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

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?

“Fair enough. But you do realize a consequence of that position is that no government set up on that basis can long endure, don’t you?”

I’m not as concerned about the state of governments as I am about the state of the people. If the governments please the citizenry by pursuing their proper role, then they will endure. If not, then they should fall, and rightfully so.

“Maybe that’s ok, but it would tend to mean either the majority constantly giving in to the minority, or the minority jumping ship and setting up for themselves.”

On the contrary, our history shows that it takes a pretty huge and intractable dispute for any significant portion of the citizenry to even consider separation. The other disputes besides that one have been handled by our republican form of government without the consequences you fear rearing their head (though nowadays, as we’ve abandoning republicanism in favor of democracy, the majority is dominating the minority more and more).

“The original states were created at the same moment as the nation, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, an act that was carried out, and later enforced, by the representatives of the whole people, of all the former British colonies.”

The Declaration of Independence didn’t form any nation. It simply declared the independence of the colonies from Britain. It was not until the Articles of Confederation that a nation was formed.

The states existed as soon as they declared Independence, since they were no longer colonies. They could not have formed a nation amongst themselves subsequently if they were not, at that point, sovereign states, because they would have no power to do such a thing.

Now, you can argue that states which came along after the original 13 were formed under the authority of the United States government, but they were still formed as states, co-equal with the original 13 states, and therefore possessing all the same rights as those 13. Since the 10th amendment guarantees states all rights not specifically assigned to the federal government, and the federal government was never assigned the rights of self-governance or self-determination, then those rights belong to the newer states, under the 10th amendment, just as they still belong to the original 13.

After complaining that my question did not make sense, you actually answered it correctly.

The point of the question was to establish the difference between point of entrance into the US and point of consumption.

Sometimes the importer paid the tariff on entrance into New York....sometimes he did not. The federal rules allowed the importer to wait up to three years to pay.

And as you also correctly pointed out, the tariff amount was passed on down the line to the end consumer as part of the product cost.

Let it finally be said that data on tariff collection by the Treasury only shows where the money was collected on imports, and not where the eventual consumer resided.

The federal rules allowed the importer to wait up to three years to pay.

But only if the goods were stored in a bonded warehouse. What logic is there to paying for a good in 2015 and not selling it until 2018?

Let it finally be said that data on tariff collection by the Treasury only shows where the money was collected on imports, and not where the eventual consumer resided.

But point of entry is a good indicator where demand lies. If 75% of all imports were consumed by Southerners then sending them to New York, landing them, paying the tariff, and then loading them on ships again so send them south does not make any sense at all. One would expect the goods to be sent to an entry point closest to where their largest number of customers are. So tariff collections are a very accurate indicator was to whether the majority of imports were consumed in the north or in the south.

Roe in and of itself did not do quite what you say.

It’s been quite a while since I read the decision, but if I remember correctly it:

prohibited states from interfering with abortion in the 1st trimester,

allowed states to put reasonable restrictions for the 2nd trimester,

allowed states to prohibit abortion entirely in the 3rd trimester.

While my memory may be off in these details, this is certainly a far cry from our present “abortion on demand up till the baby is halfway out” situation.

While I disagree with most of Roe, it did not cause the present situation, it just started the movement toward it.

Thoughtful response...

Lincoln did say paraphrasing “if I could save the union with freeing a single slave I would do so.”

To me, that sounds like using slavery as a way to maintain power and control. Similarly the EP is quite restrictive, and uses slavery/freedom as a means to secure power.

He knowingly (because he all of a sudden respects the constitution on the issue of slavery) does not include any territories over which he has control...I don’t buy it.

Did the constitution prevent him from closing newspapers in opposition to him? Did the constitution percent him from having his army arrest the Maryland legislature?

Gotta partially disagree with you on this one. New York was the primary point of entry because it was about the closest to Europe. A given ship could make more trips in a year, and more money for the owner, than by making the much longer trips to New Orleans.

NYC also had probably the best rail routes to the interior of any eastern port. It was the port most immigrants wanted to go to.

The point, however, really ought to be that Williams’ claim is flat untrue, and the implication he tries to draw from that untrue claim is also inaccurate.

There is simply no reason to believe imports were consumed more heavily by southerners than by the nation as a whole. Thus they did not pay more in tariffs than anybody else.

They did have a legitimate beef about protective tariffs. But those were not sectional in their effects, they were occupational.

Workers and owners in the protected industries got the benefits. Everybody else, north and south, paid the costs.

A farmer in OH paid exactly the same tariff on imported machinery as a planter in MS.

Not to his mind. The Constitution allows for suspension of civil rights in case of invasion or rebellion. Both of which were in progress at the time.

You might want to look up how the Founders handled the Tories, many of whom were just honest men who didn’t change their loyalties fast enough.

They were dealt with, by the Founders themselves, much more harshly than Rebels were.

BTW, Lincoln’s statement that he had no right to interfere with slavery within a state other than as a military matter was not sudden. He’d been saying it over and over in public for most of a decade.

BTW, the EP did free slaves in areas under Union control. Large areas in the Mississippi Valley and along the southern coast were not excluded. 25,000 to 50,000 slaves were freed immediately in those areas.

More importantly, as Union armies advanced through the rest of the war, wherever they went slaves were freed.

By the end of the was, somewhere around 90% of the slaves were freed by the EP. Yet people still run around saying it didn’t free any slaves.

I believe that is mostly what happened. Unless you choose to believe ships traveled from NYC empty to load cotton in southern ports. Or that they traveled empty from Europe to southern ports.

I believe most cotton was carried by coastal ships from the South to NYC, where it was loaded onto ships to cross the Atlantic. Presumably those ships loaded a good chunk of the imported goods to travel back to their southern ports.

NYC was the #1 cotton export port, followed by New Orleans and Mobile, but I think at quite some distance.

“The Constitution allows for suspension of civil rights in case of invasion or rebellion.” - SL

Whoa there big fella...not “civil rights”, only habeas corpus. Now I see why you like Lincoln so much.

The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except in rebellion or invasion. Lincoln did more than arrest people without cause, he shut down newspapers.

That is more than habeas corpus, he violated explicit constitutional civil rights.

Not Allowed!

Unless you choose to believe ships traveled from NYC empty to load cotton in southern ports. Or that they traveled empty from Europe to southern ports.

Likely the former. In the year prior to the war something like 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports. Less than 10% was shipped out of New York. Based on tariff collections they weren't showing up packed with imports.

NYC was the #1 cotton export port, followed by New Orleans and Mobile, but I think at quite some distance.

I'd like to see your source for those figures.

Lincoln did say paraphrasing “if I could save the union with freeing a single slave I would do so.”

He also said that if he could save the Union by freeing all of them then he would do that.

To me, that sounds like using slavery as a way to maintain power and control. Similarly the EP is quite restrictive, and uses slavery/freedom as a means to secure power.

What it was was a statement of Lincoln's in response to what policy he was pursuing. That police was, to quote from the letter itself, "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution...If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

Sorry, I referred to the wrong concept. The justification for Lincoln’s actions was martial law, not suspension of habeas corpus, though B is included in A.

Re: Ex parte Milligan, decided after the war.

No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: “If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.”

Note the court did not decide all Lincoln’s actions under martial law were unjustified, only those outside the immediate area of military operations. This had not been settled law until this Supreme Court decision.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

"Do you have a source where I can read up more on this European lending?"

Here is what was happening to the US Treasury just before secession:

Practically the entire revenue each year of the government was derived from tariffs on imported goods, and maintaining the export of US goods was absolutely vital to the operation of the country.

The total income of the Treasury for 1857 was $68,900,000. The portion of Treasury income from tariffs was $63,800,000. The Treasury spent $67,700,000 for the calendar year. The normal expenditures of the Government for operation of the government, the army and navy, interest on public debt, and pensions were $35,400,000. Therefore, discretionary treasury spending, authorized by Congress was almost double the normal operation of the government.

Congressional discretionary spending continued to soar. Financed by increasing public debt, the government increased the debt of the country by 43%, due to its inability to control spending.

The entire system was becoming vulnerable. Money from the sale of cotton and tobacco in overseas markets bought goods that were then imported. In 1858, Tariffs from the sale of these goods produced 65% of the revenue of the entire treasury. The value of raw cotton sold to Northern mills, which was then finished and sent in trade to Europe accounted for another 5% of the value of imports. Thus, the treasury was not only totally dependent upon tariffs, but largely tariffs on goods purchased with money earned from the sale of Southern exports.

As the recession of 1857-8 deepened, Northeastern financiers and overseas bankers doubled the interest rate they required for purchase of the government’s treasury notes. The rate rose to an unprecedented 12%. The bankers also required of a pledge of government owned land as collateral. This pledge had never been required, and demonstrated the precarious financial condition of the US Treasury.

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.