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?

More intrigue for those that might be interested:

March 28, 1861, the US Congress adjourned.

THE NEXT DAY LINCOLN GOT BUSY INITIATING WAR. Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.

March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the Navy

I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The memorandum attached called for:

From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.

From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.

April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.

Signed: Winfield Scott

April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola

Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.

Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.

Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:

It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.

Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.

The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:

April 6, 1861

Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy

April 11, 1861 (USS Supply, official ship's log)

"April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens."

April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.

You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The Secretary of the Navy was unaware that President Lincoln had relieved Captain Mercer and was "borrowing" the Powhatan. It was a real secret mission.

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at earliest possible moment.

April 5, 1861
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS Powhatan

The U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy

April 6, 1861

Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed.

Seward sent a telegram to Porter: "Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer."

A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.

Lt. Porter responded to Seward: "I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.

Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials, "Detain all letters for five days."

Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors.

Porter filed this report:

I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in (unnoticed), when the Wyandotte commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on.

The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped.

In twenty minutes more I should have been inside (Pensacola harbor) or sunk.

Signed: D.D. Porter

All of the above to be credited to the research of nolu chan, former freeper.

You made a claim, it should stand up to hypotheticals.

What happened wasn't a "hypothetical." It actually happened. It was real.

Except they didn't run it through the Congress.

No more so than did the founders run theirs through parliament.

You voted.

One does not get to "vote" to seize other people's property. Property is a natural right, and is not subject to the will of the people. I have no more right to vote you into slavery than you have a right to do the same to me.

If you feel differently, then which side are you on? Pro-Slavery or Against?

You received the benefits of road construction, police protection,

Most road construction is paid for by the state or by the city. Federal Highway funds were originally intended to pay for the Federal Highway system which was itself an appeal to the need to provide adequate speed in moving defense assets throughout the country.

Now Federal Highway funds are a bribe and a club to force states to bow to the will of whatever the Administration wants to force them to do nowadays. (This is how we ended up with Mandatory Seat Belt laws.) They are also a slush fund for rewarding cronies as necessary. Some of the money gets to roads, but not without being first filtered through a lot of hands.

education,

Bad education and Much Indoctrination at a horribly expensive price, not to mention creating one of the largest and most powerful unions to twist legislatures arms into greater and greater expenditures on their behalf.

and our military keeping the British,

We came to terms with the British. They weren't nearly as fanatical as were the Union under Lincoln. They quit fighting after about 15,000 casualties, while Lincoln held out for 600,000.

the Mexican army,

Texas took care of them themselves and apparently didn't need any Federal help doing it at the time.

the Confederate slavers,

Who would have no doubt been raiding New York to grab Fresh Irish off the boats and impress them into their service. Oh wait. That was the Union that did that. The Confederates were no threat.

the Germans, the Japanese,

You mean we haven't paid for World War II yet but we're still spending money on other crap? How did we afford that 21 trillion dollar "War on Poverty" then?

the Soviets,

And there is an expenditure of my taxes to which I did not Object. Reagan beat them with his buildup.

and now the Islamists from invading your home.

You must not be keeping up. Not only are they not doing that, they are doing everything in their power to aid them getting over here. I certainly don't want to pay for that.

Oh yes I'm against it, and didn't vote for most of the nanny state. But I didn't move either, so I accept some of it.

My position is that you don't have a right to spend my money without my acquiescence, and I don't care what the non-taxpayers vote for. They shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway. I feel no moral obligation to pay a bill for something i'm against. How in H3ll can we not defund Planned Parenthood? Eh?

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson

Maybe up until voter fraud became rampant, anyway. Since voter fraud has taken our vote away, maybe we're not liable for a lot of the debt of the last few years.

I consider the "Great Society" programs to not only be a waste of money for the nation, but are in fact horribly detrimental to it. They have created a vast army of entitled people with no hope of improvement. They have destroyed the nuclear family by making the father unnecessary, and that had the added consequence of causing rampant crime, because when a male child grows up without a father to instil discipline and responsibility, most of them turn feral, and have little respect for law or life.

This is what the 21 trillion dollar war on poverty did: This and create more Democrat voters.

I don't think I should have to pay for that. I don't think I should have to pay for that at all.

Fascinating data. This is a side of the War of which I had not previously heard, but it dovetails with a claim my friend made to me years ago about Lincoln engineering the start of the civil war.

My friend, who is black, was a history major, and he was completely obsessed with all matters of race and especially the Civil War. I went over to his house one day and he was chortling about something he learned from his History professor that day. Then he related how Lincoln cleverly engineered the start of the civil war.

He said Lincoln was a shrewd man at reading other people and predicting what they would do if given the right motivation, and he claimed Lincoln used this skill to maneuver the confederates into giving him a Casus Belli, and they simply fell into his trap. This is the day I started doubting the official narrative.

Your relating the various warships setting sail makes it look more like the Confederates were not just a bunch of trigger happy belligerents. I have little doubt the Confederates had spies in the various harbors that would mark the doings there and get word to the Southern leadership as they thought necessary.

A group of ships being armed and equipped would not have gone unnoticed.

Again, very interesting material you are presenting.

You said: “God did not look so kindly on the Slave Power rebelling and starting a war to protect their “property” and “peculiar institution” of slavery.”

Then I asked: “Interesting post with religious implications. Seems like you have thought this through. Can you tell me if Jesus was wrong not to have spoken against slavery?”

Now you ask me:”But are you certain that He didn't?”

It seems like you are not so sure of your earlier statement - the one where you implied God told Mr. Lincoln to kill 600,000 people.

God did bring the children of Israel out of Egyptian slavery - 400 years by some accounts after he put them in. Remember, Joseph went into Egypt a slave - sold by his brothers. Then . . . let's have Joseph (speaking to his brothers) tell it in his own words:

“19But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place? 20”As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.”

Let me repeat my question another way: Are you absolutely certain God told Mr. Lincoln to kill 600,000 people to end human bondage in April 1865 rather than waiting for a constitutional amendment (which passed in December 1865)?

Your issue is taxes - they're nothing but theft!

As with everything else, you have a tendency to over simplify. No, my issue is not taxes. A certain level of taxation for shared public benefits is necessary, and no nation can exist without some means of revenue.

The Issue is that the government has grown all out of proportion to it's proper state. It has heaped ever crushing burdens on us and our posterity, and it has in effect turned us into future slaves to support it's present day partying.

I'm surprised you take issue with this position. This is normal conservative boilerplate.

I see estimates that what the Federal government has ran up in debt (apart from the official 17 trillion) is something on the order of 100 trillion dollars.

In addition, they keep inflating and debasing the currency, so that money I earned ten years ago is now worth almost half of what it was when I earned it. They have in effect, stolen half my savings from ten years ago by their monetary policies.

Our existing fiscal policies are institutionalized theft. The difference between what they are doing and slavery is merely a question of degree.

The math says somethings got to break at some point, and a financial collapse of the nation will result in a lot of people dying and a lot of misery on the survivors. We are currently in an unsustainable state. They deliberately hold down interests rates because any increase would wreck us financially, but this trick won't last forever.

Government finance should just be based on voluntary contributions!

Not what I said. Government expenditures beyond those that are normal and necessary should not be forced on people against their will merely because 50.01% of the population thinks they ought to have a right to steal other people's money.

Some legislatures require super majorities to raise taxes, and I think such a method is crude, but it is certainly better than what we have now.

“Article IV says Congress has the right to lay general rules on acts of states.”

It is a little strange you should cite Article IV. This is the article that includes: No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was this Article that many of the northern states repudiated (after the peculiar institution became unprofitable in the north) and refused to enforce - violating the contract of the constitution and ensuring the South would move to dissolve the political bands.

The great Massachusetts Senator (and Unionist) Daniel Webster - revered in the North and South - spoke on this issue in 1851 saying: “If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations?”

“I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.”

I know you believe in “Union by bayonet” but article IV is not your friend. The full faith and credit clause was designed to strengthen the laws of the states, not to license an all-powerful central government in Washington.

Before I start on this, I would like to say that this thread has diverted from its original subject. That original subject was whether or not the Soldiers and members of the Confederate government committed treason as defined in Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution, which states “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” I contend they did, based on the whole “levying War” thing. It appears that we have morphed this thread into “who shot first”. That’s fine, and I can certainly comment on this, but I didn’t want to lose the original thrust of this thread.

I found this to be very interesting reading. I commend no lu chan is for his solid research. If he excerpted this from another document I would love to read it. I especially liked the time line. I think it’s very important to determine what happened first. So, let’s add to the time line shown by no lu chan.

December 20, 1860 – South Carolina declares it’s secession from the Union
January 9, 1861 – Star of the West was fired upon while attempting to bring supplies to Fort Sumter

So, with those dates established, let’s get to the post by Pea Ridge. I kind of take offense at the editorial comment “Lincoln got busy initiating war”. The reason is because this was dated March 29, 1861. Please note that this was two and a half months AFTER the Star of India was fired on.

The article by Pea Ridge makes great pains to show the preparations made by the US Army and the US Navy to reinforce Forts Sumter and Pickens, and the military force ready to support this reinforcement. I would contend that, based on the events of January 9, when the Star of India was shot at, these were only prudent actions. They were determined to reinforce these US Army forts, and were prepared to fight to do it. The results were inevitable.

Really, the whole “who shot first” thing is somewhat unimportant. The War really started when South Carolina attempted to secede back on December 20. Everything else rolled downhill from there. The only way war would have been avoided is if the US did not contest this attempted secession, and that wasn’t going to happen. I did say that the whole “who shot first” was somewhat unimportant. That is true in the grand scheme of things (the war was probably going to happen anyway, after South Carolina’s attempted secession). There is an area where the question of “who shot first” was vitally important, though. That was in the realm of public opinion in the Northern States. As a result of the Confederacy shooting first, the Northern public was outraged, and the response to Lincoln’s call for volunteers was overwhelming.
.
So, let’s ask, and answer, a few questions:
• Did the Confederacy (or at least Citadel cadets operating under the auspices of the South Carolina government) initiate hostilities first by firing on the Star of India on January 9, 1861? YES
• Did the US Army and Navy prepare to reinforce Forts Sumter and Pickens, and were they prepared to use force to do this? – YES.
• Did Confederate forces fire on those reinforcing units, and initiate the first full scale combat of the Civil War? - YES
• Did this play directly into Lincoln’s hand and allow him to show the Confederates as the ones who fired first, and give the US the moral high ground in Northern and European public opinion? - YES

No, my issue is not taxes. A certain level of taxation for shared public benefits is necessary, and no nation can exist without some means of revenue.

Yeah, I suppose that you're right, but of course that means it's just a question of where you draw the line. You like a little of this, but not of that while your neighbor likes more of that, but not so much of this. Okay, so we elect representatives to supposedly represent us in finding an appropriate mix of this and that. In theory, everyone will get some but not all of what they want. Unfortunately, everyone winds up having to pay for some things that they don't want, I guess. This all sounds very mainstream.

Well, the CPI has risen a bit more than 22% since 2005 (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com), but if you don't trust government figures I guess you can make up your own. Any way you look at it, inflation has been pretty mild in the last few years. But, the CPI isn't constant. The alternative to inflation is deflation, which is generally associated with recessions and depressions. Did you like the deflation between 2008 and 2009?

If you are a businessman, would you be willing to spend money to increase your inventory of goods if you believed that the value of those goods will be decreasing over time and may in fact be worth less than you paid for them when you sell them? Check out what Milton Friedman had to say about the supply of money and the Great Depression.

The math says somethings got to break at some point, and a financial collapse of the nation will result in a lot of people dying and a lot of misery on the survivors.

There will be good times and there will be bad times. The key is to learn how to prepare for and to adapt to both. And, enjoy yourself. You can't control any of these environmental conditions.

I have a pretty uniform theory of governance. It is chock full of natural law philosophy and theory, and it establishes what is and what is not an appropriate function of government under the guidelines along which ours is constituted. I do not recognize my neighbor as having a legitimate claim on my work product beyond that which is necessary for proper governance or beyond that to which I assent.

Okay, so we elect representatives to supposedly represent us in finding an appropriate mix of this and that. In theory, everyone will get some but not all of what they want. Unfortunately, everyone winds up having to pay for some things that they don't want, I guess. This all sounds very mainstream.

I don't think this is about what someone wants as opposed to what someone else wants. I regard this as government within it's proper boundaries vs government without.

Fiscal insanity is what topples governments throughout history. They all want to spend more than they make, and it is a natural tendency of people in government to want to do this. They should not be permitted to do this, but we now have a situation where the people who run government have learned to bribe the people into keeping them in power by using the money they take away from others.

This is a positive feedback system if you are familiar with the term. It is unsustainable and will go into violent oscillations before it breaks.

Well, the CPI has risen a bit more than 22% since 2005 (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com), but if you don't trust government figures I guess you can make up your own.

I think all administrations want there numbers to look good. This one has gone way beyond that to straight lying about them. I know what I was paying for certain items in 2005, and I know what I am paying now, and a lot of them have almost doubled.

Any way you look at it, inflation has been pretty mild in the last few years. But, the CPI isn't constant. The alternative to inflation is deflation, which is generally associated with recessions and depressions. Did you like the deflation between 2008 and 2009?

How about neither? What's wrong with that? George W managed it for quite awhile. Inflation was certainly not as bad as it is under Obama.

There will be good times and there will be bad times. The key is to learn how to prepare for and to adapt to both. And, enjoy yourself. You can't control any of these environmental conditions.

The problem we are facing is systemic. It's not merely a period we are going through. Rome Crashed. They started debasing their currency too. Before they crashed, they entertained every perversion of which you can imagine, and so are we now doing.

“It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.” ― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust

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.