Abe Lincoln was a dictator??? (Need Help combating loony argument)

I have two brothers who I love very much, they’re young and libertarian Ron Paul supporters, sigh. We get along and I’m hoping that one day they’ll come back to conservatism, but they have bought into a theory that I don’t think makes much sense:

There are many websites dedicated to this nonsense you can Google "Abe Lincoln dictator" and get some weird stuff, if you want to check it out.

I need your help in busting this myth are there any books I can read on this subject to dispel this stuff? Do you know any of the arguments to combat this nonsense? Ie. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.

The first state is Alabama. I turn to an old book for this, “The Early History of Huntsville Alabama 1804 to 1870”. Please see link below for the book. Pages 52 through 60 speak to when attitudes toward abolition groups began to change and what changed them.

http://www.archive.org/stream/earlyhistoryofhu00bett#page/56/mode/2up

I have not looked at legislative records for Alabama but, I believe it is covered in a link I’ll post a little bit later.

Next is North Carolina and I won’t repost the info, from North Carolina’s historic society, which I covered last week. I again turn to a book for anti-slavery views and sentiments, in North Carolina, during the period.
“Ante-Bellum North Carolina: A Social History: Electronic Edition.” Johnson, Guion Griffis, 1900- 1989
CHAPTER XIX ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/johnson/chapter19.html

I did look at North Carolina legislative petitions for the period and from 1809 through 1827 found 6 petitions. Two of those petitions were referred to committee and the rest were not considered. The petitions being filed indicates abolition group activity.

I also looked at newspapers for the period and found it interesting that prior to 1832, anti-slavery activity was printed (right along with ads for runaway slaves, etc.!). I would post these links but can’t get it to work for me so I’m not quoting any of them.

Moving on to Tennessee. Please see link below for wiki info on Greenville.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeneville,_Tennessee

Below is a link for info on the Tennessee Manumission Society.

http://files.usgwarchives.net/tn/jefferson/misc/mnumsion.txt

Below is historic marker information. Please note; the first publications dedicated to abolition of slavery were printed in Tennessee.

The Manumission Intelligence & The Emancipator
LOCATION: West Main St., Jonesborough, TN, 37659
The Manumission Intelligence & The Emancipator were the nation’s oldest publications dedicate to the abolition of slavery. These Jonesborough based publications circulated between 1819-1920. Quaker Elihu Embree circulated The Emancipator and printed it in Jacob Howard’s print shop. A fire destroyed the shop on the corner of Main Street and First Avenue.

The link below is an excerpt from, THE PROGRESS OF EMANCIPATION IN TENNESSEE, 1796 - 1860 (JW Patton - Journal of Negro History, 1932) - jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2714676

We get the following quote from the source: “Long before Garrison, Lundy, and Mrs. Stowe began their agitation of the abolition question the people of Tennessee were not only thinking but acting on the subject, not only teaching but practicing emancipation.”

One of the sources listed, on the page at the link, is for “Dropped Stitches in Tennessee History” by John Allison 1897. I read pages 77-80 of this book. If you’re interested in reading it you can just google the book title.

Looking at legislative petitions in Tennesse I found three. They were for 1821, 1825, and 1842. All three were tabled.

Last, but not least, we have Virginia. Please see link below for Virginia’s Abolition Society.

http://www.richmondfriends.org/History/AbolitionSociety.htm

The link below is for Golansville Quaker Marker who were early abolitionists in Virginia.
http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=9213

Looking at Virginia’s legislative petitions I found six for the period 1831 - 1850. They were all referred to committee. The most notable one is the debate of 1831 - 1832. It was debated in the newspapers, who were largely in favor of the petition. I can’t get this link to work right either but you can google that specific debate if you’d like. There were legislators in favor of the proposal.

An excerpt from the March 7, 1850, speech by Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster sums it up well:

“Then, Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the South has produced. And its it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not unwilling or unafraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member from South Carolina [Calhoun], these Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slave were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. I wish tooknow whether any body in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randoph, Governor [James] McDowell, and others talked in 1832 and sent their remarks to the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster the slave population of the South...”

This speech caused Webster to resign from the Senate and finish his public career as Secretary of State.

WHEW! Another long one. I’ve got to take a break and will tell you what it all means to me in my next post.

I believe that we've covered this before. There's no evidence of arson, or of white abolitionists convincing slaves to start the fires. What there was, on the other hand, was an incredibly hot summer, a new type of match that would self-ignite under those circumstances, and a general atmosphere of paranoia whipped up by a few agitators.

Ah, yes, back when you were posting as Heyworth. Do you perhaps remember my reply? [Link] It helps to look at original sources. Here are some more newspaper reports of the time: [link 2].

You get different accounts when you look at the original sources. The "matches did it" story came from supporters of Sam Houston and Bell, who were against secession. The "abolitionists caused it" story supposedly came from came from the mouths of many slaves far separated in distance from each other. The "abolitionists caused it" story was promoted by those who supported secession.

I'm not sure we will ever know for sure, but the fact that matches were tested and found to not ignite based on thermometer heat, people would not burn their own towns and properties, the fact that some of these fires started at night, and that slaves far separated from each other gave similar testimony, a testimony consistent with the abolition circular shown to Congress in 1859 suggest that the story is not as simple as that you quoted.

FYI, here are some more contemporary reports of the burnings, these are from the The Ranchero of Corpus Christi:

THE RANCHERO [Corpus Christi, TX], September 1, 1860, p. 2, c. 6

More Abolition Outrages.—It is reported that an attempt has been made to burn Athens, and that two white men had been hung, some negroes shot, and others hung. Every negro who has been implicated in this plot, even more than a hundred miles off, has testified to the same facts, the same dates, names and circumstances that were detailed at Dallas.

It is also reported that three men who fired Henderson have been taken and summarily punished. The Tyler Reporter of 7th says that a report has just reached there that Belleview, in Rusk county, was burned on the night of the 4th inst.

The loss by fire at Henderson, will amount, it is estimated, to $250,000. Efforts have been made to fire many other places, but discovered in time to prevent its execution.

THE RANCHERO [Corpus Christi, TX], September 8, 1860, p. 2, c. 3

The Vigilance Committee of Henderson sentenced a negro woman, concerned in burning that town, to be hung on the 26th ult.

A man named Morrison was hung in the suburbs of Gilmer, for inciting negroes in Wood, Titus and Hopkins counties, to insurrection.

Three abolitionists, named Templeton, Hensley and Kirk, were hung in Gainsville, Cook county. These men implicated fifteen other men belonging to the abolition conspiracy.

Okay, now for the conclusion.

A book I found fascinating is, “The Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery in America 1808 - 1831” by Alice Dana Adams, 1908. She gives much insight to the views and sentiments of the period, both North and South, including those of prominent men. She discusses which Southern states were believed to become free states soon, such as Virginia within 15 - 20 years from 1825. The author states, “In this context it is interesting to note that of the one hundred and thirty abolition societies in the United States in 1827, one hundred and six were in the slave states, while but four were in New England or New York.” (p 37)

The link below is an excerpt from, “The Tennessee antislavery movement and the market revolution, 1815-1835.” I’ve copied some of the highlights.

“The activists’ faith in republican egalitarianism translated into faith in the republican political process. “The great and benevolent object which we have in view,” proclaimed the Tennessee Manumission Society in 1822, “is only to be attained by the consent of a majority of the members of our civil government” and “by a gradual reform of our laws.” (18) “WE MUST VOTE THEM DOWN,” Lundy likewise said of slaveholders”

“Meanwhile, the Panic 011819 sparked another important change in Tennessee. Out of the turmoil arose over a decade’s worth of popular demands for the increased political empowerment of common white men.”

“Far from the last gasp of a discredited movement, Tennessee antislavery activity of the 1830s was undergoing a renaissance. That renaissance drew on nonslaveholders’ fears that the emerging planter elite was establishing undemocratic control over the state’s political and economic life, and those fears would play an important role in Tennessee politics long after 1834.”

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5467388/The-Tennessee-antislavery-movement-and.html

From everything I’ve read over the years, my conclusion is that if more clear thinking and less emotion had been employed, by both sides, Bleeding Kansas never would have happened. The War never would have happened.

I think the anti-slavery Southerners views were a mix of doing what is right, fear of slave revolts, and they had grown weary of the whole issue of slavery. Many of them wanted the slaves gone.

IMHO, the anti-slavery faction in the South was strong and was gearing up to begin the political process of abolishing slavery (voting the old pro-slavery faction out), when the Garrisionians appeared on the scene. Hysteria was the end result.

The pro-slavery Southerners got their britches in a wad and “rallied the troops”, which included the churches (my what a tangled web we weave...). The Methodist and Baptist churches split in 1845 with both declaring a Southern branch (the ones preaching that slavery is biblical).

Instead of the up-and-coming generation taking things in the direction they were already headed (abolishing slavery), the old power structure retained power by creating as much chaos as the Garrisonians were. The natural passing of power, from one generation to the next, couldn’t happen in this environment.

The link below is about Nashoba, TN. “Nashoba was a short-lived, but internationally famous, utopian community on the present-day site of Germantown in Shelby County. Nashoba was founded in 1826 by Frances Wright, who dreamed of demonstrating a practical and effective alternative to the South’s slave-based agricultural economy. Hardly a trace of the community could be seen by 1830, but Nashoba survives in historical accounts of American utopias.”

http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=N004

I think if the Garrisonians had focused their efforts on transitioning the slaves to freedom, as Ms. Wright did with Nashoba, our history would be much different.

Failure of leadership on both sides.

Speech of Alexander H. Stephens, Nov. 14, 1860.

"The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of any man to the Presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed forms of the Constitution, make a point of resistance to the Government, without becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing ourselves from it? Would we not be in the wrong?"

...

"I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln will do anything, to jeopardize our safety or security, whatever may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our system."

...

"There were many amongst us in 1850 zealous to go at once out of the Union -- to disrupt every tie that binds us together. Now do you believe, had that policy been carried out at that time, we would have been the same great people we are today? It may be that we would, but have you any assurance of that fact? Would we have made the same advancement, improvement, and progress, in all that constitutes material wealth and prosperity, that we have?

-----------------------------------------------------

To Alexander H. Stephens

For your own eye only.

Springfield, Ills.

Dec. 22, 1860

Hon. A. H. Stephens--

My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly

A. Lincoln

http://civilwarcauses.org/aleck.htm

-----------------------------------------------------

"[W]e divide upon [all our constitutional controversies] into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority....Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy." - Abraham Lincoln (First Inaugural Adress: March 4, 1861)

You quoted Alexander Stephens. Let's see what he thought about the right of states to secede:

Whatever intimate relationships, therefore, existed between the citizens of the respective thirty-three States constituting the Union in 1860, they were created by, or sprung from, the terms of the Compact of 1787, by which the original States as States were united. These terms were properly called the Constitution of the United States; not the Constitution of one people as one society or one nation, but the Constitution of a number of separate and distinct peoples, or political bodies, known as States. The absolute Sovereignty of these original States, respectively, was never parted with by them in that or any other Compact of Union ever entered into by them. This at least was my view of the subject. Georgia was one of these States. My allegiance therefore was, as I considered it, not due to the United States, or to the people of the United States, but to Georgia in her Sovereign capacity. Georgia had never parted with her right to command the ultimate allegiance of her citizens.

... The Sovereign power of the people of the State, which alone could regulate its relations with the other States, was not vested in the Legislature. That resided with the people of the State. It had never been delegated either to the State authorities, or the authorities created by the Articles of Union. It could be exercised only by the people of the State in a regularly-constituted Convention, embodying the real Sovereignty of the State — just such Convention as had agreed to and adopted the Constitution of the United States. It required the same power to unmake as it had to make it. ...

... The Convention was called; it was regularly and legally assembled; the Sovereign will of the State, when expressed through its properly constituted organ, was for Secession, or a withdrawal of the State from the Union. The Convention passed an Ordinance repealing and rescinding the State Ordinance of the second of January, 1788, by which Georgia became one of the United States under the constitutional Compact of 1787.

[Lincoln]: ...anarchy...

I am reminded of another problem, one that that astute observer of the United States, de Tocqueville, pointed out:

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

Northern states had been treating the South as a colony for years and ripping the South off through the tariff that protected Northern industries and jobs at Southern expense. And they were about to steal even more money from the South by means of the Morrill Tariff, which essentially doubled tariff rates. I quoted you earlier the article about the South being "fleeced" by this self aggrandizing and partial legislation by the North.

The founding fathers made sure that states could protect themselves from an overbearing central government and avaricious states who wanted to take advantage of them. As you know, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island in their ratification documents said that they could resume their own governance to ensure their own happiness. And other states in their ratification documents said the following, which is the basis for that secession:

South Carolina: "This Convention doth also declare, that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the Union.

North Carolina proposed amendment: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."

Massachusetts proposed amendment: "First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised."

New Hampshire proposed amendment: "I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."

That is seven states, a majority of those ratifying the Constitution, who called for the right to withdraw or a statement that powers or rights not delegated to the central government remained with the states.

The Tenth Amendment, prototypes of which were expressed above, is the basis of "states rights." Here's Jefferson Davis to the US Senate, Jan. 10, 1861:

...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.

Many libertarians and neo-confederates use the fact that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, thousands of people were arrested and in jail without trial, and that he instituted a draft to say he was a dictator and the South was right.

Looking at this logically, its not hard to see they are wrong:

1. The Confederacy also suspended habeas corpus in order to brutally put down a secession movement in Eastern Tennessee (the people there wanted to rejoin the Union). Confederate forces there hung dozens of people and burned down dozens of houses of suspected Union loyalists. The Confederacy also instituted a draft BEFORE the Union did so.

2. Lincoln did have the power to suspend habeas corpus. It says in the Constitution that it can be suspended in case of invasion, rebellion, or when the public safety may require it. So he was acting within the bounds of the law. When he first declared it suspended in Maryland, in 1861, members of the legislature and the governor wanted to take Maryland into the Confederacy, thus isolating Washington. Something had to be done and Lincoln did it: he threw secessionist minded members of the legislature and the governor in jail.

3. Some other evidence that Lincoln was not a dictator:

He allowed fair, democratic elections to take place when he easily could have suspended them.

When a Chicago newspaper that was very critical of Lincoln was shut down by a general named Ambrose Burnside, Lincoln ordered him to let the paper resume publication

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.