On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)

Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart agrees with Pat Buchannon on. That a "free boat ride" to America was something slaves should have been (Buchanan) - or actually were (Hart) - grateful for.

Willis Hart: On the Strong Possibility that a Large Chunk of the Blacks that Lincoln, Beecher-Stowe, Stevens, and the Rest of the Colonization Crowd Wanted to Deep-Six Back to Africa Would Have Been Re-Enslaved by the Far More Virulent African Slavers and Worked to Death... Yeah, Lincoln and company didn't seem all that concerned (as long as the black folks were gone, I guess). (4/16/2017 at 11:26am).

So, I guess Hart has never heard of Liberia? A country in Africa that "began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States". This was a country that "declared its independence on 7/26/1847", which was before the beginning of the Civil War. Former slaves journeying to Liberia didn't go there to be re-enslaved, as far as I know.

And, for the record, Lincoln was a supporter of VOLUNTARY colonization (resettling freed Blacks outside the United States, including in Liberia). Although to hear Willis tell it the resettlement was involuntary ("deep-six back to Africa").

Obviously, given these two facts, the Hartster's post is pure bullshit. Free Blacks returning to Africa (which some did) were not re-enslaved by "the far more virulent African slavers". Nor was any free Black "deep sixed" (sent back to Africa involuntarily). Or, I'm not aware of any large scale effort to send any Black person back to Africa against their will.

Wikipedia/Abraham Lincoln and slavery: Lincoln pursued various plans to voluntarily colonize free blacks outside the United States, but none of these had a major effect. ...he firmly opposed compulsory colonization... Historians disagree over whether or not his plans to colonize blacks were sincere or political posturing. Regardless, by the end of his life, Lincoln had come to support black suffrage. ... In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he promoted voting rights for blacks.

It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that racial harmony would be possible in the United States" that he supported colonization. As opposed to wanting to "deep six" Blacks back to Africa because he hated them. He just didn't see a future in which Whites and Blacks lived together in harmony.

Clearly Hart's intense hatred for Abe Lincoln is the driving force behind all his posts about how horrible our 16th president was. Not any anti-racist sentiments. Ironic, given the fact that (on 9/23/2011) Willis wrote that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (OST #130).

Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself quite racist. In fact - what he writes about how horrible it would be for Blacks returning to Africa - sounds to me a LOT like what Pat Buchanan wrote about African Americans who are Americans as a result of their ancestors being kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

Pat Buchanan: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. (A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).

This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 A More Perfect Union speech ("Wright" is a reference to Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright). A commentary that many have interpreted as Buchanan telling descendents of slaves in America that they should be saying "thanks for the free boat ride" their ancestors got (despite the fact that "about 12.5 percent of slaves transported died in the Middle Passage, 4.5 percent died on shore before the date of sale, and one-third died in the process of acclimating to the Americas - a total mortality of about 50 percent").

[Pat Buchanan's commentary said] In essence: Be grateful to God (with his beautiful, piercing blue eyes) that we offered you a free boat ride to paradise, you Black savages. (Re: A Brief for Whitey by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).

America is a paradise that Blacks would not want to leave - AKA be "deep-sixed" to an African hell where they would be worked to death? That sounds a LOT to me like "thanks for the free boat ride". "Thanks for the free boat ride to paradise. I don't want to go back". Even though some did.

But (in the Hartster's mind) Lincoln wanted them gone (and didn't care what happened to them after they were forcibly resettled), because he (Lincoln) was so racist. As opposed to Hart being the racist. Which isn't to say that I agree with re-colonization or resettlement of Blacks. Regardless of how they got here, they had been here for multiple generations (at this point) and this was (and is) their country as well.

I just don't believe that Lincoln's belief/worry that there could never be racial harmony is proof of intense racism. And that Lincoln just wanted Blacks gone and was therefore quite willing to "deep-six" them to an African hell. Hart's guesses are all completely wrong. Or largely wrong. I mean, given the fact that Libera existed at the time and some free Blacks had already left America to return to Africa.

And there is the fact that this idea of Blacks leaving America en masse never really went anywhere. So why the obsession? Just something to bash Lincoln over, I guess.

OST #205

Evolving Willis #2: Abraham Lincoln 180 Degree Flip-Flop

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart claims that he hasn't changed. He once authored a post in which he found the suggestion so ridiculous as to be amazed that someone would actually suggest it.

Willis Hart: On the Claim that I've Changed... I've changed? I'VE CHANGED? Wow, huh? (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am).

Wow? No, the only thing I'd say "wow" to is the number of examples one could give that the opinions of Willis have changed RADICALLY. To illustrate this point I have created this series of posts... which I have labeled using the tag "Evolving Willis" (Note that this is only the 2nd one in the series, but there will be more).

The shocking 180 degree flip-flop I examine in this post concerns Mr. Hart's feelings regarding the 16th president of the United States.

Willis Hart: The Five Greatest Presidents in U.S. History IMHO... 5) Teddy Roosevelt (trust-busting, conservation, "speak softly but carry a big stick"). 4) Harry Truman (strong anti-Communist, pro-business, "the buck stops here"). 3) John F. Kennedy (the Cuban missile crisis, cut taxes, "ask not what your country can do for you"). 2) George Washington (yes, he was a slave-holder but he also founded the damned country). 1) Abraham Lincoln (the Emancipation Proclamation, saved the union, "four score and seven years ago"). (9/23/2011 AT 6:58pm).

Wow, indeed! In the opinion of Willis, Abe is the #1 greatest prez ever? Looks like it, me buck.

Or so he used to believe... apparently. At the time, but no more.

Willis Hart: On Lincoln Equating "Departing from" with "Destroying"... Delusional, illogical, and right up there with his contention that the Union preceded the states and his absolute ignoring of the 9th and 10th Amendments (where one could quite readily assert the right to self-determination) and replacing them with one of his own. (12/12/2015 AT 9:32pm).

As per a 12/9/2014 post Abe Lincoln is #1 on Willis Hart's list of "all time least favorite presidents. So Willis went from heralding Lincoln for keeping the Union intact, to condemning him for it. And calling him "delusional" to boot (as per the above quoted commentary).

Does this mean that Willis was delusional when he proclaimed Abe to be the #1 greatest prez because he "saved the union"? Or maybe Willis is delusional now, given the fact that Lincoln generally IS considered one of our best presidents?

New ranking of U.S. presidents puts Lincoln at No. 1, Obama at 18; Kennedy judged most overrated. (article except) ...in 2014 we surveyed 162 members of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section and asked them to rate the U.S. presidents. ... Abraham Lincoln was rated the greatest president, with an average score of 95 out of 100. (Washington Post 2/16/2015). How experts determine if Obama, others are "best presidents". (article excerpt) In 2014, NYT columnist Paul Krugman's claims that Barack Obama should be considered one of the best recent presidents has generated a lot of debate. But how do historians and political scientists rank leaders over a long time span? ...historian Arthur Schlesinger, who decided to poll other historians about the past performance of presidents. Schlesinger polled 55 historians about 5 rating categories for an article in Life magazine. ...his list included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. (Constitution Daily, blog National Constitution Center blog).

Note that the "The American Political Science Association (APSA) is a professional association of political science students and scholars in the United States" and the "National Constitution Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to explaining the US Constitution and what it represents [which] regularly hosts government leaders, journalists, scholars, and celebrities for public discussions including presidential debates".

Groups with some authority to produce these rankings, in other words. Although rankings produced by public polling produce similar results. here is one such ranking that puts Abe in the #1 position (The Top Tens), and here is another that rates Washington #1 and Lincoln #2 (Ranker.com). Point is, Willis is in the minority with his assessment of Lincoln.

Negative opinions of Lincoln aren't generally seen until you look at what Libertarians and far-Right nutjobs say. And that's where they get EXTREMELY negative.

Mises Daily (Libertarian think tank) Confronting the Lincoln Cult by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 6/3/2002. World Net Daily (A Far-Right extremist website know for indulging in conspiracy/racism/bigotry) Lincoln's Legacy of Corruption by Ilana Mercer, 2/13/2002.

Note that if you go to Wikipedia and enter "Lincoln cult" you will be redirected to the page for Thomas J. DiLorenzo. BTW, that people who promote the idea that Abe Lincoln was one of our best presidents are members of a "cult" is a meme that Willis subscribes to.

Willis Hart: A Very Simple Question for the Cult of Lincoln... If Mr. Lincoln was so opposed to slavery, then why did he not abolish it in those places where he had the power to; the northern and border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland, numerous counties in West Virginia, and the northern occupied parts of the Confederacy (New Orleans and other sections of Louisiana)? That, and why did the dude wait until it looked like the South was winning before he put forth this wonderful Emancipation Proclamation (which, again, only made slavery illegal in the Confederacy)? Da' ya' think that maybe it was because he was trying to stir up a little bit of trouble down there? That's my theory. (3/19/2014 AT 9:26pm).

I have a very simple question for the Willis, which is, is the belief that Lincoln was one of our best presidents held by people in a "cult" or is it more of a mainstream consensus? To me it definitely looks like the latter and not the former.

For the record, I understand the (Libertarian-informed) argument Willis is making. I just don't think it's accurate. That argument being that "if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably".

The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Civil War (excerpt from a review of the 10/21/2008 book by Mother Jones author Nick Baumann)... I find the idea of the slave states voluntarily giving up their slaves to be really, really dumb. The Southern states seceded largely because they didn't want to be ruled by Lincoln, who had argued against expanding slavery into new territories. The Confederate constitution says, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed". But in case you don't believe me, I asked retired army Lt. Colonel Robert Mackey, author of The UnCivil War and bona fide Civil War geek. Dr. Mackey, a combat veteran who was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, says it's "a heaping pile of bullshit" and offers up a few reasons why... [including the fact that] Slaves represented real property value. The South's biggest asset wasn't cotton, it was human beings. [Post Civil War The South's] entire economic system... was based on sharecropping. Sharecropping only worked because the "New South" replaced [actual slavery] with [virtual slavery]. It was a form of slavery as well - just one in which "the owners" had no moral or ethical responsibility to care for the slave... since they had no "property rights" [ownership of their slaves]. There is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended. There was no antebellum abolitionist movement in the South. On the contrary, the entire social system was set up to reinforce slavery. Lastly, just imagine how easy it would have been for anti-labor industrialists to move factories South, where you not only did not have labor unions, but could contract for workers from their "owners" at a set, low rate. It would have been horror, and the death of any hope of democracy in America.

Frankly I'm more inclined to agree with this opinion than disagree with it. The Civil War, as horrific as it was, was what ended slavery. Slavery would not have ended without it. Although Willis disagrees.

Willis Hart: I'm also strongly of the opinion that we could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without 3% of the population being murdered (a substantial number of them being civilians as a part of Lincoln's "total war") and half of the country's total net worth being destroyed. Literally every other country in the world (Haiti being the exception) did it that way and so, why not us? (3/20/2014 AT 9:57pm

Would getting rid of slavery without a war have been possible? I'm not 100 percent sure, but (like I said) I'm inclined to believe with the statement that "there is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended". As for Hart's other anti-Lincoln arguments, I'll leave them for possible future posts, although I have rebutted some of his arguments previously (see OST label CIVIL WAR and SWTD label CIVIL WAR).

The point of this post was to point out the RADICAL flip that the Hartster made regarding his opinion of Abe Lincoln. I mean, the guy takes umbrage at the suggestion that he's changed, but he clearly has. In that the "small L libertarian" has become much more Libertarian. In that it's the Libertarians who hold the opinion that Lincoln was a crappy president. As opposed to the mainstream opinion, which is that Abe was our greatest prez (or highly ranked among the best).

Supporting Document
[DSD #20] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Bought The Out-Of-The-Mainstream Libertarian "Lincoln Cult" Lincoln Hating Argument With Gusto. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he attacks Abe Lincoln as a president who committed "atrocities" and was "majorily insane").

OST #130

On The Offensive Suggestion By Willis Hart That Free Blacks In 1861 Winchester VA Would Have Voted For Secession (& Therefore A Continuation Of Slavery)

Another offensive commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he argues that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought and slavery should have been allowed to continue (note: some argue that if the Civil War had not been fought slavery would have eventually been phased out/ended, an assertion that I'm not at all sure is accurate, but this isn't a question I'm addressing with this post, only the claim by WTNPH that free Blacks would vote for seccession).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in 1861 (According to Historian, Jonathan Noyalas, and the Official Virginia County Vote) Winchester Virginia Voted 81% in Favor of Seceding from the Union... The most telling statistic of all is that nearly half of the black population there was free... I wonder how those folks voted. P.S. And, yes, I do have an anecdote here. According to Roger Delauter's book, "Winchester in the Civil War", an African-American women wearing a black crepe rosette badge in honor of Stonewall Jackson (who had recently died) was ordered by Union Forces to remove the badge and when she refused was banished from the town. People (whether they be Iraqis, Filipinos, or folks from the South) don't like being occupied apparently. (2/20/2016 AT 2:47pm).

Willis wonders how the free Blacks of Winchester VA voted, but with this "wondering" he ASSUMES that they did indeed vote. The information I was able to locate, however, says they most likely were not allowed to vote.

Encyclopedia Virginia: Once free, Africans and African Americans (blacks imported to Virginia from the West Indies or 2nd or 3rd generation Africans born in Virginia) were expected to live as members of the community, to become in some respects "black Englishmen". This meant owning land, voting, and paying taxes; it also meant keeping their lives separate from enslaved blacks. By the beginning of the 18th century, however, slavery had become more ensconced in VA and was defined almost entirely in racial terms. New laws restricted slaves' access to freedom and free blacks' ability to vote or hold positions of power. Many free blacks left or were ordered out of the colony, and those who remained tended to be poorer and identify more with enslaved blacks than with whites.. (Free Blacks in Colonial Virginia by Brendan Wolfe).

A "telling statistic"? What a dope. These free blacks (and yes, I checked that WTNPH fact as well, and it appears to be true [1]) most likely could not vote. But if any could, would they have voted to secede (and therefore continue slavery)? Frankly I find it offensive to suggest that they would (which WTNPH does, providing an anecdote to "prove" that).

BTW, according to Shenandoah At War (Shenandoah being a VA country located 68 miles south-west of Winchester) "slaves realized that any freedom Union soldiers could offer them was protected only so long as Union forces occupied the region"... which suggests that occupation might be viewed positively by African-American slaves.

Things improved for [Shenandoah] Valley slaves when Union Gen. Robert H. Milroy's division occupied the lower Valley on 1/1/1863 - the date President Abraham Lincoln's Proclamation took effect. An IN native and devout Presbyterian Milroy believed that until slaves were emancipated the Union war effort in VA would continue to stall. Milroy took the unseasonably warm weather on New Year's Day in the Valley as a sign from God that He had sent Milroy to the Shenandoah to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. "This day President Lincoln will proclaim the freedom of four millions of human slaves, the most important event in the history of the world since Christ was born", Milroy exclaimed. Additionally Milroy's confidence in his mission of emancipation was further buoyed by two important historical connections that Winchester — the location of his headquarters - had with slavery's perpetuation. First, Winchester served as the home of Judge Richard Parker who presided over John Brown's trial in 1859. Winchester also served as the home of Senator James Mason who authored the controversial Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850. Valley slaves and civilians eagerly waited to see how aggressive Milroy would be in enforcing emancipation. On 1/5/1863 Milroy issued his own proclamation, "Freedom to Slaves" that stated he would do everything in his power to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. (African Americans' Civil War in the Shenandoah, Shenandoah At War.

So, according to this source, Winchester was the HQ of a Union General who sought to enforce Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, yet Willis says (in his post) that the people of Winchester didn't like being occupied... implying, of course, that the African American inhabitants of Winchester (free and slave) wanted VA to remain a slave state. And that they wanted the North to f*ck off. Basically, they were throwing their lot in with the Confederacy.

But, if that was the case, what explains the following...

The speculation of slaves and free blacks in Charles Town [WV, aprox 20 miles north-east of Winchester] at the war's outset typified the undercurrent of glimmering hope that permeated the Valley's slave population in the spring of 1861. [Also] Once more former slaves and free blacks (who had been free prior to the war's outbreak) attempted to flee with the retreating Union army for fear of both brutal treatment by Confederate soldiers and being impressed into the Confederacy's service.

So, contrary to the picture Willis is attempting to paint (that free Blacks were with the Confederacy and actually voted to exit the Union), the FACT is that the African American population of Winchester (and surrounding towns), instead of being with the Whites and the Confederacy, had hope that the war would result in freedom for all Blacks (free and slave). And they got the hell out of there when the Union was forced to retreat. Instead of being eager to fight "the occupiers", as one might think they'd be willing to do... if Willis' picture-painting were to be believed.

No, the fact is that pre and post secession both free and enslaved African Americans knew (or were hopeful that) a war would bring freedom. So, perhaps with that in mind, free Blacks would have voted for to leave the Union in order to force a war that would bring freedom? (even though the evidence shows they could not vote). But I surely don't buy that the Winchester free Blacks would cast pro-Confederacy votes because they actually wanted the South to break off from the North... so that slavery could continue (and YES, the Civil War absolutely was fought over slavery; another fact the history-rewriting Harster continually denies, claiming instead that it was fought over states rights and tariffs).

This post by the Hartster in which he speaks of "the most telling statistic of all", is, IMO, further evidence of his racist mindset. What he's saying is that the South just wanted to be free. In fact, this is what EVERYONE (of all races) in the South wanted. As opposed to racist Whites wanting slavery to continue (and them secceeding because they worried that Abe Lincoln would end it). And, to me, saying that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery but instead it was fought over freedom (for whites and BLACKS)? That's a perversion of history I find QUITE racist. Sorry, but yes.

Footnote
[1] "In 1860 Winchester, a town of 3000 white inhabitants, had 675 free negroes, only nineteen less than half of the blacks of the town". (The free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865 by John Henderson Russell).*

OST #112