HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/22/2015 | Prof. Walter Williams

[SeekAndFind]

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "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; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "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. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

[EternalVigilance]

All legal under the Union flag.

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal.""

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

[EternalVigilance]

Again, the difference between the American Revolution and the slave state secession is that the former had a solid moral and physical basis, and the latter did not.

Pretty obvious stuff.

[DiogenesLamp]

-- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address

You do realize he said this AFTER he had already gotten 600,000 people killed?

What are *YOU* gonna say to try and justify what you did?

Prior to that, he was trying to negotiate for the continuation of slavery.

He was the Bill Clinton of 1860. Clever lawyer. Too clever by half.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Supremacy Clause is pretty straightforward.

Yes it is. "to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". No getting around that. No man made law can stand against the authority of God.

[EternalVigilance]

Well, he was certainly more clever, and capable, than anyone the slave-holding secessionists could muster.

[DoodleDawg]

And what is legally wrong with Dred Scott vs. Sanford? It seems correct in regards to the legal circumstances of that time period.

For Dred Scott and against Kelo. Why am I not surprised?

Striking down the Missouri Compromise for a start. If the court was correct in the ruling that a black man, free or slave, was not a citizen and therefore could not bring suit then the decision should have ended there. Why address the underlying issue of the suit; whether states or the government had the right to ban slave ownership within their borders or in federal territory?

[wideawake]

My version of the Constitution is silen

If yours has the Supremacy Clause, then it says any law of any state is subject to Federal review.

An "Act of Secession" is a state law, and is therefore subject to Federal review.

Happy to help.

[EternalVigilance]

No man made law can stand against the authority of God.

Man-stealers also cannot stand forever against the authority of God either. The wheels of God's justice may grind slowly, but they always grind exceedingly fine.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your argument reduces to "Might makes right."

If that is your argument, then you need to shut up about any other rational.

If you truly believe that power is the only deciding factor, you have no business debating the topic. Why don't you save both you and us a lot of time and come down on one side or the other.

If in your opinion, *POWER* is not the deciding factor, then shut up about it. Stop putting it forward as your argument.

[x]

I have pointed out the fact the Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool to keep Europe from entering the war on the side of the south and nothing more for decades, as does any true student of history.

"Nothing more"? How about the beginning of the end for slavery in America? It didn't say that all slaves outside the designated areas were forever to be enslaved. Rather it furthered a process that would result in their being freed. And not that long afterwards, either. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery (at least formally) less than three years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

[vetvetdoug]

We the people

This statement in the preamble was originally We the people of the States of.... and was changed by the committee on style to make it shorter. This one change made all the difference between the belief of the States versus the people/Federal government.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course it does. The first paragraph makes that abundantly clear. If what you say were true, there would also be absolutely no need for their long delineation of the abuses of the British Crown.

Me thinks you need some more lessons in English comprehension or Logic. This sentence, for example.

a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It explains why they listed their grievances, it is not tantamount to a necessary condition that they do so.

The first paragraph does not support your position at all.

The foundation of the claim to liberty, and particularly the American claim to liberty, is morality. Those who think they can maintain the enjoyment of their rights without morality are self-deceived.

Meaningless blather. Apparently the Slave Holding Signers of the Declaration of Independence did not regard slavery as "Immoral", or at least not sufficiently so as to deny their Slave Holding States the right to leave.

What you are about is changing the moral standards used in 1776, to the moral standards used after 1865. This is a dishonest tactic.

God in His providence, via circumstance, eventually cured them of their compromising attitude.

I am sure that is what the man who triggered the deaths of 600,000 people wished for you to believe. Had I killed that many people, I would say it was "God's Will" too, because there is absolutely no justification for that much blood to be on anyone's hands.

The Nazis also used to say "Gott Mit Uns".

Apparently God is on Doodle Dawg's side. Whoever Wins is doing the work of "God."

[EternalVigilance]

No matter the style of the wording, they had just created a constitutional system in which citizens are both. They are part of We the People of the United States, the sovereign body of the whole people, under God, and they are also citizens of their respective state. E pluribus unum, and all that.

[EternalVigilance]

Nothing wrong with my comprehension or logic.

Fact is, the founders simply understood what was necessary to separate from a parent country better than you do.

[DiogenesLamp]

As has your's.

"I know you are, but what am I?" (since we are using childish rebuttals." )

The justification for the Union's invasion of the South was the fact that the South started the war.

If it turns out that there is any proof of this claim, than that argument is also looking more unsupportable.

That "Lincoln deliberately engineered the Civil War" claim of my History Major buddy is starting to look a lot more credible.

[EternalVigilance]

Meaningless blather.

I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of the moral basis of the American claim to liberty and self-government.

[Boogieman]

“Without that respect the American Revolution could not, and would not, have succeeded.”

Whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant to the question of whether they had a right to secede.

[DiogenesLamp]

Is it okay when they did it?

That's pretty much my main point in this exchange.<

Yes, we know that it is. You want completely different interpretations to come from precisely similar facts.

Two different group of Slave Holding States asserting Independence from a Larger, more powerful Union, Led by a Slave Holding General from Virginia, with the Union forces offering freedom to the slaves, but one group is wrong and the other is right.

That about sum up your cognitive dissonance?

[EternalVigilance]

What you are about is changing the moral standards used in 1776, to the moral standards used after 1865. This is a dishonest tactic.

I'm doing no such thing. Morality is what morality is. It never changes.

Shoot, Cicero had already figured that out a couple of thousand years ago.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.

[EternalVigilance]

I’m sorry that you can’t discern the difference between fighting against the chains of slavery and fighting to defend the chains of slavery.