Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Worst president ever?

We have a way of romanticizing history. It is, afterall, written by winners, baby.

But what happens when you find out that the history you learned for years, reading in elementary, middle school, high school and even college text books only told half the story ... on someone you were told was the best president ever.

And what if the other half of the story made you think that he might have been ... the worst president ever?

I'm talking, of course, about our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.

Interestingly, this is my second column on the misconceptions of Honest Abe. My first column about him dealing with the rumors of his sexuality, which linger to this day.

Lincoln, of course, wasn't all bad. He did free the slaves ... and made those funky stovepipe hats all the rage. But there's something about martyrdom that seems to wipe the slate clean of all his not-so-innocent transgressions.

Our history books teach us that Lincoln ran for office repeatedly, losing over and over. He opposed slavery and won the presidency. The south hated him and seceeded. We had a civil war to bring them back into the fold. The north won and everything was clear sailing after that.

Our history books leave out a lot of details. And fudge some facts.

Here's some facts you may have missed:
  • Not only was Lincoln despised in the south, he didn't campaign in the south at all ... and was completely absent from the ballot in nine southern states. He recieved less than 40 percent of the votes nationwide. The other 60 percent being split by three other candidates.
  • Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment. It would have given Constitutional protection to slavery in any state in which it already existed.
  • The Emancipation Proclaimation did not free the slaves in all states. It only freed the slaves in non-Union states. In other words, only slaves being held in Confederate states.
  • Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the war.
  • Lincoln spent money without congressional authorization, acting as though the executive branch were a monarchy, unchecked by the other two branches of government.
  • Lincoln imprisoned 18,000 "confederate sympatizers" without due process. They never got a trial.
Ironically, Lincoln's greatest credited "accomplishment" is actually the thing which I believe to be his greatest error. It's often stated that "Lincoln brought this country together."

You may wonder how I could possibly oppose such a great feat. The semantics of it make it sound American as apple pie, right? Let's try it in a different direction. "Lincoln consolidated the states under one federal directive." Doesn't sound as pretty that way, does it?

It's often stated that prior to the Civil War, people used the third person plural when referring to this nation: "The United States are ..." After the Civil War, that reference became third person singular: "The United States is ..." In other words, we went from being 36 indiviual "states" ... to one collective "nation."

Power had flowed upward ... from the people ... to their states ... to the federal government. Now the reverse is true. The federal government tells the states ... and their people what to do. It's almost as though in one fell-swoop we went from being a Republic ... to a totalitarian government.

By further explaination, Lincoln killed the 10th Amendment. I say often that the 10th Amendment is the "forgotten Amendment." it was forgotten in the mid 1860's ... when Lincoln was forcing the southern states to conform to northern ideals.

Please don't misconstrue this as some Confederate propaganda. I can't imagine anything worse than the concept of one human being "owning" another. But what we've got now is the federal government owning us all ... and we've got Lincoln to thank for it.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Casino foes could better spend their time

Over the course of the past couple weeks ... and years, we've seen people from Western New York come out of the woodwork to try to thwart the efforts of the Seneca Nation of Indians to open casinos in Niagara Falls and Buffalo.

They oppose blight. They oppose gambling. They oppose addiction. But mainly, it would seem to me, they oppose progress.

For every study and statistic I've seen showing that legalized casinos are the downfall of any community they're in, I've seen a corresponding study and statistic stating exactly the opposite.

Although I've read several quotes from attorney Joel Rose and heard him on the radio numerous times saying that his organization, Citizens Against Casino Gambling, opposes a new casino being built in Buffalo (and even the makeshift one open there now), I've never fully understood WHY they oppose it.

A visit to their website didn't help much. Frankly, it seems to be the same old tired "facts" and stats. Casinos are a blight. Gambling an addiction. And they suck money from the community. Blah, blah, blah. According to one post, the Seneca Niagara Casino and Seneca Allegheny Casino cost Western New Yorkers $300 million in gambling losses in 2004.

Were it any other industry generating $300 million in sales, it would be heralded as a victory for the area, but because it's casino gambling, it's derided as being akin to satanism.

Personally, I view casino gambling as a form of entertainment. Every so often, I'll go to the Seneca Niagara Casino ... or even one of the Canadian casinos ... and drop $20 into the slot machines. That's my limit. $20.

I understand that other people aren't as frugal as I am ... and some people spend more than they can afford to at the casino. But those people spend more than they can afford to on everything. They spend too much going out to eat. They spend too much going to the movies. They spend too much on junk food. And yet, I don't hear Joel Rose complaining about the movie, restaurant or grocery industries.

And were there not an option in Niagara Falls and Allegheny for those same folks to go gamble at, I believe a very compelling argument could be made that they'd still be losing money at the casino ... just not the local ones contributing to the local economy. They'd be losing their money in Canada.

Or, worse yet, on the lottery.

If Citizens Against Casino Gambling really wanted to help people who can ill-afford to lose money gambling, they'd fight against the biggest gambling entity in the area: the New York State Lottery.

According to the state lottery commission
, New Yorkers spent $7.9 billion on the lottery in 2007. Of that, $3.9 billion was paid out (or promised) in prizes, $2.5 billion was spent on education, and over $1 billion was spent on operating costs. Assuming "winnings" and "education" aren't losses, that puts the statewide lottery loss at over $1 billion in 2007. My math says that's more than the $300 million "lost" to casino gambling in WNY.

But I haven't heard a peep from Joel Rose on the state lottery. So it would seem to me that it's the "Casino" part of Citizens Against Casino Gambling that his group really opposes. The "Gambling" part must be fine.