I Never Knew That Abraham Lincoln Ordered The Largest MASS HANGING IN US HISTORY, Or Why He Did It

The Daily Check ^ | May 29, 2017

[plain talk]

People think that Abe Lincoln was such a benevolent President. He was actually a bit of a tyrant. He attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs. (If you think it was over slavery, you need to find a real American history book written before 1960.)

This picture is of 38 Santee Sioux Indian men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).

So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.

[jeffersondem]

“But after the southern states had announced their secession.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you making tertiary comments.

But I have lost track of the point you are trying to make.

[DoodleDawg]

But I have lost track of the point you are trying to make.

Ditto.

[HandyDandy]

"So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment to make slavery “irrevocable” but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish it?"

Are you daft? The part bolded by me above is a boldfaced lie. That is the grossest distortion of the Corwin Amendment that I have ever read. It indicates a disturbed mind. Read again the President Lincoln quote that you provided, "the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service." In no way does that mean slavery was irrevocable. It means the Feds could have no hand in interfering with it. It meant that Lincoln had no power to interfere with Southern Slavery. It gave the States sole power to deal with slavery, each within its own borders. This was an effort, and a good one, to forestall the impending Civil War. In fact Lincoln personally sent letters to each States governor to be sure they knew of the amendment. The South would have none of it. When will it occur to you that the South had ulterior motives in seceding? Perhaps having to do with their own political and economic (peculiar) interests? Most lost causers say slavery would have ended soon anyway. What was the problem that the South had with the Corwin Amendment?

[jeffersondem]

“In no way does that mean slavery was irrevocable.”

Critic answers Lincoln.

Lincoln used the word “irrevocable” in his first inaugural address. Below I re-post Lincoln's comment so you can read it for yourself.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

[HandyDandy]

What Lincoln was saying was irrevocable was "that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service."

You twist that to say "slavery was irrevocable".

[BroJoeK]

Sorry I've missed out on this party, sure hope y'all have not dipped too deep into the ole' punch bowl! ;-)

jeffersondem: "Read what Pulitzer Prize winner and historian Garry Wills wrote:

'Lincoln at Gettysburg 'performed one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed by the unsuspecting.
Everyone in that vast throng of thousands was having his or her intellectual pocket picked.
The crowd departed with a new thing in its ideological luggage, that new constitution Lincoln had substituted for the one they brought there with them.
They walked off, from those curving graves on the hillside, under a changed sky, into a different America.
Lincoln had revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely.'

Remember, Wills was an admirer of Lincoln."

First, I highly recommend Garry Wills book: "Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power".
It illuminates the question of how the Southern slave-holding minority exercised majority rule in Washington, DC from at least 1800 until secession in 1861.

But, second, as for this particular Wills passage... well...no, not even close.

1. Early in 1861 the Union army began declaring fugitive slaves "contraband of war", refused to return them and instead employed "contraband" as workers in Union camps.

2. In January 1862 Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation, and Congress passed, forbidding the Union army from returning "contraband" to their Confederate owners.

3. In February 1862, Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic began to be sung by Union citizens & soldiers -- "...as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on."

4. In August 1862 Lincoln wrote to New York Tribune editor Horrace Greely (in part):
   "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
   If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
   What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union....
   I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[50]"

5. In September 1862 Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, eventually freeing three million slaves in Confederate states.

6. As a result, Republicans did exceptionally well in the November 1862 elections, picking up Congressional seats in Michigan, California & Iowa, plus five Senate seats.
   Historian James McPherson says of 1862: "If the election was in any sense a referendum on emancipation and on Lincoln's conduct of the war, a majority of Northern voters endorsed these policies."[89]

7. So, by Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in November 1863, abolition was already thoroughly accepted as a Civil War policy and goal.
   It was far then from a "slight of hand" or "pick pocket"

Indeed, the real "slight of hand" here is the determined work of jeffersondem & others to revise, rewrite and redefine the US Civil War as something vastly different from its historical reality.

[central_va]

Of course, the proclamation elicited expressions of hatred from those Northerners who hated African-Americans. White supremacists in the United States were outraged. Condemning Lincoln, The Cincinnati Enquirer said that the proclamation represented the “complete overthrow of the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.” All over the North white bigots called the proclamation “wicked,” “atrocious” and “impudent.”

‘Hurrah for Old Abe’

[rockrr]

I always suspected that you were a New York Times fanboi.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Of course, the proclamation elicited expressions of hatred from those Northerners who hated African-Americans.
White supremacists in the United States were outraged.
Condemning Lincoln, The Cincinnati Enquirer said that the proclamation represented the 'complete overthrow of the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.'
All over the North white bigots called the proclamation 'wicked,' 'atrocious' and 'impudent.' "

Well, first, sorry for leaving you off my post #446 above, you should have been listed.

Second, those people were all, to a man, Northern Democrats.
And your Cincinnati Enquirer was a Democrat copperhead paper, highly sympathetic to the Confederacy and slavery.

So, in the mean time, here's what Southern Democrats had to say about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation:

"Confederate response

"The initial Confederate response was one of expected outrage.
The Proclamation was seen as vindication for the rebellion, and proof that Lincoln would have abolished slavery even if the states had remained in the Union.[91]
In an August 1863 letter to President Lincoln, U.S. Army general Ulysses S. Grant observed that the Proclamation, combined with the usage of black soldiers by the U.S. Army, profoundly angered the Confederacy, saying that 'the emancipation of the Negro, is the heaviest blow yet given the Confederacy.
The South rave a great deal about it and profess to be very angry.'[92]

"A few months after the Proclamation took effect, the Confederacy passed a law in May 1863 demanding 'full and ample retaliation' against the U.S. for such measures.
The Confederacy stated that the black U.S. soldiers captured while fighting against the Confederacy would be tried as slave insurrectionists in civil courts—a capital offense with automatic sentence of death.
Less than a year after the law's passage, the Confederates massacred black U.S. soldiers at Fort Pillow.[93]

"However, some Confederates welcomed the Proclamation, as they believed it would strengthen pro-slavery sentiment in the Confederacy and, thus, lead to greater enlistment of white men into the Confederate army.
According to one Confederate man from Kentucky, 'The Proclamation is worth three hundred thousand soldiers to our Government at least...
It shows exactly what this war was brought about for and the intention of its damnable authors.'[94]

"Even some Union soldiers concurred with this view and expressed reservations about the Proclamation, not on principle, but rather because they were afraid it would increase the Confederacy's determination to fight on and maintain slavery.
One Union soldier from New York stated worryingly after the Proclamation's passage, 'I know enough of the Southern spirit that I think they will fight for the institution of slavery even to extermination.'[95]"

[jeffersondem]

“What Lincoln was saying was irrevocable was “that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.””

Your point is well taken. The way you have phrased the meaning of Lincoln's words is better than the way I phrased it.

With permission, I'll amend and re-ask the question from my post 439:

So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment making irrevocable that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service, but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish slavery?

Enshrinement plus.

[rockrr]

Two points of interest with cva’s post...

cva focusses on this statement; “Of course, the proclamation elicited expressions of hatred from those Northerners who hated African-Americans. White supremacists in the United States were outraged.”

I’m sure that he feeeeeels it decrying of the overt racism of those northern white debils. But what came next? “Confederates agreed wholeheartedly with Northern racists.” If it was bad for a few yankees, it must have been horrifying for the entire confederacy! Or not, since I’ve long noted the self-loathing of libtards.

I also noted Beauregard when he; “called for the “execution of abolition prisoners. … Let the execution be made with the garrote.” Isn’t that sorta like saying, “If we can’t have our (N-words), no one will have our (N-words)!” ?

[rockrr]

So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment making irrevocable that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service, but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish slavery?

No.

[jeffersondem]

“But, second, as for this particular Wills passage... well...no, not even close.”

You disagree with Wills’ passage.

Wills explained why in the passage itself: “ever witnessed by the unsuspecting.”

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " Wills explained why in the passage itself: 'ever witnessed by the unsuspecting.' "

Except that by November of 1863, the only people truly, genuinely "unsuspecting" we're those interred on the battlefield at Gettysburg.
Everybody else already knew what was going on.

[DoodleDawg]

So there was time before the war for the North to prepare a constitutional amendment making irrevocable that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service, but not time to prepare an amendment to abolish slavery?

And had Congress passed an amendment to end slavery what do you think the reaction would be, both in the states that seceded and those slave states that didn't?

[jeffersondem]

“And had Congress passed an amendment to end slavery what do you think the reaction would be, both in the states that seceded and those slave states that didn't?”

It depends on when and how it was passed.

If a constitutional amendment had passed while southern states were in the union, then southern state votes would have been required to get the super majority needed.

And that means the successful amendment would have likely contained compromises - possibly compensation and a phaseout period.

The South had compromised several times previously on the slavery issue. The South wanted peace and the South loved the union created by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason and the Lees.

The advantages of a constitutional amendment: it would have been peaceful and would not have required all the killings.

And if the peaceful constitutional amendment process had failed? The North would have still had the option of attacking, killing their political opponents, and destroying the South.

[jeffersondem]

“Except that by November of 1863, the only people truly, genuinely “unsuspecting” we’re those interred on the battlefield at Gettysburg. Everybody else already knew what was going on.”

Shucks, the South had that figured out in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Shucks, the South had that figured out in 1860."

So, you agree, can we mark this date on the calendar, jeffersondem now agrees that Civil War was fought from the beginning by Confederates to protect slavery?
It just took slow learning Northerners a lot longer to figure that out, right?

But by the time of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in November 1863, it was no surprise to anybody then living.

[rockrr]

The only problem with that is that there are people who say what they mean and mean what they say. And then there is demojeff.

[jeffersondem]

“So, you agree, can we mark this date on the calendar, jeffersondem now agrees that Civil War was fought from the beginning by Confederates to protect slavery?”

Don't write that in your tally book.

You have misunderstood and imagined more.