Okay, okay, what I meant to say was that Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson; after all, don’t they hate people with whom they disagree? While I admit that it would be wrong to classify all Libertarians this way, the vast majority of Libertarians that I and friends of mine have debated (and there have been many) have acted with vitriol and disgust toward anyone who disagrees with their ideas. If a congressman votes a way they don’t like, they label him a “neocon fascist big government liberty hating traitor”; and if you dare defend said congressman, you are not only characterized similarly, but also by the highly uncreative insults of “sheep” or even worse, “sheeple.”
Along with this form of insult, Libertarians seem to love to invoke Thomas Jefferson as a member of their ranks, the first American Libertarian as it were. Now while I’ll readily admit that Thomas Jefferson was indeed the most Libertarian leaning of our Founders, he was in no way an actual Libertarian, and history itself proves this. But with all this in mind it occurred to me; if Libertarians are going to attack so harshly those whom they disagree with, should not Jefferson himself be held to that same standard?
To prove this, I decided to conduct a small experiment, the results of which I will share shortly; I approached a rational, Jefferson loving, Libertarian friend of mine on a couple of occasions, and asked him whether or not a certain action was in fact “big government”, leaving out (for the purpose of the experiment) that it was Jefferson himself that did these things. Not surprisingly his answers were (as I expected) a condemnation of the actions taken by his favorite Founding Father, our 3rd President; the following is the top four reasons why Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson.
- “Economic Interference”
The first time I approached my friend, I talked with him about embargoes and economic interference, asking:
“If an embargo or act was brought up to vote/passed; and it A. prohibited all American vessels from sailing for foreign ports, B. prohibited all foreign vessels from taking out cargoes, and C. made all coasting vessels give bonds to land their cargoes in the U.S., even if all these restrictions were meant to affect commerce of another nation so that they play fairly…would you consider that anti-free trade/ big government?”
His response in part?
“I would consider it an act of big government distorting the natural flow of commerce. Any form of policy intervention into a sect of the market economy, be it on a global or domestic scale, is an effect on that natural commerce. In this case, this could be considered bad to the flow of progress of the global economy…”
My friend then went on to explain to me why embargoes were bad, and did a really good job in doing so; but unfortunately for him he also condemned Thomas Jefferson as an actor of big government in his answer, because Jefferson did this very thing as President of the United States. In his wonderful book, Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, eminent historian Benson J. Lossing explains to us the actions of President Jefferson;
Mr. Jefferson’s administration continued eight years, he having been elected for a second term. The most prominent measures of his administration, were…the embargo on the commerce and ocean-navigation of the United States…The Embargo Act prohibited all American vessels from sailing for foreign ports; all foreign vessels from taking out cargoes; and all coasting vessels were required to give bonds to land their cargoes in the United States. These restrictive measures were intended so to affect the commerce of Great Britain, as to bring that government to a fair treaty of amity and commerce.” (1)
It is important to note that the act that Jefferson signed did exactly what I told my friend it did, and yet he still classified it as big government in action. Now we must ask the question; do we really believe Thomas Jefferson of all people was an agent of big government? Of course not; and yet he signed a law that, among other things, prohibited American citizens from sailing their ships to foreign ports! Where are the Libertarians accusing Jefferson of being a big government, liberty hating, fraud for interfering with the market, not to mention freedom of movement and association?
Now obviously I don’t think Jefferson should be attacked for signing this act; the British, as a result of their continual warring with the French, were abusing American citizens and their ships/commerce; so in order to make the British pay for what they were doing (without getting involved in the war itself) our government imposed the embargo as retribution for their transgressions. So how can I blame Jefferson? He was after all looking to protect Americans from British mistreatment; but while I think Jefferson should be left alone in this case, I do wonder why Libertarians give him a pass on this, when if it were Presidents Bush or Obama who signed the act they would ravish them as the worst kind of traitor.
- “Religious Favoritism”
For part two of the experiment, I approached my friend with a different question; one specifically dealing with federal funds being given to a private, religious cause, asking:
“Out of curiosity, do you think its “Big Government” for the Government to give Federal Funds to missionaries or to build a church for a community?”
So how did my Libertarian friend respond? Exactly how I thought he would:
“Government taking tax money to go towards any personal cause, regardless of how noble it may be, is still big government at work. Especially when tax payers have no say so in where there money is going…”
Once again my friend, without knowing it, actually condemns his favorite Founder as a contributor to big government action; for as we shall soon see, Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States did the exact things that I posed in my question. As I have previously written in “Thomas Jefferson and “Separation of Church and State”:
“In fact he [Jefferson] was so invested in a complete separation that while President he gave federal funds to the construction of a church and the funding of its priest. That’s right, as President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson via treaty gave federal funds to build a church and provide a priest to the Kaskaskia Indians (2)…Along with signing the treaty giving a church and priest to the Kaskaskia tribe, Jefferson also signed federal acts in 1802, 1803, and 1804 which set aside government owned lands to help missionaries propagate the gospel among the Indians. (3) He also directed the secretary of war to give federal funds to build a religious school for the Cherokee Indians (4) and in 1804 he gave assurance to a Christian School in the “Louisiana Territory” that they would be given “the patronage of the government.” These are only some of his actions.” (5)
So even though it was President Jefferson who gave federal funds for missionaries and priests to the Indians, as well as religious schools and a Church; actions my friend label “big government”, the Libertarians again seem to give him a pass in this area; he is apparently still a Libertarian. I mean, perhaps our Libertarian friends simply didn’t know that Jefferson did these things, but since they do now, should they not attack Jefferson for being for big government religious favoritism, as they would Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann?
Again, as with the embargo, I think Jefferson does not deserve to be attacked for what he did; if one is to read the words of a majority of the Founders, Jefferson’s actions are in complete agreement and consistency with the country that they set up and the purpose they set forth for it. By giving federal funds towards the propagation of the gospel to the Indians, Jefferson only strengthened the country, and the ties between the government and the Indian tribes. To claim Thomas Jefferson is big government for doing this is completely ridiculous, but if Libertarians want to be consistent, they should in fact focus their vitriol towards our 3rd President.
- Foreign Policy
A while back I wrote an article about America’s first interaction with Islamic terror, and that same topic applies directly to our discussion on Jefferson and Libertarians. I find it really humorous that Libertarians (and to be fair, Liberals as well) always complain about America’s war on terror, claiming it has gone on too long and it hasn’t been a success because “you can’t fight an idea.” Now obviously this is not true, of course you can fight an idea, but I digress; what really makes me laugh at their claims is the fact that they ignore that we have fought a war on Islamic terror before, and that this first war on terror was fought by our Founding Fathers. What I find interesting is that Libertarians complain that the current war on terror has gone on too long, fought by two Presidents over 13+ years (since 9/11); and yet, our Founders fought our first war on terror over a period of four Presidents and 32 years! I can only imagine the complaining Ron Paul would have done if he were alive during that period!
To borrow a passage from my old article:
“In 1784 American ships started to be attacked by the “Barbary Pirates”, now these were no ordinary pirates, these were Muslim pirates; on top of that, these were not the pirates of Peter Pan and Pirates of the Caribbean, those rapscallions who are free from allegiance. On the contrary these pirates were under allegiance to the Barbary States, whose rulers demanded that the United States pay tribute to them immediately, and annually.”
This is where Jefferson comes into the story, for it was future Presidents Adams and Jefferson who approached the Barbary States on a diplomatic mission to find out the cause of the attacks; it was here they learned that the reason was this:
“It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (6)
By the time Jefferson had become President, the United States had already been paying an extreme tribute to the Barbary States for years, a practice that did not stop the Pirates, but rather, encouraged them; thus Jefferson decided that enough was enough and that the U.S. would no longer pay off the Islamic nations. When this happened, Tripoli (whose ambassador relayed the above quote) and Algiers declared war on the United States, which led Jefferson to believe that the only way to stop the Pirates was through military action.
What did this military action entail? It certainly wasn’t limited to naval battles against some pirates; it also included invading the Ottoman Empire, capturing the city of Derna, and a planned regime change (this latter part courtesy of the mind of William Eaton, the man who captured Derna). After the cities capture however, the Pasha of Tripoli struck a deal with the United States to end hostilities, and keep his power (an agreement that later proved to be a mistake).
Ironically, this sounds very similar to the course our current war on terror has taken, as both include invasion, capture, and regime change (or at least, planned regime change). The fact that Jefferson even agreed to a regime change at the hands of U.S. Marines is something I can hardly imagine Libertarians condoning, especially considering how they decried it in Afghanistan and Iraq; and I’d be interested to hear the excuses they will come up with to condone Jefferson’s actions.
But why was striking a deal with the Pasha of Tripoli a bad idea? It ended hostilities did it not? Well yes, but not for long; recall how I said America’s first war on terror lasted for 32 years? You see, once Jefferson’s Presidency ended and Madison’s began, the Barbary States decided to war with America again, knowing full well her troops and Navy were tied up fighting the British in the War of 1812. Madison corrected this when the war with the British ended, sending the Navy and the Marines back over to fight the Islamic terrorists. Within two years another peace treaty was signed, thus ending America’s first war on terror; it isn’t hard to imagine however that the second round of attacks against Madison’s America could have been prevented, if Jefferson had only gone through with the original plan of removing the Pasha of Tripoli.
There is an interesting historical side note that should be mentioned about Jefferson and the Barbary Wars; it must be noted that in 1806, under a Jefferson Presidency, the first American version of the Quran was published. Why was it published at that period of time? One of the main reasons was because the U.S. had just been fighting Islamic terrorists for about five years; and one of the best ways for the people to understand who they were fighting was to read the beliefs that motivated their enemies (recall that the ambassador from Tripoli told Jefferson and Adams that the Pirates were motivated by the Quran). How do we know that this original printing of the Quran was meant as a negative towards Islam? According to the introduction found in the Islamic holy book:
“This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented… thou shalt find in this book a multitude of incongruous pieces, and divers repetitions of the same things. It hath been expounded by many Mahometan doctors, their exposition being as ridiculous as the text… Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible…” (7)
It is no surprise that this introduction was included in a book printed during the Jefferson administration. Considering what Jefferson knew about Islam based on what the ambassador had told him, his previous study, and the long war on Islamic terror that America had been fighting, it is entirely consistent to believe that Jefferson personally (if not politically) would have believed very similar things; hardly the glowing account of Jefferson and Islam that President Obama gave.
- The Louisiana Purchase
As previously mentioned, Libertarians more often than not seem to react with vitriolic hatred toward anyone who they think has violated the Constitution; and while we should all be against Constitutional violations, you would think that Libertarians would react the same way towards Jefferson’s (supposed) unconstitutional purchase of the Louisiana territory…and yet they don’t. You see, in 1803 the Jefferson administration purchased the Louisiana territory from the French, for what then amounted to $15 million. (8) So where is the problem? In reality there was none, although some people did believe the action was unconstitutional; their intellectual decedents are today’s Libertarians. After all, since the President is not explicitly given the power in the Constitution to purchase land from another country, by their logic it must have been an illegal action. To be fair, Jefferson was concerned about this as well, but fortunately his advisers showed him the folly in his concern:
“The purchase treaty had to be ratified by the end of October, which gave Jefferson and his Cabinet time to deliberate the issues of boundaries and constitutionality. Exact boundaries would have to be negotiated with Spain and England and so would not be set for several years, and Jefferson’s Cabinet members argued that the constitutional amendment he proposed was not necessary. As time for ratification of the purchase treaty grew short, Jefferson accepted his Cabinet’s counsel and rationalized: “It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.” (9)
Furthermore given that this was a treaty and that the Constitution states: “He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”(10); Jefferson completing this treaty is shown to be no Constitutional crisis at all. I must say that once again I never thought Jefferson committed any wrong doing in regards to the Louisiana Purchase, but I have heard a good number of Libertarians claiming “surprise” that he would do something “so unconstitutional”; and yet, as always, nary an angry word is levied at Jefferson for his perceived sin.
All too often in the course of political debate, the Libertarian masses draw upon the argument of “you can’t force your morality on other people” as a way to reject the important social issue reforms that we Conservatives want to implement. Now this objection is patently false on logical grounds, given that all law is someone’s legislated morality; and so the question becomes, who’s morality do we want to implement; the moral principles our country was founded on, or some other?
But beyond this, even our most Libertarian leaning Founder, Thomas Jefferson, destroyed the idea of no absolute moral standard that people are naturally bound by. Ask Jefferson, and he would hardly claim that everyone has the right to determine their own version of morality, especially as it pertains to politics. We see this in some of his letters; for example, in a letter to James Monroe, Jefferson proclaimed:
“Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right” (11)
To George Hammond, Jefferson penned:
“A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” (12)
Writing to George Logan, Jefferson affirmed a universal morality:
“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.” (13)
And in separate correspondence with Augustus B. Woodward and John Wayles Eppes, Jefferson answered those Libertarian dissenters of moral policy in government, who do so because of the policy’s “religious basis”, saying:
“[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man.” (14)
“Is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.” (15)
So there you have it; the top four (plus bonus) reasons why Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson. He most certainly was not a Libertarian and was by their standards, an agent of big government and an enemy of liberty; but then again, since when did Libertarians gain a monopoly on liberty? I don’t know about you, but I’ll take the words of our Founders over Libertarian reasoning any day of the week.
- Biographical Sketches of the Signers of the Declaration of American Independence, Benson J. Lossing, p. 180-181
- “The Kaskaskia and Other Tribes,” in American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, vol.4, 687.
- Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 1332, “An Act in Addition to an Act, Entitled, ‘An Act in Addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land Appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen,’” April 26, 1802; Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 7th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1602, “An Act to Revive and Continue in Force An Act in Addition to an Act, Entitled, ‘An Act in Addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land Appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen,’ and for Other Purposes,” March 3, 1803; Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 8th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1279, “An Act Granting Further Time for Locating Military Land Warrants, and for Other Purposes,” March 19, 1804.
- Gideon Blackburn’s Mission to the Cherokees,” Journal of Presbyterian History, 52.
- Thomas Jefferson and the Nuns of the Order of St. Ursula on May 15, 1804,” original on file with the New Orleans Parish.
- City Journal: http://tinyurl.com/2ywgpw
- “The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mahomet,” 1806, https://archive.org/details/korancommonlycal00john
- Our Documents: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=18
- Lipscomb and Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:411, http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/louisiana-purchase#9
- S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_2-3.html
- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806. FE 8:477: http://tinyurl.com/kuz2eao
- Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792. ME 16:263: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0200.htm
- Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:68: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0200.htm
- Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824. ME 16:19: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0200.htm
- Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0200.htm
Due to outside events the Bottom Line will not be returning to action until 2015. When we do, we plan on having more content than before, ranging into Youtube and other audio production, as well as the usual articles.
Ron Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of our time – fresh off his disturbing interview in which he claimed that the crimes of Osama Bin Laden were “minor” compared to what the U.S. has done in the aftermath of 9/11 – Paul is now praising President Obama for having no ISIS strategy. Writing for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Paul penned an article entitled; Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good!
Hi Neville Chamberlain, we sure didn’t miss you!
We all know Chamberlain as the great appeaser and Ron Paul is no different; a man, who we will see from his article, is not one to face evil head on, but to retreat and hope it never shows up at our doorstep. There is plenty wrong with Paul’s latest article, but let us focus on the deconstruction of a few of his major points.
Paul starts off by predictably bashing those he terms as “neocons” for thinking the solution to ISIS, or “any problem” for that matter is “more bombs and troops on the ground, so they cannot understand the president’s hesitation.” The problem here is twofold; first, he assumes that anyone who bashes the President for not having a plan must be “neocon”, as if traditional Conservatives (as opposed to new, aka, “neo-conservatives”) are not allowed to think that the President should have a plan for dealing with Islamic Terror.
Second, he accuses us (supposed) neocons of thinking that bombs and soldiers are the solution to everything. I can guarantee you that no one thinks that, I wouldn’t even advocate another invasion to deal with the problem. But in the case of ISIS, it seems that bombing them to oblivion may be the best option. Negotiation is certainly not going to do much, after all, their stated goal is to establish a massive Islamic caliphate; no amount of negotiation or niceties are going to change their minds. This is common sense. Furthermore, with the knowledge that ISIS has killed two American journalists (a clear act of war), why would we ever think of not making them pay for what they’ve done? Again, this is not a call to reinvade Iraq, but Paul must realize that sometimes bombs do make for a very good solution against psychotic terrorists who have killed your citizens!
Paul follows his mislabeling by arguing that intervening against ISIS would give Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted:
“A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!”
Yes, because bombing ISIS to oblivion will give them a new recruiting tool Ron! Paul keeps up his old argument of blowback (an idea he’s publically pushed since at least 2007, if not before). Paul is wrong on this, but he’s also wrong about what Bin Laden wanted. To know what Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to do, all you have to do is go back and read his letter to the West; a document that was mostly anti-U.S. propaganda, but one that let slip his true feelings at the end:
“As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam…It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme. (2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest…You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.” (1)
In other words, what Bin Laden really wanted was for America to turn to Islam, and give up “lies, oppression, immorality, debauchery, fornication, homosexuality, intoxication, etc.”; not for America to provide a recruiting tool that drained our resources. What Paul doesn’t understand is that ideology drives these terrorists; and we never having gone there would not have stopped them from wanting to change or kill us. In the terrorist’s eyes we are the infidel, a depraved and unholy people; and it is there job to make us change, or leave us defeated and dead.
Paul then goes on to argue that the U.S.’s actions against Assad in Syria have led to the rise of ISIS, and that “neocons” should just admit they are wrong, and that they caused this problem; but it’s what comes next that is so amazing. Paul actually questions if ISIS is really that big a threat, as well as saying:
“If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim, why can’t they simply ask Assad to help out? Assad has never threatened the United States; ISIS has. Assad has been fighting ISIS and similar Islamist extremist groups for three years.”
If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim? Perhaps you have not heard the reports Mr. Paul; you know the ones where ISIS is taking over city after city (a size of land larger than Great Britain), slaughtering Christians throughout Iraq, and beheading two American journalists? It would seem that they are as big a threat as they claim; then again, Chamberlain hoped that Hitler wasn’t that big a threat either, with much less evidence I might add. But that also brings up the question of Assad; Paul asks why we don’t request Assad assist in the fight against ISIS, after all, he has been fighting them for three years so that would make sense right? But wait a minute, that doesn’t logically fit; for if Assad has been fighting ISIS for the last three years, why would we need to ask his help in fighting them? Wouldn’t he already be doing so? Is he strong enough to take them on after three years of fighting them? Paul likes to question, but not provide answers.
Paul next makes a rather interesting comment on U.S. foreign policy, questioning;
“Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?”
In all honesty, I really have no idea what in the world he is talking about here; why do we insist on aligning with Middle Eastern theocracies? Of which theocracies is he speaking? Out of our alliances; Israel is not a theocracy, Iraq is not a theocracy, Afghanistan may or may not be, but in their case, like with Iraq, they had free elections in which they were able to choose their leaders. If the citizens of Afghanistan chose to enact theocratic laws through theocratic rulers that is hardly us “pushing it on them” in “what they call promoting democracy.” Paul assumes that most people in the Middle East don’t want a theocratic rule, saying he “doesn’t believe” it; but if a country we liberated and helped set up free elections for decides to elect those types of people, then it really doesn’t matter what Paul believes now does it?
One more note on that particular claim; Paul says that aligning with theocratic governments (which he supposes we insist on) somehow contradicts the U.S. Constitution and American values; even though the Constitution prevents our government from BECOMING theocratic, not allying with them when need be. Technically speaking the U.S. allying with Stalin against Hitler was a contradiction of American values as well, but sometimes you need to ally with people you vehemently disagree with in order to take out a larger threat. Then again, since Paul is the Chamberlain of our time, a WWII analogy probably won’t have any effect with him; we do after all know his views on WWII, and they are not pretty.
The former Congressman ends his rant by offering his strategy for ISIS:
“A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope…Here’s a strategy: just come home.”
It is truly sad that Paul believes simply coming home and praying that they decide not to come after us is the best way to deal with Islamic ideological terrorism. Only in the twisted world of Ron Paul is having no strategy the best strategy of all! Paul does not seem to understand the basics of Foreign Policy; you do not eliminate the threat by staying home and pretending it doesn’t exist; Howie tried that in The Benchwarmers, and it didn’t work; no matter how much he wished it wasn’t, the sun was always there! (For those who have seen the movie, seriously can’t you just see Ron Paul playing that role?)
To this point, Paul would counter that we need to worry about shoring up defenses at home, and he is right, but we shouldn’t just sit back and hope that when they do attack us here, our defenses hold up. Instead we should make sure we are safe here, while taking measures to make sure ISIS never gets a chance to attack our homeland in the first place!
In the end we are left with another crazy Ron Paul foreign policy moment, and one more reason to be thankful that he never became President.
1. Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda Leader), November 24, 2002, The Guardian, “Full text: Bin Laden’s ‘letter to America'”, accessed July 8, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
When you find a worm inside an apple, what do you do? The answer is quite obvious; you throw away the apple because you know that the effects of the worm being inside it have ruined its integrity and purpose. Simply put, even though he has only been Mayor for a few days, Bill De Blasio is already proving himself to be the proverbial worm inside the Big Apple, New York City.
Like the worm boring through the apple, De Blasio has already started to bore into the core of New York City, intent on changing, and destroying the City from within; from policy changes to staff appointments to broken campaign promises, Mayor De Blasio has already shown his hand; and over the next four years, it will only get worse.
Take for example the campaign promises that the Mayor has already broken; while De Blasio campaigned on transparency, he has already backed off and admitted he would not put up his City School Chancellor for public review:
“In what critics called a reversal of an important campaign promise, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio said Monday he will not subject his pick for city schools chancellor to a public vetting process.“We’re not going to have a beauty contest,” de Blasio told reporters after a meeting with state Assembly Democrats in lower Manhattan. “We’re not going to put the different finalists on display.” Critics said the statement contradicted promises de Blasio made during a campaign appearance Nov. 19, 2012, when he vowed to choose a chancellor with a “serious public screening” of potential picks for the job. “We need a chancellor who is presented to the public, not just forced down our throat,” de Blasio said at the time. (1)
Just like the perfect Progressive he is, De Blasio believes that the ends justify the means in order to get his agenda passed; when you run for office, tell people you will allow them to review your nominees, as long as you never plan to follow through once elected. Mr. Mayor is setting for himself a precedent that allows him to nominate/appoint with impunity, the most radical of people to influential positions within the city. His new School Chancellor, Carmen Farina, is the perfect example of this, as she openly admits that she will ingrain the progressive agenda, into the education system, and consequently, the children of New York City:
“…Farina, a former teacher and long-time adviser to de Blasio, shares the mayor’s desire to foist a “progressive agenda” upon NYC schools, she said at a news conference earlier this week. “This progressive agenda actually says we know there are things that need to happen, but they need to happen with people, not to people,” she said. That means liberal education goals — including an expansion of taxpayer-funded pre-K and elimination of merit-based pay for teachers — will definitely be a top priority for the new administration.” (2)
The Daily Caller is not wrong in their assessment of this issue, as De Blasio has already begun his push toward the aforementioned Universal pre-K system:
“Mayor Bill de Blasio has been actively touting his plan to expand after-school programs and to provide universal pre-kindergarten to the children living in New York City, as reported this week at Fox News Latino. To fund the expansion, de Blasio plans on taxing the wealthy. But what is the plan? Where is the curriculum and who designed it? What is it, exactly, that “the wealthy” are to be funding?” (3)
Progressive indoctrination can never start to early can it? De Blasio’s plan is to get to them young, to get to them early. And look at how he wants to fund this universal pre-K program; via wealth distribution, aka taxing the wealthy. He says that we must ask the wealthy to pay just a little more, even though the rich already pay the lion’s share of the tax burden; they already pay more than their “fair share” by a long shot. But not only does De Blasio plan to fund the pre-K system by taxing the wealthy, he also views this as a way to deal with what he calls the “crisis” of income “inequality”; the only problem with trying to fix income inequality, is that in doing so, you don’t make more people rich, on the contrary, you equalize everyone in poverty and lack of hope.
What De Blasio doesn’t realize is that it will actually be his soon to be implemented policies of taxing and spending and manipulation of the market that cause the problems he claims to want to fix; consider what he said during his own inauguration speech:
“We will require big developers to build more affordable housing…” (4)
Considering the fact that De Blasio used to work for HUD (and what they are currently doing to Westchester County, which sits just above the City), it is no surprise that De Blasio is harping on the issue of affordable housing; but it’s not that affordable housing is bad, it’s how the Mayor plans on going about erecting it. Instead of encouraging developers to build affordable housing, what does De Blasio say? He says he will require “big developers” to build these housing units; I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, but you do not create jobs and bring about good economic changes by forcing people to spend their money on projects! If it were that simple, neither the state nor the city of New York would be in the mess it is currently in.
But of course De Blasio thinks the way he does, he readily admits that he doesn’t believe in the free market, gladly explains he believes that the heavy hand of government will bring about positive economic change (a theory that was proved wrong over 60 years ago):
“Everything you heard about me is true. . . I am not a free-marketeer. . . I believe in the heavy hand of government,” de Blasio stated matter-of-factly during an hour-long presentation to some of the city’s biggest real-estate developers.” (5)
Furthermore, in regards to his housing plan, De Blasio plans on making a suicidal move and investing 1 billion dollars of PENSION funds into the project:
“Bill de Blasio, the newly inaugurated mayor of New York City, is moving forward with his plan to allocate $1 billion of pension assets to affordable housing—a massive increase to the funds’ prior investments to this space.” (6)
While this part of the plan is ridiculous for obvious reasons, we must leave the topic of economics and go back to something else the new Mayor said in his inauguration speech:
“And we’ll expand community health centers into neighborhoods in need…” (4)
I have no doubt that what De Blasio is really getting at by referencing “community health centers” is his hope tp get more abortion providing centers established in the Big Apple; why do I say this? Well, I base it on what he himself said about expanding abortion “services” and closing down crisis pregnancy centers (who encourage you to save the life of your unborn baby), a category of health services that he calls a sham:
“New York City has been called “the abortion capital of the world…with 41 percent of its pregnancies ending in elective termination…But those statistics aren’t high enough for newly elected Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio, who claims the city is “underserved” by its dozens of abortion centers, and for whom increased access to abortion was a key part of his campaign platform. De Blasio, who was elected Tuesday with 73 percent of the vote, has promised to partner with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to help them expand their business in the city. He says he plans to help abortionists find neighborhoods that lack convenient clinic access and provide them with “city sponsored” space to set up shop…
…Additionally, de Blasio has pledged to help abortionists wipe out their main competition – pro-life crisis pregnancy centers – that offer women financial and logistical help to either keep the babies they would otherwise be unable to afford, or place unwanted children with adoptive families. De Blasio calls crisis pregnancy centers “sham” clinics. In his view, their refusal to perform abortions means they do not offer “legitimate health care.” He has pledged to continue the city’s appeal of a court order striking down a law aimed at closing down such centers. In the event the court appeal fails, de Blasio says, he stands ready to “craft new regulations to prevent [crisis pregnancy] centers from masquerading as legitimate health care providers.” (7)
De Blasio’s plan is clear; encourage the extermination of as many kids as possible, and indoctrinate the rest of them in “progressive ideals” as young as pre kindergarten, a disturbing plan to say the least. You really have to ask what kind of a Mayor, and what kind of person Bill is, if he is actively going to pursue shutting down centers that seek to help women and their unborn children, instead of killing them.
A final major issue that De Blasio is aggressively pursuing is the removal of the iconic tourist attraction that is the horse drawn carriage industry of New York City:
“Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio vowed to act quickly to abolish horse-drawn carriages in the city. “We are going to get rid of the horse carriages. Period,” de Blasio said in response to a question at his press conference announcing his schools chancellor pick Monday. “It’s over,” he said…Sworn into office by Bill Clinton yesterday, de Blasio aims to replace the horse-drawn carriages that have historically pulled visitors through Central Park with electric cars. Antique-style design electric cars are currently what are being considered. The mayor’s team says the plan to go retro in style and modern electric in horsepower will help save the carriage workers’ jobs that would otherwise end with the ban.” (8)(9)
I bet you if you asked the NYC horses if the felt their job was inhumane, their answer would be “neigh”; but all jokes aside, there is so much wrong with De Blasio wanting to do away with the horse and carriage industry. First and foremost, does he even realize how many people he will be putting out of work by doing this? And furthermore, he will be taking away a lot of tourist revenue by replacing the carriages with these electric cars; so many people come to New York City for the experience, and the horse-drawn carriage rides are part of said experience. Needless to say, there is no way that riding in a car will ever come close to that experience, and tourists, understanding this, will not pay for the car ride like they would the carriage ride.Even actor Liam Neeson has slammed De Blasio in regards to this plan!
But there is something deeper to the Mayor’s quest to remove this well over 100 year old institution; I believe this is the perfect metaphor for De Blasio’s mission of changing and destroying what made the city what it is today, that is to say, the city’s history. But that is what progressivism always does. It seeks to change our history, where we came from, in order to change who we are and who we will be; and Bill De Blasio is, and will be, no different as mayor of New York City.
All of this simply goes to show that Bill De Blasio is the worm to New York City’s Big “Apple”; and over the next four years, he will make the apple his home, and destroy it from the inside out. Look, I love New York City; I think it is a great city, the greatest city in the world; which is why it pains me to realize just how bad it is going to get over the next four years of Bill De Blasio’s “leadership.” And although it is hard to believe, this article didn’t even cover the other insane and ridiculous things that are coming from the City’s new Mayor; Godspeed New York, you are going to need it.
4. New York Post: http://nypost.com/2014/01/01/mayor-bill-de-blasio-takes-oath-of-office/
5. New York Post: http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/de-blasio-vs-the-market/
President Obama seems to think global warming, um, I mean, “climate change”, is killing people; John Kerry believes it is the biggest threat the world currently faces. Liberals claim the world will end if we don’t stop global warming, that humans will not be able to survive its consequences (unless of course you are a hobbit). But thankfully we Conservatives know the truth; we know that we aren’t in any danger from “climate change” because simply put, global warming is the biggest fraud in recent history, and we have the facts to prove it.
Take for example two years ago, in January of 2012, when the Daily Mail reported that global warming was no longer the consensus, as it was revealed that the earth had not warmed for 15 years:
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years… Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. (1)
The irony of this is that East Anglia University, one of the strongest proponents of global warming alarmism, is now forced to admit that global warming hasn’t happened in nearly 2 decades. And even top climate scientist Hans von Storch admitted in 2013 that over said 15 years, the earth’s climate warmed at a value close to zero:
In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.” “That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.” Spiegel asked Storch why the Earth’s temperature has not risen significantly in the past 15 years despite 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities.“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” said Storch. (2)
Also in 2013, the UN Climate Change Chief took it a step farther, admitting that global warming hadn’t occurred in seventeen years:
THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend…(3)
Furthermore, even more scientists are now acknowledging that this “17 year pause” will actually last for another 20 years; a sentiment that seems to put to shame the idea of global warming killing us off in the next few decades:
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research. A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy…The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality. (4)
In September of 2013, The Telegraph also reported on the IPCC, and how scientists are now realizing that not only is the earth cooling, not warming, but there has been an increase in sea ice as well:
There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles. In a rebound from 2012’s record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin…A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. (5)
Not to mention that the Daily Mail details how tree rings are proving global warming peddlers wrong, showing that the earth has (overall) been cooling for a lot longer than we previously thought it was:
A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today. German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century…In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun. The study is published in Nature Climate Change. It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming…In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. (6)
But not only is the science proving the scientists wrong, but we are constantly discovering the misconduct and exaggerations of both scientists and the media when it comes to the issue of “climate change.” For example, Fox reported in early 2013 that a leaked UN IPCC report showed that the agency had been overstating the issue of global warming for nearly 20 years:
A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming. The report — which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 — was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced. “Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com. (7)
Multiple reports from August and September of 2013 also show that not only has the UN been struggling to figure out why the earth hasn’t warmed in nearly two decades, but also that they were urged to cover this fact up:
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed. A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft…But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted…Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat…The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists… (8)
A peer reviewed study also found that the UN over-exaggerated the supposed havoc that global warming is supposed to cause:
A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous…The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.“This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review of climate science,” the authors write (9)
In terms of the media misinformation on climate change, in May of ’13, a Scientist had to correct a reporter on the correlation between climate change and severe weather (maybe he should also talk to congressional Democrats!):
One such person who appears to have been influenced in this way is Los Angeles Times reporter Stacey Lessca. Fortunately for her, yesterday she received some much-needed education during an interview with a scientist working for the National Severe Storms Laboratory. After discussing some of the particulars of the recent tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, Lessca shifted her questioning toward environmental orthodoxy…
…“It seems like there’s been more severe weather, it seems, it just feels like hurricanes are getting worse. Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast. This tornado now has killed 24 people in the town of Moore. Do you think that more severe storms are becoming the norm, and do you think that they are directly related to climate change?” Tanamachi answered that this was not the case whatsoever and that people who thought otherwise were likely being influenced by the media’s continual reporting on weather events. (10)
Lastly, multiple high ranking officials are also feeling the heat, as the UK’s Climate Change Czar now admits that “global warming” is not caused by humans; and the EPA’s top climate expert has been charged with and sentenced to jail for 32 months for fraud (which he participated in to avoid doing his real job at the EPA).
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming is an absolute lie and one of the greatest acts of fraud perpetrated on not only the citizens of the U.S, but of other nations as well; and even though the science and scandals continue to prove them wrong, scientists and politicians continue to perpetuate the myth in order to pass their agenda and make their money (Al Gore and Lord Ron Oxburgh are two that spring to mind). The facts speak for themselves, but I think it’s time they gain our collective voice as well.
11. Daily Caller (Unused); IPCC report is “hilariously flawed”: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
12. National Post (Unused); “76 Scientists believe in Man-Made global warming, not 2,500”: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
A wise and free people must focus their attention on many objectives. First is safety. The concept of safety relates to a wide variety of circumstances and ideas, giving latitude to people who wish to define it precisely and totally. ~ John Jay
One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle. ~ James Otis
The following is the last of a three part series on the Civil War; and while the Civil War is a complicated and controversial topic, I feel the misinformation that is currently out there must be addressed. In the first installment we covered the reason the South seceded from the Union; in the second chapter we dealt with which side started the war; and in this final installment we address President Lincoln.
*Note to the Reader*: There will be quotes in here from Lincoln that may make you want to stop reading, as you may feel you can form your opinion on them; but I encourage you to not stop reading halfway, but to instead read all the way through if you want to get a more complete understanding of our 16th president.
When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, it seems everyone has an opinion; people in the North generally view “Honest Abe” as an American hero, a man who did indispensible good for the nation in helping to end slavery. People in the South on the other hand generally speak of Lincoln with disdain on their lips, believing him to be a deplorable tyrant and a despicable man. But no matter what our preconceived biases are, we must make sure to avoid two very common traps when judging history.
The first trap we must avoid in our study is painting Lincoln, or any historical figure for that matter, with a broad brush. The second being that we must avoid viewing historical figures through the rose colored glasses of our society and beliefs; if we truly want to understand figures from history, understand what they believed and why, we must put ourselves in their shoes. It is the least we can do, and we must hope that people 150 years from now afford us the same courtesy. So who was Lincoln? Let’s find out:
Lincoln and Slavery
One of the interesting, and frankly frustrating criticisms of President Lincoln is that he really did not care about slavery, and had no real interest in seeing the institution ended; these claims are usually based on quotes that are misunderstood and taken out of the context that Lincoln was speaking in. If detractors were to read Lincoln’s full comments on slavery however, they would come to a much different conclusion; a conclusion that states that Abraham Lincoln was indeed anti-slavery.
Going back to before he was President, Abraham Lincoln expressed a real hatred for the institution and the very idea of slavery; take for example Lincoln’s speech at Peoria, Illinois in 1854, where he said:
“Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature – opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow.” (1)
In that same speech, Lincoln would say:
“I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world.” (2)
Lincoln shows that he hates slavery not only because it is based in selfishness, antagonism, and injustice, but also because it goes against the very principles of our Republic; but Lincoln wasn’t finished with the issue of slavery in that speech, as he also proclaimed:
“What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle – the sheet anchor of American republicanism.” (3)
Lincoln says that governance over another without consent (which is what slavery is) is completely contrary to the very anchor of the American republic, because no man is good enough to do so; a few days earlier in Springfield, Lincoln had this to say about slavery:
“We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by thus fostering Human Slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of Human Freedom.” (4)
With similar reasoning, Lincoln spoke of the selfishness and hypocrisy of slavery on yet another occasion:
“So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself.” (5)
In the same speech, Lincoln warned those who were pro slavery about using skin color and intelligence as justifications for slavery; telling the pro-slavery crowd that the same rational logically could be used against them:
“If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?—You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.” (5)
Just under a year later, Lincoln further proclaimed his feelings about slavery, and how the very sight/idea of it causes him torment:
“In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.” (6)
Lincoln would have much more to say about the issue of slavery in the years 1858-59, further proving the disdain he had for the institution. In a letter to Henry L. Pierce and Others in April of 1858, Lincoln wrote:
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” (7)
Furthermore, speaking in Chicago on July 10th of that year, Lincoln again made his position abundantly clear:
“I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist.” (8)
One week later, Lincoln reiterated his wish not only to see the spread of slavery stopped, but also the practice itself exterminated:
“I did say, at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction.” (9)
In July and August of 1858, Lincoln spoke again of slavery:
“If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature.” (10)
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” (11)
But while Lincoln was himself very anti-slavery, he did foresee constitutional (legal) problems with the federal government trying to eliminate slavery; for example, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Galesburg, Lincoln stated:
“Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end.” (12)
A few days following this pronouncement, Lincoln again spoke of the legal problems that were in the way of slavery’s abolition:
“I believe the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others—individuals, free-states and national government—are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present.” (13)
But despite his belief that ending slavery was blocked by the issue of legality, Lincoln still believed that slavery must eventually be ended, and that “a house divided” could not stand:
“In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.” (14)
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” (15)
As mentioned before, soon to be President Lincoln continued espousing these positions when addressing friends and voters alike; speaking in Cincinnati, Lincoln again spoke of slavery as being “morally wrong”:
“I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.” (16)
Lincoln continued to make denouncements of slavery as 1859 continued, and they did not stop once he became President of the United States (17, 18, 19, 20). In 1860, Lincoln for a third time referred to slavery as being wrong on a moral level, while also stating that he still did not believe that he as President had a right to exterminate it in the slave-holding states:
“We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it.” (21)
Two years later, Lincoln would describe what it means to give freedom to those bound in unjust slavery:
“In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just – a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.” (22)
Come 1864, Lincoln again offered his personal views on slavery as well as a defense of the then announced Emancipation Proclamation:
“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” (23)
“I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that ‘while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the Acts of Congress.’ If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.” (24)
When Lincoln’s life was coming to an end in 1865 (although he did not know it), the President gave one of his final denouncements against slavery, proclaiming what he thought should be done to any man who enslaves another:
“I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others… Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” (25)
It is abundantly clear that Lincoln was, himself, very anti-slavery; so what of the quotes where he admits he would end the civil war by freeing none of the slaves if he could? The answer to this question, as mentioned in part one of this Civil War trilogy, is simply that Lincoln saw that his main duty and responsibility was to keep the Union together at all costs; detractors of Lincoln often fail to mention that in the same quote they like to tout, Lincoln also says he would free all the slaves if he thought it would keep the union together. As Lincoln himself said:
“What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” (26)
Lincoln and Race
Along with those who wrongly attack Lincoln on slavery, there are some who take highly questionable quotes from our 16th President and use them to paint him as a horrible monster who hated the African race at its core. Here are a few examples of the quotes they use:
“If all earthly power were given me…I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land… politically and socially our equals?…My own feelings will not admit of this…and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.” (27)
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas.” (28)
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” (29)
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (30)
“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.” (31)
“But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?…I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves…If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight…There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.” (32)
So the crux of the argument against Lincoln is that he is despicable because he was a White supremacist who did not believe in racial equality and thought that the Negro race should be exported back to Africa; but it is here we must make sure not to fall into the two traps mentioned at the beginning of this piece. We must remember not to paint Lincoln with a broad brush, and to put ourselves in his shoes if we want to understand him; especially considering that Lincoln was a very complicated man.
It is obviously true that Lincoln did say these things, but we must remember that Abe was a man of his time; he had grown up in, was taught by, and made observations in a society where most people believed such things; and like it or not, if we were put in his same situation, the vast majority of us would most likely believe the same things he did. Does that make what he believed right? Absolutely not; but just because he was wrong in what he believed, does not mean he was a vile racist who hated the African race.
Putting aside the whole “man of his time” argument however, why exactly was Lincoln opposed to equality between the races? Simply put, it is because he did not think racial equality was feasible. As Lincoln himself said, there was a “natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people” and that “the great mass of white people will not” approve of the equality (and amalgamation) of the races; to attempt such a thing would be rejected by the masses. Along with this, Lincoln, like most people, believed that there were “physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality” that is to say “social and political equality”; and that the differences caused disadvantages and suffering among both races.
The ironic thing about Lincoln’s point of view is that while it was wrong, it actually wasn’t fully wrong, at least not in the Southern parts of the United States; because for nearly 100 years after Lincoln died (1865-1964), Blacks and Whites in the South did not get along, were not equal, and found it hard to live together peacefully. Considering that during that span of time White Democrats in the South used the KKK to torment and kill Blacks, founded Planned Parenthood who, in the words of their founder Margret Sanger, “do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” (33), and passed the Jim Crow segregation laws that plagued the South for years; it seems that Lincoln’s predictions were actually semi-fulfilled.
Most importantly however, is not only that Lincoln believed that equality was impossible due to the opinions of the White race and the perceived physical differences between them and the Negros, he also feared that if such equality were to happen, it would bring about a “race war”; a guerilla style conflict resulting from the Whites in the North arming the Black soldiers whom they had trained, so that they may deal with the oppression dealt them by “their late masters.”
While we are thankful that Lincoln was wrong in this fear, it is certainly easy to understand why he would believe it could happen. The president had just witnessed a war that, while mainly resulted from the secession of certain states, had racial elements involved at its very core. To put it bluntly; the South seceded because they wanted to keep enslaving the Black race, and it was the Civil War that sought to put an end to this slavery/race-based secession. As President Lincoln once told a group of (free) Black ministers:
“See our present condition — the country engaged in war! — our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war would not have an existence.” (31)
With the recognition of what Lincoln saw happening all around him, it is perfectly understandable why he believed that a race war could break out between Blacks and their former White masters if social and political equality was reached. Again, does this make him right? Absolutely not; but understanding what he had witnessed and where he was coming from shows that his beliefs were not based in a vile hatred of the Black race, but rather, on the experiences he had, the things he had witnessed, and the faulty predictions that came from those experiences.
It is also true that Lincoln, feeling equality was impossible and that the two races could not live together in peace, favored exporting the Negro race to places such as Liberia; and while it is easy to freak out about Lincoln wanting to send all the Black people back to Africa, this subject again must be viewed with clarity. It is very easy to assume what Lincoln’s plan was, especially considering the deportation of illegal aliens that we have witnessed in our time; but Lincoln’s plan was not one that endorsed “rounding them all up and shipping them off.”
The plan that Lincoln endorsed (which was very similar to one advocated by Jefferson) was A. to send African Americans to the Republic of Liberia, and other countries who’s governments were very similar in structure to the U.S.; and B. was not to be enacted without the consent of the Negroes in question, which is why Lincoln tried hard to drum up Black support for the plan (which ultimately failed). (34)(35)
Lincoln truly believed that the futures of both the White and Black races would be better if separated, which is why he advocated the plan he did; it was not, as some would claim, because he had evil intentions. But even those well-intentioned plans can be ultimately the wrong idea, and the wrong choice; we should be thankful that Lincoln’s plan failed, because it was a bad one, but we shouldn’t go as far as to paint Lincoln an evil man because of this issue.
The final criticism of Lincoln (and by far the weakest one), is based on his belief that the White race should be superior; and while it is true that our former President said: “while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race” and “I…am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position”; opponents point to Lincoln saying this as if this is such damning evidence that Lincoln was a horrible man; but I postulate that Lincoln was simply answering how any logical human being would.
To understand why he would say such things, we must remember what Lincoln believed; Abraham Lincoln believed that equality between the races was impossible, and given this belief, it logically follows that if equality is impossible, one race must be superior to the other. It is with that belief firmly in mind that Lincoln advocated for the White race, his race, to hold the position of superiority; and why wouldn’t he? It is the only logical thing for him to say! If one believes that one race must be superior to the other, then it is obvious that that person would want their race to be in the superior position; after all, no one wants their race to be inferior, subjugated, and in the subordinate position. I guarantee you that if you were to ask any White person or any Black person which race should be superior (in the context of Lincoln’s belief), both races would answer that their race should hold the superior position.
So does this make Lincoln evil? Of course not, it makes him logically consistent; of course as previously mentioned, the belief that equality was impossible has since been proven wrong, and thankfully so, but just because Lincoln was being logically consistent in his wrong belief, does not mean he was a bad man for it.
I think Lincoln’s friend, ex-slave Frederick Douglass described Lincoln very well on multiple occasions; for example, in his Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln (1876), Douglass stated:
“It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery…The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born…
…Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events… It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.
When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete…under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country… under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more…
… I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery…Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery… Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war… for no man who knew Abraham Lincoln could hate him — but because of his fidelity to union and liberty, he is doubly dear to us, and his memory will be precious forever.
Fellow-citizens, I end, as I began, with congratulations. We have done a good work for our race today. In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us…When now it shall be said that the colored man is soulless, that he has no appreciation of benefits or benefactors; when the foul reproach of ingratitude is hurled at us, and it is attempted to scourge us beyond the range of human brotherhood, we may calmly point to the monument we have this day erected to the memory of Abraham Lincoln.” (36)
And in an 1865 thank you letter to Lincoln’s wife (who had sent him the President’s favorite walking stick), Douglass told Mrs. Lincoln:
“Mrs. Abraham Lincoln:
Dear Madam: Allow me to thank you as I certainly do thank you most sincerely for your thoughtful kindness in making me the owner of a cane which was formerly the property and the favorite walking staff of your late lamented husband – the honored and venerated President of the United States. I assure you, that this inestimable memento of his presidency will be retained in my possession while I live – an object of sacred interest – a token not merely of the kind consideration in which I have reason to know that the President was pleased to hold me personally, but as an indication of his humane interest [in the] welfare of my whole race. With every proper sentiment of Respect and Esteem,
I am, Dear Madam, your obedient,
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States; was he a perfect man? No; but despite his flaws, despite his faults, he was a good man and a good President. People who try to paint Lincoln as a vile racist, who did not care about slavery or the Black race are simply put, ignoring history, and are downright wrong. Lincoln has long been considered by most to be one of our greatest Presidents, and rightly so, which is why all attempts to discredit him must be addressed, and corrected. Of course there is another criticism of Lincoln in regards to his handling of the Constitution during the Civil War, but that my friends, is a topic for another day.
Thank you so much for reading the Bottom Line’s Civil War trilogy; I really hope you enjoyed this series of articles, and were able to learn something from them. If you enjoyed these pieces on the Civil War, please share them with your friends and family, and keep coming back for more historical pieces from the Bottom Line.
1. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois” (October 16, 1854), p. 271.
2. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois” (October 16, 1854), p. 255.
3. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois” (October 16, 1854), p. 266.
4. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Springfield, Illinois” (October 4, 1854), p. 242.
5. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Fragment on Slavery” (April 1, 1854?), p. 222. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/fragments-on-slavery/
6. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Letter to Joshua F. Speed” (August 24, 1855), p. 320.
7. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others” (April 6, 1858), p. 376.
8. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (July 10, 1858), p. 492.
9. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Springfield, Illinois” (July 17, 1858), p. 514.
10. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (July 10, 1858), p. 501.
11. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.
12. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg” (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
13. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter to James N. Brown” (October 18, 1858), p. 327.
14. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Quincy” (October 13, 1858), p. 276.
15. Lincoln’s ‘House-Divided’ Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858
16. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio” (September 17, 1859), p. 440.
17. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (March 1, 1859), p. 370.
18. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio” (September 17, 1859), p. 15.
19. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others” (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
20. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Fragment on Free Labor” (September 17, 1859?), p. 462.
21. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Speech at New Haven, Connecticut” (March 6, 1860), p. 16.
22. Lincoln’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
23. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Letter to Albert G. Hodges” (April 4, 1864), p. 281.
24. Lincoln’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1864.
25. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, “Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment” (March 17, 1865), p. 361.
26. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
27. Roy P. Basler, editor, et al, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1953-1955 [eight volumes and index]), Vol. II, pp. 255-256. (Cited hereinafter as R. Basler, Collected Works.).; David A. Hollinger and Charles Capper, eds., The American Intellectual Tradition (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), vol. I, pp. 378-379.
28. John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans (New York: A. Knopf, 1964 [2nd ed.]), pp. 234-235. [In the fifth edition of 1980, see pages 108-109, 177.].; Leslie H. Fischel, Jr., and Benjamin Quarles, The Negro American: A Documentary History (New York: W. Morrow, 1967), pp. 75-78.; Arvarh E. Strickland, “Negro Colonization Movements to 1840,” Lincoln Herald (Harrogate, Tenn.: Lincoln Memorial Univ. Press), Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer 1959), pp. 43-56.; Earnest S. Cox, Lincoln’s Negro Policy (Torrance, Calif.: Noontide Press, 1968), pp. 19-25.
29. R. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (1953), Vol. III, p. 16.; Paul M. Angle, ed., Created Equal?: The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 117.
30. Lincoln/Douglas 4th Debate, Charleston, Illinois, Sept. 18th 1858: http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm
31. R. Basler, et al, Collected Works (1953), vol. V, pp. 370-375.; A record of this meeting is also given in: Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (1971), pp. 217-221.; See also: Paul J. Scheips, “Lincoln … ,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 428-430.
32. (Benjamin Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler (Boston: 1892), pp. 903-908.; Quoted in: Charles H. Wesley, “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January 1919), p. 20.; Earnest S. Cox, Lincoln’s Negro Policy (Torrance, Calif.: 1968), pp. 62-64.; Paul J. Scheips, “Lincoln and the Chiriqui Colonization Project,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1952), pp. 448-449. In the view of historian H. Belz, the essence of what Butler reports that Lincoln said to him here is “in accord with views … [he] expressed elsewhere concerning reconstruction.” See: Herman Belz, Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy During the Civil War (Ithaca: 1969), pp. 282-283. Cited in: N. Weyl and W. Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (1971), p. 233 (n. 44). The authenticity of Butler’s report has been called into question, notably in: Mark Neely, “Abraham Lincoln and Black Colonization: Benjamin Butler’s Spurious Testimony,” Civil War History, 25 (1979), pp. 77-83. See also: G. S. Borritt, “The Voyage to the Colony of Linconia,” Historian, No. 37 , 1975, pp. 629- 630.; Eugene H. Berwanger, “Lincoln’s Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage,” Papers of the Abraham Lincoln Association (Springfield, Ill.), Vol. V, 1983, pp. 25-38.; Arthur Zilversmit, “Lincoln and the Problem of Race,” Papers of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Vol. II, 1980, pp. 22-45.)
33. Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
34. Bedford Pim, The Gate of the Pacific (London: 1863), pp. 144-146.; Cited in: Paul J. Scheips, “Lincoln … ,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (1952), pp. 436-437.; James M. McPherson, The Negro’s Civil War (New York: 1965), p. 95.; “Colonization Scheme,” Detroit Free Press, August 15 (or 27), 1862.
35. Paul J. Scheips, “Lincoln … ,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (1952), pp. 437-438
36. Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings, ed. Philip S. Foner (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1999), 616-624. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/
Good citizenship and defending democracy means living up to the ideals and values that make this country great. ~ Ronald Reagan