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

Willis Hart Virulent Idiocy Has Him Referring To Civil War Atrocities As "Ethnic Cleansing"

I'm thinking that the Libertarian Willis Hart must have been a Southerner who lived during the Civil War era in a former life. Likely one that strongly supported seceding from the Union due to his desire for slavery to continue. Although he no doubt lied about the reason being tariffs (OST #5 & SWTD #241).

I say this because the dude blogs about it with regularity. Likely hundreds of posts by now. And all of them concern his belief that the South had the right to leave the Union and Lincoln wanted them to stay so he could pass out tariff money extracted from the South to his cronies (DSD #20).

Willis Hart: My personal theory is that he [Abe Lincoln] just got so addicted to the tariff revenue which had fallen disproportionately on the Southern states and with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself. (3/15/2014 AT 7:23am). [Also] Willis Hart: ...from 1832 to 1857, the tariff was actually quite low (Andy Jackson having caved in prior to Lincoln). But it was more than doubled by the Morrill Act... (3/21/2014 AT 9:41pm).

Both of these assertions are hogwash, given the fact that "the passage of the [Morrill] tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession". The Morrill tariff (the tariff that really jacked up the rate) wasn't in place before succession! Prior to that tariff the trend was for cutting the rate. The fact is that the Morrill tariff "replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South". A FACT Willis acknowledges!

Another complaint of Mr. Hart's is the fact that the Northern armies committed atrocities against the people of the South.

Willis Hart: On the Warped Logic that, Since the South Fired the First Shot in the Civil War (the Truth Being that Lincoln Maneuvered Them Into this a la Polk with the Mexicans), this Gave Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler, etc. the Right to Ethnically-Cleanse and Dispossess Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Civilians and Starve to Death Three Year-Olds and the Elderly... If any other nation or leader on earth had perpetrated these atrocities, it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror. But because it was us (and especially because it was Abe Lincoln), yeah, not so much. I really think that we need to reexamine our history and, yes, especially those "good wars". (3/9/2016 AT 8:51am).

OK, so I agree with Mr. Hart that war crimes were committed, but none of this was "ethnic cleansing"!

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. (Wikipedia).

People living in the North were NOT ethnically different from people living in the South, therefore the term "ethnic cleansing" DOES NOT APPLY! I suspect that Willis using it has something to do with his strong racial biases. White people killing other White people is "ethnic cleansing" in the White-centric world he resides in. A reality created by a delusion so strong that it has the Harster wondering how many Black people voted to secede! Here is some real warped logic for you!

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that any Civil War war crimes were A-OK, btw. For the record, what I find most disturbing about the Harster's obsession with Civil War war crimes is that these war criminals are all LONG dead. Their crimes occurred over 150 years ago. More recent war crimes that still living presidents are guilty of? Those he dismisses. Clearly he's only for reexamining ancient history and not recent history.

Maybe in his NEXT life he'll be advocating we reexamine the Iraq war and proclaiming that, if any other nation or leader on earth had illegally invaded 2 countries, killed tens of thousands (shock and awe [1]), locking away (without trial) many innocent people (and justifying it by labeling them "unlawful combatants") it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror?

Remember that ex-preznit bush "claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq" (George Bush: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq")? And remember when he referred to the "war on terror" as a "crusade", implying that this was a Christian war against Muslims? Given that the Crusades were holy wars initiated by various Christian Popes to capture the Holy Lands, which were held by Muslims.

No doubt, certainly from a Afghan or Iraqi point of view, the US was perpetrating some "ethnic cleansing", no? I mean, with bush's wars there was forced removal (by death) of a people who were ethnically and religiously different than the more powerful invading force. SURELY the mass murder that took place in Afghanistan and Iraq fits the definition of "ethnic cleansing" WAY better than what happened during the Civil War (where both sides were ethnically and religiously very similar).

Footnote
[1] According to Iraq Body Count, "on a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces, reaching 7,286 by the time of President GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech of 1st May 2003". (Iraq Body Count report: how many died and who was responsible?).

Video: preznit doofus refers to the "war on terror" as a "crusade" implying that the US is carrying out a religious war of Christianity V Islam (0:12).

OST #118

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

On Willis Hart's Obliviousness In Regards To Societal Norms & How They Evolve

I've been reading this asshole's blog for awhile now, even though the jerk is too cowardly to publish any of my comments, explaining "I put a book over the comments section and when I see his jerk-off name I immediately click delete".

Fact is, that this yellow belly is too chicken to publish my comments is why I started this blog. So I could have a place to respond, when, after reading some of the Hartster's nonsense, I feel the need to talk back to his idiocy.

Today the idiocy in question is Willis' apparent obvious obliviousness when it comes to societal norms and the FACT that they evolve over time. Now, the Hartster has spent a LOT of time on his blog recently defending the Southern States and people of the South during the time of slavery and the Civil War era.

A lot of this defense relies on vilifying President Lincoln, a president who is frequently rated as one of America's best presidents. Now, I'm not going to address that issue with this commentary, except to say that President Lincoln is on record as being against slavery. That is a FACT.

The issue I want to focus on is Willis' ridiculous attempt to hold the inhabitants of the slavery free North to the societal norms of TODAY. The North being cast as the "good guys" is a "rewriting" of history that the Hartster won't stand for. They (the Northerners) were just as racist, says the straw-man-loving Willis.

And, make no mistake about it, but his "Northerners racist" argument is a strawman, because nobody has ever claimed that Northerners were "motivated primarily by racial justice" as the strawman-loving Willis claims. Of course they weren't, you dipshit. This is a TOTAL strawman. Yet the dissembling dummy actually claims that there is a Leftist conspiracy of (socialist?) scholars who are pushing this false narrative. (The Left engages in "partisan scholarship", he says).

But NOBODY ever claimed that the North was motivated by "racial justice", primarily, secondary or AT ALL. One of the more recent stoopids I read on the blog of Willis is that he is planning on publishing some comments from abolitionists of the time. I presume that some of them might have said some not-that-flattering things in regards to Black people.

As if this proves that the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery. It does not. But Willis thinks he can apply the societal norms of today to the people who lived during this time period. They're all racists in his opinion because they CONFORMED to the societal norms of their time.

Today we know better. People are individuals and judging anyone by their "race" is completely idiotic, given the fact that there is no gene for race. Some of us have different skin colors and different cultures, but we are all human beings.

TODAY we know that. But the societal norms of today took time to form. Now, I'm not excusing the racism of the past. I am only stating the facts. Judging people of that era against the societal norms of today is ridiculous. As is claiming that being accepting of slavery (and allowing it) is less racist than not allowing it, which the Hartster is also doing on his blog.

Did President Lincoln view African Americans as inferior? Yes he did. Did a lot of Northerners share his views? Yes they did. Was ANYONE motivated to go to war with the South because they thought "racial justice" demanded the abolishment of slavery and because they thought negroes were the equal of Whites? I would guess that statement applied to VERY few Northerners.

But, despite this, was the Civil War still fought because of slavery? YES. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens cited African slavery as the immediate cause of secession, as did the "declaration of causes" documents of several of the succeeding states.

What the societal norms of the time were does not change these facts, Willis, you lover of strawmen! Jeez... what a dope. I'd tell this guy to "open a history book", but now he no longer believes they all agree with him... but the reason for that is... a Leftist conspiracy has resulted in "partisan scholarship".

OST #28

Willis Hart Whines About Protests Concerning History Rewriting Libertarians

Lincoln was a power hungry and greedy dude who didn't give a damn about the evil of slavery. His only concern was squeezing the South for all the money he could (in the form of tariffs) to pay off his cronies... and THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Because the tyrant Lincoln would not let the Southern states leave the Union, as he should have! Slavery actually had very little to do with it.

Or, that is the rewriting of history supported by one delusional self-indoctrinated Libertarian named Willis Hart. The latest delusion? That there is a conspiracy among scholars of history to rewrite ALL OF IT in a manner that benefits the Left.

Commentary disclosing this conspiracy from Willis as follows...

Willis Hart: "On Partisan Scholarship"... The left has been peddling its wares in history for decades now (Eric Foner, James McPherson, Dean Sprague, Howard Zinn, Mark Neely, Arthur Schlesinger, Gary Wills, George Fletcher, Doris Kearns "I used to work for LBJ and vacationed with the Kennedys" Goodwin", etc.) and I have yet to hear a solitary clarion call to protest it. It was only when the libertarians started writing on historical subjects (ironic in that most of these writers has been every bit as tough on the Republicans as they've been on the Democrats) that the protesting started and it seems to be getting worse. My thoughts on the subject are clear; namely, that every damn side should be heard and what in the hell are we really worrying about here anyway? (Posted to the Contra O'Reilly blog on 7/29/2014 AT 7:48pm).

Yeah, sure, Willis. All sides should be heard. The side that believes in actual scholarship, which means accurately reporting on historical events, as well as other sides that believe rewriting history is an opportunity for them to validate their inane political beliefs. The liars, in other words.

Let both those who are reporting historical facts and those who are lying about the past be heard. Oh, wait, they ARE! This is just Willis whining about his side's rewriting of history being called out.

If you're going to lie and rewrite history, actual historians who strive for truth and accuracy have a Right, nay, an OBLIGATION to protest. But the Hartster says, "hey, shut up about the lying. How are Libertarians supposed to fool people into believing their garbage if actual historians protest these lies"?

And, just because Libertarian "historians" are peddling LIES that does not mean scholarship is "partisan". It only means the "scholarship" of the Libertarians is partisan!

This is the "both sides are equally guilty" canard that those who are WRONG have been peddling for some time now. Their bullshit is rightly met with skepticism by the public, so they attempt to muddy the waters by attempting to paint FACTS as partisan opinions.

"They present their opinions and we present ours" they'll say. That is fair, right? Except that they're LYING to further THEIR partisan agenda.

One of the latest examples of this... or one that I recently became aware of due to it's promotion on the "rAtional" nAtion blog, is the ahistorial meme that crony capitalism began with FDR. This would be the same FDR who welcomed the hatred of the economic royalists. (I refer to a blog post by the proprietor titled "Is the Republican Congress Likely To Continue New Deal Era Corporate Welfare").

So, I looked into it and found a reference to a new book by David Stockman on the Libertarian Misses website titled The Great Deformation (this lengthy tome of 770 pages is a rewriting of history that purports to expose the New Deal's "true legacy", which is "crony capitalism and fiscal demise").

As it turns out, this is another dishonest accounting of history that attempts to blame the recent economic downturn on Fannie and Freddie, etc. It was all the fault of poor people buying houses they couldn't afford, and the government forcing (via regulations) banks to make those (bad) loans. But, that is simply more history rewriting (it's utter bullplop, in other words).

Stockman even blames (among other FDR era laws) the Wagner Act, which was a law that allowed for workers more equal power with employers by allowing them to form unions. Sure, because employers not being able to screw workers is a BAD thing and is absolutely responsible for the rise of crony capitalism.

Because unions want to make sure their rights are protected and donate (in significantly lesser amounts than the plutocrats), I presume. But then the plutocrats might not have to spend so much bribing politicians if not for the dastardly unions. So Stockman's argument is that we should just let our corporate masters have their way (screw workers and poison the environment) and that will be economically beneficial? Beneficial to the plutocrats, that is.

And that is what all this history rewriting is all about, folks. Justifying policies that favor the wealthy. As far as making Lincoln out to be a tyrant, the reason behind that is so blame can be placed on a LIBERAL Republican for the sorry economic state of the (solidly Red) South today.

OST #27

On History Books Always Agreeing With Willis Hart & People Who Disagree With Him Not Reading Them

History books always seem to agree with Willis Hart, or at least he thinks they always do...

Willis Hart: I really think that Mr. Obama needs to open a history book and study what President Hoover did in response to the depression and hopefully garner a lesson or two from it... (7/8/2014 AT 3:14pm).

To everyone who disagrees with Willis he gives the advice that they should "open a history book". Even a highly educated man like our president is a dumb-dumb in the eyes of Willis the egomaniac.

Don't believe me? Here's an example of Willis denying the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. And calling me a "total moron" for not agreeing with him that the history books say this is the case.

Willis Hart: He's a total moron... Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's... (3/22/2014 AT 2:44pm).

Wrong. Lincoln was motivated by his desire to keep the union intact, but the South absolutely did cite slavery as THE motivating factor. African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession according to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.

And, by the way, the history books disagree with Willis.

Willis is wrong on slavery not being the root cause of the civil war, and also wrong on the minimum wage being economically bad (the subject of the minimum wage is what Willis is ranting ranting against in the 1st quote from his blog).

The Center For American Progress: Raising the minimum wage would be good for our economy. A higher minimum wage not only increases workers' incomes - which is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going - but it also reduces turnover, cuts the costs that low-road employers impose on taxpayers, and pushes businesses toward a high-road, high-human-capital model. (Excerpt from a 9/13/2013 article, "Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy").

Putting more money into the hands of workers would increase demand because workers would spend that money back into the economy. This argument that businesses would have to fire people is false. The increased demand would pay for the wage increase.

Instead Willis wants to keep workers poor just so those at the top can get a bigger piece of the pie. And Willis' fellow stooges over at his echo chamber actually have the audacity to call those desiring a living wage "greedy"!

It is quite shameful in my opinion. And this nonsense about history books always agreeing with Willis is idiotic. I am sure our president is well read when it comes to the history of America. He probably just does not read whatever Libertarian-authored history-revising tomes that the gullible Hartster reads.

OST #22

Exciting New Literary Work From Amateur Historical Revisionist Willis Hart!

Announcing an exciting new work of historical revisionism by novice history revisor Willis Hart...

Willis Hart Pontificates on the War of Northern Aggression: A Dissertation in 1,001 Parts, Volume 1 (Where the History Books are Right and Where the History Books are Wrong).

Anyone going to be lined up at Barnes & Noble on the day this is released to get his or her copy personally autographed by Willis Hart?

Published by "The Crazy Southern Conservative History Revisionism Press" (Copyright 11/28/2014). Makes the perfect Christmas gift for your crazy Rightwing history-revising-enthusiast relative!

Rejected (unread) by more than a dozen major publishers due to Willis' REFUSAL to use paragraphs. Although, if he had used pargraphs they likely all would have rejected it anyway, due to it's major historical innacurracies ("innacurracies" some might refer to as canards).

(This post in response to a commentary from Willis regarding my "new Netflix series").

OST #13. See also SWTD #257.

In Regards To The Claim That The Civil War Was Fought Over States' Rights

According to a series of recent posts by Mr. Willis V. Hart the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Tariffs on Cotton was the reason, and those tariffs were a States' Rights issue. It is, however pretty easy to disprove bullplop like this - all one has to do is take a look at the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States which all cite slavery as their reason for leaving the union.

Between the dates 12/20/1860 and 11/20/1861 13 states ratified ordinances of secession, with four states - "Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas also issuing separate declarations of causes, in which they explained their reasons for secession" (quoted from Wikipedia).

Much of the complaining has to do with the North not adhering to the Fugitive Slave Clause contained in the 4th amendment to the Constitution (see here for the complete text of all four states' declarations).

Given the fact that four states specifically cited slavery as the reason they decided to leave the union, and no state ever cited States' Rights as a reason, it can be conclusively concluded that the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Case closed. The Civil War not fought because of tariffs or States' Rights. Both assertions (made on the blog of Mr. Willis Hart) are false and a disservice to those who seek an honest accounting of history.

Because without such an honest accounting we cannot acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them - which is exactly what many who dissemble on this issue desire. They don't want us to learn from history. Their desire is that minorities should continue to be discriminated against and deprived of their voting rights. I'm not saying this is Mr. Hart's motivation, but he surely is not a part of the solution with his recent (and numerous) Ahistorical commentaries on the subject of the Civil War and slavery.

OST #6. See also SWTD #242.

Willis Hart Taken In By Myth That Civil War Was About Tariffs

In a 3/15/2014 post the blogger Willis Hart speaks about the Civil War and how he believes we shouldn't have fought it. Regarding why President Lincoln decided fight a war to prevent the South from leaving the union, Mr. Hart says "my personal theory is that he just got so addicted to the tariff revenue... with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself".

Unfortunately for Willis, a 6/5/2013 NYT article titled "The Great Civil War Lie" points out that tariffs being the reason for sucession is a myth. According to the article, the North worried about England supporting Southern independance because of their "reliance on imported Southern cotton [and that] many in Britain thought that the" reason was the Morrill Tariff. These English pro-Southern succession believed the tariff "so incensed the Southern states that they left the union".

But the truth of the matter is that "passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession". Furthermore, the article states that "Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition".

And that is a myth that continues to this day. Because Southern history re-writers, still supporting "states rights" (code for laws intended to prevent Black voters from casting ballots), don't wish the truth about their shameful past to be known. And they surely do not want anyone pointing out the fact that discrimination is still very much alive in the South. When the Conservative SCOTUS members recently voted to strike down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Southern States immediately submitted legislation designed to disenfranchise Black voters.

No doubt Willis read about how tariffs were the reason for the Civil War on some Rightwing website - and the gullible fool (who is very much opposed to tariffs) ate it up. Further debunking Mr. Hart's assertion is the fact that the Morill tariff "replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South". Wikipedia notes that the original tariff was passed in "1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South".

Also bogus are Mr. Hart's claims that Lincoln was "so addicted to the tariff revenue" and needed the money to support cronyism. The truth is that "the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue".

Willis is way wrong about tariffs causing the Civil War, as the tariff would not have been passed if the Southern states had not left the union. This is a chicken & egg argument, with Mr. Hart getting the order of how things played out mixed up. But, as I already noted, the dude is a strong supporter of unrestricted "free trade", so his falling for this BS is not surprising. Given that this old lie feeds into the Southern states desire to conceal the truth about their voting laws designed to restrict the voting rights of minorities, it is quite unfortunate.

OST #5. See also SWTD #241.