He makes excellent points that you have to ignore to keep the view of the civil war and Lincoln that we learn as kids in federal government influenced public schools.
"On the day the American people accepted Abraham Lincoln's invasion of a sovereign state the Republic died and the empire was born." -Washington Post, 1905
P J: the problem is, that a sovereign state can be international, i.e. a sovereign nation-state; or domestic, i.e. part of a federated state or national union. Lincoln invaded sovereign nation-states. Not just sovereign states. The states of BRAZIL are sovereign states, but Brazil is still a sovereign nation.
Wow, no one bothered to tell Jaffa what he was supposed to be debating. He uses his entire 30 minutes and barely mentions Lincoln. He just talks about how terrible the South was. What a total rout.
This is one of the few intelligent arguments made here against Jaffa. And if at all true, would have been a valid concern. But it is completely inaccurate. What is informative is that this is SheepWillbeSheared 's perception. In actuality and truth, Jaffa directly addressed the issues in question and said very little about "how terrible the South was". For example: @ 12:40 Jaffa addresses the fallacy of DiLorenzo's claim that slavery was not the real issue of the U.S. Civil War. @ 14:15 Jaffa explained that the Right of Secession and the Right of Revolution was not a Semantic difference, but a fundamental difference. He then went on to illustrate how no Civil Rights justifying secession had been violated. @ 20:00 Jaffa starts to go over the events that led up to the Secession Crises, notably he points to the Secession of the Deep South States from the Northern Democrats in the Democrat Convention in Charleston of 1860. @ 25:05 Jaffa addresses the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and its effects -- most notably the election of Republicans to Congress. @ 35:55 Jaffa pointed out that Douglas could not politically subscribe to the Slave Code as defined by Taney, so that split the Democratic Party and led to the election of Abraham Lincoln. @ 36:05 Jaffa addressed the inaccurate claims that Lincoln's comments in the L-D Debates were explicitly racist. What Lincoln actually believed in was the natural rights of black people and that "no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent." @ 36:52 Jaffa's final argument is that Lincoln did not try to settle the matter of what would be done if universal emancipation came. Jaffa pointed out that Lincoln did the best that anybody could have possibly done to unite his followers on the questions of principle which applied directly to the great issue of public policy which at that time was slavery in the territories. [Note that there is no mention of "how terrible the South was".]
John Brown, you wrote, "Jaffa directly addressed the issues in question and said very little about "how terrible the South was". Fair enough, Johnny Boy.. Slavery was a bad thing, and Dilorenzo has always condemned it. Now, let's look at your first example. ==================== John Brown, you wrote, "@ 12:40 Jaffa addresses the fallacy of DiLorenzo's claim that slavery was not the real issue of the U.S. Civil War." What? Lincoln himself stated in his 1st Inaugural that he would not invade the states as long as they paid their tariffs, and he made it crystal clear that slavery in the Southern States was not an issue -- at least not to him. He even supported an amendment enshrining in the Constitution the right of the slave states to own slaves! Are you calling Lincoln a liar? On that point, I have to agree. Lincoln was most definitely a liar -- Major League! But there is absolutely no historical record that supports any notion that Lincoln was concerned about slavery, or of the plight of black people generally. To the contrary, his ideological hero, Henry Clay, was a Kentucky Slave Master; and his wife came from a family of slave holders. Worse, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes that virtually eliminated the right of blacks to live as equal human beings in that state, and even the right of blacks to live in the state, period! Lincoln was a virulent White Supremacist and White Separatist. Live with it. . . ==================== John Brown, you wrote, "@ 14:15 Jaffa explained that the Right of Secession and the Right of Revolution was not a Semantic difference, but a fundamental difference. He then went on to illustrate how no Civil Rights justifying secession had been violated." Baloney. Jaffa was a fool! Revolution is an act of overthrowing the central government. The Southern states simply left the central government, with no desire to overthrow them, which is an act of secession. I don't know where you got your education, Johnny Boy, but if you paid for it I recommend you try to get your money back. That is sufficient for now. Respond to those in a scholarly manner, and we will address the remainder of Jaffa's deception s. Dan
@@BibleResearchTools There are some key fallacies in your logic. First regarding your counter-argument to Jaffa's point at 12:40. First note that Lincoln did not start the Civil War. He was not a dictator who, by his say so alone, the war was instigated. He was a public servant given a responsibility to react to actions of war against the United States. When the Southern Secessionists seized federal forts and property, that was an act of war. And subsequently when they attacked Fort Sumter, that was an act of war that put Abraham Lincoln in a position where he was forced to react in response. However, your assertions regarding Lincoln's Inaugural Address are also in error. In it he expressed his duties by Oath as President. The duties he addressed were the duties of the Executive branch which included collecting the taxes, protecting U.S. property, and delivering the mails. However, there was not a presidential duty or power to free the slaves. In fact the opposite was true. The U.S. Constitution implied this power was reserved to the States. So by expressing his willingness to leave this power in the hands of the states in order to preserve the Union, Lincoln actually demonstrates that Slavery was the key issue and the real cause of the U.S. Civil War -- independent of Lincoln's original intentions on the matter. Your other point was regarding my points related to Jaffa's point at 14:15. Your only real argument there was that Jaffa was a fool. Well if he was a fool, then why did the forum invite him to debate the issue with DiLorenzo? However, your assertion that Revolution is an attempt to overthrow a central government is not supported by any facts, historical or legal. If that were the case, the the American Revolution was not a revolution either. The colonies would have been executing their legal right to secede - which is complete nonsense. The Declaration itself describes the actions as "throw[ing] off such Government'. This can be considered to be a revolutionary right, but nowhere was it held as a Constitutional right under English Law. Likewise, nowhere is there a State's Right to Secede under the U.S. Constitution.
John Brown, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools There are some key fallacies in your logic. First regarding your counter-argument to Jaffa's point at 12:40. First note that Lincoln did not start the Civil War." Of course he did. The first act of war occurred when Anderson's troops occupied Fort Sumter. The second occurred when President Buchanan refused to surrender the fort. This is a reference to one of the first acts of war by Lincoln: _"By a proclamation of April 19 Mr. Lincoln clamped a blockade on the ports of the seceded states, a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war. On April 20 he ordered a total of nineteen vessels to be added immediately to the Navy "for purposes of public defense," and a few days later the blockade was extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina." [Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, p.226]_ ================== John Brown, you wrote, "He was not a dictator who, by his say so alone, the war was instigated." Lincoln was a dictator. Even some of the most devout Lincolnites, such as Rossiter, admit that: _"The simple fact that one man was the government of the United States in the most critical period in all its 165 years, and that he acted on no precedent and under no restraint, makes this the paragon of all democratic, constitutional dictatorships. For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal." [Ibid. pp.224, 226]_ The war was also considered by many as avoidable, even in the North. Lincoln committed treason against them -- those in the Northern states who opposed the war -- by making war against them. ================== John Brown, you wrote, "He was a public servant given a responsibility to react to actions of war against the United States. When the Southern Secessionists seized federal forts and property, that was an act of war. And subsequently when they attacked Fort Sumter, that was an act of war that put Abraham Lincoln in a position where he was forced to react in response." Baloney. Lincoln provoked that war to ensure the Confederacy did not weaken his tariff stream. Above all, Lincoln was a greedy crony-capitalist. This conversation between Lincoln and a Virginia delegate explains:
_"You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."_ _"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"_ _"He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right. Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from them the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter._ _"If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter-I do not care on which side it is fired-the thing is gone." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible." Said I, "Sir, if there is a gun fired at Sumter, as sure as there is a God in heaven the thing is gone. Virginia herself, strong as the Union majority in the Convention is now, will be out [of the Union] in forty-eight hours." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible."_ _"Said I, "Mr. President, I did not come here to argue with you; I am here as a witness. I know the sentiments of the people of Virginia, and you do not. I understood that I was to come hereto give you information of the sentiments of the people, and especially of the sentiments of the Union men of the Convention. I wish to know before we go any further in this matter, for it is of too grave importance to have any doubt of it, whether I am accredited to you in such a way as that what I tell you is worthy of credence."_ [Baldwin, John Brown, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, pp.13-14] The South tried to negotiate with Lincoln, but he dismissed them and sent reinforcements to Sumter, which forced Jefferson Davis's hand: _"When Mr. Lincoln came into office he had no authority of law to call out the militia or to call for volunteers in order to suppress insurrections against the United States or to collect the revenue outside of custom-houses, nor had he the necessary means to reconstruct the Federal judiciary in the seceding or the seceded States. When, after more than a month of informal negotiation between the Lincoln Administration and the Confederate Commissioners and other persons about the evacuation of Fort Sumter, it was determined to re-enforce that garrison, and re-enforcements were sent and Beauregard was ordered by Davis to bombard the fort, and it was done-when the Civil War was thus begun-Mr. Lincoln's call for seventy-five thousand men was made, and had to be made, without any legal authority. When the first troops from the North poured into Washington, after forcing their way through Maryland, there was not the slightest preparation by the Government to receive them; no billeting, no subsistence, no forage, no anything; all was at first confusion worse confounded; private individuals and extemporized local committees had to do the whole. Whose fault was this? Certainly it was not the fault of President Lincoln or his Secretary of War. It was the fault of that Congress, which had expired on the 4th of March without having made any provision either to coerce the seceded States back into the Union, or to execute the laws of the United States upon individuals, or to recapture the public property in the seceded States, or to do anything that would save the border States from being swept into the control of the Montgomery Confederacy." [George Ticknor Curtis to the Editor of the "Times," Richfield Springs, August 20, 1883, in Moore, John Bassett, "The Works of James Buchanan Vol 11." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1910, p.51]_ The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war. That reminds me of this scripture:
_"My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." -- Ps 120:6-7 KJV_ Dan
It's interesting how Jaffa starts out appearing to be pretty rational, willing to grant to DiLorenzo the truth of his points when applicable...but as the discussion progresses, you see just how ridiculously stubborn he is in holding on to the worship of Lincoln. He defends his CLEARLY unconstitutional acts for God's sake! "Because Civil War"...you're bogus Jaffa, end of story.
But Lincoln would be RIGHT, under the federal claim that the USA is a sovereign nation over the states. To counter it, Dilorenzo had to prove the fact that the STATES were sovereign nations, and that the USA was an international union like the UN or the EU. But he DOESN'T, because doesn't know HOW. So they both just quibble back and forth over secondary issues, continually missing the mark.
@@SovereignStatesman No, not a sovereign nation over states but a federalized government authorized to act on behalf of a constellation of unified but still independent state governments. There would have been no USA without independent states agreeing to merge, but not an absolute merging, a limited merging which was understood to in no way abrogate the right of each state to remain its own master. In other words, it takes two to tango but only one to stop the dance. Each state was understood to have final authority to withdraw from the union whenever it saw fit. The federal government did not own the states and each state did not forfeit its fundamental autonomy by carefully and circumspectly agreeing to a Constitutional Federal Government.
@@damianop100 You're right, but you're off on a few details. 1. The American Revolution established every state as a a SEPARATE NATION. 2. The Union formed by the revolution, was an INTERNATIONAL union like the UN or the EU. 3. AFTER the revolution, each state SECEDED from that union; to form ANOTHER international union, via the Constitution. The states NEVER formed a national union, like the states of England and Scotland formed the state of Great Britain in 1707; and it would be kinda hard for BRITISH SUBJECTS IN 1776 to MISS that distinction. That required EXPRESS MANIFESTATION of intention and action, to forever unite as a single nation. To wit: *_"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."_* The Constitution did not contain any such wording, to unite the states into a single federated STATE; and the people and governments of each state did not even act jointly in such a manner, subjecting themselves to the will of the others; but they all ratified the Constitution separately FOR THEIR STATE ONLY. It just says "to form a more perfect union--" i.e. more perfect than the international union they were DEPARTING. That's an INTERNATINOAL union. PERIOD.
Jaffa exhibited a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. Festinger could have used him alongside the Millerites. The poor guy became a Lincoln apologist, using ad hominem arguement against DiLorenzo, to present his weak case. DiLorenzo was articulate and stayed on point.
John Brown , you wrote, "You are another victim of slick Tommy DiLorenzo's unrepresentative cherry-picking of facts and half-truths." Perhaps you will show us some of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's cherry-picking, Johnny Boy? I eagerly await. Dan
Richard Morris: Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU. BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
@@SovereignStatesman If we were to judge the debate on a purely technical debate basis, as distinct from substance, you may be correct in your "failed to assert" observation. At best, this is a technical issue. Sort of like a court not having the guts to hear a controversial case and rules the plaintiff does not have standing and never gets to the merits. Likewise, if we judge the debate according to the substance of the right to secede, then Jaffa failed to convince me. My understanding is SCOTUS Chief Justice at the time, and everyone else at the time --- including such states as Massachusetts who have previously threatened to leave but were negotiated into remaining, agreed any state may legally secede. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the right to secede and the writings at the time all seem to me to point to this right. Not to mention a state such as Texas that entered the union only upon the specific agreement it had the right to secede.
SheafferGordon , you wrote, "Secession being the essence of anarchy? Like the formation of West Virginia?" Secession is okay with the Lincoln Cult as long as Lincoln forces it on a state with the barrel of a gun. Dan
Lincoln's actions were extremely radical when you remember that the USA was in no danger of being invaded by the CSA. Even during WW2, the worst radical domestic action was internment of the Japanese population.
It's a question of national sovereignty. If the USA was a sovereign nation, as the Lincoln Administration claimed (and every administration SINCE); then the CSA was definitely a threat to the integrity of US sovereign territory, and the USA _owned_ the individual states. However since the USA was an international union of SEPARATE nations, like the EU or the UN; then secession was just a BREXIT. This is why Lincoln claimed that "the Union is older than the states;" while his weasel-supporters claim that the CONSTITUTION made the USA into a single nation, since Lincoln's "perpetual union" line is an epic FAIL.
@@SovereignStatesman And that is why Lincoln tried to cut the baby of rebellion vs secession. He said that the South was in rebellion so that he did not have to have Congressional approval to invade the South but then he treated them as if they had seceded because he did not ask for their permission to send the armies into their states and he wanted them to ratify the 13th Amendment to come back into the union. He treated them as independent when it suited him and he treated them as not when it suited him.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "It's a question of national sovereignty. If the USA was a sovereign nation, as the Lincoln Administration claimed (and every administration SINCE); then the CSA was definitely a threat to the integrity of US sovereign territory, and the USA owned the individual states." If that was true, there would be no United States because NO sovereign state would have ratified the Constitution. Chew on that, troll Dan
@@PopeSixtusVI The states owned any forts and armories within their borders - the states paid for the forts. The seceding states paid most of the federal taxes. President Buchanan did not do anything when an armory in Charleston was seized.
@@JohnBrown-dj6yc Except that the states never formed a national union. They WOULD not, and they DID not. The Constitution is meaningless in limiting the federal government, without the power of each state to ENFORCE it by refusing to comply with breaches.
@@SovereignStatesman The states most certainly did form a national union. All the evidence confirms that they did. All you have to do is read the First Inaugural Addresses of every U.S. President up to Abraham Lincoln and this fact is confirmed. Each one of them refers to the United States as a nation. It is not possible to have a nation, without it being a national union. To say otherwise is a contradiction and logical fallacy. Are you going to tell me that founding fathers like George Washington, James Madison, and even Thomas Jefferson were wrong and that we never were a nation? Furthermore, I challenge you to find anyone who disagreed with them but pointed out that we are not a nation, but a compact of nations.
The CSAs premises for secession from the U.S. were considerably stronger than the Colonies premises for secession from the U.K. The Northern tariffs on the South were orders of magnitude greater than the various taxes imposed by the Crown.
That's false on pretty much every level. First of all there were no "Northern Tariffs on the South". Tariffs were federal laws that applied to the entire nation. They were not passed by one region against another one. Second of all, the last federal law passed on tariffs before secession was the 1857 tariff act, which reduced tariff rates to historical lows. Third of all, the issue that caused the colonists to revolt in 1775 wasn't taxation. It was taxation without representation, IE being taxed by a government they had no voting power over. If those same taxes had been passed by the colonial governments instead of the British parliment (who the colonists did not vote on), they would have been willing to pay them. The Southern states, of course, had full representation in the American government, and in fact they had dominated it for a very long time. The candidates overwhelmingly voted for by the South had won the last two Presidential Elections prior to 1860. Finally, all that is actually besides the point, because the Confederate premises for secession had nothing to do with taxes. They were all about slavery. If Lincoln had never mentioned one word about taxes in his entire life, it would have made no difference. Secession and war still would have happened, because the South seceded and started the war entirely due to their desire to preserve and expand slavery. We know this because the Confederate leaders openly said so. Literally every single Confederate state declaration of secession that cited their motivation for secession cited slavery. The words "taxes" or "tax" do not appear in any of them. The CSA was formed for slavery, fought the war for slavery, and died for slavery. Without slavery there would have been no secession and no war.
Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU. BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
Tom DiLorenzo is incredible. Between his work on Lincoln, How Capitalism Saved America, and the Myth of Natural Monopoly, has to be the best historin of our generation. Thanks for the upload.
In my experience of reading Tom DiLorenzo's works on Lincoln, they are full of half-truths and out-and-out lies mixed with a variety of questionable assessments and sub par analyses. Mr. DiLorenzo is a political manipulator of the magnitude of Bill Clinton times ten!
@StoneWall Jackson I haven't read "A New Birth of Freedom". But Jaffas arguments in this debate with DiLorenzo are solid and supportable by documentary history.
@@board247 Hardly. Jaffa is a clown when it come to history. He should have been a poet. Read the 1 star reviews of his book on Amazon to see how off base he is.
@@66605 Jaffa is far from the best or most authoritarian Lincoln historian and scholar out there, but he is immeasurably far ahead of DiLorenzo when it comes to legitimacy and the accurate application of knowledge and facts.
@@board247 Your comments about T. DiLorenzo are just assertions. Can you back any of it up? I was skeptical about what DiLorenzo had to say about Lincoln myself. I looked at the facts and the history and found he was spot on.
Dilorenzo is incredible. Jaffa continually gives mostly opinion only, with Dilorenzo listing facts and quotes rapid fire. What we are taught in school about Lincoln shows once again that those who win the war get to write the history books.
IRRELEVANT facts. The ONLY relevant fact, is that the individual states are separate, sovereign nations, and the USA is an international union like the UN or the EU. National sovereignty trumps EVERYTHING. So by failing to assert national sovereignty, Dilorenzo CONCEDES the current federal claim that the USA is a sovereign nation OVER the individual states; and that therefore there was a civil war which was a failed rebellion. In reality, the federal government ran amuck as a terrorist operation claiming national authority of a sovereign nation that doesn't exist.. just like on 9/11 with Al-Queda and the Nation of Islam.
@@SovereignStatesman The U.S. States are not independent, sovereign states. It is clear if you read the U.S. Constitution that they are not sovereign, but that sovereignty lies in We the People of the United States of America. The original states relinquished their sovereign claims when they ratified and adopted the U.S. Constitution.
@@board247 Saying the states lost their sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution is just an assertion on your part. Where is the proof? The Constitution doesn't say so. The "People" the Constitution refers to, who made the government, are the people of the individual political societies known as states. They are the sovereigns in our system of government. They have the right to change their government if they choose to do so. Who is Lincoln to tell them otherwise? When the states seceded they withdrew the powers they delegated to the federal government and resumed the to themselves. They had every right to do so.
@@66605 If you actually read the U.S. Constitution, it is clear that the states did give up their national sovereignty, relinquishing it to "We The People of the United States" as represented by the central Federal Government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson delineates the benchmarks of national sovereignty as the " power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, etc." These are precisely the powers that the individual states of the United States relinquished to the U.S. Federal Government.
At 1:43:52 Jaffa talks about Lincoln's Special Message to Congress, saying that every state agreed to the Constitution. However Lincoln FIRST claimed that "no state was ever a sovereignty," and that they declared independence from Great Britain as a SINGLE nation, saying that the states "did not declare independence from the Union." Here, Lincoln EQUIVOCATED over the term "independence," referring to national sovereignty vs. simple group-affiliation. And so with this legal slight-of-hand, he insinuated that the UNION declared independence from Great Britain as a single nation-state; when in reality, the United Colonies were declared to to be Free and Independent STATES, from the STATE of Great Britain; with "the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent STATES may of right do." So the American Revolution established EACH STATE as a separate nation; and the Constitution simply formed an INTERNATIONAL compact, like the UN.
What I got from this debate: Jaffa: Really dirge-like recodification of conventional views. DiLorenzo: Well thought out thoght provoking arguments. Jaffa: "That's not true. You lying, Hitler loving neo-confederate!" Audience Member: (In a smug, self rightgeous tone that makes you want to smack him accross the face with a shovel.) "Hey DiLorenzo, You support the right to slavery. Do you also support the rape of 9 year old girls? Where do you the line?" DiLorenzo: (In his head)"What the hell did I get myself into." Me at home: " What kind of a nutcase asks if someone supports child rape in a debate about Abraham Lincoln, secesion and states rights? Seriously, what kind of twisted, messed up mind makes those kind of leaps?"
It's a good thing nut-cases blurt out their ignorant points of view. It's much easier to identify them which allows them to be avoided. Twisted is putting it mildly. Nice summation!
The more Jaffa spoke, the more confused I became. Whereas the more DiLorenzo spoke, the more clearly I understood. DiLorezo was complimentary and classy. Jaffa, not so much. My belief that Lincoln destroyed this union is now more solidified than ever. I’m still waiting for a good counter argument, but I don’t think I’ll ever get one…
What do you expect from a “professor of government” whom is a fellow at the Ford! Rockefeller! And Guggenheim foundations!!!!! Lmao This is a brilliant case against the establishment.
Tell me Mr.Jaffa ..Going with your Idea the U.S.S.R should still be in existence and the satellite states they ruled should still be part of the Iron Curtain .....
It is disingenuous to compare the situation with the U.S.S.R. with the situation of the United States. Most notable is that the Confederate States were proactively repudiating the principles and values of the American Revolution, especially those of universal natural rights and the truth that "All Men are Created Equal". That is why their movement had to be quashed and Lincoln's actions were both necessary and justified.
@Kyle Clark Actually, if you look at what the Secessionists were pursuing they were rejecting and violating all of the founding principles and doctrines pursued by the Founding Fathers. That is why they were so dangerous and it was essential to stop them! They rejected Democracy and Republicanism by rejecting the legitimate and lawful election of a president. They further rejected these principles when they rejected popular sovereignty in the U.S. Territories. They rejected the principles of liberty, equality, and justice of all claiming the equality of the white man depended on the enslavement of those of African descent. They even rejected the principle of "State's Sovereignty" whey they rejected the right of northern states to nullify the unjust and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act.
@@board247 your premise is just inaccurate. Your whole case is based on the civil war "was about slavery" lie. If it wasn't, than you have no case. Watch these videos and get back to me. th-cam.com/video/Yg3G6Gdtn3Y/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/PHT6T-nyNfE/w-d-xo.html
Drew Yazbeck My premise is not inaccurate, I have provided you with actual document evidence and could provide you with far more documentary evidence if needed. What more proof do you need? I will watch your videos when I have the chance, but I will tell you upfront I am not a fan of Ron Paul. He makes some good points, but in general I find him to be uninformed and faulty in many of his views. AS for the Abbeville Institute, all of the articles and videos I have investigated by them have proven to be little more than "Lost Cause" propaganda so I don't give that organization much weight or credibility.
Did they forget to tell Jaffa the topic of the debate? I feel like he was debating against the resolution: "The south wer gud guyz and slavery was kewl" or something like that.
Heh, heh, heh....I think Napoleon once said, Don't interrupt an enemy when he is in the midst of making mistake. Commie/socialist, hate mongering Democrats are duplicitous and prejudiced and economics dishonest, so ya just let 'em spew their lies and stick their feet in their big mouths.
He's clearly lost and tripping over himself. Might have been a different debate were he twenty years younger. But I admire him getting up there to bring a " knife to a gunfight."
As usual, DiLorenzo starched this regime stenographer's shirt, just as he does all the rest of the Lincoln apologists. This wasn't even close. Jaffa is an arrogant clown.
Lincoln was a tyrant and the only thing that keeps that from being apparent to everyone is the facade of fighting for liberty that abolition gives him (emancipation in my opinion was more about hurting the south and killing the means of secessionists to resist the almost imperialist federal government than a deeply held belief in minority equality as we know it today) and the martyrdom of his assassination. The more I learn about Lincoln the more I detest the way he trampled on the constitution as it was written and individual rights. He was nuts and I can think of a million ways the civil war and all that death and destruction could've been avoided, while still achieving nationwide abolition of slavery. Lincoln did not believe in liberty or small government and while I'm still a republican it's only because of free trade, libertarianism and limited government that the party stands for today and not because Lincoln himself championed those values, he did not!
DiLorenzo mentions Lysander Spooner, a well known abolitionist prior to the war. It seems a central issue as debated here was the constitutionality of secession. For probably the most incisive and reasoned commentary on this, read Spooner's "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority", which questions the authority of the constitution based on contract law. It is fairly quick read.
Yes, I have read No Treason No. 6, ,The Constitution of No Authority and agree with Spooner and with Marc Stevens (he has disappeared and I know not why). The colonists would not have immediately turn 'round and put their necks under the heel of an all powerful central government having just recently shed the chains of the English and their central government. The colonists would certainly respected each other to go his separate way and would never have and never did approve of using force/violence/aggression to prevent any colony from peacefully departing. The colonists erred in supplanting Jehovah God with the new god, We The People, and Amerikans were enslaved to the corporate central government and have suffered and been punished ever since. i have challenged 7 judges 6 in their courtrooms before witnesses/bureaucrats and not one of these "judges" had the factual evidence that the manmade constitution and "law' applied to me. i.e. they had no proof of jurisdiction. Why don't they ave a little card like the Miranda Warning showing the factual evidence and proof of jurisdiction? Why wasn't this little cart provided the first day of "law" school? Three states, Virginia, New York and Rhode island had in their ratification documents the provision for leaving the "union" it they saw it turning down the "dark path." Jaffa refused to admit the simple truth that politics is violence and manmade political governments are the bane and pain of humanity; they are not Christian; they are diabolical. This of course is understandable as Jaffa is a Jew. The Bible in Revelation teaches us that the troika of evil, that wicked consort of politics, commerce and "false religion," will be destroyed in the end. I recommend 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 political, manmade, government schools and one private school that I attended.
NOT if the people CONSENT to it. And consent to government, means SUPREMACY OVER it. And that's EXACTLY what they had with the Constitution, with each state being a separate nation. The USA was just an INTERNATIONAL union like the UN or the EU; and that's why they could secede.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "NOT if the people CONSENT to it. And consent to government, means SUPREMACY OVER it." That is true only in the mind of the tyrant. The avenues of consent by the states to the general government were outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Any usurpation -- any adoption of power over the states beyond that clearly defined and authorized consent -- by the general government, constitutes tyranny, troll. Dan
Is it me or does Jaffa seem to give his opinion rather then cite sources? Oh, wait, he did cite a quote by George Washington regarding sovereignty and uses the example of coining money which was delegated to Congress. Using his argument that the states were not sovereign due to this lack of right I guess you can say the United States is no longer sovereign since Congress relinquished its power to coin money to the Federal Reserve, a private central bank, in 1913 with the 13th amendment. And that brought us the 16th amendment aka income tax. One more item of interest was the passing of the 17th amendment which took the states control to appoint Senators to represent state interest and if a Senator was not acting in the best interest of a state he could be removed. The 17th amendment put the Senators under the control of the Federal government and no longer serve the interests of their respective states. The civil war began the end of the United States established through blood, sweat, and tears of our founding fathers and the men and women who fought for freedom.
Yeah, it's weird how Congress does things. According to the Constitution, it can't "delegate" the power to coin money, but it DID with the Federal Reserve system. American banks can literally create money out of NOTHING. So, does this mean that the Federal Reserve system is "sovereign," but the States are not? But in the end, Jaffa was totally wrong. The indivudual States WERE sovereign in every sense of the word, on an equal footing with England or France. Unfortunately, they let their sovereignty be frittered away in the confusion of the war of secession with England and the siren song of the fear of anarchy sung by Alexander Hamilton, and subsequent events.
"the Federal Reserve, a private central bank, in 1913 with the 13th amendment" Splain, please, as the 13th Amendment was in 1865, and abolished involuntary African servitude in all the several States.
1776, what troubles greatly about our founders is: why didn't they demand that king give up allodial title to the land? Surely private property ownership is fundamental to liberty. I've never understood this
1776blues "Oh, wait, he did cite a quote by George Washington regarding sovereignty and uses the example of coining money which was delegated to Congress." Then by that logic, the Euro-dollar made the EU into a single nation as well. Actually, there is only ONE WAY that nation-states can unite as a single nation: BY EXPRESSLY SAYING SO. They didn't.
The idea of a civil war can be put to bed easily, enough. Had it actually been a civil war the confederate army would have turned east and kicked Lincoln's tyrannical ass after the first battle of Manassas
Also, the Founders always called us a union for a reason. A union, by definition, is the coming together of totally independent separate parts to form a whole. That matches with the Declaration of Independence which states that we are "a union of free and independent states that have the right that free and independent states aught to have including the right to wage war, conduct commerce, and negotiate treaties how they see fit". An union that is force to stay together is not a union by definition.
Imnotalone Heswithme: Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU. BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
Stonewall Jackson wanted to cross the Potomac and take Washington early in the war but Jeff Davis said no. It was a decision that he regretted the rest of his life. The thinking is had Jackson went ahead with his plan to capture Washington that the war would have ended earlier with the South being victorious.
t44e6: Jaffa could beat Mike Tyson, if Tyson failed to show. Similarly, Dilorenzo failed assert that the USA was an international union; and so he forfeited the point. There is no right to secede from a NATIONAL union.
@@abelk918 It doesn't matter. Dilorenzo FORFEITED the argument, when he failed to assert that the USA is an international union. So Jaffa just won by default.
@@SovereignStatesman time stamp? I don't understand your argument. What does "international union" mean? Seems like you're making a linguistics argument instead of a principled one. Does no state ever have the right to succeed? Even if (to take it to the extreme) congress passed a 100% income tax law just on their state? The "Tax California to Death Bill," 100% income tax just in California? California doesn't have a right to succeed? Surely at some point a state can voluntarily disband from the union? Or, Mafia style? Once you're about that life you can never leave?
Never trust a guy that combs 15 hairs over a bald head and think no one will notice, It's a easy to see through those 15 hairs as it is to see through his absurd statements.
Nothing to do with the Constitution? I’m not sure if this man has passed away, but I think Jefferson Davis made a great argument of secession in his own book. The Rise and Fall of The Confederate Government By Jefferson Davis
No, Jaffa, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If slavery was abhorrent in 1776, then non slave states should never have entered into a union with slave states. I would not fight to keep any state within the union. If the New England states wanted to form a country or join Canada....I would want these states to take their share of the national debt with them....and bye bye!
ALL the states allowed slavery in 1776. New Hampshire was the first to abolish, in 1777. But it's irrelevant: each state was a SEPARATE SOVEREIGN NATION since 1776. And the Constitution didn't conjoin that as a single nation; but simply established the state ELECTORATES as the principal sovereign AUTHORITY over their respective nation-state. The federal government simply became their delegated agent. So when the electorate of any state vote to secede; that was a BREXIT.
The new England's states wanted to secede in 1804 under Timothy Piven, who was Washington's secretary of state, so not a nobody, but they secessionist lost by public plebiscite. Nobody objected to that, no deaths,no military invasion.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry etc all believed in the right of secession. Even though Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government, he still believed a state has a right to leave that government rather than be forced to be in that government. Lincoln believed you “must” submit to the federal authority. Completely going against the Declaration of Independence and the founders mindset. The founders never wanted or even imagined that the federal government would grow as big as it has today.
"if people can break up the government rather than accept the results of a fairly conducted election than the only alternatives are anarchy or tyranny". Hey look lincoln and i agree on something! Though something tells me we may be reaching different conclusions.
What preposterous nonsense from Jaffa....any state that did not want slavery should never have joined the union....but most of the 13 states had slavery....if the founders were so smart, they should have spelled out secession. Ol' Abe, rail splitter, had the principles of Lenin....Might makes Right.....The End justifies the Means.
The fatal flaw of Jaffa's argument is that the Union was a "contract" between the States rather than a voluntary "compact". Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "contract" appear and Jaffa's sleight of hand in transposing the terms does not make it so. If the founders had believed that separating from the Union was impossible there would have been no Union. We had just endured a bloody war to SECEDE from such a union with England. Moreover, many of the States specifically included the RIGHT to withdraw from the Union in their signatory documents.
You're missing the point with semantics. The Constitution simply did NOT FORM A NATIONAL UNION AMONG THE STATES. The world "Nation" does not even appear ONCE. And nationhood cannot be INFERRED by outside sources against sovereign nations.
You make my point. I never used the term "Nation" in my comment. It was Lincoln who transformed the Founding Fathers vision of a VOLUNTARY Union_____similiar to todays' European Union (from which England recently seceded), into an INVOLUNTARY Union, similiar to the USSR. Both Lincoln and Putin went to war to deny State Sovereingnty. The classical meaning of the word "State" IS "Nation", as in the French State, the German State, or the State of Israel. (Sovereign Countries.) When Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army he said it was to go fight for his "Country", Virginia.
It seems to me, and rather clear, that Lincoln had a very strong political reason, as a committed Whig, to do what the Whig party stood for, and for which the GOP was also strongly committed to implementing. In my estimation, with the information I have to draw from, Lincoln was a kind of Progressive, in modern-day parlance. He usurped the Constitution, and has blood on his hands, even if what he may have envisioned, i.e., more centralized power to the Federal govt., turned out to cost so much in blood and treasure. One cannot be for the Constitution, and truncate it, no matter the political aims and aspirations, or the messiness of sticking to the rule of law, even in war!
@@PopeSixtusVI Lincoln clearly started it by sending a warship to Ft. Sumpter in an effort to cause a false flag event.. He was successful.. The south responded in self defense. Not one person died at Fort Sumpter. Lincoln then attacked full force, as was his plan in the beginning.
He did by the standards of Racism of today. Lincoln stated in his Fourth Debate with Douglas in 1858. Lincoln stated that the blacks inferior to the white race. He said blacks shouldn't marry whites. He said blacks shouldn't live with whites. He said they shouldn't be allowed to vote or serve on Jury's. Five Northern States didn't allow blacks in their States for any reason. Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution that didn't allow blacks to travel through Illinois much less live there. Lincoln like His Political Hero Henry Clay. He was a lifetime Advocate for Colonizing the blacks out of the country. He told Frederick Douglass that it would be best if he and the other blacks were Colonized out of the country. You see the Lincoln taught is a myth and a lie.
Jaffa is simply trying his best to uphold his credentials here, he's been paid well to write propaganda but his arguments are without merit. He has taken a few facts and expanded that into some kind of nonsensical gibberish in defense of being a total sellout to correct history...
Samsgarden , you wrote, "Jaffa invokes Godwin's law. Ouch!" Ironically, Jaffa supported an all-powerful, central-planning type of government, much like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama, and etc.. Dan
Samsgarden: the irony is that WW2 only HAPPENED because Lincoln ended the right of secession, which abrogated the Hartford Convention precedent of KEEPING THE UNION OUT OF FOREIGN WARS. After Lincoln, lobbyists were able to force the USA into foreign wars like WWI, which CAUSED WW2. Lincoln's precedent gave the federal government ABSOLUTE POWER over the people of every state.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Thus the irony: i.e. he [Jaffa] believes in oligarchy, as long as it's BENEVOLENT oligarchy. Obviously that's just plain arrogance." Yes, you have to be pretty arrogant, or ignorant, to believe a handful of rulers will ever serve anyone but themselves and their political connections. That point was somewhat brought out by the editor of the National Gazette in this 1792 editorial: _"As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves." [Philip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792, Rule 5]_ The National Gazette was a newspaper founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to fight against the monarchial tendencies of the "federalists" (so-called,) and in particular against Alexander Hamilton. Dan
@@BibleResearchTools, of course Jaffa invoked "Godwin's Law." Jaffa is a Jew. It is ironic that the commie/socialist, hate mongering Democrats spew the kind of awful words reminiscent of the 1920s, '30s and '40s. Do they not see the duplicity? The reality is that voting is an act of violence. Tolstoy wrote about politics and violence in The Law of Love and The Law of Violence.
Jaffa at 17 minutes said that the South didn’t appeal to the right of revolution because no Constitutional rights had been violated so they instead appealed to secession. Hard to believe that Lincoln and the North was that clean because of how Lincoln violated many rights of Northerners during the war including shutting down free speech and the presses of hundreds of newspapers in the North. Lincoln did all that to the Northerners so we are to believe Jaffa that Lincoln and the North treated the South fairly. That’s laughable. History proves that the North and Lincoln were willing to violate any rights at any time for their aims and the South and the North knew it and the South said, “We are out of here.” Secondly, if the South seceded to preserve slavery then why did states keep slavery which didn’t secede? Jaffa is wrong again. There only had to be one state that didn’t secede and kept slavery in the North to prove that secession wasn’t about slavery, and in fact there were three, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. They didn’t secede and kept slavery. So the South didn’t secede in order to keep its slavery.
@16:25 Yes there were propably many reasons. Most important reason being that their goal was not the complete dissolution or destruction of the union but freedom from the union. Hence secession instead of revolution. Why is he talking about revolution then?
Lots of interesting information presented by both sides, but a large amount of the debate was the two talking at cross-purposes. DiLorenzo spent a lot of time talking about Lincoln's commitment to 'Whiggish economic policies', while Jaffa went to lengths to show that Lincoln deftly navigated very difficult circumstances. There didn't seem to be much disagreement on these areas, so I don't see much of a point in them both spending so much time on them. One of the few areas around which there was a clear back and forth was one of the least interesting in my view, that of constitutionality. It would have been a more productive debate if both had spent more time talking about whether more could have been done to bring about the end of slavery peacefully - this was touched on towards the end, but it would have been interesting to hear both of them flesh out their arguments here more, as in my view a large part of how Lincoln should be evaluated historically hinges on this point. The question of states' (moral) rights to succession in tension with individuals' rights not to be enslaved would also have been an interesting one to be explored further (although perhaps this might be seen as a diversion from the initial topic). The questioner at 1:40:13 pointed towards an obvious and important weak link in DiLorenzo's perspective - it was provocatively phrased, but his dismissal of it makes it hard for me to agree with most of the others commenting that DiLorenzo made a very impressive showing in the debate.
Jaffa starts yelling “YOU’RE WRONG” the moment DiLorenzo nails him with the zinger, Thomas is absolutely correct that Virginia indeed did ratify the constitution with the expressed right of secession of all states, and this was accepted by all other states. Jaffa is angry because he knows that singular action destroys his mythical history.
Saying we need the government more because of 911 I'd exactly why statism is ridiculous. The actions of the federal government provoked the incident in the first place and our government agencies ignored the red flags that predicted the event. The federal government is at least indirect the cause through action/inaction so saying it must also be the solution is a stretch to say the least.
What was Jaffa's main point? A revolution is a right but secession is not a right? Why would he think that makes sense? FYI, dude, the Constitution of the united States of America specifically says that if "it" is not mentioned in the Constitution then the several states can come to their own conclusion on "it." By that logic if the any one of the several states want to secede, for whatever reason, they have every right to do so. How can the guy be so blind to this? And, of course, I don't think he is. He is simply the mouth piece for a group that wants to keep this "Union" idea cemented in the minds of the soft.
Secession is a right of SOVEREIGN NATION-STATES. The federal government claimed that the USA is a sovereign nation-state, and that the individual states are SUBORDINATE to it. Dilorenzo did NOT assert the national sovereignty of the individual states; and so he CONCEDED the federal claim.
Lincoln and the civil war are to 1860 what Assad is to Syria today....similar numbers too where you have a country that before the civil war had about 30 million people and suffered more than half a million deaths.
@@ramieskola7845not bs and just saying “Bs” is not a sound logical argument. You must be more devoted to the nation than to Reason (God) like Pharaoh was to Egypt in Exodus. Such a misplaced devotion, as Lincoln had, and as many so called patriots (who are a detriment to the nation too when they truly abandon Reason for their irrational misconceptions of service to the nation) have, has rational consequences.
Jaffa refers to the British Constitution. "Although the UK constitution is not yet codified, the UK Supreme Court recognises constitutional principles,[9] and constitutional statutes,[10] which shape the use of political power." From Wiki. So, there is no written British Constitution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
In the question of who possessed the sovereignty , Jaffa asserted that whoever possessed the power to coin money was the sovereign. This is more garbage Jaffa just pulled out of Lincoln's tall hat of Lies. I don't think DiLorenzo gave a sufficient counterpoint. Here is the answer to that. Actually the a better sign of who possessed the ultimate sovereignty is who possessed the power to ratify the constitution and who possessed the sole power to ratify any amending articles. Ratification means granting approval. =================================================== 1. who possessed the power to Ratify the Constitution (Article 7). [Article 7 says that it was a Constitution between the States that ratified it, with nine of the 13 States (only a majority). Only nine States. Not all the States. That meant if only Nine States ratified the other 4 States were not obligated in any way to approve. Hense, a VOLUNTARY UNION. If only Eight States approved. No Constitution. And everything would have remained under the Articles of Confederation. Ratification of the original Articles of Confederation and any amending articles required the consent of ALL 13 States. 2. who possessed the power the Ratify any Amending Articles to the Constitution (Article 5: The States). Specifically 3 / 4 of the States. Again. Only a majority of the States. Article 5 shows two ways Amending Articles could be drafted and proposed, but in each way, they still had to go somewhere for ratification. THE STATES. And this is exactly what happened in the first federal convention after the constitution had been ratified and went into effect. The convention came up with 12 amending articles. Those articles went to the States to approve or disprove them. The States accepted only 10 of those amending articles. Which means THE STATES had the power to REJECT any proposed Amendments. Those first amending articles today we call the Bill of Rights. Which means the States had the ultimate say over what Articles could be added or deleted. Which means it is inarguable to deny that the States retained their sovereignty. And if they retained the sovereignty, THEY RETAINED THEIR RIGHT TO SECEDE.
Then why is the USA still claimed to be a single nation? If Dilorenzo won, he'd prove that each state was a separate nation-- not quibble over what was and wasn't "constitutional," since federal discretion is FINAL otherwise.
@@SovereignStatesman Tom Evans, you wrote, "Then why is the USA still claimed to be a single nation?" No, the states are still sovereign powers, and the general government is still their agent for the general welfare (e.g., weights and measures,) and the common defense (e.g., the navy,) even if the people of the United States are under siege by central-planning tyrants. Dan
The issue WAS slavery, to a central government, a central bank and a standing army. It describes where this country has been ever since and remain increasingly so today. Either the shoe fits or it doesn't. The shoe fits.
lmao @ the pink shirt guy towards the end of the Q&A. In typical leftist and neo-con fashion, his only way to criticize any libertarian position is to reach into a magic hat for absurd hypotheticals in a shameless attempt to make libertarianism look as bad as humanly possible. I'm glad DiLorenzo didn't put up with it. Just a waste of a question for the speakers.
@18:29 '...free government would be impossible.' What is a 'free' government? Government is free from what? Or free to do what? It cannot be free people since the very existence of a government means that people are not free but ruled.
Jaffa sounds like the democrats of today trying to say the 2020 election was clean. Maybe we should research whether Lincoln's election was really clean.
16:30 The south didn't argue the right of Revolution, as in the Declaration of Independence; because they WON that Revolution in 1783; and became FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT _STATES;_ i.e. 13 sovereign nations. And a state only has to do that ONCE. And no, they did NOT unite as a single nation via the Constitution; but only established the state ELECTORATES as the principal authority over their respective state, while the federal government was only their DELEGATED AGENT of an international compact.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) followed the dialectical method of Hegel arguing that the State is preeminent above the individual. Note Marx is writing at the same time as the war of 1861 is going on and surely his ideas had some proponents on this side of the pond. Marx’s ideas would have been consistent with what DiLorenzo has stated were LIncoln’s plan for a centralized STATE. It’s a thesis. Someone can propose an argument. I would have to see if Lincoln read any of Marx’s works or otherwise influenced. It could explain why Lincoln had a different take on what the land was to become or should become and why it differed so much from Jefferson’s view, Jefferson presumably knowing more of the Geiste of the Constitutional righting era.
Jaffa seems sincere but a believer of big government and DiLorenzo a proponent of limited government. I see more factual statements and support with DiLorenzo's. A true libertarian has to deal with the reality of facing a government establishment. DiLorenzo is coming from the economic side and Jaffa from an interpretation of the constitution allowing for a necessary war.
Jaffa simply REPEATS the current federal claim, that the USA is a single federated state over individual DEPENDENT states, like Brazil; and that therefore the federal government held principal sovereign authority over the individual states. And Dilorenzo does not PROVE that the USA is an international union of separate independent nation-states, like the UN or the EU. So Dilorenzo FORFEITS the debate; and therefore Jaffa simply observes that federated states have the supreme power and obligation to defend and secure their national integrity against foreign and domestic enemies. If Dilorenzo HAD proved that the USA is an international union of separate sovereign nation-stats like the UN or the EU; then he would have WON the debate; because sovereign nation-states have the supreme power to secede from international unions.
You can't have limited government without national sovereignty AND principal sovereign authority in the state electorate. Jaffa simply repeats the current federal claim that says the states have neither; and Dilorenzo does nothing to disprove him.
1:32:59 At this point I lost my patience with Dr. Jaffa. After going way over on his 5 minute rebuttal, and taking way too much time to answer an audience question, he then interrupts Mr. DiLorenzo. He debates like a tyrant and a bully.
Lincoln was/is such a shibbolith! But, like Hamilton, you can't simply throw him in the trash... The debate should have been between Jaffa and Lerone Bennett Jr. Sr. editor of Ebony magazine, and author of FORCED INTO GLORY... IMHO
Also, does Mr DiLorenzo not stop to think that nowhere near all the citizens of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas etc even wanted to secede? Was not the impulsive declaration of secession without a popular vote a form of government tyranny? Just because it was a state government doing it doesn't somehow make it more justified - unilaterally declaring your state is leaving the country against the wishes of any of its inhabitants is the definition of tyranny
The same argument could be made for those in northern states who wanted to secede. But more importantly, the 10th amendment to the constitution makes it a state legislature matter.
16:41 "there were no abuses to use the right of succession" What? What about the extreme import taxes the Northern big business men were prompting their friends in the Federal government to impose? When any government ' starts picking 'winners and losers', you've got a tyrannical 'abusive' government...The word 'fair' means 'fair to all' or fair to the 'nation', not to the few...
1:38:15 so what about water torture is constitutional? I thought the eighth amendment mentioned something about not torturing people especially when it comes to them exercising there freedom of the press.
I'm not. Everyone's been indoctrinated by the American society, to believe that the USA is "one nation, indivisible;" and by failing to counter this, Dilorenzo CONCEDES that belief. One must PROVE that each state is a separate nation, in order to defy the federal claim.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "Everyone's been indoctrinated by the American society, to believe that the USA is "one nation, indivisible;" and by failing to counter this, Dilorenzo CONCEDES that belief. One must PROVE that each state is a separate nation, in order to defy the federal claim." Federalism is defined as a separation of powers, troll -- a confederation, rather than rule by a bunch of arrogant, power-hungry, central-planning elitists. Hitler despised federalism, and praised Bismarck for consolidating the German states into a central government. This paragraph compares the doctrines of Lincoln, Bismarck, and Lenin, all of which opposed federalism: _"All three [Lincoln, Bismarck, and Lenin] were solitary men, who lived with their concentration of purpose. None liked to deal in demagogy and none cared for official pomp: even Bismarck complained that he could not be a courtier and assured Grant and others - as he must have believed quite sincerely - that he was not really a monarchist but a republican. Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin - though contemptuous of bureaucracy, since he could not himself imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat - began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net." [Edmund Wilson, "Patriotic Gore: studies in the literature of the American Civil War." Oxford University Press, 1962, pp.xvi-xvii]_ One of Hitler's speeches, while praising Bismarck's consolidation of power, sounded eerily similar to parts of Lincoln's first inaugural. This is Adolf "Abraham" Hitler:
_"In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges."_
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.566] And this is Abraham "Adolf" Lincoln:
_"[T]he Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."_
[First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.253-254]
Both Hitler and Lincoln had dictator-speak down to a science Dan
@1:31:00 That guy had one crazy hypothetical. You would hope if a whole state sanctioned that behavior it would have been quelled before session ever became the issue. Then again there is the propaganda machine of Hollyweird;-)
Interesting. Jaffa seemed to offer more opinion than logical arguments. The few he did use were flawed and circular. Not even remotely convincing. However, DiLorenzo is also wrong that slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The South could have easily won that war by freeing their slaves; the slave question was the only thing holding Britain back from coming to their defense. They chose slavery over British assistance, which demolishes any notion that slavery wasn't an important element to the conflagration. Was Lincoln a tyrant? YES. Were the Southerners fighting for slavery? YES. So the moral of the story is that everyone's an a$$hole, which is usually the reason all wars are fought in the first place.
What I find inconceivable is that anyone actually believes that the Confederate States were proponents of states rights. Sure, they included some measures in their constitution that seem to support less government, but when it came down to actually supporting states' rights they did not do so. They repudiated the Northern States' right to nullify the highly unconstitutional slave laws and they rejected popular sovereignty which at its essence was the principle of states' rights. In reality, they were just looking to reinforce their own political power and economic interests in protecting slavery as an institution.
It doesn't matter. The federal government currently claims that the USA is a single nation over the states; and Dilorenzo does not successfully COUNTER that claim; and therefore he CONCEDES it... and the right of states to secede out of the fact of their national sovereignty.
You obviously missed the economic argument in freeing the slaves. Who's to pay the owners? What will you do with 40% of a population that doesn't have any way of supporting themselves? Who's paying for their education? Also the security element. These were real concerns/problems that were very well known at the time and also considered very seriously in the south. The north could easily talk since they were not offering a real plan of action
The Constitution is an international compact among separate, sovereign nation-states. END OF DISCUSSION. If you argue that, you win; if you don't, you LOSE since you concede the federal argument. DILORENZO LOST.
Jaffa was to die about 20 days later. A fact filled talk from experience of a lifetime in history. While historians disagree, as here, remember: Education is the consideration of other ideas. This is a good example of the complexity of decisions and their impact. Douglas would of had a whole different impact on the US as we know it today. Lawson di Ransom Canyon
Having now listened to argument and rebuttal Jaffa's position is clear. Slavery was bad therefore that must have been Lincoln's reason. I was really looking forward to seeing a Lincoln gunslinger destroyed...this was sad....but I guess that's really the best they've got.
If slavery's "bad," then why does the 13th Amendment say it's okay as punishment for crimes; meaning that it's not cruel or unusual, as prohibited by the 8th Amendment? Meanwhile the Supreme Court in Butler v. Perry says that slavery only leads to bad consequences, but that the individual can still owe duties to the state like military service or unpaid labor. So obviously he's a hippo-crite.
From what I've read regarding those ~30 years leading up to the Civil War, it was the North constantly making concession after concession (Compromise of 1820, Kansas Nebraska Act, Fugitive Slave Law) to a demanding South on the issue of slavery. When Northern governments merely wanted to contain slavery to where it currently existed, Southerners somehow took that as an attack on their way of life. Indeed a trifecta of appeasing Northern presidents (Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan) made it their goal to never try to reduce slavery given the South's angry outbursts when it was even suggested that slavery not be permitted to unlimited expansion. In most Southern states Lincoln was omitted from the ballot in 1860 - is that not big government tampering with the outcome of an otherwise free and fair election? Of course Mr DiLorenzo ignores and deflects from this reality by saying "bbbbut Lincoln was a racist too" "bbbbut state's rights" while ignoring the vile and heinous treatment slaves suffered at the hands of white Southern governments
The USA is an international union among sovereign nations; and the Constitution simply established the electorate of each state as holding principal sovereign authority OVER their respective nation-state. Dilorenzo doesn't expressly prove this, so he LOSES. There's no need to quibble over what the North or South did or didn't do; the Constitution wasn't a national compact, but INTERNATIONAL like the UN or the EU. So there couldn't be a civil war.
Tom DiLorenzo woke me up on Lincoln. It took some work, but I got there. Every so-called "constitutionalist" needs to watch this.
He makes excellent points that you have to ignore to keep the view of the civil war and Lincoln that we learn as kids in federal government influenced public schools.
@@logicalconceptofficial I think you may have miss spelled government public indoctrination re-education program.
"On the day the American people accepted Abraham Lincoln's invasion of a sovereign state the Republic died and the empire was born." -Washington Post, 1905
P J: the problem is, that a sovereign state can be international, i.e. a sovereign nation-state; or domestic, i.e. part of a federated state or national union.
Lincoln invaded sovereign nation-states. Not just sovereign states.
The states of BRAZIL are sovereign states, but Brazil is still a sovereign nation.
Aggressive abroad and despotic at home.
@@jalander8817 And the 2nd Amendment became the means to defend the despots, not defend _against_ them.
@ P J….I love your quote…however the us government invaded many Indian states and conquered theme the empire was born from the beginning
Powerful.
Harry Jaffa came off looking like such a fool in this debate, Thomas DiLorenzo wiped the floor with him.
I was disappointed that dilorenzo basically let Jaffa disrespect him. He didn’t respond to jaffas arguments on secession at all really
Wow, no one bothered to tell Jaffa what he was supposed to be debating. He uses his entire 30 minutes and barely mentions Lincoln. He just talks about how terrible the South was. What a total rout.
SheepWillbeSheared You mean you still don't realize that's the only argument they have?
This is one of the few intelligent arguments made here against Jaffa. And if at all true, would have been a valid concern. But it is completely inaccurate. What is informative is that this is SheepWillbeSheared
's perception. In actuality and truth, Jaffa directly addressed the issues in question and said very little about "how terrible the South was".
For example:
@ 12:40 Jaffa addresses the fallacy of DiLorenzo's claim that slavery was not the real issue of the U.S. Civil War.
@ 14:15 Jaffa explained that the Right of Secession and the Right of Revolution was not a Semantic difference, but a fundamental difference. He then went on to illustrate how no Civil Rights justifying secession had been violated.
@ 20:00 Jaffa starts to go over the events that led up to the Secession Crises, notably he points to the Secession of the Deep South States from the Northern Democrats in the Democrat Convention in Charleston of 1860.
@ 25:05 Jaffa addresses the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and its effects -- most notably the election of Republicans to Congress.
@ 35:55 Jaffa pointed out that Douglas could not politically subscribe to the Slave Code as defined by Taney, so that split the Democratic Party and led to the election of Abraham Lincoln.
@ 36:05 Jaffa addressed the inaccurate claims that Lincoln's comments in the L-D Debates were explicitly racist. What Lincoln actually believed in was the natural rights of black people and that "no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent."
@ 36:52 Jaffa's final argument is that Lincoln did not try to settle the matter of what would be done if universal emancipation came. Jaffa pointed out that Lincoln did the best that anybody could have possibly done to unite his followers on the questions of principle which applied directly to the great issue of public policy which at that time was slavery in the territories.
[Note that there is no mention of "how terrible the South was".]
John Brown, you wrote, "Jaffa directly addressed the issues in question and said very little about "how terrible the South was".
Fair enough, Johnny Boy.. Slavery was a bad thing, and Dilorenzo has always condemned it. Now, let's look at your first example.
====================
John Brown, you wrote, "@ 12:40 Jaffa addresses the fallacy of DiLorenzo's claim that slavery was not the real issue of the U.S. Civil War."
What? Lincoln himself stated in his 1st Inaugural that he would not invade the states as long as they paid their tariffs, and he made it crystal clear that slavery in the Southern States was not an issue -- at least not to him. He even supported an amendment enshrining in the Constitution the right of the slave states to own slaves! Are you calling Lincoln a liar?
On that point, I have to agree. Lincoln was most definitely a liar -- Major League! But there is absolutely no historical record that supports any notion that Lincoln was concerned about slavery, or of the plight of black people generally. To the contrary, his ideological hero, Henry Clay, was a Kentucky Slave Master; and his wife came from a family of slave holders. Worse, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes that virtually eliminated the right of blacks to live as equal human beings in that state, and even the right of blacks to live in the state, period!
Lincoln was a virulent White Supremacist and White Separatist. Live with it. . .
====================
John Brown, you wrote, "@ 14:15 Jaffa explained that the Right of Secession and the Right of Revolution was not a Semantic difference, but a fundamental difference. He then went on to illustrate how no Civil Rights justifying secession had been violated."
Baloney. Jaffa was a fool! Revolution is an act of overthrowing the central government. The Southern states simply left the central government, with no desire to overthrow them, which is an act of secession.
I don't know where you got your education, Johnny Boy, but if you paid for it I recommend you try to get your money back.
That is sufficient for now. Respond to those in a scholarly manner, and we will address the remainder of Jaffa's deception
s.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools There are some key fallacies in your logic. First regarding your counter-argument to Jaffa's point at 12:40. First note that Lincoln did not start the Civil War. He was not a dictator who, by his say so alone, the war was instigated. He was a public servant given a responsibility to react to actions of war against the United States. When the Southern Secessionists seized federal forts and property, that was an act of war. And subsequently when they attacked Fort Sumter, that was an act of war that put Abraham Lincoln in a position where he was forced to react in response.
However, your assertions regarding Lincoln's Inaugural Address are also in error. In it he expressed his duties by Oath as President. The duties he addressed were the duties of the Executive branch which included collecting the taxes, protecting U.S. property, and delivering the mails. However, there was not a presidential duty or power to free the slaves. In fact the opposite was true. The U.S. Constitution implied this power was reserved to the States. So by expressing his willingness to leave this power in the hands of the states in order to preserve the Union, Lincoln actually demonstrates that Slavery was the key issue and the real cause of the U.S. Civil War -- independent of Lincoln's original intentions on the matter.
Your other point was regarding my points related to Jaffa's point at 14:15. Your only real argument there was that Jaffa was a fool. Well if he was a fool, then why did the forum invite him to debate the issue with DiLorenzo? However, your assertion that Revolution is an attempt to overthrow a central government is not supported by any facts, historical or legal. If that were the case, the the American Revolution was not a revolution either. The colonies would have been executing their legal right to secede - which is complete nonsense. The Declaration itself describes the actions as "throw[ing] off such Government'. This can be considered to be a revolutionary right, but nowhere was it held as a Constitutional right under English Law. Likewise, nowhere is there a State's Right to Secede under the U.S. Constitution.
John Brown, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools There are some key fallacies in your logic. First regarding your counter-argument to Jaffa's point at 12:40. First note that Lincoln did not start the Civil War."
Of course he did. The first act of war occurred when Anderson's troops occupied Fort Sumter. The second occurred when President Buchanan refused to surrender the fort. This is a reference to one of the first acts of war by Lincoln:
_"By a proclamation of April 19 Mr. Lincoln clamped a blockade on the ports of the seceded states, a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war. On April 20 he ordered a total of nineteen vessels to be added immediately to the Navy "for purposes of public defense," and a few days later the blockade was extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina." [Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, p.226]_
==================
John Brown, you wrote, "He was not a dictator who, by his say so alone, the war was instigated."
Lincoln was a dictator. Even some of the most devout Lincolnites, such as Rossiter, admit that:
_"The simple fact that one man was the government of the United States in the most critical period in all its 165 years, and that he acted on no precedent and under no restraint, makes this the paragon of all democratic, constitutional dictatorships. For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal." [Ibid. pp.224, 226]_
The war was also considered by many as avoidable, even in the North. Lincoln committed treason against them -- those in the Northern states who opposed the war -- by making war against them.
==================
John Brown, you wrote, "He was a public servant given a responsibility to react to actions of war against the United States. When the Southern Secessionists seized federal forts and property, that was an act of war. And subsequently when they attacked Fort Sumter, that was an act of war that put Abraham Lincoln in a position where he was forced to react in response."
Baloney. Lincoln provoked that war to ensure the Confederacy did not weaken his tariff stream. Above all, Lincoln was a greedy crony-capitalist. This conversation between Lincoln and a Virginia delegate explains:
_"You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."_
_"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"_
_"He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right. Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from them the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter._
_"If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter-I do not care on which side it is fired-the thing is gone." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible." Said I, "Sir, if there is a gun fired at Sumter, as sure as there is a God in heaven the thing is gone. Virginia herself, strong as the Union majority in the Convention is now, will be out [of the Union] in forty-eight hours." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible."_
_"Said I, "Mr. President, I did not come here to argue with you; I am here as a witness. I know the sentiments of the people of Virginia, and you do not. I understood that I was to come hereto give you information of the sentiments of the people, and especially of the sentiments of the Union men of the Convention. I wish to know before we go any further in this matter, for it is of too grave importance to have any doubt of it, whether I am accredited to you in such a way as that what I tell you is worthy of credence."_
[Baldwin, John Brown, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, pp.13-14]
The South tried to negotiate with Lincoln, but he dismissed them and sent reinforcements to Sumter, which forced Jefferson Davis's hand:
_"When Mr. Lincoln came into office he had no authority of law to call out the militia or to call for volunteers in order to suppress insurrections against the United States or to collect the revenue outside of custom-houses, nor had he the necessary means to reconstruct the Federal judiciary in the seceding or the seceded States. When, after more than a month of informal negotiation between the Lincoln Administration and the Confederate Commissioners and other persons about the evacuation of Fort Sumter, it was determined to re-enforce that garrison, and re-enforcements were sent and Beauregard was ordered by Davis to bombard the fort, and it was done-when the Civil War was thus begun-Mr. Lincoln's call for seventy-five thousand men was made, and had to be made, without any legal authority. When the first troops from the North poured into Washington, after forcing their way through Maryland, there was not the slightest preparation by the Government to receive them; no billeting, no subsistence, no forage, no anything; all was at first confusion worse confounded; private individuals and extemporized local committees had to do the whole. Whose fault was this? Certainly it was not the fault of President Lincoln or his Secretary of War. It was the fault of that Congress, which had expired on the 4th of March without having made any provision either to coerce the seceded States back into the Union, or to execute the laws of the United States upon individuals, or to recapture the public property in the seceded States, or to do anything that would save the border States from being swept into the control of the Montgomery Confederacy." [George Ticknor Curtis to the Editor of the "Times," Richfield Springs, August 20, 1883, in Moore, John Bassett, "The Works of James Buchanan Vol 11." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1910, p.51]_
The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war. That reminds me of this scripture:
_"My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." -- Ps 120:6-7 KJV_
Dan
It's interesting how Jaffa starts out appearing to be pretty rational, willing to grant to DiLorenzo the truth of his points when applicable...but as the discussion progresses, you see just how ridiculously stubborn he is in holding on to the worship of Lincoln. He defends his CLEARLY unconstitutional acts for God's sake! "Because Civil War"...you're bogus Jaffa, end of story.
But Lincoln would be RIGHT, under the federal claim that the USA is a sovereign nation over the states.
To counter it, Dilorenzo had to prove the fact that the STATES were sovereign nations, and that the USA was an international union like the UN or the EU.
But he DOESN'T, because doesn't know HOW.
So they both just quibble back and forth over secondary issues, continually missing the mark.
@@SovereignStatesman No, not a sovereign nation over states but a federalized government authorized to act on behalf of a constellation of unified but still independent state governments. There would have been no USA without independent states agreeing to merge, but not an absolute merging, a limited merging which was understood to in no way abrogate the right of each state to remain its own master. In other words, it takes two to tango but only one to stop the dance. Each state was understood to have final authority to withdraw from the union whenever it saw fit. The federal government did not own the states and each state did not forfeit its fundamental autonomy by carefully and circumspectly agreeing to a Constitutional Federal Government.
@@damianop100 You're right, but you're off on a few details.
1. The American Revolution established every state as a a SEPARATE NATION.
2. The Union formed by the revolution, was an INTERNATIONAL union like the UN or the EU.
3. AFTER the revolution, each state SECEDED from that union; to form ANOTHER international union, via the Constitution.
The states NEVER formed a national union, like the states of England and Scotland formed the state of Great Britain in 1707; and it would be kinda hard for BRITISH SUBJECTS IN 1776 to MISS that distinction.
That required EXPRESS MANIFESTATION of intention and action, to forever unite as a single nation.
To wit:
*_"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."_*
The Constitution did not contain any such wording, to unite the states into a single federated STATE; and the people and governments of each state did not even act jointly in such a manner, subjecting themselves to the will of the others; but they all ratified the Constitution separately FOR THEIR STATE ONLY.
It just says "to form a more perfect union--" i.e. more perfect than the international union they were DEPARTING.
That's an INTERNATINOAL union. PERIOD.
@@SovereignStatesman MORON Alert!
@@SovereignStatesman The STATES were soverign....NOT the Union.
Jaffa exhibited a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. Festinger could have used him alongside the Millerites. The poor guy became a Lincoln apologist, using ad hominem arguement against DiLorenzo, to present his weak case. DiLorenzo was articulate and stayed on point.
You are another victim of slick Tommy DiLorenzo's unrepresentative cherry-picking of facts and half-truths.
John Brown
, you wrote, "You are another victim of slick Tommy DiLorenzo's unrepresentative cherry-picking of facts and half-truths."
Perhaps you will show us some of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's cherry-picking, Johnny Boy? I eagerly await.
Dan
Richard Morris: Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU.
BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
@@SovereignStatesman If we were to judge the debate on a purely technical debate basis, as distinct from substance, you may be correct in your "failed to assert" observation. At best, this is a technical issue. Sort of like a court not having the guts to hear a controversial case and rules the plaintiff does not have standing and never gets to the merits.
Likewise, if we judge the debate according to the substance of the right to secede, then Jaffa failed to convince me. My understanding is SCOTUS Chief Justice at the time, and everyone else at the time --- including such states as Massachusetts who have previously threatened to leave but were negotiated into remaining, agreed any state may legally secede. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the right to secede and the writings at the time all seem to me to point to this right. Not to mention a state such as Texas that entered the union only upon the specific agreement it had the right to secede.
Because Lincoln needs an apologist, what with his slavery abolishing and rebellion crushing.
Jaffa must have never read Lincoln's first inaugural address.
Secession being the essence of anarchy? Like the formation of West Virginia?
From the look of him, I think he WROTE it.
SheafferGordon
, you wrote, "Secession being the essence of anarchy? Like the formation of West Virginia?"
Secession is okay with the Lincoln Cult as long as Lincoln forces it on a state with the barrel of a gun.
Dan
He did but he pretends not to understand. He's a complete coward
@@BibleResearchToolsof course. Nobody mentioned that. These are sheer criminals.
Lincoln's actions were extremely radical when you remember that the USA was in no danger of being invaded by the CSA. Even during WW2, the worst radical domestic action was internment of the Japanese population.
It's a question of national sovereignty. If the USA was a sovereign nation, as the Lincoln Administration claimed (and every administration SINCE); then the CSA was definitely a threat to the integrity of US sovereign territory, and the USA _owned_ the individual states.
However since the USA was an international union of SEPARATE nations, like the EU or the UN; then secession was just a BREXIT.
This is why Lincoln claimed that "the Union is older than the states;" while his weasel-supporters claim that the CONSTITUTION made the USA into a single nation, since Lincoln's "perpetual union" line is an epic FAIL.
@@SovereignStatesman And that is why Lincoln tried to cut the baby of rebellion vs secession. He said that the South was in rebellion so that he did not have to have Congressional approval to invade the South but then he treated them as if they had seceded because he did not ask for their permission to send the armies into their states and he wanted them to ratify the 13th Amendment to come back into the union. He treated them as independent when it suited him and he treated them as not when it suited him.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "It's a question of national sovereignty. If the USA was a sovereign nation, as the Lincoln Administration claimed (and every administration SINCE); then the CSA was definitely a threat to the integrity of US sovereign territory, and the USA owned the individual states."
If that was true, there would be no United States because NO sovereign state would have ratified the Constitution. Chew on that, troll
Dan
Except for when the Union was invaded by the CSA. We are ignoring the CSA’a seizure of federal armories and forts.
@@PopeSixtusVI The states owned any forts and armories within their borders - the states paid for the forts. The seceding states paid most of the federal taxes. President Buchanan did not do anything when an armory in Charleston was seized.
DiLorenzo 4 Jaffa 0 Audience moron -1
Lmao 😂 true
Easier to read all of Tom's works than to suffer through the wheezing bulk that is Jaffa... painful.
Jaffa the Hutt
@@JohnBrown-dj6yc Except that the states never formed a national union. They WOULD not, and they DID not. The Constitution is meaningless in limiting the federal government, without the power of each state to ENFORCE it by refusing to comply with breaches.
@@SovereignStatesman Idiots will never learns. Sad thing is, they choose to be ignorant.
@@SovereignStatesman The states most certainly did form a national union. All the evidence confirms that they did. All you have to do is read the First Inaugural Addresses of every U.S. President up to Abraham Lincoln and this fact is confirmed. Each one of them refers to the United States as a nation. It is not possible to have a nation, without it being a national union. To say otherwise is a contradiction and logical fallacy. Are you going to tell me that founding fathers like George Washington, James Madison, and even Thomas Jefferson were wrong and that we never were a nation? Furthermore, I challenge you to find anyone who disagreed with them but pointed out that we are not a nation, but a compact of nations.
@@JohnBrown-dj6yc 3 months later and still waiting
The CSAs premises for secession from the U.S. were considerably stronger than the Colonies premises for secession from the U.K. The Northern tariffs on the South were orders of magnitude greater than the various taxes imposed by the Crown.
That's false on pretty much every level. First of all there were no "Northern Tariffs on the South". Tariffs were federal laws that applied to the entire nation. They were not passed by one region against another one. Second of all, the last federal law passed on tariffs before secession was the 1857 tariff act, which reduced tariff rates to historical lows. Third of all, the issue that caused the colonists to revolt in 1775 wasn't taxation. It was taxation without representation, IE being taxed by a government they had no voting power over. If those same taxes had been passed by the colonial governments instead of the British parliment (who the colonists did not vote on), they would have been willing to pay them. The Southern states, of course, had full representation in the American government, and in fact they had dominated it for a very long time. The candidates overwhelmingly voted for by the South had won the last two Presidential Elections prior to 1860.
Finally, all that is actually besides the point, because the Confederate premises for secession had nothing to do with taxes. They were all about slavery. If Lincoln had never mentioned one word about taxes in his entire life, it would have made no difference. Secession and war still would have happened, because the South seceded and started the war entirely due to their desire to preserve and expand slavery. We know this because the Confederate leaders openly said so. Literally every single Confederate state declaration of secession that cited their motivation for secession cited slavery. The words "taxes" or "tax" do not appear in any of them. The CSA was formed for slavery, fought the war for slavery, and died for slavery. Without slavery there would have been no secession and no war.
18:23.....secession wouldn't be the breakup of a government. The U.S. government would still continue on, just with less member states.
Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU.
BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
@@SovereignStatesman Consent of the governed.
Not only less member States, also less revenue on the Tariffs issue.
Tom DiLorenzo is incredible. Between his work on Lincoln, How Capitalism Saved America, and the Myth of Natural Monopoly, has to be the best historin of our generation. Thanks for the upload.
In my experience of reading Tom DiLorenzo's works on Lincoln, they are full of half-truths and out-and-out lies mixed with a variety of questionable assessments and sub par analyses. Mr. DiLorenzo is a political manipulator of the magnitude of Bill Clinton times ten!
@StoneWall Jackson I haven't read "A New Birth of Freedom". But Jaffas arguments in this debate with DiLorenzo are solid and supportable by documentary history.
@@board247 Hardly. Jaffa is a clown when it come to history. He should have been a poet.
Read the 1 star reviews of his book on Amazon to see how off base he is.
@@66605 Jaffa is far from the best or most authoritarian Lincoln historian and scholar out there, but he is immeasurably far ahead of DiLorenzo when it comes to legitimacy and the accurate application of knowledge and facts.
@@board247 Your comments about T. DiLorenzo are just assertions. Can you back any of it up?
I was skeptical about what DiLorenzo had to say about Lincoln myself. I looked at the facts and the history and found he was spot on.
Dilorenzo is incredible.
Jaffa continually gives mostly opinion only, with Dilorenzo listing facts and quotes rapid fire.
What we are taught in school about Lincoln shows once again that those who win the war get to write the history books.
It is true that Tom DiLorenzo is a slick speaker. He is the "Bill Clinton" of the Anti-Lincoln occult.
IRRELEVANT facts.
The ONLY relevant fact, is that the individual states are separate, sovereign nations, and the USA is an international union like the UN or the EU.
National sovereignty trumps EVERYTHING.
So by failing to assert national sovereignty, Dilorenzo CONCEDES the current federal claim that the USA is a sovereign nation OVER the individual states; and that therefore there was a civil war which was a failed rebellion.
In reality, the federal government ran amuck as a terrorist operation claiming national authority of a sovereign nation that doesn't exist.. just like on 9/11 with Al-Queda and the Nation of Islam.
@@SovereignStatesman The U.S. States are not independent, sovereign states. It is clear if you read the U.S. Constitution that they are not sovereign, but that sovereignty lies in We the People of the United States of America. The original states relinquished their sovereign claims when they ratified and adopted the U.S. Constitution.
@@board247 Saying the states lost their sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution is just an assertion on your part. Where is the proof? The Constitution doesn't say so. The "People" the Constitution refers to, who made the government, are the people of the individual political societies known as states. They are the sovereigns in our system of government. They have the right to change their government if they choose to do so. Who is Lincoln to tell them otherwise?
When the states seceded they withdrew the powers they delegated to the federal government and resumed the to themselves. They had every right to do so.
@@66605 If you actually read the U.S. Constitution, it is clear that the states did give up their national sovereignty, relinquishing it to "We The People of the United States" as represented by the central Federal Government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson delineates the benchmarks of national sovereignty as the " power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, etc." These are precisely the powers that the individual states of the United States relinquished to the U.S. Federal Government.
At 1:43:52 Jaffa talks about Lincoln's Special Message to Congress, saying that every state agreed to the Constitution.
However Lincoln FIRST claimed that "no state was ever a sovereignty," and that they declared independence from Great Britain as a SINGLE nation, saying that the states "did not declare independence from the Union."
Here, Lincoln EQUIVOCATED over the term "independence," referring to national sovereignty vs. simple group-affiliation.
And so with this legal slight-of-hand, he insinuated that the UNION declared independence from Great Britain as a single nation-state; when in reality, the United Colonies were declared to to be Free and Independent STATES, from the STATE of Great Britain; with "the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent STATES may of right do."
So the American Revolution established EACH STATE as a separate nation; and the Constitution simply formed an INTERNATIONAL compact, like the UN.
Note the reference in our founding documents that we were "a friendship of states" originally.
This should have millions of views.
It's insane to say someone is free without the right to disassociate, regardless of context.
What I got from this debate:
Jaffa: Really dirge-like recodification of conventional views.
DiLorenzo: Well thought out thoght provoking arguments.
Jaffa: "That's not true. You lying, Hitler loving neo-confederate!"
Audience Member: (In a smug, self rightgeous tone that makes you want to smack him accross the face with a shovel.) "Hey DiLorenzo, You support the right to slavery. Do you also support the rape of 9 year old girls? Where do you the line?"
DiLorenzo: (In his head)"What the hell did I get myself into."
Me at home: " What kind of a nutcase asks if someone supports child rape in a debate about Abraham Lincoln, secesion and states rights? Seriously, what kind of twisted, messed up mind makes those kind of leaps?"
It's a good thing nut-cases blurt out their ignorant points of view. It's much easier to identify them which allows them to be avoided. Twisted is putting it mildly. Nice summation!
Jaffa's people implanted that heckler. These people act like this. You know the government people.
The more Jaffa spoke, the more confused I became. Whereas the more DiLorenzo spoke, the more clearly I understood. DiLorezo was complimentary and classy. Jaffa, not so much. My belief that Lincoln destroyed this union is now more solidified than ever. I’m still waiting for a good counter argument, but I don’t think I’ll ever get one…
What do you expect from a “professor of government” whom is a fellow at the Ford! Rockefeller! And Guggenheim foundations!!!!! Lmao
This is a brilliant case against the establishment.
You are so right!!!
Yeah, that is just hilarious.
He is literally a paid shill. He probably doesn't even think so.
Tell me Mr.Jaffa ..Going with your Idea the U.S.S.R should still be in existence and the satellite states they ruled should still be part of the Iron Curtain .....
It is disingenuous to compare the situation with the U.S.S.R. with the situation of the United States. Most notable is that the Confederate States were proactively repudiating the principles and values of the American Revolution, especially those of universal natural rights and the truth that "All Men are Created Equal". That is why their movement had to be quashed and Lincoln's actions were both necessary and justified.
"NO ONE LEAVES THE UNION. NO ONE." (Unless of course it fails under it own weight.)
@Kyle Clark Actually, if you look at what the Secessionists were pursuing they were rejecting and violating all of the founding principles and doctrines pursued by the Founding Fathers. That is why they were so dangerous and it was essential to stop them!
They rejected Democracy and Republicanism by rejecting the legitimate and lawful election of a president. They further rejected these principles when they rejected popular sovereignty in the U.S. Territories.
They rejected the principles of liberty, equality, and justice of all claiming the equality of the white man depended on the enslavement of those of African descent.
They even rejected the principle of "State's Sovereignty" whey they rejected the right of northern states to nullify the unjust and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act.
@@board247 your premise is just inaccurate. Your whole case is based on the civil war "was about slavery" lie. If it wasn't, than you have no case. Watch these videos and get back to me.
th-cam.com/video/Yg3G6Gdtn3Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/PHT6T-nyNfE/w-d-xo.html
Drew Yazbeck My premise is not inaccurate, I have provided you with actual document evidence and could provide you with far more documentary evidence if needed. What more proof do you need?
I will watch your videos when I have the chance, but I will tell you upfront I am not a fan of Ron Paul. He makes some good points, but in general I find him to be uninformed and faulty in many of his views.
AS for the
Abbeville Institute, all of the articles and videos I have investigated by them have proven to be little more than "Lost Cause" propaganda so I don't give that organization much weight or credibility.
Did they forget to tell Jaffa the topic of the debate? I feel like he was debating against the resolution: "The south wer gud guyz and slavery was kewl" or something like that.
Heh, heh, heh....I think Napoleon once said, Don't interrupt an enemy when he is in the midst of making mistake. Commie/socialist, hate mongering Democrats are duplicitous and prejudiced and economics dishonest, so ya just let 'em spew their lies and stick their feet in their big mouths.
He's clearly lost and tripping over himself. Might have been a different debate were he twenty years younger. But I admire him getting up there to bring a " knife to a gunfight."
I like how when a lady asked DiLorenzo a question, Jaffa had to jump in and make a 30 mins speech
As usual, DiLorenzo starched this regime stenographer's shirt, just as he does all the rest of the Lincoln apologists. This wasn't even close. Jaffa is an arrogant clown.
Lincoln was a tyrant and the only thing that keeps that from being apparent to everyone is the facade of fighting for liberty that abolition gives him (emancipation in my opinion was more about hurting the south and killing the means of secessionists to resist the almost imperialist federal government than a deeply held belief in minority equality as we know it today) and the martyrdom of his assassination. The more I learn about Lincoln the more I detest the way he trampled on the constitution as it was written and individual rights. He was nuts and I can think of a million ways the civil war and all that death and destruction could've been avoided, while still achieving nationwide abolition of slavery. Lincoln did not believe in liberty or small government and while I'm still a republican it's only because of free trade, libertarianism and limited government that the party stands for today and not because Lincoln himself championed those values, he did not!
Maybe what we saw with Lincoln was actually the manifestation of his own father. A man he evidently detested.
DiLorenzo mentions Lysander Spooner, a well known abolitionist prior to the war. It seems a central issue as debated here was the constitutionality of secession. For probably the most incisive and reasoned commentary on this, read Spooner's "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority", which questions the authority of the constitution based on contract law. It is fairly quick read.
Yes, I have read No Treason No. 6, ,The Constitution of No Authority and agree with Spooner and with Marc Stevens (he has disappeared and I know not why). The colonists would not have immediately turn 'round and put their necks under the heel of an all powerful central government having just recently shed the chains of the English and their central government. The colonists would certainly respected each other to go his separate way and would never have and never did approve of using force/violence/aggression to prevent any colony from peacefully departing.
The colonists erred in supplanting Jehovah God with the new god, We The People, and Amerikans were enslaved to the corporate central government and have suffered and been punished ever since.
i have challenged 7 judges 6 in their courtrooms before witnesses/bureaucrats and not one of these "judges" had the factual evidence that the manmade constitution and "law' applied to me. i.e. they had no proof of jurisdiction. Why don't they ave a little card like the Miranda Warning showing the factual evidence and proof of jurisdiction? Why wasn't this little cart provided the first day of "law" school?
Three states, Virginia, New York and Rhode island had in their ratification documents the provision for leaving the "union" it they saw it turning down the "dark path."
Jaffa refused to admit the simple truth that politics is violence and manmade political governments are the bane and pain of humanity; they are not Christian; they are diabolical. This of course is understandable as Jaffa is a Jew.
The Bible in Revelation teaches us that the troika of evil, that wicked consort of politics, commerce and "false religion," will be destroyed in the end. I recommend 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 political, manmade, government schools and one private school that I attended.
Spooner is the best.
Jaffa is right about 1 thing..
“Free government is impossible.” Yes because freedom is impossible with government.
NOT if the people CONSENT to it.
And consent to government, means SUPREMACY OVER it.
And that's EXACTLY what they had with the Constitution, with each state being a separate nation.
The USA was just an INTERNATIONAL union like the UN or the EU; and that's why they could secede.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "NOT if the people CONSENT to it. And consent to government, means SUPREMACY OVER it."
That is true only in the mind of the tyrant. The avenues of consent by the states to the general government were outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Any usurpation -- any adoption of power over the states beyond that clearly defined and authorized consent -- by the general government, constitutes tyranny, troll.
Dan
Is it me or does Jaffa seem to give his opinion rather then cite sources? Oh, wait, he did cite a quote by George Washington regarding sovereignty and uses the example of coining money which was delegated to Congress. Using his argument that the states were not sovereign due to this lack of right I guess you can say the United States is no longer sovereign since Congress relinquished its power to coin money to the Federal Reserve, a private central bank, in 1913 with the 13th amendment. And that brought us the 16th amendment aka income tax.
One more item of interest was the passing of the 17th amendment which took the states control to appoint Senators to represent state interest and if a Senator was not acting in the best interest of a state he could be removed. The 17th amendment put the Senators under the control of the Federal government and no longer serve the interests of their respective states. The civil war began the end of the United States established through blood, sweat, and tears of our founding fathers and the men and women who fought for freedom.
Yeah, it's weird how Congress does things. According to the Constitution, it can't "delegate" the power to coin money, but it DID with the Federal Reserve system. American banks can literally create money out of NOTHING. So, does this mean that the Federal Reserve system is "sovereign," but the States are not? But in the end, Jaffa was totally wrong. The indivudual States WERE sovereign in every sense of the word, on an equal footing with England or France. Unfortunately, they let their sovereignty be frittered away in the confusion of the war of secession with England and the siren song of the fear of anarchy sung by Alexander Hamilton, and subsequent events.
"the Federal Reserve, a private central bank, in 1913 with the 13th amendment"
Splain, please, as the 13th Amendment was in 1865, and abolished involuntary African servitude in all the several States.
1776, what troubles greatly about our founders is: why didn't they demand that king give up allodial title to the land? Surely private property ownership is fundamental to liberty. I've never understood this
1776blues "Oh, wait, he did cite a quote by George Washington regarding sovereignty and uses the example of coining money which was delegated to Congress."
Then by that logic, the Euro-dollar made the EU into a single nation as well.
Actually, there is only ONE WAY that nation-states can unite as a single nation: BY EXPRESSLY SAYING SO.
They didn't.
We like Dr Dilorenzo! He is quite a gentleman!
The idea of a civil war can be put to bed easily, enough.
Had it actually been a civil war the confederate army would have turned east and kicked Lincoln's tyrannical ass after the first battle of Manassas
Also, the Founders always called us a union for a reason. A union, by definition, is the coming together of totally independent separate parts to form a whole. That matches with the Declaration of Independence which states that we are "a union of free and independent states that have the right that free and independent states aught to have including the right to wage war, conduct commerce, and negotiate treaties how they see fit". An union that is force to stay together is not a union by definition.
Imnotalone Heswithme: Jaffa won the argument by DEFAULT, since Dilorenzo failed to asset that the USA is an INTERNATIONAL union, like the UN or the EU.
BY failing to do this, he CONCEDED the federal government's claim that the USA is a national union, or federated state; which PRECLUDES secession.
They did try invading the North. It was a disaster.
If one has to make an argument to keep people together...
Stonewall Jackson wanted to cross the Potomac and take Washington early in the war but Jeff Davis said no. It was a decision that he regretted the rest of his life.
The thinking is had Jackson went ahead with his plan to capture Washington that the war would have ended earlier with the South being victorious.
Finally, I have been looking for this video for months!
I really tried to listen to that rambling old codger, but I just coudn't do it. Rebellioncy? Wait, what?
I'm trying so hard to listen. I'm glad I wasn't there. even at 1.25x speed it's hard to follow his argumentation.
t44e6: Jaffa could beat Mike Tyson, if Tyson failed to show.
Similarly, Dilorenzo failed assert that the USA was an international union; and so he forfeited the point.
There is no right to secede from a NATIONAL union.
@@abelk918 It doesn't matter. Dilorenzo FORFEITED the argument, when he failed to assert that the USA is an international union.
So Jaffa just won by default.
@@SovereignStatesman time stamp? I don't understand your argument. What does "international union" mean? Seems like you're making a linguistics argument instead of a principled one. Does no state ever have the right to succeed? Even if (to take it to the extreme) congress passed a 100% income tax law just on their state? The "Tax California to Death Bill," 100% income tax just in California? California doesn't have a right to succeed? Surely at some point a state can voluntarily disband from the union? Or, Mafia style? Once you're about that life you can never leave?
No right to secede from a national union? Are there rights at all? Prove it.
Why does Jaffa have to interrupt DiLorenzo in a rude tone? Because its the nature of the tribe.
When you can't attack or refute the argument, you attack the man.
1776blues Ah, another member of the tribe. Certainly puts some context around the filth this old windbag is spewing.
Jaffa knows DiLorenzo is right, and it is burning him up.
I have watched DiLorenzo's videos and he is spot on,with the issues.
What is this tribe you speak of? Please do elaborate
@@chuckg-ross1378 the church of Lincoln
It would have been nice if Jaffa actually talked about Lincoln.
The people who think Jaffa was the winner here, what are you smoking and where can I get some?
Never trust a guy that combs 15 hairs over a bald head and think no one will notice, It's a easy to see through those 15 hairs as it is to see through his absurd statements.
"I'm so open minded I can be prejudiced against Southrons without even a hint of irony."
Nothing to do with the Constitution? I’m not sure if this man has passed away, but I think Jefferson Davis made a great argument of secession in his own book.
The Rise and Fall of The Confederate Government
By Jefferson Davis
No, Jaffa, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If slavery was abhorrent in 1776, then non slave states should never have entered into a union with slave states. I would not fight to keep any state within the union. If the New England states wanted to form a country or join Canada....I would want these states to take their share of the national debt with them....and bye bye!
ALL the states allowed slavery in 1776.
New Hampshire was the first to abolish, in 1777.
But it's irrelevant: each state was a SEPARATE SOVEREIGN NATION since 1776.
And the Constitution didn't conjoin that as a single nation; but simply established the state ELECTORATES as the principal sovereign AUTHORITY over their respective nation-state.
The federal government simply became their delegated agent.
So when the electorate of any state vote to secede; that was a BREXIT.
The new England's states wanted to secede in 1804 under Timothy Piven, who was Washington's secretary of state, so not a nobody, but they secessionist lost by public plebiscite. Nobody objected to that, no deaths,no military invasion.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry etc all believed in the right of secession. Even though Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government, he still believed a state has a right to leave that government rather than be forced to be in that government. Lincoln believed you “must” submit to the federal authority. Completely going against the Declaration of Independence and the founders mindset. The founders never wanted or even imagined that the federal government would grow as big as it has today.
"if people can break up the government rather than accept the results of a fairly conducted election than the only alternatives are anarchy or tyranny". Hey look lincoln and i agree on something! Though something tells me we may be reaching different conclusions.
What preposterous nonsense from Jaffa....any state that did not want slavery should never have joined the union....but most of the 13 states had slavery....if the founders were so smart, they should have spelled out secession. Ol' Abe, rail splitter, had the principles of Lenin....Might makes Right.....The End justifies the Means.
The fatal flaw of Jaffa's argument is that the Union was a "contract" between the States rather than a voluntary "compact". Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "contract" appear and Jaffa's sleight of hand in transposing the terms does not make it so. If the founders had believed that separating from the Union was impossible there would have been no Union. We had just endured a bloody war to SECEDE from such a union with England. Moreover, many of the States specifically included the RIGHT to withdraw from the Union in their signatory documents.
You're missing the point with semantics.
The Constitution simply did NOT FORM A NATIONAL UNION AMONG THE STATES.
The world "Nation" does not even appear ONCE.
And nationhood cannot be INFERRED by outside sources against sovereign nations.
You make my point. I never used the term "Nation" in my comment. It was Lincoln who transformed the Founding Fathers vision of a VOLUNTARY Union_____similiar to todays' European Union (from which England recently seceded), into an INVOLUNTARY Union, similiar to the USSR. Both Lincoln and Putin went to war to deny State Sovereingnty. The classical meaning of the word "State" IS "Nation", as in the French State, the German State, or the State of Israel. (Sovereign Countries.) When Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army he said it was to go fight for his "Country", Virginia.
It seems to me, and rather clear, that Lincoln had a very strong political reason, as a committed Whig, to do what the Whig party stood for, and for which the GOP was also strongly committed to implementing. In my estimation, with the information I have to draw from, Lincoln was a kind of Progressive, in modern-day parlance. He usurped the Constitution, and has blood on his hands, even if what he may have envisioned, i.e., more centralized power to the Federal govt., turned out to cost so much in blood and treasure. One cannot be for the Constitution, and truncate it, no matter the political aims and aspirations, or the messiness of sticking to the rule of law, even in war!
The South didn’t care about the Constitution when they started the war, why should Lincoln have cared about it when he ended it?
@@PopeSixtusVI Lincoln clearly started it by sending a warship to Ft. Sumpter in an effort to cause a false flag event.. He was successful.. The south responded in self defense. Not one person died at Fort Sumpter. Lincoln then attacked full force, as was his plan in the beginning.
@@PopeSixtusVIyou speak like a man with a paper asshole.
This is not a debate, each speaker is giving their point of view!
Wow, Jaffa was a total clown. Lincoln didn't use racist language in the debates? Lmfao, ok
He did by the standards of Racism of today. Lincoln stated in his Fourth Debate with Douglas in 1858. Lincoln stated that the blacks inferior to the white race. He said blacks shouldn't marry whites. He said blacks shouldn't live with whites. He said they shouldn't be allowed to vote or serve on Jury's. Five Northern States didn't allow blacks in their States for any reason. Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution that didn't allow blacks to travel through Illinois much less live there. Lincoln like His Political Hero Henry Clay. He was a lifetime Advocate for Colonizing the blacks out of the country. He told Frederick Douglass that it would be best if he and the other blacks were Colonized out of the country. You see the Lincoln taught is a myth and a lie.
Jaffa is simply trying his best to uphold his credentials here, he's been paid well to write propaganda but his arguments are without merit. He has taken a few facts and expanded that into some kind of nonsensical gibberish in defense of being a total sellout to correct history...
Jaffa is full of Hot air
Jaffa invokes Godwin's law. Ouch!
Samsgarden
, you wrote, "Jaffa invokes Godwin's law. Ouch!"
Ironically, Jaffa supported an all-powerful, central-planning type of government, much like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama, and etc..
Dan
Samsgarden: the irony is that WW2 only HAPPENED because Lincoln ended the right of secession, which abrogated the Hartford Convention precedent of KEEPING THE UNION OUT OF FOREIGN WARS. After Lincoln, lobbyists were able to force the USA into foreign wars like WWI, which CAUSED WW2.
Lincoln's precedent gave the federal government ABSOLUTE POWER over the people of every state.
@@BibleResearchTools Thus the irony: i.e. he believes in oligarchy, as long as it's BENEVOLENT oligarchy.
Obviously that's just plain arrogance.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Thus the irony: i.e. he [Jaffa] believes in oligarchy, as long as it's BENEVOLENT oligarchy. Obviously that's just plain arrogance."
Yes, you have to be pretty arrogant, or ignorant, to believe a handful of rulers will ever serve anyone but themselves and their political connections. That point was somewhat brought out by the editor of the National Gazette in this 1792 editorial:
_"As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves." [Philip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792, Rule 5]_
The National Gazette was a newspaper founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to fight against the monarchial tendencies of the "federalists" (so-called,) and in particular against Alexander Hamilton.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools, of course Jaffa invoked "Godwin's Law." Jaffa is a Jew. It is ironic that the commie/socialist, hate mongering Democrats spew the kind of awful words reminiscent of the 1920s, '30s and '40s. Do they not see the duplicity? The reality is that voting is an act of violence. Tolstoy wrote about politics and violence in The Law of Love and The Law of Violence.
Jaffa at 17 minutes said that the South didn’t appeal to the right of revolution because no Constitutional rights had been violated so they instead appealed to secession. Hard to believe that Lincoln and the North was that clean because of how Lincoln violated many rights of Northerners during the war including shutting down free speech and the presses of hundreds of newspapers in the North. Lincoln did all that to the Northerners so we are to believe Jaffa that Lincoln and the North treated the South fairly. That’s laughable. History proves that the North and Lincoln were willing to violate any rights at any time for their aims and the South and the North knew it and the South said, “We are out of here.” Secondly, if the South seceded to preserve slavery then why did states keep slavery which didn’t secede? Jaffa is wrong again. There only had to be one state that didn’t secede and kept slavery in the North to prove that secession wasn’t about slavery, and in fact there were three, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. They didn’t secede and kept slavery. So the South didn’t secede in order to keep its slavery.
"Being right was largely a matter of explanations; intellectual man had become an explaining creature." -Saul Bellow
1:37:19 This Q&A is incredible to listen to. Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution?! At best, he's justifying the violations.
Better debates occurring in the comments than in the video lol
The one guy in the audience sounds exactly like Dennis Prager.
@16:25 Yes there were propably many reasons. Most important reason being that their goal was not the complete dissolution or destruction of the union but freedom from the union. Hence secession instead of revolution. Why is he talking about revolution then?
Excellent
I'm not familiar with the Independent Institute. Is the white haired guy in the Q&A Dennis Prager? He seems familiar.
I learned more about the horrors of lincoln from a yankee Thomas Dilorenzo and a black man Lerone Bennett, author of Forced Into Glory
Lots of interesting information presented by both sides, but a large amount of the debate was the two talking at cross-purposes. DiLorenzo spent a lot of time talking about Lincoln's commitment to 'Whiggish economic policies', while Jaffa went to lengths to show that Lincoln deftly navigated very difficult circumstances. There didn't seem to be much disagreement on these areas, so I don't see much of a point in them both spending so much time on them. One of the few areas around which there was a clear back and forth was one of the least interesting in my view, that of constitutionality. It would have been a more productive debate if both had spent more time talking about whether more could have been done to bring about the end of slavery peacefully - this was touched on towards the end, but it would have been interesting to hear both of them flesh out their arguments here more, as in my view a large part of how Lincoln should be evaluated historically hinges on this point. The question of states' (moral) rights to succession in tension with individuals' rights not to be enslaved would also have been an interesting one to be explored further (although perhaps this might be seen as a diversion from the initial topic). The questioner at 1:40:13 pointed towards an obvious and important weak link in DiLorenzo's perspective - it was provocatively phrased, but his dismissal of it makes it hard for me to agree with most of the others commenting that DiLorenzo made a very impressive showing in the debate.
Jaffa starts yelling “YOU’RE WRONG” the moment DiLorenzo nails him with the zinger, Thomas is absolutely correct that Virginia indeed did ratify the constitution with the expressed right of secession of all states, and this was accepted by all other states. Jaffa is angry because he knows that singular action destroys his mythical history.
Saying we need the government more because of 911 I'd exactly why statism is ridiculous. The actions of the federal government provoked the incident in the first place and our government agencies ignored the red flags that predicted the event. The federal government is at least indirect the cause through action/inaction so saying it must also be the solution is a stretch to say the least.
I thought the Hitler comment was a real slime ball tactic.
Notice how he doesn't state Thomas DiLorenzo's proper name. He calls him Tom DiLerenzo.
Whoever is holding the camera having a seizure? For crying out loud. Hold it steady mate!
What was Jaffa's main point? A revolution is a right but secession is not a right? Why would he think that makes sense? FYI, dude, the Constitution of the united States of America specifically says that if "it" is not mentioned in the Constitution then the several states can come to their own conclusion on "it." By that logic if the any one of the several states want to secede, for whatever reason, they have every right to do so. How can the guy be so blind to this? And, of course, I don't think he is. He is simply the mouth piece for a group that wants to keep this "Union" idea cemented in the minds of the soft.
Secession is a right of SOVEREIGN NATION-STATES.
The federal government claimed that the USA is a sovereign nation-state, and that the individual states are SUBORDINATE to it.
Dilorenzo did NOT assert the national sovereignty of the individual states; and so he CONCEDED the federal claim.
Lincoln and the civil war are to 1860 what Assad is to Syria today....similar numbers too where you have a country that before the civil war had about 30 million people and suffered more than half a million deaths.
Bs
@@ramieskola7845not bs and just saying “Bs” is not a sound logical argument. You must be more devoted to the nation than to Reason (God) like Pharaoh was to Egypt in Exodus. Such a misplaced devotion, as Lincoln had, and as many so called patriots (who are a detriment to the nation too when they truly abandon Reason for their irrational misconceptions of service to the nation) have, has rational consequences.
Jaffa refers to the British Constitution.
"Although the UK constitution is not yet codified, the UK Supreme Court recognises constitutional principles,[9] and constitutional statutes,[10] which shape the use of political power." From Wiki.
So, there is no written British Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
Closing statement that if we didn’t allow slavery in constitution it would have us on the side of Hitler is so outlandishly stupid.
In the question of who possessed the sovereignty ,
Jaffa asserted that whoever possessed the power to coin money was the sovereign.
This is more garbage Jaffa just pulled out of Lincoln's tall hat of Lies.
I don't think DiLorenzo gave a sufficient counterpoint.
Here is the answer to that.
Actually the a better sign of who possessed the ultimate sovereignty is
who possessed the power to ratify the constitution and
who possessed the sole power to ratify any amending articles.
Ratification means granting approval.
===================================================
1. who possessed the power to Ratify the Constitution (Article 7).
[Article 7 says that it was a Constitution between the States that ratified it, with nine of the 13 States (only a majority).
Only nine States. Not all the States.
That meant if only Nine States ratified the other 4 States were not obligated in any way to approve.
Hense, a VOLUNTARY UNION.
If only Eight States approved. No Constitution.
And everything would have remained under the Articles of Confederation.
Ratification of the original Articles of Confederation
and any amending articles required the consent of ALL 13 States.
2. who possessed the power the Ratify any Amending Articles
to the Constitution (Article 5: The States).
Specifically 3 / 4 of the States.
Again. Only a majority of the States.
Article 5 shows two ways Amending Articles could be drafted and proposed, but in each way, they still had to go somewhere for
ratification. THE STATES.
And this is exactly what happened in the first federal convention after the constitution had been ratified and went into effect.
The convention came up with 12 amending articles.
Those articles went to the States to approve or disprove them.
The States accepted only 10 of those amending articles.
Which means THE STATES had the power to REJECT any proposed Amendments.
Those first amending articles today we call the Bill of Rights.
Which means the States had the ultimate say over what Articles could be added or deleted.
Which means it is inarguable to deny that the States retained their sovereignty.
And if they retained the sovereignty,
THEY RETAINED THEIR RIGHT TO SECEDE.
Yeah Jaffa got owned
Then why is the USA still claimed to be a single nation?
If Dilorenzo won, he'd prove that each state was a separate nation-- not quibble over what was and wasn't "constitutional," since federal discretion is FINAL otherwise.
@@SovereignStatesman Tom Evans, you wrote, "Then why is the USA still claimed to be a single nation?"
No, the states are still sovereign powers, and the general government is still their agent for the general welfare (e.g., weights and measures,) and the common defense (e.g., the navy,) even if the people of the United States are under siege by central-planning tyrants.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Okay, I'm going to block you now.....
Tom Evans
, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Okay, I'm going to block you now....."
Be my guest, Marxist snow flake.
Dan
The issue WAS slavery, to a central government, a central bank and a standing army. It describes where this country has been ever since and remain increasingly so today. Either the shoe fits or it doesn't. The shoe fits.
lmao @ the pink shirt guy towards the end of the Q&A. In typical leftist and neo-con fashion, his only way to criticize any libertarian position is to reach into a magic hat for absurd hypotheticals in a shameless attempt to make libertarianism look as bad as humanly possible. I'm glad DiLorenzo didn't put up with it. Just a waste of a question for the speakers.
Lincoln's intentions can be discerned from the actions of his military officers...
"Federal means the states gave up their sovereignty."
This is a joke right?
Declaration of Independence.
9th and 10th Amendments.
@18:29 '...free government would be impossible.'
What is a 'free' government? Government is free from what? Or free to do what?
It cannot be free people since the very existence of a government means that people are not free but ruled.
Jaffa sounds like the democrats of today trying to say the 2020 election was clean. Maybe we should research whether Lincoln's election was really clean.
16:30 The south didn't argue the right of Revolution, as in the Declaration of Independence; because they WON that Revolution in 1783; and became FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT _STATES;_ i.e. 13 sovereign nations.
And a state only has to do that ONCE.
And no, they did NOT unite as a single nation via the Constitution; but only established the state ELECTORATES as the principal authority over their respective state, while the federal government was only their DELEGATED AGENT of an international compact.
7:40 Start
Karl Marx (1818-1883) followed the dialectical method of Hegel arguing that the State is preeminent above the individual. Note Marx is writing at the same time as the war of 1861 is going on and surely his ideas had some proponents on this side of the pond. Marx’s ideas would have been consistent with what DiLorenzo has stated were LIncoln’s plan for a centralized STATE. It’s a thesis. Someone can propose an argument. I would have to see if Lincoln read any of Marx’s works or otherwise influenced. It could explain why Lincoln had a different take on what the land was to become or should become and why it differed so much from Jefferson’s view, Jefferson presumably knowing more of the Geiste of the Constitutional righting era.
Marx and Lincoln were pen-pals.
Jaffa seems sincere but a believer of big government and DiLorenzo a proponent of limited government. I see more factual statements and support with DiLorenzo's. A true libertarian has to deal with the reality of facing a government establishment. DiLorenzo is coming from the economic side and Jaffa from an interpretation of the constitution allowing for a necessary war.
Jaffa simply REPEATS the current federal claim, that the USA is a single federated state over individual DEPENDENT states, like Brazil; and that therefore the federal government held principal sovereign authority over the individual states.
And Dilorenzo does not PROVE that the USA is an international union of separate independent nation-states, like the UN or the EU.
So Dilorenzo FORFEITS the debate; and therefore Jaffa simply observes that federated states have the supreme power and obligation to defend and secure their national integrity against foreign and domestic enemies.
If Dilorenzo HAD proved that the USA is an international union of separate sovereign nation-stats like the UN or the EU; then he would have WON the debate; because sovereign nation-states have the supreme power to secede from international unions.
You can't have limited government without national sovereignty AND principal sovereign authority in the state electorate.
Jaffa simply repeats the current federal claim that says the states have neither; and Dilorenzo does nothing to disprove him.
1:32:59 At this point I lost my patience with Dr. Jaffa. After going way over on his 5 minute rebuttal, and taking way too much time to answer an audience question, he then interrupts Mr. DiLorenzo. He debates like a tyrant and a bully.
Only empires are indivisible.
Deo Vindice.
Lincoln was/is such a shibbolith!
But, like Hamilton, you can't simply throw him in the trash...
The debate should have been between Jaffa and Lerone Bennett Jr. Sr. editor of Ebony magazine, and author of FORCED INTO GLORY...
IMHO
The shaky voice and dottery memory of jaffa makes his poor arguments unlistenable.
Who’s the joke at 1:40:13?
Also, does Mr DiLorenzo not stop to think that nowhere near all the citizens of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas etc even wanted to secede? Was not the impulsive declaration of secession without a popular vote a form of government tyranny? Just because it was a state government doing it doesn't somehow make it more justified - unilaterally declaring your state is leaving the country against the wishes of any of its inhabitants is the definition of tyranny
The same argument could be made for those in northern states who wanted to secede. But more importantly, the 10th amendment to the constitution makes it a state legislature matter.
16:41 "there were no abuses to use the right of succession" What? What about the extreme import taxes the Northern big business men were prompting their friends in the Federal government to impose? When any government ' starts picking 'winners and losers', you've got a tyrannical 'abusive' government...The word 'fair' means 'fair to all' or fair to the 'nation', not to the few...
1:38:15 so what about water torture is constitutional? I thought the eighth amendment mentioned something about not torturing people especially when it comes to them exercising there freedom of the press.
I am amazed at the lack of understanding in the comments, sad!
I'm not.
Everyone's been indoctrinated by the American society, to believe that the USA is "one nation, indivisible;" and by failing to counter this, Dilorenzo CONCEDES that belief.
One must PROVE that each state is a separate nation, in order to defy the federal claim.
Tom Evans, you wrote, "Everyone's been indoctrinated by the American society, to believe that the USA is "one nation, indivisible;" and by failing to counter this, Dilorenzo CONCEDES that belief. One must PROVE that each state is a separate nation, in order to defy the federal claim."
Federalism is defined as a separation of powers, troll -- a confederation, rather than rule by a bunch of arrogant, power-hungry, central-planning elitists.
Hitler despised federalism, and praised Bismarck for consolidating the German states into a central government. This paragraph compares the doctrines of Lincoln, Bismarck, and Lenin, all of which opposed federalism:
_"All three [Lincoln, Bismarck, and Lenin] were solitary men, who lived with their concentration of purpose. None liked to deal in demagogy and none cared for official pomp: even Bismarck complained that he could not be a courtier and assured Grant and others - as he must have believed quite sincerely - that he was not really a monarchist but a republican. Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin - though contemptuous of bureaucracy, since he could not himself imagine that, once the old order was abolished, any decent person could want to be a bureaucrat - began the work of binding Russia, with its innumerable ethnic groups scattered through immense spaces, in a tight bureaucratic net." [Edmund Wilson, "Patriotic Gore: studies in the literature of the American Civil War." Oxford University Press, 1962, pp.xvi-xvii]_
One of Hitler's speeches, while praising Bismarck's consolidation of power, sounded eerily similar to parts of Lincoln's first inaugural. This is Adolf "Abraham" Hitler:
_"In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges."_
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.566]
And this is Abraham "Adolf" Lincoln:
_"[T]he Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."_
[First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.253-254]
Both Hitler and Lincoln had dictator-speak down to a science
Dan
"Was 9/11 proof we need a strong Federal Government to protect us?" HAHAHAHA! When 9/11 was an inside job, that proves we need to get rid of it!
@1:31:00 That guy had one crazy hypothetical. You would hope if a whole state sanctioned that behavior it would have been quelled before session ever became the issue. Then again there is the propaganda machine of Hollyweird;-)
Uh uh uh the uhm when the uh ah.
Dear God
Garcia Linda Robinson Thomas Davis Brian
Interesting. Jaffa seemed to offer more opinion than logical arguments. The few he did use were flawed and circular. Not even remotely convincing. However, DiLorenzo is also wrong that slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The South could have easily won that war by freeing their slaves; the slave question was the only thing holding Britain back from coming to their defense. They chose slavery over British assistance, which demolishes any notion that slavery wasn't an important element to the conflagration. Was Lincoln a tyrant? YES. Were the Southerners fighting for slavery? YES. So the moral of the story is that everyone's an a$$hole, which is usually the reason all wars are fought in the first place.
What I find inconceivable is that anyone actually believes that the Confederate States were proponents of states rights. Sure, they included some measures in their constitution that seem to support less government, but when it came down to actually supporting states' rights they did not do so. They repudiated the Northern States' right to nullify the highly unconstitutional slave laws and they rejected popular sovereignty which at its essence was the principle of states' rights. In reality, they were just looking to reinforce their own political power and economic interests in protecting slavery as an institution.
It doesn't matter. The federal government currently claims that the USA is a single nation over the states; and Dilorenzo does not successfully COUNTER that claim; and therefore he CONCEDES it... and the right of states to secede out of the fact of their national sovereignty.
You obviously missed the economic argument in freeing the slaves. Who's to pay the owners? What will you do with 40% of a population that doesn't have any way of supporting themselves? Who's paying for their education? Also the security element. These were real concerns/problems that were very well known at the time and also considered very seriously in the south. The north could easily talk since they were not offering a real plan of action
@@SovereignStatesman
Nonsense. Federal government was not in the debate presenting that claim so it needed not to be addressed.
The Constitution is an international compact among separate, sovereign nation-states.
END OF DISCUSSION.
If you argue that, you win; if you don't, you LOSE since you concede the federal argument.
DILORENZO LOST.
Jaffa was to die about 20 days later. A fact filled talk from experience of a lifetime in history. While historians disagree, as here, remember: Education is the consideration of other ideas. This is a good example of the complexity of decisions and their impact. Douglas would of had a whole different impact on the US as we know it today. Lawson di Ransom Canyon
+Mark Lawson This event was held (and recorded) in May 2002, not the end of 2014. Jaffe died in Jan 2015.
Now if only Jaffa had said one single thing worth considering in his entire career.
DiLorenzo was out of his element.
Having now listened to argument and rebuttal Jaffa's position is clear. Slavery was bad therefore that must have been Lincoln's reason. I was really looking forward to seeing a Lincoln gunslinger destroyed...this was sad....but I guess that's really the best they've got.
If slavery's "bad," then why does the 13th Amendment say it's okay as punishment for crimes; meaning that it's not cruel or unusual, as prohibited by the 8th Amendment?
Meanwhile the Supreme Court in Butler v. Perry says that slavery only leads to bad consequences, but that the individual can still owe duties to the state like military service or unpaid labor. So obviously he's a hippo-crite.
From what I've read regarding those ~30 years leading up to the Civil War, it was the North constantly making concession after concession (Compromise of 1820, Kansas Nebraska Act, Fugitive Slave Law) to a demanding South on the issue of slavery. When Northern governments merely wanted to contain slavery to where it currently existed, Southerners somehow took that as an attack on their way of life. Indeed a trifecta of appeasing Northern presidents (Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan) made it their goal to never try to reduce slavery given the South's angry outbursts when it was even suggested that slavery not be permitted to unlimited expansion. In most Southern states Lincoln was omitted from the ballot in 1860 - is that not big government tampering with the outcome of an otherwise free and fair election? Of course Mr DiLorenzo ignores and deflects from this reality by saying "bbbbut Lincoln was a racist too" "bbbbut state's rights" while ignoring the vile and heinous treatment slaves suffered at the hands of white Southern governments
The USA is an international union among sovereign nations; and the Constitution simply established the electorate of each state as holding principal sovereign authority OVER their respective nation-state.
Dilorenzo doesn't expressly prove this, so he LOSES.
There's no need to quibble over what the North or South did or didn't do; the Constitution wasn't a national compact, but INTERNATIONAL like the UN or the EU.
So there couldn't be a civil war.
Which is why New Jersey had slavery until 1865. Read DiLorenzo's books... don't wait for the meeting vies
@20:25 Ad hominem. No class.