Was the U.S. entry into WWI a mistake?

[theo]

Its a bit long, but Stockman makes a compelling argument that America's entry into WWI did more harm than good. He indicts Wilson's decision for cause the rise of Hitler and Lenin. Stockman also claims that the invariable increase in U.S. debt forced the Government to allow the Fed to buy U.S. bonds. Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-2 ... as-mistake

My humble thesis tonight is that the entire 20th Century was a giant mistake.

And that you can put the blame for this monumental error squarely on Thomas Woodrow Wilson——-a megalomaniacal madman who was the very worst President in American history……..well, except for the last two.

His unforgiveable error was to put the United States into the Great War for utterly no good reason of national interest. The European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA. In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

Actually, his thinly veiled reason for plunging the US into the cauldron of the Great War was to obtain a seat at the peace conference table——so that he could remake the world in response to god’s calling.

But this was a world about which he was blatantly ignorant; a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited; and an utter chimera based on 14 points that were so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it: Intervention positioned Wilson to play “The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”. America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World.

Needless to say, there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention. It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists—-when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides. (The actual article is much longer, but pretty interesting)

[68Camaro]

Why stop there? Go back another 50 years and ask if Lincolns war was a mistake. Slavery was already burning itself out on its own and that would continue so that wasn't reason enough to start a war that killed and maimed millions. And weren't states able to revoke their agreement to join the federation? Saying no goes against everything we stood for. That Lincoln was a racist there is no doubt - based on his own words - so it was not love of equality he wanted to fight for. He just didn't want to go down as the president that broke up the union.

[brian0918]

If the government can't convince us with solid arguments to sign up voluntarily, then it's not a war we should fight. There were very few volunteers for WWI, and it was only after he got little support that Wilson moved forward with a draft. In contrast, the vast majority of the soldiers during the Civil War were volunteers.

[johnbrickner]

Love the way you guys think!

his call to make the world safe for democracy,

Is still used today to justify our use of military.

If the government can't convince us with solid arguments to sign up voluntarily, then it's not a war we should fight.

I've read we should let the enlisted men and non-com officers vote to go to war before we march.

Why stop there? Go back another 50 years and ask if Lincolns war was a mistake.

Or we can go 100 years into the future and ask the same regarding our involvement in the middle east. So far, it's brought us ISIS. Who knows what it will look like in a few more years. We're already asking if it was a mistake.

[theo]

Why stop there? Go back another 50 years and ask if Lincolns war was a mistake. Slavery was already burning itself out on its own and that would continue so that wasn't reason enough to start a war that killed and maimed millions. And weren't states able to revoke their agreement to join the federation? Saying no goes against everything we stood for. That Lincoln was a racist there is no doubt - based on his own words - so it was not love of equality he wanted to fight for. He just didn't want to go down as the president that broke up the union.

I doubt that Lincoln's view of Africans would measure up to today's sensibilities; however, based on the quotes I've read, he clearly had a moral issue with slavery. To your first point, I agree. The Civil War was probably not needed to eradicate slavery. The industrial revolution achieved that on its own in Great Britain and in the North; however the South, with its addiction to cheap labor, was taking far longer than the northern abolitionists would have liked.

You are also correct that Lincoln's top priority was to preserve the Union. I have the impression that by the time he took office, conflict was the only way to achieve that goal. While it can be argued that some accommodation should have been reached (probably under Buchanan or earlier), once War was inevitable it is unreasonable to expect Lincoln to allow secession.

I guess my question is, did the South have a Constitutional reason for seceding? Would you argue that the Federal tariff policy the southerners so strongly opposed was unconstitutional? (To be honest I'm not sure) A Constitutional dispute is one thing, but a group of states seceding because the Federal government's trade policy and/or stance on slavery runs contrary to their economic interests would make the U.S. and its Constitution meaningless.

[68Camaro]

You should read Lincoln uncensored sometime, if you haven't. Pretty shocking. There is plenty of room there to doubt what he might have thought about slavery or his reasons for abolishing it by decree. There was clearly no power he was unwilling to wield, even to the extent of ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands for the sake of... what?

Some questions for thought... Did abolishing slavery simply become his convenient excuse for preservation of the Union at all cost?
Where does the Constitution require a permanent Union? Why is any more of a reason needed to secede from the Union (because one wants to) than is needed to join (because one wants to). If two parties are in a Union and one doesn't want to be, is it still a Union? The root cause the South seceded was because of Federal abuse of states rights; States rights are constitutional - Federal abuse of them is not. When a Constitution is ignored by Courts that rule on what it is and isn't, and twist it beyond all recognition, does it cease to be a Constitution?

[brian0918]

There are no states' rights. Only individuals have rights. If the Constitution runs contrary to that, then the Constitution is at fault. The South was guilty of widespread individual rights violations, and no amount of hand-waving makes that not the case. At the very least, the North would have been in the right to cut off all trade with the South, but the North also wouldn't have been in the wrong for going to war for the specific purpose of freeing the slaves. Now fighting to "maintain the Union" is another matter.

[68Camaro]

There are no states' rights. Only individuals have rights. If the Constitution runs contrary to that, then the Constitution is at fault. The South was guilty of widespread individual rights violations, and no amount of hand-waving makes that not the case. At the very least, the North would have been in the right to cut off all trade with the South, but the North also wouldn't have been in the wrong for going to war for the specific purpose of freeing the slaves. Now fighting to "maintain the Union" is another matter.

If there are no "states' rights", then there is no "Federal right" and certainly no right for any entity to go to war with any other entity.

Ah well, these discussions always decline into the ridiculous, so I'm out of this one.

[Treetop]

Involved in the civil war and states rights issues was much more then preserving slavery. According to a amateur food/crop historian I know the north wanted to keep the south its source of cheap food, and away from industrializing. Including controlling how the sold to europe if I remember right. Lots of details he told me I dont remember, but slavery according to him wasnt even the main thing they wanted to preserve, and in my own reading was likely heading out anyway. your average southernor according to things Ive read atleast wasnt terribly happy about it either, those were their potential jobs being done by slaves. Most in the south were just left growing their food and being poor.

My grandmother was obsessed with lincoln, and had books written about him going all the back to when he was living. He definitely had issues with slavery, but he was undeniably racist.

[theo]

You should read Lincoln uncensored sometime, if you haven't. Pretty shocking. There is plenty of room there to doubt what he might have thought about slavery or his reasons for abolishing it by decree. There was clearly no power he was unwilling to wield, even to the extent of ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands for the sake of... what?

Some questions for thought... Did abolishing slavery simply become his convenient excuse for preservation of the Union at all cost?
Where does the Constitution require a permanent Union? Why is any more of a reason needed to secede from the Union (because one wants to) than is needed to join (because one wants to). If two parties are in a Union and one doesn't want to be, is it still a Union? The root cause the South seceded was because of Federal abuse of states rights; States rights are constitutional - Federal abuse of them is not. When a Constitution is ignored by Courts that rule on what it is and isn't, and twist it beyond all recognition, does it cease to be a Constitution?

First if you have a link to some his more indictable quotes please send it to me, I have a vague recollection of some surprising statements from Lincoln but I couldn't find them in my initial search.

I think several motives can be attributed to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in Jan of 1863.

1. Lincoln saw an opportunity and felt a moral obligation to use the Civil War to end slavery once and for all. (Basically the accepted version)

2. It was a master P.R. stroke to attach a moral imperative to the War and solidify support for what he must have known would be a long and bloody conflict.

3. It was psychological warfare with the objective of stoking fears among the planter class of armed ex-slaves returning to exact their revenge. Sun Tzu would likely have approved.

Does anybody have a fourth or a fifth?

Finally, secession is a serious endeavor and should not be undertaken simply because a state or a region sees it as advantageous to walk away. I believe the secession movement in the South was driven by the planter class because they where being harmed by Federal trade policy. And they represented what? 5% of the population? Not exactly grass roots.

However, if a state or group of states deemed a Federal action or policy as unconstitutional and then sought to restore constitutional law within their boundaries; then you have a moral and legal basis for secession and the possibility of more widespread support. Unfortunately that was impossible for the South because one of the "rights" they were fighting for was to be able to own and keep slaves. This was morally repugnant and constitutionally unsustainable. Something that Lincoln never let the public forget.

[johnbrickner]

An extra 200,000 troops helped as the numbers of white volunteers were declining.

Found these here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/thom ... lincoln-2/
“Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 405).

“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . .” (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146).

“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 146).

“Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).

Until His Dying Day, Lincoln Plotted to Deport all the Black People Out of America

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” [to Liberia, Central America, anywhere]. (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right , and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime . . .” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).

“The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374).

LINCOLN ONLY RHETORICALLY OPPOSED SOUTHERN SLAVERY. IN PRACTICE, HE STRENGTHENED IT

” I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty himself.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 130).

“I meant not to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.” (CW, Vol., II, p. 260).

“I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination I the people of the free states to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 492).

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 460).

LINCOLN CHAMPIONED THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT

“I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law.” (CW, Vol., III., p. 40).

“[T]he people of the Southern states are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 41).

Lincoln Advocated Secession When it Could Advance His Political Career

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” (CW, Vol. 1, p. 438).

LINCOLN VIEWED FORT SUMTER AS AN IMPORTANT TAX COLLECTION POINT AND WENT TO WAR OVER IT

“I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue.” (CW, Vol. IV, p. 164).

LINCOLN BELIEVED THE CONSTITUTION WAS WHATEVER HE ALONE SAID IT WAS

“The dogmas of the quite past [referring to the U.S. Constitution], are inadequate to the stormy present . . . so we must think anew and act anew.” (CW, Vol. V, p. 537).

“The resolutions quote from the constitution, the definition of treason; and also the . . . safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen . . . against the pretensions of arbitrary power . . . . But these provisions of the constitution have no application to the case we have in hand.” (CW, Vol. VI, p. 262.

“[T]he theory of the general government being only an agency, whose principles are the states [i.e. the true history of the American founding] was new to me and, as I think, is one of the best arguments for the national supremacy.” (CW, Vol. VII, p. 24.

“I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful . . .” (CW, Vol. VII, p. 281).

“You [General John Dix] are therefore hereby commanded forth with to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers [New York World and New York Journal of Commerce].” CW, Vol. VII, p. 348.

“It was decided [by Lincoln alone] that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the writ [of Habeas Corpus].” CW, Vol. IV, pp. 430-431.

LINCOLN WAS ECONOMICALLY IGNORANT OF THE BIG ECONOMIC ISSUE OF HIS DAY: PROTECTIONIST TARIFFS

“[A] tariff of duties on imported goods . . . is indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people.” (CW, Vol. I, p. 307.

“[B]y the tariff system . . . the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country , pays nothing at all.” (CW, Vol. I, p. 311).

“All carrying . . . of articles from the place of their production to a distant place for their consumption . . . is useless labor.” (CW, Vol. I, p. 409).

“I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not changed my views.” (CW, Vol, III, p. 487).

“The tariff is to the government what a meal is to a family . . .” (CW, Vol., IV, p. 211).

“I must confess that I do not understand the subject [the economics of tariffs].” (CW, Vol. IV, p. 211).

“The power confided to me, will be used . . . to collect the duties and imposes; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion . . .” (CW, Vol. IV, p. 266).

“Accumulations of the public revenue, lying within [Fort Sumter] had been seized [and denied to the U.S. government] . . . . [The administration] sought only to hold the public places and property [i.e., the forts] . . . to collect the revenue.” (CW, Vol. IV, pp. 422-423).

ALTHOUGH HE NEVER BECAME A CHRISTIAN, LINCOLN CLAIMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF GOD AND BLAMED THE WAR ON HIM, ABSOLVING HIMSELF OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, IN ORDER TO BAMBOOZLE THE RELIGIOUS POPULATION OF THE NORTH

“[I]t is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation [i.e. the war].” CW, Vol. IV, p. 482.

“You all may recollect that in taking up the sword thus forced into my hands this Government . . . placed its whole dependence upon the favor of God.” (CW, Vol. V., p. 212).

“God wills this contest [the war].” CW, Vol. V, p. 404.

“If I had my way, this war would never have been commenced . . . but . . . we must believe that He permits it for some wise purpose of his own, mysterious and unknown to us . . .” (CW, Vol. V, p. 478).

“[I]t has not pleased the Almighty to bless us with a return to peace . . .” (CW, Vol. V, p. 518).

“[R]ender the homage due to the Divine Majesty . . . to lead the whole nation, through the paths of repentance and submission to the Divine Will, back to the perfect enjoyment of Union . . .” (CW, Vol. VI, p. 332).

“It has pleased Almighty God . . . to vouchsafe to the army and the navy of the United States victories on land and sea.” (CW, Vol. VI, p. 332).

“I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me . . . . God alone can claim it.” (CW, Vol. VII, p. 282).

“He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make . . .” (CW, Vol. VII, p. 535).

[IdahoCopper]

History is always written by the victor. Lincoln's profile was polished exceedingly well after the War, and after his assassination.

[Shazbot57]

There are no states' rights. Only individuals have rights. If the Constitution runs contrary to that, then the Constitution is at fault. The South was guilty of widespread individual rights violations, and no amount of hand-waving makes that not the case. At the very least, the North would have been in the right to cut off all trade with the South, but the North also wouldn't have been in the wrong for going to war for the specific purpose of freeing the slaves. Now fighting to "maintain the Union" is another matter.

"There are no states' rights."? I must be reading the wrong US Constitution! Brian - Please re-read the Constitution paying particular attention to the Tenth amendment. I'm with 68Camaro on this absurdity. I'm out!

[Shazbot57]

History is always written by the victor. Lincoln's profile was polished exceedingly well after the War, and after his assassination.

Very true! (I knew I liked Idaho!) People forget about his suspension of Habeas Corpus and how he handled politics. His reputation has been "burnished" over the last 150 years... Read the original records and you'll see a very different man... Honest Abe my Arse!

[Treetop]

a gardening forum I used to hang out on had a politics section and lincoln came up one time. I made the case he was one of our worst presidents, which as you can imagine didnt go over well... at first. By the time I was done few were denying it. If some president did those things today, even in our highly centralized top down state we are in currently most on the left and right would be pretty freaked out. no doubt there.

[Shazbot57]

a gardening forum I used to hang out on had a politics section and lincoln came up one time. I made the case he was one of our worst presidents, which as you can imagine didnt go over well... at first. By the time I was done few were denying it. If some president did those things today, even in our highly centralized top down state we are in currently most on the left and right would be pretty freaked out. no doubt there.

Ditto & +1