Lincoln's Tariff War | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

How Capitalism Saved America | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo: amzn.to/1GUXmEK
The Real Lincoln | by Thomas J. Dilorenzo: amzn.to/1kJwyga
Lincoln Unmasked | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo: amzn.to/1GUXO5R
My website: www.vforvoluntary.com/
Reddit: / austrian_economics
The 2006 Steven Berger Seminar: Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization mises.org/events/86
June 5-9, 2006
LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE - CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 3.0
MP3 files of this lecture series
1-5: www.mediafire.com/?lol1q61emb1...
6-10: www.mediafire.com/?bmrem3dswcz...
--
I am reuploading this series because the previous upload got a copyright match because of guitar music in the intro. So aside from removing the intro, I've also improved the audio a lot (quality and synchronization), as well as the image quality to the degree that was possible.

[@crazydoglady88008]

Great lecture. He shamed the devil and told the truth... how refreshing!

[@WJack97224]

@crazydoglady88008, Politics is violence and political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian and voting just facilitates the wickedness.

[@fredfester8096]

Although I'm not a native english speaker: This lecture is good to understand!. You don't find even a little peace of it in most german history books. Just a shame. Big THX to Mr. DiLorenzo for his work.

[@jeffbrewer8810]

In Europe the mid-19th saw a series of conflicts known as the Wars of German Unification. In America, I have long thought that the most fitting and descriptive term for our "Civil War" of the same period is the War of Centralization which, first and foremost, was a war waged on the Constitutional Republic that our Founders secured in the Revolution. I have always thought Lincoln a Tyrant. As an unreconstructed Mississippian, I'm free to hold such an opinion. Great lecture by the way!

[@larryclese]

You are free to feel that way because the good guys won.

[@DocAkins]

​@@larryclese He is free to think that way, not because self avowed centralizers like yourself, but because there are still decentralizers around. "Good" has nothing to do with it.

[@danielcrowe9324]

Wonderful presentation. Mr. DeLorenzo, I greatly appreciate your work.

[@ric6383]

Thoroughly interesting. An honest historian is a pretty rare thing these days.

[@board247]

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is definitely not an honest historian. I have identified numerous instances where he either misrepresents the facts altogether or provides false evidence or half truths.

[@board247]

​@Kyle Clark Serious and genuine historians who take a neutral approach to the question conclude that while Lincoln and more commonly his generals and cabinet did at time take extra-constitutional measures , they find that these extraordinary measures were both warranted and necessary for extraordinary times and circumstances. Furthermore, anyone who does a thorough and honest investigation will find that the South employed the same "tyrannical" measures, usually first and often much more severely and excessively.

[@crcurran]

I wish this guy was a credible historian but alas no.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

@@board247 Extra-constitutional measures were warranted? Nope.

[@board247]

@@Individual_Lives_Matter People who feel that way, I wonder in what crazy World would it have been a good thing for the white-supremacy-based Conferacy of the United States to have won the war or have been able to be established as a nation???!!!!!

[@ReinSman100]

What a privilege to hear.

[@voxxclamantis9668]

Up, still the same today, everything's about money, liberty is pretense.

[@WJack97224]

@Vox Clamantis, Jehovah God gave us free will, freedom to choose. Political government supplanted God's law; political government is manmade, imperfect and is infected with Satan's evil deceptions and twists.

[@WJack97224]

Yes. Excellent. The colonists having just cast off the shackles of English tyranny did not immediately turn 'round and place everyone's neck then and in the future under the heel of an all powerful and tyrannical central government. The colonists did not deny any colony the freedom, free will, to depart the "Union" if it was going the wrong way and they certainly did not approved of using force/aggression/violence by the other states to keep the departing state corralled/imprisoned as that that would have been anathema to their very basis for separation from England; their desire for freedom, free will. Lincoln was not just a tyrant; he was a denier of Jehovah God who gave us free will, freedom to choose. This video should be viewed by everyone. Thanks for posting.

[@robinlepaige1653]

Lincoln destroyed the free Union that was foundational to the Founders. We now have a Union held together by the point of a bayonet, like the Soviet Union.

[@radioflyer68911]

We'll end the tariff if you'll take the income tax. 1:04:40 Then like weeds the tariffs come right back. That's government for you.

[@thefreeman8791]

Yes. One of the quotes from Reagan that I agree with is that the nearest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program.

[@francoisdelmar3]

eye-opening

[@jroch41]

From 1863 Lincoln letter to Horace Greely, founder & editor of NY Tribune shows war was not about slavery: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”

[@iadair6780]

Lincoln also said of his war: "It is a war for a great national object, and the negro has nothing to do with it."

[@patrickfoster4586]

Yes, it's called the War of Northern Aggression for a reason. It could just as easily be called the War of the International Money Powers on the South. It's what brought about the "civil war" debt, which in turn brought about 1871 and then the final blow of 1913.

[@board247]

What it really needs to be called is the War to Defeat the Slave Power and their Plutocracy .

[@WJack97224]

@Patrick Foster, Yes, things are connected and there are consequences for sin. But one needs to go after the root cause and avoid squandering his time on symptoms. The manmade and Satan corrupted constitution and "law" are not Christian. Take some time to listen to Ted R. Weiland's messages. www.kingdompromises.org/kingdompromises_audio/1145.mp3 Pick the audio up at the 33:22 mark and listen to Weiland explain the problem of voting and political government. This Biblical information was never mentioned in the government schools and one private school that I attended, but of course all these schools had government contracts/grants/kids on government scholarships so they all had conflicts of interest, i.e. they were all prejudiced in favor of political government; it’s the money/”drug.” Political government has trapped us all with the welfare state's and "Statist's" loot A to satisfy B schemes. Political government has been the bane of humanity. Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php Law & Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php ["The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." ~ H.L. Mencken Franz Oppenheimer identified the two basic means by which people can acquire wealth in the world: [1] the “economic means,” and [2] the “political means.” The “economic means” consists of relationships in which individuals voluntarily engage in transactions for the exchange of goods and services. The “political means” involve the forced taking of wealth belonging to one person and bestowing it upon another. Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time passing? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time ago? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone? Voters trashed (Young girls have picked) them everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn? (remember the song?) The time has come,' the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'(remember the poem?) As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man - There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -- That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire -- And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! - Kipling, The Gods of The Copybook Headings And I am two and twenty and Oh ‘tis true, ‘tis true. (remember the poem?) - JW] "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman I also recommend the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka on the WWW. And lo' those many years ago the colonists thought they had won their freedoms and preserved them for the future generations. Little did they know. Or did they know they were condemning us to live as slaves on the plantation state? "America does not need to see the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant. America needs to see the tax returns of public servants who became millionaires while being public servants” -- Jaeson Lubell Government is corporate as per O’Neal vs. Wake Co. (NC), 1928. Matthew 22:37-40 teaches us to love God and love our neighbors. The hate mongers, like Lincoln and today's commie/socialist Democrats do not follow the Bible; they are Satan's acolytes.

[@Dubinski2382]

But weren't the international money powers financing the slave trade and using the South much like China is used today...to create cheap goods for Europe? The south honestly is more the international money powers. Tariffs are against internationalists.

[@Dubinski2382]

The international money powers loved the south. You have it 180 degrees backwards.

[@Michael-qe1xo]

@@board247 lol

[@indobalkanizer6557]

The real Union he wanted to save was the Union Pacific Railroad Corporation where he used to work. That's why the most brutal unionist officer Sherman kicked out Native Americans who supported the CSA in order to expand the railroad network. P.S.- not only Spooner, another prominent abolitionist of that time Wendell Phillips also supported the South's choice to secede.

[@avenaoat]

After fort Summer Wendell Phillips became Civil War supporter!

[@avenaoat]

Fort Sumter..............

[@mephista55]

Thank you

[@rodneycaupp5962]

Some day these truths shall prevail....

[@craxd1]

The Federalists have a cult built up around Henry Clay as well, especially in Kentucky. That is where I went through my secondary education, and during 7th grade, we were taught Kentucky's state history. There, they place Clay on a pedestal deifying him, and never mention any of this, nor how he was really from Hamilton's Federalist clique.

[@avenaoat]

Against being slave holder Clay fought in the border states mainly in Kentucky for the step by step abolution! He was not successful. Lincoln was his follower. I think originaly Lincoln thought about similar step by step abolutio as Henry Clay wanted about 1855.

[@mobilechief]

Lincoln disliked the Constitution , he believed it was flawed, his idea was more or less a Monarch

[@WJack97224]

@t Mann, Lincoln, not withstanding opinions to the contrary, was not a Christian. He was flawed because he believed that it was OK to use force to impose his opinions, beliefs, prejudices and "false religion" on those who did not then and do not how share the same.

[@jameshigginbotham265]

the Supreme Court is NOT the final say on what is or is not Constitutional. the Constitution, we the people and the states are.

[@board247]

Exactly, We the People of the United States. That is why secession was illegal, as it was a betrayal to the National Union and Will of the people as a whole in favor of the kind of factional regional majority James Madison warned against in the Federalist No. 10.

[@Bree-ln6hd]

SnowBoarder SLC interesting that your evidence for this is not the constitution it self but a paper written prior to the constitution ratification. Many states rejected this early idea from James Madison and in order to convince them to join the union the constitution excluded such language. We also see James Madison flip flop his opinion on states rights in federalist paper 46. This is why it’s so important to include the whole story not just the parts that fit into the narrative you are trying to push.

[@board247]

@@Bree-ln6hd Actually, my evidence is the Preamble and the Constitution itself. Nothing written by the Federalists or Anti-Federalists changed the wording of the U.S. Constitution. The only change was the amendments adopted, but they support and reinforce the idea of "We the People" as the entire people of the United States as that is how the amendments were applied, on a national level, not on a state level.

[@Bree-ln6hd]

SnowBoarder SLC. “The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in the late 1780s to urge ratification of the U.S. Constitution. With the Constitution needing approval from nine of thirteen states, the press was inundated with letters about the controversial document” Three words do no prove secession was illegal. Especially when taken out of context. I’d like to point out the The next words is “of the United States” Another place you see those words are “We the people of the United Nations” I would certainly hope we don’t actually think that stepping out of the United Nations is an act of war. That is yet again a flimsy argument. Secession was supposed to be put on trail during Jefferson Davis “treason” trial. However the prosecution team was terrified of impending defeat that they delayed the trail 2 years and ultimately dropped charges. They knew what Lincoln had done was unconstitutional on multiple account and that the Supreme Court would rule in favor or the right to secession.

[@board247]

@@Bree-ln6hd You must have missed what I stated. The U.S. Constitution itself, the actual document approved by the Constitutional Convention, was not altered at all after it was submitted to the people except for the addition of the Bill of Rights. So the only effect the Federalist Papers had was to encourage adoption of that document. However, reading the Federalists does give us insight into the original meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution's clauses.

[@Doriesep6622]

I'm just finding out about Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor (Day of Deceit) before it happened, and am reading engineers and architects papers on how demolition evidence was not reported by 9/11 report.

[@WJack97224]

@Barefoot Prof, Have you read and studied Pearl Harbor: The REAL History - Mother Of All Conspiracies rense.com/general10/consp.htm ? The thing to remember is that politics is violence and political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian and voting only facilitates the evil. Look for the root cause and avoid wasting precious time on dealing with symptoms.

[@occamtherazor3201]

Well, both of those things are bullshit, and evidence to that effect is really easy to find.

[@vernonpennington8896]

Dems are the same as Lincolns Congress then! Polosie and Obama Clintons if they had lived then ! They would have been in Lincolns Congress and favor! Later Lincoln Congress became Dems Because the name Repub! The people Congress didn't fit who they were! Congress was not for the rights of citizens ! But About Taxing taking all they could ! Terrif laws Keeping poor down needy! Of all color Americans ! Controll sells of goods ! Reaping the wealth of Farmers and Ranchers who were hard working not getting their rightful shares ! How Obama won the election! Just like Abe Lincoln! His Father In-law was the Richest Slave master and biggest Shipping Com He built Slave Ships Lincoln was a Partner Because he married Mr. Todd's Daughter and his favorite kid She helped choose the Slaves for her friends! Nothing but worthy of the Lincoln and Todd's Name!

[@crcurran]

@@vernonpennington8896 Vemon, you need to slow down. You're not making much grammatical sense.

[@vernonpennington8896]

@@crcurran , Sorry man IM LAYED UP IN HOSPITAL! FROM DRUNK HITTING ME IN RECK HEAD ON ! Pretty mutch on meds ! Late 2:00 morning time . When I Text in! Words spelled badly please for give a Cowboy! Better lettering next time!

[@nschulz4537]

Great informative lecture, I disagree with some of the values but this is very good.

[@dannycorsaro546]

Government now says fees so that we don’t get upset!

[@robert-scottsommars694]

END RESULT MARK OF THE BEAST

[@michaelfalsia6062]

I love it when truth smashes idols.

[@christiancampbell466]

How was there an odd number of senators?

[@lisalovelylpa]

I heard this case made by a professor in college many years ago, nevertheless , Lincoln , Lee , etc , did not fight the war single handed , what drove the common people on both sides to fight in the civil war ?

[@MichielVanKets]

in the north it was poverty and narcissism; they destroyed their own economy, but couldn't admit it to themselves, so they blames the south and invaded them the south was just trying to defend themselves against invaders that were stealing everything, killing everybody etc

[@bairking3496]

?same as always; news programming, playing game on the masses using puppets on the world stage. Lisa, I know you[like most] need some Mag Bitter Truth channel, directly! when you've had a dose, try this gem>> Howard Freeman: international bankers and admiralty jurisdiction. oh, if the masses only knew

[@WJack97224]

@Lisa Lovely LPA, They like those today, were not really Christians. Politics is violence no matter the make, model or flavor; political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian and yet people persist in voting. Go figure. The hate mongering, economics dishonest, commie/socialist politicians, mostly Democrats, demonstrate neither love of God nor love of their neighbors (Matthew 22:37-40). Politicians are sociopaths and in some cases they are psychopaths. Politics is a false god. When people worship false-god-politics, they get disasters of wars, recessions, inflation (theft) and taxation (theft), i.e. they get mass murders, economic ruin, theft of wages, debt slavery, welfare “statism” based on looting A to satisfy B and extortion. Revelation teaches us that the troika of evil, that wicked consort of politics, commerce and “false religion,” will be destroyed. We would be wise to terminate/abandon political government. Read Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority. And then check out The No State Project by Marc Stevens on KZbin where he asks the question, What factual evidence do you, judge, prosecutor, politician, IRS agent or anyone, have that the manmade, Satan corrupted constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some state such as the commie/socialist, Democrat dictatorship corruptifornia? It doesn't exist and never has else we would be stinkin' slaves on the plantation state run by masters/politicians and their overseers/judges/enforcers in the "land of the free and home of the brave." Why weren’t the Spooner and Stevens points taught in government schools? Does anyone not see the conflict of interest? Does anyone not see the prejudice? How can educators “bite the hand that feeds them?” How diabolically ironic is it that teachers cannot teach the truth about the utter wickedness of political government? BTW, factual evidence would come in the form of a sworn affidavit of truth stating what, when, where, why, how and by whom one was made subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It was never brought up in any school I attended. I have never heard any MSM commentator produce the aforementioned “factual evidence.” I have asked 6 judges in their courtrooms the Marc Stevens/Lysander Spooner Question and on record to provide the aforementioned factual evidence and not one of those 6 “judges” produced that factual evidence thus failing to provide proof of jurisdiction and subsequently effected fraud upon me. Bertrand Russell once said, the intellectual thing to do is only deal with facts, i.e. avoid assumptions, emotions. And then he said the moral thing to do was love and don’t hate. The commie/socialist Democrats practice neither. I recommend Ted R. Weiland’s books: Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php Law & Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php If Christian Americans ever expect God to fulfill his half of 2 Chronicles 7:14, they must first repent of their national idolatry their love affair with the humanistic, pluralistic, polytheistic, and anti-Christian United States Constitution. I also recommend the Jehovah’s Witness website publications wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=548 The hate speaking, commie/socialist, sociopathic, Democrat politicians, SJWs, snowflakes and MSM are clearly unethical, immoral. They play the emotions game but most people know that the first casualties of emotion are reason/logic and morality. Take a look at how Milton Friedman explains to Phil Donahue the fallacy of commie/socialism. This video should be viewed by all and then asked why they are voting for any politician that is commie/socialist. www.glennbeck.com/2014/01/14/the-blunt-truth-about-greed-and-freedom-was-delivered-over-30-years-ago/?Daily& kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2LPiJ5qiaiYarc “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” - Milton Friedman But since God gave us free will, freedom to choose, then those who argue against free markets are really deniers of Jehovah God, i.e. they are Satan’s acolytes! Friedman was a monetarist, i.e. he believed in inflation and thus refuted his own observation. Inflation is theft orchestrated by politicians with the willing assistance of the central bankers et.al. Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time passing? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time ago? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone? Voters trashed (Young girls have picked) them everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn? (remember the song?) The time has come,' the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.' (remember The Walrus and The Carpenter?) As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -- There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -- That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire -- And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! - Kipling, The Gods of The Copybook Headings And I am two and twenty and Oh ‘tis true, ‘tis true.(remember the poem?) "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." ~ H.L. Mencken Franz Oppenheimer identified the two basic means by which people can acquire wealth in the world: [1] the “economic means,” and [2] the “political means.” The “economic means” consists of relationships in which individuals voluntarily engage in transactions for the exchange of goods and services. The “political means” involve the forced taking of wealth belonging to one person and bestowing it upon another. And lo' those many years ago the colonists thought they had won their freedoms and preserved them for the future generations. Little did they know. Or did they know they were condemning us to live as slaves on the plantation state? "America does not need to see the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant. America needs to see the tax returns of public servants who became millionaires while being public servants” -- Jaeson Lubell So, one of the root causes of the decline in Amerika is the Federal Reserve Bank and its fiat currency/credits. And in the September 1895 American Federationist, Stephen T. Byington assailed the money monopoly: "No legal tender law is ever needed to make men take good money; its only use is to make them take bad money. Kick it out!" Gresham’s Law: Bad “money” drives out good “money” when the two exchange equally. Econ 101, price, supply and demand still operate. The consumers look for the best quality for the least cost and the entrepreneurs/businessmen then have to find or make products/goods/services that the customers desire and at which a profit can be achieved. Commie/socialist, economics dishonest Democrats do not understand or conceal this simple truth. Triffin's Dilemma: Industry is destroyed at the source of "money" creation. Look at the "Rust Belt" of Amerika for supporting evidence. Commie/socialist Democrats are not Christian; they believe in looting A to satisfy B, which is stealing of course. Ask any Democrat if he knows the 10 Planks of the Commie Manifesto and if he approves of them. Amerikan politicians, mostly Democrats, have imposed all 10 Planks of the Commie Manifesto. TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html Why do people vote for tyrants, politicians? Read: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548 www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

[@Godfailedyoustophumpinghisleg]

@@WJack97224 this is a fantastic reply, do you write papers? Blog? Etc?

[@WJack97224]

@@@Godfailedyoustophumpinghisleg, Thank you Robert. Sounds as if you have escaped "the box" of indoctrination, propaganda and brainwashing. Naw, I don't blog. This is just a one off compilation of some stuff I have garnered via association with a few really high IQ pals when I lived up in orygun, Credit goes to God for helping me assemble the memories. As you might suspect, I have received quite a number of condemnations from Satan's acolytes and atheists. So be it. Of course you are free to share and annotate; one never knows what "good" might cone of such missives. Again thanks. Good on ya mate.

[@moseybear]

Good cover for the London School of Economics/East India Company. The American Economic System of protective tariffs created the "great middle class" and Wharton School (Henry Clay). David Rockefeller financed Ludwig at the LSE. There is nothing Austrian about the Austrian School except Klaus Schwab?

[@mickeybeavison1053]

Great!!!

[@tedosmond413]

52:00 "Everybody condemned slavery on moral grounds...". False, not true, incorrect

[@TheDayZCowboy90]

I like to call it The War of Northern Aggression.

[@mobilechief]

Was is not ?

[@yashjoseph3544]

More like the War of Southern Sedition

[@antoinecappelleri185]

Its not sedition it was a voluntary union this they could leave but the tyrant didnt like it so he invaded. PERIOD.

[@greggorski2174]

It should be called the Great Tax Revolt of 1861.

[@kurtsherrick2066]

@@antoinecappelleri185 Great Comment!! Yes I explain it to people like this and a child can use some sense to figure out. Do you think one State would have joined the Union Voluntarily knowing if things went bad for their State and wanted to leave they would be invaded by a Federal Army that would rape, murder, torture, burn and pillage the wealth out of their State? Of course not. We are taught that the U.S. is a Experiment. The Experiment wasn't working for the South and actually Midwest States at that time. One of the reasons the Midest joined in was the South controlled the Mississippi and just like today the Mississippi takes Midwest Agriculture to New Orleans to be shipped. Yes Lincoln was a tyrant by the Definition. People just don't want to believe Lincoln was wrong and they want to justify 850,000 Americans Deaths by the Bloodless Battle of Fort Sumter. They refuse to listen to Dilorenzo and his Sources. Complete denial keeps their conscious clean.

[@Jurasskick]

15:00 This is a landmark statement when it comes to how issues with interpretation of the Constitution are handled.

[@WJack97224]

@Jurasskick, Ask the Marc Stevens/Lysander Spooner Question: What factual evidence do you, judge, prosecutor, IRS agent, policeman or anyone, have that the manmade constitution and "law" apply to me just because I am physically present in some state? They don't have it and never have. We are just stinkin' slaves on the plantation state operated by neo-feudal masters/politicians and their hired overseers/judges/enforcers in the "land of the free and home of the brave." How diabolically ironic is that?

[@WJack97224]

Thanks for this excellent presentation. This video should be shown in every government school and every private school. I'm not holding my breath. Jehovah God gave us free will, freedom to choose, but He dd not anoint anyone or any group of men to override anyone's free will, freedom to choose. So, the colonist were in error of imposing manmade constitution and law. Man is not perfect and is quite often deceived by Satan and so too were the colonists; they had no right or anointing from Jehovah God to impose their opinions, beliefs, prejudices and "false religion" on those who did not then and do not now share the same.

[@occamtherazor3201]

So, the Continental Congress should have established a theocracy instead of a Republic? You can go over to Iran with that kind of attitude.

[@WJack97224]

@@occamtherazor3201 , Now see, you have made a logical error. You don't know anything about true Christian government by true Christian rulers or you would not have made the mistake. I encourage you to spend time on Ted R. Weiland's messages. www.kingdompromises.org/kingdompromises_audio/1145.mp3 Pick the audio up at the 33:22 mark and listen to Weiland explain the problem of voting and political government. This Biblical information was never mentioned in the government schools and one private school that I attended, but of course all these schools had government contracts/grants/kids on government scholarships so they all had conflicts of interest, i.e. they were all prejudiced in favor of political government; it’s the money/”drug.” Political government has trapped us all with the welfare state's and "Statist's" loot A to satisfy B schemes. Political government has been the bane of humanity. Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php Law & Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php ["The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." ~ H.L. Mencken Franz Oppenheimer identified the two basic means by which people can acquire wealth in the world: [1] the “economic means,” and [2] the “political means.” The “economic means” consists of relationships in which individuals voluntarily engage in transactions for the exchange of goods and services. The “political means” involve the forced taking of wealth belonging to one person and bestowing it upon another. Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time passing? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time ago? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone? Voters trashed (Young girls have picked) them everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn? (remember the song?) The time has come,' the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'(remember the poem?) As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man - There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -- That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire -- And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! - Kipling, The Gods of The Copybook Headings And I am two and twenty and Oh ‘tis true, ‘tis true. (remember the poem?) - JW] "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman I also recommend the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka on the WWW. And lo' those many years ago the colonists thought they had won their freedoms and preserved them for the future generations. Little did they know. Or did they know they were condemning us to live as slaves on the plantation state? "America does not need to see the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant. America needs to see the tax returns of public servants who became millionaires while being public servants” -- Jaeson Lubell Government is corporate as per O’Neal vs. Wake Co. (NC), 1928.

[@michaelfalsia6062]

H.L. Menken readily acknowledged the impregnable myth of America's first Ceasar. The real Lincoln as Tom's designation of his first book is the painful truth. In The Course Of Human Events by Adam's, which also goes into the Tarrif war and the tariff motive.

[@tedosmond413]

53:00 who could just declare slavery unconstitutional and then enforce it?

[@ramieskola7845]

13:50 Since 1865 the SCOTUS somehow took a monopoly power to interpret the constitution. A body of law that never even mentioned the existence of such monopoly. An absolute monopoly of interpretation of law necessarily means unrestrained sovereignty, an absolute power for subversion or subplantation of that law. Never mind what that text says. I'm the law.

[@johnl5316]

"true fact", he says several times. FACTS are by definition TRUE. So, what is a TRUE fact?

[@Samsgarden]

Yep, soon you realise there was no imminent threat to America to justify any war.

[@crcurran]

Imminent threat to slaves for centuries at that point. The North wanted to preserve the Union but don't deny the South broke away to protect chattel slavery.

[@jeffersonianideal]

During which lecture does Thomas DilLorenzo categorizes himself as a "heathen"?

[@avenaoat]

1. When the seven Confederate states secceded the congress and senate voted the higher import taxes! Funny without seccession the higher custom tax would have been later it might be 10 or 15 years later. The USA could be industrial power later about 1910 instead of 1890!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. The Southern states thought the Northern blockad helps the British and French ally! Yes 1-2 years the lack of cotton was problem, but Egypt and India became new cotton exporters and the European sugar beet industry decreased the sugar can plantation economic. Instead of sugar cane some coutry could produce cotton too. In the industrial revolution the cotton textile industry was the first so the whool and the flax textile industry could impove under the cotton shortage.

[@jameshigginbotham265]

the tariff war started before Lincoln was ever President. the tariff act of 1824 if i have the year right? was against the Southern States, when the South left the union the tariffs were 50% and higher before we could ship our goods to Europe and other nations. what Lincoln did was raise tariffs further to punish the South. that's the real reason that started the war of Northern aggression. slavery became an issue when Lincoln feared France and England would back the South, and Lincoln freed no slaves in the North. and he had no control of any in the South.

[@jrjohnryanjr]

James Higginbotham Tariffs are not on exports they are on imports In 1859 the tariff on imported goods was 15% 66% of all tariffs were collected at the Port of New York City

[@board247]

@@jrjohnryanjr Do you have a reference where you got that statistic? I would love it if you could point me to where you got that information.

[@jrjohnryanjr]

James Higginbotham tariffs are on imports not exports Slavery was always s big issue the Republican Party was founded specifically for abortion of slavery You can easily google for yourself "History of tariffs in the USA "

[@jrjohnryanjr]

SnowBoarder SLC just use google It is not difficult to find try search words "History of tariffs in the USA"

[@jrjohnryanjr]

SnowBoarder SLC you might also be interested in looking at the gross revenues of the Federal Government in 1859 They took in about 33 million almost all by tariffs The population was 31 million On average every man woman child paid only $1.25 each year into the federal coffers

[@DarkGonk00]

Please, do read At Dawn We Slept and try to refute before embarking on this theory that Roosevelt knew anything on Pearl Harbor.

[@WJack97224]

@DarkGonk00, Have you read Pearl Harbor: The REAL History - Mother Of All Conspiracies rense.com/general10/consp.htm ? Yes, there are people like Wayne Patterson who are very knowledgeable and have some disputes with the article but the preponderance of evidence points to FDR having possession of the Pearl Harbor attack plan well in advance. Also, I recommend Robert Stinnett's book: Day of Deceit. FDR did provoke both Germany and Japan just as Wilson provoked Germany prior to US entry to WW I and just as Lincoln provoked the southern states prior to the Amerikan Civil War.

[@crcurran]

If FDR hadn't prepared us for WWII and gotten us into the war, the Nazis and the Japanese would have won. The US Conservatives were too isolationist at the wrong time to keep us out of the war. We got lucky that Britain didn't fall before we got involved and part of the reason they didn't was Lend Lease law encouraged and passed by FDR. There is some serious lack of history and logic in this "historical" video comment section.

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Chris Curran 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 It's OK, I used to be like you. Unable to admit the truth about the Second (and first) World War. I actually got so angry when I started reading Richard Maybury's book on WW2 that I literally threw it across the room. You'll come around to truth though...

[@crcurran]

@@caedmonnoeske3931 Your woke now? Give me a break. Delusional is more accurate.

[@timwhite2680]

The book Day of Deceit proves they knew something weeks before it happened beyond any shadow of doubt

[@michaelfalsia6062]

Corrupt politicians in America? Unthinkable. 😅 Perish the thought. 😂 sound familiar? 😮

[@Dubinski2382]

Aren't tariffs on imports?

[@TheMasterPlumber]

Yes.

[@crcurran]

Yes, they are on imports. This entire video is cherry picking and spin.

[@inthedark334]

Nope. When Abraham Lincoln violated the United States Constitution. Lincoln got us into the war. Violated constitutional law. Pushed tariffs that would have bankrupted the South specifically to consolidate power into Washington DC. By doing this America built up its infrastructure faster yes. But they had to take away the rights of their own citizens in order to do it. They illegally gave freedom to Irish Scottish and blacks against the right of the American people because Lincoln was losing the war he asked for the Irish and Scottish immigrants to come to his country and gave them free citizenship if they would fight in his army. Because up until that time Lincoln had lost virtually every battle his army fought. This is why for decades Irish and Scottish and blacks have been hated specifically because most of them got their freedom illegally it was given to them by Linkin outside of the Constitution. But you idiots don't seem to understand that. It's not that anyone hates the Irish or Scottish or the blacks it's that a Sovereign Nation. Chooses what it does not a dictator but the people who own the country. And what Lincoln did directly violated federal law you can defend that little bastard all you want. There's a reason why his grave was hid three times from grave robbers. In areas of Europe slavery was already being abolished. The South was winning the war Lincoln ran out of money and instituted greenbacks. Which we call dollar bills today the people of the United States revolted and there were many court cases over this because greenbacks could change their value any day of the week. But Lincoln bankrupted the country so it doesn't surprise me. Using religion and his Charisma and the media he was able to brainwash and manipulate most of the people around him. Especially by paying them off that seem to work wonders. Lincoln did not want the British to team up with the South. Because he was losing the war so badly so he started giving blacks freedom in order to make sure the British wouldn't team up with the southerners. Again this was a direct violation of constitutional law slavery was going to end anyway it was already dying out in Europe and had already started to die out in the United States. Contrary to popular belief most of the slave owners in the United States were actually black slave owners. A good friend of Lincoln Frederick Douglass was a slave owner and owned many plantations. After the war was over Frederick Douglass ordered Lincoln not to send the blacks back to where they came from and instead used the blacks as a means to take money from the whites. Seriously you guys are complete retards all you think about is morals outside of facts and logic. Lincoln was a tyrannical dictator he violated habeas corpus. And took away the right of the Sovereign citizen of the nation to voice their opinion against him. He ordered the destruction of railroads the murder and rape of Southern families to break the South's back. You apparently need to remove the glasses from your eyes and see the reality for what it is or you can just go to Washington where the giant statue of Lincoln that they worship as an idol resides don't forget to bend over in front of it. You stupid pigs

[@kurtsherrick2066]

@@inthedark334 Finally someone with a intellectually honest mind. Lincoln was a monster. The Lincoln taught is a lie and a myth. Great to read your comment. He Destroyed the Constitution to wage war. Lincoln was the biggest Slave Master in our History. Lincoln forced a entire Region of people to stay in a Government that they hated by gunpoint. History had to make Lincoln a False Deity and his invasion of Sovereign States a Moral War to cover up the Atrocities of the Union Army which did exactly what you said. They won't tell you about the Torture of Southerners to make them tell where their Valuables. Most people have heard the Expression of Holding their feet to the fire. Some of the Union Troops would tie them on a board and put Southerners feet over a fire. That is where that Expression came from. The most common torture tactic was putting them into a Hangman's Noose and pull their victims off their feet to almost death then drop them. They killed so many when their victims didn't tell them what they wanted to know. Jesse James watched from the woods while Northern Troops tortured his Uncle. Slavery was bad but it didn't have one thing to do why Lincoln invaded the South. I am in my sixties and I have read so many books about the Politics decades before the war and the War itself. Many Civil War Figures and Battles. My dad had a Master's in American and World History when he was 16. He served on a Destroyer and PT and in the Occupation of Japan. He was raised in the North but he was intellectually honest. He had a Photographic Mind and spoke 4 Languages Fluently. He could recite Great Works of Art word for word. He taught me more about Lincoln and the Civil War when I was a child at the Dinner Table. Some in the Comment Section say this Lecture is nonsense when Dilorenzo is giving all his resources. The Lying World hates truth. I had 3 Ancestors fight at Shiloh. Two from the South and one from the North. I have my Federal Ancestors Release from the Federal Army after the War. It mentions the Major Battles he was in. I guess the Civil War is in my DNA. You Educated everyone that read your comment.

[@inthedark334]

@@kurtsherrick2066 thank you. It's funny how most people try to make the southerners look like they're retards. They really hate European American history and they love to put a spin on it. But if you actually study European history in America Southerner and northerner you'll find out that the southerners were very intelligent group of people. The things that I've seen. When it comes to slavery or when it comes to American history in general that we see in movies or culture in general is nothing more than brainwashing. It reminds me of what one man said propaganda is designed to manipulate people's emotions there's good propaganda and there's bad propaganda. Good propaganda manipulates people's emotions for truth. Bad propaganda is manipulating People based on a false pretense. In layman's terms lie. Please excuse my writing I'm talking into a phone I got into world history from a young age I was born with dyslexia so I couldn't read until I was 13 years old. I was raised by two people who didn't really tell me a lot about American history and to this day are pretty much in denial and won't listen to reality. But putting that aside American history is based on in my opinion when you really break it all down who has the most power and money. Not that I'm against Power or money. But people don't understand what having power and money do. They don't understand and how to question to think for themselves. I was born in 1990. I'm 30 years old now. And as a child growing up I loved to question things. But when I got into my teens I started to stop questioning. But at a certain point in my life a lot happened to me and I started to reflect. As I reflected I began to notice certain things that were off you know how the truth has a special ring to it. It's not easy to find the truth. Especially when all of the news commentators. Teachers all of these so-called intellectuals which are really bought and paid for by special interests. For me I don't believe in right or left. I came to grips with the reality that this country is bought and paid for A long time ago. It is no more a nation for the People by the people and of the people. But a nation for those select few. and if you're not in there Club. Then you're nothing more than a member of The Herd. Sad but true I'm tired of these wars. what a waste of people what a waste of life. they say our enemy is in the Middle East our enemy is in China yeah they're sitting that one up now our enemy our enemy we have no enemy. Our enemy is ourselves And unless we reflect and see who the real enemy is. History will never truly change.

[@davelind7262]

alot of good info on tariffs but he misses the whole reason for tariffs it's an industrial policy which made us a world power

[@kurtsherrick2066]

Why does he have to explain the reasons for Tariffs? I believe a 7th Grader could figure out that Tariffs are for Revenue. Goodness!

[@timothymeehan181]

Who you gonna believe- “Little Tommy” or “Honest Abe”. Lincoln told us exactly who he was and what he thought & believed about democracy in general and America in particular. Poor Tommy can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.

[@ashstrat7873]

That's all? Just an insult? Got anything real to disagree with?

[@ashstrat7873]

BTW... Did you ever think to look at the history yourself, or are you sucking up to Lincoln because that's how you were taught? The man was a tyrant, and nobody that causes so much death is to be honored like he is. He starts a war that killed hundreds of thousands, how can anyone look up to him

[@mickeybeavison1053]

Abe Lincoln wanted all the black people who were freed to be released into the jungles of South America, lol. He was a brutal racist and scheming lawyer

[@mephista55]

Baahahahahaa

[@tedosmond413]

1:02 The War to Prevent the Creation of a Despotic Slave Based Regime on the Continent

[@yesferatu]

Too bad Lincoln did not live after the civil war to send the African slaves back to Africa like he was ready to do.

[@tedosmond413]

@@generalneyland4005 lol....visit planet earth sometime. It is nice here.

[@robinlepaige1653]

It was the New England states that initiated the slave trade in America.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Opening paragraph of Georgia's declaration of secession (tldr: it was about slavery): "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property"

[@gamestosi9260]

Ok but did you know that when the American Revolution ended Great Britain freed all the slaves that fought for them and George Washington had them captured and sent back into slave work even though they had there freedom papers

[@williamchamberlain2263]

@@gamestosi9260 Washington did like keeping his slaves. As did Jefferson.

[@gamestosi9260]

@@williamchamberlain2263 as did Lincoln

[@j.lebowski3917]

@@gamestosi9260 you claiming that Lincoln owned slaves?

[@gamestosi9260]

@@j.lebowski3917 no but slavery wouldn't have been abolished for a couple of decades at least if not for the Civil War Lincoln didn't free the slaves all he did was sign the emancipation proclamation the 13th amendment freed the slaves

[@armoredninja4975]

The Fact of the matter is that southern states like Virginia didn’t represent the the common folk proportionately. The assembly districts were carved out unjustly so that the yeoman farmer didn’t have a proper voice in state legislatures like Virginia general assembly. When Virginia's constitution was up for a rewrite in 1830s, most of the counties were being controlled and governed by the slave owning plantocrats, to the detriment of the yeoman farmer in the interest of whom, slavery was a rotten deal; served to them by the local elites. They understood that free labor like their own can never compete with unfree slave labor. One of Thomas Jefferson's grandsons had introduced a gradual emancipation bill in 1830s and even suggested such a thing to be included in Virginia's second constitution. But it was flat out rejected by others in the constituent assembly, which in itself was a very poor representation of Virginia's common white folks.

[@WJack97224]

@ArmoredNinja, But you are attacking the symptom of the "cancer" and not the root cause.

[@armoredninja4975]

@@WJack97224 The root cause, in my opinion, was the addition of the slavery clause in the US constitution. That ship had already sailed though, by the time we were in the 19th century. If we look at the economic side of things, I think Britain could have done a whole lot more in terms of boycotting US cotton. But the British industrialists wouldn't have taken it too kindly. In fact they supported the CSA's cause. Other than that, the then fledgling US textile industry also relied on southern cotton. If the British empire hadn't had control over Egypt or South Asia, the American industry could have relied on their cotton and could have sold them American textiles in return. This way, the cotton monopoly of the South on cotton, could have been shaken from its roots, at least to a degree. If the Southern states didn't want to support American manufactures and textiles, the northerners could have also chosen to not support southern cotton. Instead, it could be bought from other parts of the world to feed the US textile industry. But this was not possible at all because Britain controlled the raw material based market of half the world, outside the US, alongside the continental powers. This is all very hypothetical though. I don't think that slavery could have been ended any other way but by having a democratic opinion reflected in the amendment process of the various southern states' respective constitutions, unless you include Lincoln's solution. But the democratic opinion of the people of Virginia, for instance, could not have been reflected, unless the assembly districts were made to be properly apportioned as per population density, since the time the first constitution was brought into being in 1776, which in reality was not even popularly ratified. Your average yeoman farmer was improperly represented in the House of delegates and instead, was disproportionately on the side of the slavers and plantocrats. Do you got a better solution of how slavery could be brought to an end, other than the way it did?

[@WJack97224]

@@armoredninja4975 , Political government is violence and the bane of humanity. So, the politicians could have checked out the Bible for guidance on how a Christian government would function. BTW, check out the Ted R. Weiland messages. www.kingdompromises.org/kingdompromises_audio/1145.mp3 Pick the audio up at the 33:22 mark and listen to Weiland explain the problem of voting and political government. This Biblical information was never mentioned in the government schools and one private school that I attended, but of course all these schools had government contracts/grants/kids on government scholarships so they all had conflicts of interest, i.e. they were all prejudiced in favor of political government; it’s the money/”drug.” Political government has trapped us all with the welfare state's and "Statist's" loot A to satisfy B schemes. Political government has been the bane of humanity. Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php Law & Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php ["The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." ~ H.L. Mencken Franz Oppenheimer identified the two basic means by which people can acquire wealth in the world: [1] the “economic means,” and [2] the “political means.” The “economic means” consists of relationships in which individuals voluntarily engage in transactions for the exchange of goods and services. The “political means” involve the forced taking of wealth belonging to one person and bestowing it upon another. Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time passing? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone, long time ago? Where have all the freedoms (flowers) gone? Voters trashed (Young girls have picked) them everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn? (remember the song?) The time has come,' the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - Of cabbages - and kings - And why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'(remember the poem?) As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man - There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -- That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire -- And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! - Kipling, The Gods of The Copybook Headings And I am two and twenty and Oh ‘tis true, ‘tis true. (remember the poem?) - JW] "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman I also recommend the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka on the WWW. And lo' those many years ago the colonists thought they had won their freedoms and preserved them for the future generations. Little did they know. Or did they know they were condemning us to live as slaves on the plantation state? "America does not need to see the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant. America needs to see the tax returns of public servants who became millionaires while being public servants” -- Jaeson Lubell Government is corporate as per O’Neal vs. Wake Co. (NC), 1928. Abandoning/terminating Satanic political government is a start.

[@kenzeier2943]

You’re just repeating what you heard from propaganda

[@armoredninja4975]

@@kenzeier2943 Which propaganda are you referring to? Care to elaborate?

[@notlih11]

A libertarian and an unreconstructed Confederate. He ignores the fact that hostilities started when the SOUTH opened fire on a U.S. fort. Anyone watching this should first read the Wikipedia page on DiLorenzo. For example: ---------------------------------------- Reviews in The Washington Post and Publishers Weekly both stated that the book seemed directed at unnamed scholars who had praised Lincoln's contributions. Justin Ewers criticized DiLorenzo, saying this book "is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis. His wild assertions - for example, that Lincoln held 'lifelong white supremacist views' - don't help his argument."[31] Publishers Weekly described this as a "screed," in which DiLorenzo "charges that most scholars of the Civil War are part of a 'Lincoln cult';" he particularly attacks scholar Eric Foner, characterizing him and others as "cover-up artists" and "propagandists."[32] In a 2009 review of three newly published books on Lincoln, historian Brian Dirck linked the earlier work of Thomas DiLorenzo with that of Lerone Bennett, another critic of Lincoln. He wrote that 'Few Civil War scholars take Bennett and DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agenda and faulty research.'[33] ---------------------------------------------- Get that? "... narrow political agenda and faulty research".

[@kenzeier2943]

Your arguments are not substantiated secession was legal that’s the main point.

[@notlih11]

@dosdude That's ridiculous. The U.S. restocking a U.S. fort on U.S. territory to protect against expected armed insurrection is not an act of war. The question of whether secession was/is legal was answered by the war: secession is legal ONLY with the approval of the other states.

[@francoisdelmar3]

Wickipedia is often inaccurate and very left-leaning in bias...I never use it except for birth and death dates, as it is forced down our throats by most search engines.

[@notlih11]

@@francoisdelmar3 It's "Wikipedia" (no c), and the only people I have found who consider it "left-leaning" are those on the far right wing. Wikipedia is fact-based; the right wing is not.

[@GridironMasters]

@@notlih11 I think people say this because it's tied to the issue of slavery. Political separation is a concept long present in English theory. It's what the colonies appealed to four score and seven years prior. If the counter argument is simply that of might, war decides what is true, then there is no point in talking about it. However war does not decide and is powerless to affect truth, merely what side wins in practice.

[@zackali9934]

Hahaha

[@jrjohnryanjr]

In 1859 the total revenue collected by theFederal Government was 33 million dollars The total population was 31 million Each person on average was paying $1.25 in tariffs/taxes to the Federal Government

[@WJack97224]

@jrjohnryanjr, Attacking the symptom and avoiding the root cause will not heal the "patient."

[@kenzeier2943]

Averages mean nothing they include infants and if a guy has eight children and a wife he’s not paying $1.25

[@jrjohnryanjr]

Ken Zeier yes of course you are correct ! But you failed to complete that math In that case the the entire family would have had a total federal tax burden of $10 per year Less than 1$ per month Do you feel that was excessive ?

[@elcidcampeador9629]

You missed the part where the morill tariff was passed in 1860, not 1859.

[@elcidcampeador9629]

The south shall rise again

[@kingandpriest4637]

Interesting, the true cause of Northern Aggression being the interest of the bank, railroads, excessive tariffs for protectionism. It would noteworthy if you could draw a connection between that cause to confederate veterans robbing banks and trains after the war and being considered local heroes for doing so. I wonder, was that just means to continue fighting against Northern corruption?

[@crcurran]

Oh, the civil war was definitely about money. The South was making enormous amounts of money in the 1840-1860 off slavery and their exports to Europe. This is documented in 1860 census before South Carolina seceded in late December. Where do I start. There is so much bovine scat in this lecture it's hard to address one or two things. Europeans weren't buying goods very much of USA goods, that's ridicules. They were buying raw material such as wool, sugar, indigo, etc from the South. The Southern States were wealthier states than the Northern States and that was due to slavery. They didn't want their gravy train to end. Mississippi was the wealthiest State in the Union in 1860 if that gives you a major clue as to how profitable plantations with slaves were. It wasn't about industrial North versus agrarian South since the North had twice as much farmed land than the South; how do you think they fed 80% of the US population that resided in the North? The North were not removed from agrarian since it was an intrinsic part of it's existence. It wasn't about Tariffs; since that was settled in the 1832, and the Morill Tariff of 1861 would never have passed Congress if the Southern States didn't leave the Senate; their representatives were not there to cast their 'nay' vote. The South wanted to buy European products instead of Northern products like "wool blankets". Oh yes, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the North had a textile industry creating blankets and the North did not have to buy blankets from Europe as you claim in this video. It doesn't matter what the reason the North went to war over although they had good reason since the South fired on and hit three times on the privately owned ship, The Star of the West on January 9th, 1861 and then fired on Fort Sumter for 36 hours three months later. The Southerners seized federal property without peaceful negotiation. It does matter what the South seceded for. If you read this and research to confirm it on your own without bias you will come to the truth on your own. The first few Southern States seceded to form the Confederacy to protect chattel slavery. You have to read the writings of those involved in the lead up to the war and during the war to prove that out. Not quotes taken out of context sixty years earlier (although slavery was hotly debated since the early 18th century) or quotes and books made after 1865 since the former Confederates were trying to rewrite history that they were ashamed of. In Nov 1860 through March 1861, the desperate negotiations, the confederacy documents and a speech show what the States leaving for the Confederacy wanted. 1. Crittenden Compromise (December 1860). After this compromise was proposed in the senate by a pro slave State Senator to satiate the slave states, Lincoln and the Republicans refused all of these points saying the South was trying to undo the 1860 US election since it didn't go the South's way. (The Southern States removed Lincoln from the deep South election ballots and Lincoln won anyway in November 1860. That's how much support there was for Lincoln's policies of not expanding slavery into newly forming States and to support industry in the USA through import tariffs as campaigned on.) www.google.com/search?q=crittenden+compromise&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS832US832&oq=crtittende&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2j46j0j46j0l2.3421j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2. The first States that seceded had the highest percentage of slaves-to-families and highest overall percentage of slave-to-population studycivilwar.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/extent-1.jpg and associated article: studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of-slave-ownership-in-the-united-states-in-1860/ 3. Peace Conference, Washington DC (February 1861). The result was similar to the Crittenden Compromise which was give the South everything. It was so extreme is was outright rejected by the Republicans: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1861 4. Confederacy Constitution was nearly identical to the US Constitution except for some key differences: - Six year Presidential term but only one term allowed. - The Federal gov't does NOT have to provide for the "general welfare" of the country. This was removed since it was so hotly debated point of the past seventy years. - Slavery is established in the Constitution for all time with no possible amendment later to remove it. "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." 5. State judges and State Supreme Court had to follow the Supreme Court of the Confederacy, reducing States Right's www.vqronline.org/confederate-justice 6. State Secession Declarations to leave the Union. Slavery is mentioned numerous times and barely a word about tariffs. www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states 7. Vice President of the Confederacy's "Cornerstone" speech. Slavery is the cornerstone. www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech The above is ample proof that the Confederacy was about Slavery and there is more. The Confederates were very vocal about it being about slavery throughout. For the Union, at the start the Civil War, it was about saving the Union. Later in the war, President Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, announcing on September 22, 1862, that if the rebels did not end the fighting and rejoin the Union by January 1, 1863 as slave states, all slaves in the rebellious states would be free (Lincoln didnt have power to free slaves in non-rebelling states). This put the Confederacy in a bad position, isolating it from any help from England and France as the people of those countries wouldn't let them help the CSA over the immorality of slavery, both France and England having banned slavery decades prior. I really do hope you learn more about the decades, years and days leading up to the War and those critical months right before and after the war started. Imagine if we DIDN'T implement the Morill Tariff supporting the industrialization and we as a nation came out of the 19th century as still rooted in agrarian and not industrialized rivaling Europe. WW1 and WW2 would have gone differently and the US may not have been a 20th century super power. We should be glad the South screwed up and seceded when they did so we could end slavery and focus on industry.

[@crcurran]

dosdude well, that’s a compelling counter-argument. /s

[@crcurran]

@dosdude No, this video is horseshit and you really didn't read what I posted or follow the links. It's all documented history. You just don't like it. You want to spin a new narrative. This guy in the video is blathering on with no proof. You can research it yourself and not accept this guy's hillbilly history. Think for yourself; don't let others do it for you. Up to you if you want to carry on ignorance.

[@crcurran]

@Joe Freeman I never suggested that the North wasn't flawed nor guiltless of being profit motivated since losing the southern States would have been a major financial blow to the remains of the country but the North was more right than wrong compared to the South. Seizing government facilities and wealth while firing on unarmed ships and forts if it happened today would be called domestic terrorism and sedition. They didn't peacefully try to leave the union. As a matter of fact there was an attack on a military facility to seize weapons and create rebellion over a year before the Civil War officially Started. The Southerners were more tha happy to hand Captain John Brown for it, yet we are to believe that when the South did it over a year later that they should be lauded for their efforts for "States Right's" [to own people] You say that the Federal Government should have paid the asking price of the South, which is the amount you mentioned, when the South had already become rich on the back of those slaves especially relative to the Northern States that was almost entirely was made from free citizens and not slaves. A purported more reasonable price was offered by the federal government but it was refused. So, I'm not onboard with the slaver sellers getting exactly what they want for their slaves while the buyer must meet the sellers demands. That's even before considering that we are in fact talking about Government paying to free slaves from the the South's chatel slavery of human beings. Now let's talk about the industrial North and that agrarian South for a moment since you mentioned it. The North were very much in the loop on agrarian life as they had more farmland in the North than the South had at the time. The North had to feed all of the people in the North which consisted of ~80 % of the population of the US. The South was almost entirely growing an abundance of product to export while the North used nearly all of their production domestically. As for the South Agrarian economy, it was their choice. They choice to take their profits made on the backs of slaves selling their production on the world market, and not invest in industry in the South. They had more wealth than the North but the North chose to invest in it for the future to try to compete with European countries who were already succeeding in industry and dominating. The North wanted to bolster the domestic industry for the long term benefit of the entire country while the South wanted to stay stuck in the mud of yesteryear. It was a flawed strategy of the South if you can call it that. More opulent laziness than strategy, and if the South prevailed the US would not have been the country that was needed for its own benefit and the World's benefit in two World Wars. The antebellum Southern aristocracy selfishly wanted a "lesser" race to do the work for them while they pocket the profits at the expense of the lower classes. white and black, in the South, as well as the rest of the country for that matter. The North and the South were no angels but the South had more systemic evil at work by today's standards. By the standards of those days the North gave the South time to reconsider to come back to the fold before finally declaring the war was about slavery, showing the Southern plantation owners and supporting CSA the villains that they were on the world stage. VP Andrew Johnson perpetuated the problems in the South codifying what became the Jim Crow laws and even to today it is still felt.

[@occamtherazor3201]

If you are trying to explain what sparked the Civil War and leading your argument with quotes from Lincoln, you are automatically wrong. You need to look at what the SOUTHERN leaders were saying, not the NORTHERN. It was the Southern leaders who chose to secede, which led to the war. It was Lincoln's prerogative as Head of State to crush insurrection, and collection of tariffs and taxes are part of that. What were the Southern leaders saying? Whenever complaints were levied against Lincoln, it was never for his stance on Protectionism. It was always about his stance on slavery. Every secession document which discusses justification for secession puts slavery right out in front. Some of them don't mention Tarriffs at all. Tarriffs had been going steadily down since 1835. In 1860, Tarriffs were at their lowest point in the last 30 years. The Morrill Tarriff was a RESULT of secession, not the CAUSE. The only reason that the Morrill Tarriff passed was because the states of the Deep South had already Seceded. If their issue was really about the Morrill Tarriff, all they had to do was show up in Congress and vote.

[@WJack97224]

@Occam Therazor, You are attacking the symptom and not the root cause. There is no factual evidence that the manmad and Satan infected constitution and law apply to anyone just because he is physically present in some state. I have tested 6 judges in their chambers/courts and none had if and they could not provide proof of jurisdiction to their embarrassment and that of all the bureaucrat staff. Factual evidence would at the very least start with someone submitting an affidavit of truth stating what, when. where, why, how and by whom he made me or anyone subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It doesn't exist and never has else we would all be stinkin' naggar slaves on the plantation state operated by masters/politicians and their hired overseers/judges/enforcers in the "land of the free and home of the brave." How diabolically wicked and ironic is that? God gave us free will and did not anoint anyone with the right to usurp God's gifts to us.

[@occamtherazor3201]

@@WJack97224 Oh, cool, we have a "Sovereign Citizen" among us. Is there a video on KZbin of you getting dragged out of your car while screeching "I DO NOT CONSENT!"? Do me a favor and post the link. I need a good laugh. If you are physically present in the United States, its territories, or a ship at sea that is registered in the United States, you are with the jurisdiction of the United States and subject to its laws. That`s, like, day 1 lawschool stuff.

[@WJack97224]

@@occamtherazor3201 , And you have made an assumption that is in error. I am not as you say a "Sovereign Citizen." Stuff that nonsense in your pipe an smoke it. You have made and assumption and a claim absent proof. As the judges in the old Perry Mason episodes admonished the attorneys, Overruled, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. You have no claim. A claim must prove that someone has suffered physical injury and/or property damage. If on day one of law school all the would be lawyers were presented with the factual evidence that the manmade constitution and "law" apply to us just because of physical presence, then surely something like a Miranda Warning would be available and used by every law enforcement officer and the judges. But it isn't because it does not exist, else we would all be stinkini' naggar slaves on the plantation state in the alleged "land of the free and home of the brave." And how hypocritical and diabolical and ironic is that?

[@occamtherazor3201]

@@WJack97224As laughably wrong as all of that is, what does it have to do with the Civil War?

[@WJack97224]

@@occamtherazor3201 , And sayin' it and provin' it are two different things. You made assumptions that are false and then you arrogate these lies to me. If you have proof then why not put it forth? Is there on file in a public place an affidavit of truth stating what, when, where, why, how and by whom someone made you subject to the jurisdiction thereof? And from whence came the anointing of this person if he exists? Absent the factual evidence that the constitution and law apply then the who fraud of Lincoln and his war of aggression is exposed and discussions are then attacking symptoms of the "disease" rather than the root cause and then people are just chasing their tails and never come to grips with the real evil.

[@justinm4497]

I shall pray to Lincoln for you, so that he will forgive your blasphemous words, honest abe freed the slaves then ascended into heaven.

[@kurtsherrick2066]

Wow! Your so brainwashed it is sickening. You dismiss true facts and things Lincoln did and said. How blocked is your mind. You seem like you know Lincoln will be in Heaven. Lincoln will be Judged by the only Righteous Judge Christ. Lincoln was a monster. He allowed war on defenseless Southern citizens. He allowed rape, murder, theft of personal property and some of those where non secessionist. Lincoln slept with men. He slept with a man for 4 years in Springfield and a young Soldier in the White house. It is in the White House records. His best friend mentioned it a few times. Lincoln is responsible for 850,000 Americans deaths Hitler loved Lincoln for destroying The Republic and mentions Lincoln in Mein Kampf. Lincoln exchanged letters with Karl Marx and Marx complemented Lincoln on using the power of the Central State. Lincoln twice offered the South a way to keep their slaves. He offered the Corwin Amendment which was only voted on by Northern Representatives. If the South would ratify the Amendment it would have secured slavery in the Constitution. The South declined. Also the original Emancipation Proclamation that was read on September 22, 1862. Lincoln said if the Southern States would come back to the Union by January 1,1863 they could keep their slaves. He said slaves would only be Emancipated in the states that continued to rebel. Lincoln didn't free slaves in the North and in Border States and parts of the South the Union Army occupied. He said it was a war measure. First, he wanted to cause a slave rebellion in the South so the Southern Soldier's would return home to defend their homes and families. He didn't want Britain to recognize the Confederacy as a Sovereign Nation. Thirdly he had to turn it into a moral war. His huge Army was getting thief butt kicked by a Tiny, shoeless, starving Army. If the South Seceded for Slavery that meant they had won. Why didn't the South take that. The biggest lie in our History is Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. BULLSHIT!!!. Lincoln destroyed the Constitution to wage war on his own country. You have learned a complete lie to cover up Lincoln's War for Southern Revenue. You hear how the South paid around 85% of the Revenue for the Union. They had no representation and taxed without fair Representation. Lincoln finally let Congress meet and he Addressed the Congress on July 15th and 19th 1861. Lincoln stated his illegal war was a Tax War. He called it repeatedly a Tax Rebellion and a Tax Revolt. Lincoln blockaded Southern Ports months before Ft. Sumter. That is Act of War. Four days before Beauregard fired on Ft. Sumter Lincoln attacked Charleston Harbor with a Fleet of Warships led by the U.S.S Harriet Lane. Also they tried to resupply the Fort. You see when Beauregard fired on Ft. Sumter it was a symbol to Lincoln because Fort Sumter was a Federal Tax Collection Fort. So you say Lincoln was taken to Heaven after he died. Today is the Anniversary of the death of Lincoln and I am celebrating the death of that murderous atheist bastard.

[@pierrebezukhov2698]

@Stonewall Jackson Yeah, that Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic tyrant would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

[@Txman1996]

Lincoln was an Atheist and a Marxist. Get off your cloud in fantasy world.

[@vernonpennington8896]

Justin M, Open your mind and read ! Louisiana their is the Desendents of Abe Lincoln and His Girl Slave ! They had Two Kids boy and girl! He put the boy into a slave coupels arms! To raise as their son they were land working Slaves! All their desendents are still living their! They had a special interviewing them they Showed pictures of all family back to Lincoln and Girl Slave who was a Gift from Marry Todd! For his sexual comforts and personal care,!

[@yashjoseph3544]

@Jack Jones Ah yes, the quote from the 4th debate with Douglas. Remember, every single 19th-century politician had to contend with a voter base made up largely of WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Lincoln had to quell catastrophic rumors that he was in favor of amalgamation or the mixing of the races. If it had got out that Lincoln was in favor of equal rights, he wouldn't have been elected to anything in America. You could say that I have no proof that he thought otherwise. But here's the thing. Politicians lie. They exaggerate. They try to appeal to as many people as possible. Progressive politicians, in particular, lie about how progressive their policies are ALL THE TIME.

[@tedosmond413]

this guy is a joke. study the tariffs on your own. this guy is misinforming you.

[@ashstrat7873]

No, he is not deceiving us. I did what you suggested and studied it many years ago. Spent years trying to understand the truth. DiLorenzo is spot on with this lecture.

[@tedosmond413]

@@ashstrat7873 lol...sure you did...ok

[@ashstrat7873]

@@tedosmond413 I did, but I guess there's no way to prove it. Just like liberals always do, you resort to mockery and insults in response to me. Good job, you fulfilled my expectations.

[@tedosmond413]

@@ashstrat7873 Oh look an Abbeville mark making unverifiable claims....you learned well Grasshopper. Funny how you always get the result you want...Abbeville minions from the mudsill are too pathetic...

[@mickeybeavison1053]

Hey Ted you are clueless, maybe read over the Morrill tax when you grow a pair

[@thomasjamison2050]

The truth of the matter is that southerners have never really understood tariffs anymore than Donald Trump understands tariffs. The pre-bellum south was the very model of a corrupted economy such as the one we are now headed for. That is an economy with a very few very wealthy people and a very large surplus of unemployed and underpaid people. This situation ruined the south financially and was the main reason that the south was unable to successfully fight the civil war. As for tariffs in the south, they only pulled in about 7% of the Federal budget while at the same time the south sucked about 60% of the federal tax income out of the government. Most red states have always been welfare states, relying on funds from the richer blue states to keep themselves from economic insolvency.

[@kurtsherrick2066]

The Lecture is about what led up to the Civil War not how the map reads today. The South still suffers from Reconstruction and theft of land during that time. Wall Street Industries illegally obtain land and made slaves out 6,000,000 poor whites and 2,000,000 blacks and changed the name from slaves to Sharecroppers. Do you think if the South won the Great Society would have made welfare slaves of all colors in the South? No they wouldn't have. Blue states don't spend one penny of those states Income Tax money giving it to Red States. Red States pay the same Federal Income Tax Rates as Blue States. If Blue States are so good why are millions moving to Red States every year?

[@WJack97224]

@Thomas Jamison, You are attacking the symptom of the "illness" and evading the root cause.

[@WJack97224]

@@@kurtsherrick2066, But first get at the root cause and avoid wasting precious time on attacking symptoms.

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@generalneyland4005 What's it like being incredibly ignorant?

[@thomasjamison2050]

@@generalneyland4005 Spare me your ignorant racist bs.