone being a communitarian asset of the U.S. Each of us is owned by the Imperial Government of the USA. Piss em off and they fly a drone up your butt like they did in Yemen without due process. Any income you make overseas is taxable by the US if you attempt to bring the money into the US. Any transfer of your money to overseas destinations is monitored and suspect.

The US has amply proven since the Wilson regime that we are the modern day colonizers. We fight aggression world-wide if there is money to be made. Should we win, we establish military bases in those countries and stay forever. We have military bases in most countries of the world. Do you contend that the US is NOT imperialist? Do you contend that all of those countries we have bases in are serious threats to the US? Should we buy some guns and ammunition to protect ourselves from an invasion by Italy, Turkey or Puerto Rico?

War is highly profitable and assures re-election. Military colonization assures local businesses high profits and tacit loyalty. Have you ever seen what designating a town Off-Limits to the military does? Have you ever seen the town's management crawl to the post commander and plea to have that designation removed? War, rumors of war and the war machine is a monetary gravy train.

I get the idea that you just want to silence DiLorenzo and others. I suggest we encourage them to have their say and then present a counter argument based upon facts and logic. A person demonstrates their incompetence if they can't argue both sides of a controversy effectively. Of course this means reigning in a person's passion aka emotional outbursts. DiLorenzo only pointed out that the US has become a the last colonial power.

I'll leave you with this thought. The only reason we take kids into military service is because they lack the wisdom derived from experience. They still carry the hero-worship and American Exceptionalism nonsense instilled in them during the state-sponsored educational process. In simplish, the kids don't know they are just tools of Imperialistic America to be discarded during and after usage. I was a soldier for a major portion of my life and experienced the harsh reality. It is profits that greases the wheels of imperialism.

When facts and logic become overwhelming to an argument, Samuel Johnson said it best, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Imperial USA is what it is until the world decides otherwise.

As per you lead in:
"As long as 24hr Gold reprints articles that have little to do with finance -gold, and silver - I assume they wish and expect commentary pro and con and expect spirited debate (as has been the case!)"

Rampant inflation of the USD will result in the world dumping US T-bills. And thus endeth US imperialism. We no longer are a leading manufacturing nation. We import food. US gold bullion assets are questionable. So directly and indirectly this article by DiLorenzo does apply to the world of international finance. I do tend to think DiLorenzo is not entirely correct and perhaps exaggerates or embellishes the known facts. However that is common amongst all commentaries by all authors. I haven't met any completely dispassionate authors or heard of any that were successful either.

Jim, seriously this is getting out of hand. How many times has this been discussed, that DiLorenzo wants to write about Lincoln and not the south with its many issues. You state, again "However, when it comes to the violations of individual rights under the southern slave system, DiLorenzo in article after article is strangely silent." Why do you chastise him for writing about Lincoln if that's what he wants to write about? Do you also frequent other forums wherein people write only about the disgusting actions of the south and chastise them for not also taking issue with Lincoln and his imperialistic ways? Get this through your head already, DiLorenzo wants to write about Lincoln, end of, no more, no less. If he ever decides to write about the south then that's what he'll do. But if he does will you then also rant on about how he's not writing about Lincoln??? He has chosen to write about Lincoln, others have chosen to write about the south. Don’t go after him for his choice of topic, that’s the authors right, to present a one sided (in your mind) discussion. Your right is to agree or disagree. If you disagree on the topic then please contribute to the discussion based on the topic at hand, dragging in extraneous stuff like slavery only takes the discussion off course and you look like an idiot for doing so.

I know you have a deep seated love for Lincoln and wish to avoid seeing anything in print that removes the shiny veneer his memory enjoys but the more drivel you keep throwing out every time DiLorenzo posts you come across as a desperate supporter without the ability to see the topic as it was presented. Ask yourself this, if you stopped protesting everything DiLorenzo writes would it really have any effect on Lincolns memory? Does the fact that you desperately protest every time he writes actually have a negative effect on Lincolns legacy? You may think you have a positive effect but you don’t. You come across as a propaganda machine and nothing more. You are seriously damaging the man’s legacy. If DiLorenzo were to ever write about how glorious the south was, slavery and all then by all means tear the man a new one, you won’t be the only one. In the meantime, please Jim C keep yourself focused on the topic. You’ll garner a lot more respect and might even enjoy being part of an actual discussion of the topic rather than be labeled with various names.

Here's a wild idea Jim, why don't you attend this 5 week online course and when the opportunity presents itself ask him why he exclusively writes about Lincoln and never mentions the south in 24hgold commentaries?

Take the opportunity to personally ask him instead of sniping in these threads. Act on your irritation and use that forum to ask questions that don't belong in here.

If you really want answers then do this. In here you look like a republican monkey bashing at a keyboard.

Helloo Jim, my favorite monomaniac! Luckily, our monomania overlap!
I am impressed with the stretches of logic to get to our favorite subject! "The individual no longer has value" becomes the violation of individual rights of Southern slaves. Wow! The problem is, because African slave importation in the U.S.ended around 1814, the individual slave had a lot of value. A slave was probably the single most valuable piece of living property someone could own. As such, they were generally treated reasonably well. It varied from state to state, but, if the work was hazardous, an Irishman was hired to do it instead, because negroes were valuable.

Was Southern slavery an evil? I believe it was. I have read nothing that DiLorenzo has written that indicates to me he believes otherwise. Was it a violation of individual rights? I believe it. You believe it. DiLorenzo believes it. Lincoln believed it. He said in a speech in the 1850's that slavery violated the principle of government by consent outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, ending the evil. That is the question. You state DiLorenzo's writings are critical of the means Lincoln chose to use to end slavery. In this you are correct. Killing 750,000 people in order to subject 4 million people and their descendants to another century and a half of legal and social discrimination, oppression, imprisonment was not the wisest move on his part.

Yet, you believe "Lincoln had no choice but to destroy the southern states, who had initiated the violence" in order to end slavery.
Really? He had no choice?

The ship, STAR OF THE WEST was sent by President Buchanan in January of 1861 to resupply Fort Sumter. This was a couple of weeks after South Carolina declared secession. South Carolina fired on the ship. The ship retreated. Buchanan didn't declare war. It appears he had a choice. Lincoln had a choice. South Carolina, which had seceded, asked to negotiate with Lincoln to take possession of the fort. Lincoln could have handed it to South Carolina without a shot fired. He became president in March. On March 11, 1861, Lincoln sent troops to Fort Pickens in Florida, which had seceded the preceding January. This was the initiation of violence. Even so, war was not Lincoln's choice. The power to declare war belongs to the Congress, not the President.

But at that point, only seven of the fifteen slave states had seceded. If it was all about slavery, why had the other eight not left the Union? Assuming slavery was the reason President Lincoln went to war, despite the fact he repeatedly said and wrote it was not, was that really the only way to have ended slavery in the South? Jim, you say war was the only means. Was it? Ezra Pound once said a slave is someone who waits for someone else to come and free him. With the Confederacy a separate country, the U.S. states were no longer bound by the Constitution and federal law to return fugitive slaves from Confederate states. Could not Lincoln have allowed the slave states to secede and then offered refuge to any slave that could cross into the U.S.? Would the slaves not have freed themselves without a war? In this way, the Declaration's principle of consent been fulfilled for both the slaves and the states.

You state that secession is only allowed when the rights of citizens are violated. However, that was, you believe, not the case when South Carolina seceded. Read the articles of secession. South Carolina lists the violation of Article IV of the Constitution as a reason for secession. She also lists unequal treatment with regards to the settling of the territories. After the attack at Harpers Ferry, VA, fugitives from justice involved in the murders there were not surrendered to VA for trial, but were, instead, given refuge but Nothern states. The Republican Party had shown by its actions that it believed murder was less an evil that slavery. I think murder constitutes a violation of citizens' rights. In any case, the States formed the Union, not the other way around. The States could therefore unmake it. A decision to secede is nobody's but the people of the state to make. You might not think secession is justified, but it is only the opinion of the people that counts. The Union was created to serve the states that created it. If it ceased to serve its purpose, in the opinion of the people of a state, it is free to leave, just as it had freely joined.

In arguing these points, nobody is rationalizing slavery. The right of a state to secede is an issue separate from the hoary institution of slavery. Slavery preceded the colonies. It preceded the republic. DiLorenzo does not rationalize slavery. Nor does he rationalize murder. I don't think owning a negro slave in 1860 is something to murder someone over. Surely another approach could be found. Don't you agree? Britain didn't go to war to end slavery. Brazil didn't either. I think the U.S. and Haiti were only ones that had to resort to it. If Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the worst way, he certainly accomplished that. The problem is, slavery was not the issue; Keeping the South in the Union in order to transfer its wealth to the North was the point. That being said, since slavery is long past, is it OK for states to leave the Union, now?

Thanks for clearing that up Pappy. Now maybe, just maybe Jim C will reconsider his attacks on DiLorenzo but I suspect he wont. For Jim it seems this is more about shooting holes in DiLorenzo than exposing the truth.