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?

[BroJoeK]

Jeffersondem: "I am as uncomfortable saying this as you are learning of it but the 13 northern and southern colonies agreed to fight to preserve the peculiar institution."

But you misunderstand both the words and intentions of our Founders.
In fact, the words "domestic rebellions" referred not only to slaves, but also native-Americans, whom the Brits did in fact stir up.

And Jefferson's original words condemning slavery followed immediately afterwards, clearly telling us that it was not slavery itself he was defending -- since all men are created equal -- but British inspired violence against Americans.

Here is a description of the words' meaning:

"The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists.
For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if 'any Injury or insult were offered to himself' he would 'declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes.'
The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings.
General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists."

[DiogenesLamp]

And, as Lincoln announced ahead of time to South Carolina's governor, ships sent to Fort Sumter were only intended to resupply, not to reinforce the garrison, so long as things remained peaceful.

I ask you again, did you read those messages and letters? They are inconsistent with your assertion.

[HandyDandy]

Isn’t it true that the criteria for being charged with treason against the United States, the perpetrator would need to be a person owing allegiance to the United States? The Confederacy had formally declared itself a separate entity from the United States. The components of the Confederacy then owed allegiance to the Confederacy. Virginia had declared itself part of the Confederacy. How then can one argue that Lee committed treason?

[PaulZe]

This may provide you with your answer: http://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

[jeffersondem]

“In fact, the words “domestic rebellions” referred not only to slaves, but also native-Americans, whom the Brits did in fact stir up.”

No.

Read the words of the DOI.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Domestic insurrections referred to slave rebellions. The merciless Indian Savages were referred to in the same sentence but were a separate, named offense.

That may be a small point, but why not get it right?

Regardless, you are coming around to the recognition that the colonists, north and south, were fighting not to end the peculiar institution but to preserve it. Later northern and southern colonists would agree to incorporate the peculiar institution into the U.S. Constitution.

You and I may not like the fact northern and southern colonists were fighting to preserve the peculiar institution but it does no one any good to distort history into its opposite.

There is nothing wrong with you including rejected drafts of the DOI in this discussion. The rejected portions provide context for what the founders agreed to accept - and what they agreed to reject.

[Team Cuda]

I’m not sure that we are very far apart in our contentions. You state that, based on Lincoln’s Inaugural Address that Lincoln did not intend to go to war, until or unless the Confederacy started it, and that he intended to continue Buchanan’s policies of supporting the Union forts, and maintain the functions of the Federal Government. I really don’t disagree with this, as far as it goes.

My contention is that war was essentially inevitable, given that the seceding states would not allow him to support the US Troops in Forts throughout the South, nor to collect import duties. So, Lincoln was not for war unless the Confederacy started it, but if he attempted to resupply and reinforce the Forts, they were going to start it. In fact, it ws important for public support that they be seen to start it. Fortunately, Davis, Pickens, and Beauregard obliged him.

[Team Cuda]

I could not agree with Mr. BroJoeK more.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Regardless, you are coming around to the recognition that the colonists, north and south, were fighting not to end the peculiar institution but to preserve it."

No, you continue to misread what should be obvious.
Slavery was only threatened by the Brits as a tactic of war -- Brits of 1776 had no problems with American slavery, so long as colonists remained loyal to the king.
So there was no sense in which Americans fought to "preserve slavery", it's just that Brits (like Lincoln in 1862) threatened to abolish it, if they rebelled.

And, in fact, that's just what the Brits did, and some escaped-slaves did serve the Brits, in exchange for promised freedom.

But even more served the American Continental Army, to the point where one British army officer at Yorktown in 1781 reported the Continental Army was about one-fourth black.

[Team Cuda]

I can argue that Lee committed treason because, even though the Confederacy thought they were a nation, the rest of the United States disagreed with this contention. Hence, the whole Civil War thing.

Given that the United States considered the states of the Confederacy part of the Union, the acts of those fighting against the United States constituted treason.

There was one way for the acts of Lee (and the rest of the Army of the Confederacy) to be not considered treason. They would have to have won the war and actually constituted a separate nation.

[BroJoeK]

Referring to:

DiogenesLamp: "You also ignore the point about 80% of the exports were Southern Agriculture products"

Such official numbers as we have from the time are not completely consistent, but they do suggest the US in 1860 was exporting more than just cotton & tobacco.

This link shows total 1859 exports as $357 million.
This link shows that cotton exports were $192 million.
Combined with this link, the numbers can be summarized as:

• 54% of US exports were raw cotton grown in the South
• 4% tobacco mostly grown in the South
• = 58% of total US exports primarily Southern agricultural products

• 17% of US exports were northern manufactured products, mining, forestry & fishery.
• 16% were northern & western agricultural products -- i.e., wheat, beef, dairy, hogs & sheep products.
• 9% un-enumerated in these links.

In decades following the Civil War, cotton production grew another 25%, but total agricultural exports grew more than 300%, and manufactured exports grew over 400%.

Bottom line: no question that cotton was America's most important export in 1860, but it was about 54%, not 80% of the total.
Northern and western exports were also important, and combined, contributed 3/4 as much as cotton to US trade balances.

[DiogenesLamp]

" Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late."

A simple statement which ought to rebut every person moralizing about the justification for the North's Invasion and conquest.

Apparently Slavery was negotiable, if they would just give up Independence.

This is what I have been pointing out constantly, but the message doesn't seem to sink in for the Union Defenders who want to prattle about "Slavery." General Sherman's own words undermine the assertions of the Union Apologists.

I said it was "Revenge" and "Punishment" and Apparently General Sherman acknowledges that it was "Revenge" and "Punishment."

[Team Cuda]

I have to say, I love it when people bring real facts to the discussion, and don’t just arm wave. The South really bet the farm (pun intended) on King Cotton, and the slave labor that gave them such a profit, and look where that got them. The really (really, really, really) ironic thing is that by going to war they set up their own competitors in Egypt and India. The Civil War also helped to increase the capacity and capability of Northern factories, further lowering their % of total exports.

Love the graphic.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Anyone thinking the confederates posed a threat is not being serious.
Lincoln trampled on all sorts of constitutional matters in his efforts to impose his will."

Your second sentence contradicts your first, FRiend.
If the Confederacy were truly "no threat", then Lincoln would have no need to "trample" anything.

In actual fact, in early 1861 the Confederacy posed an existential threat to the United States, not only in the Deep South which declared secession over slavery alone.
But also in the Upper South, which at first refused to secede over slavery alone, but loudly threatened to secede if the Union attempted any "oppression" of the Deep South.
So, when push came to shove, the Upper South, beginning with Virginia, declared Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter an act of "oppression" and so declared its own secession, plus joined the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.

But even then, the Upper South did not secede unanimously, with huge areas of each state remaining loyal Unionists -- western Virginia (17% Union troops), eastern Tennessee (27% Union troops), western North Carolina (7% Union), north-western Arkansas (19% Union).
These areas contributed significant support and soldiers to the Union army, as did notably Louisiana.

But in Lincoln mind, the Union would be won or lost in the Border States -- Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland.
All were majority Unionists, but with powerful pro-Confederate minorities, including the governors of Missouri and Kentucky.
They were also assaulted militarily by Confederates, Missouri beginning in early 1861, making the Confederacy an existential threat to states which were majority Unionists.

Further, the Confederacy in 1861 immediately invaded Union territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico / Arizona.
And over the course of the war, Confederate forces invaded every Union state & territory within their reach, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico / Arizona, threatening Illinois and Colorado.
Confederate guerillas also attacked targets in New Hampshire, Colorado and California.

And in most cases of Confederate forces in Union states, they behaved in ways that even General Sherman did not emulate.

So any suggestion that the Confederacy was "no threat" is just ridiculous.
From Day One the Confederacy was an existential threat to the United States, a fact well demonstrated by the four years it took to defeat them.

[central_va]

And in most cases of Confederate forces in Union states, they behaved in ways that even General Sherman did not emulate.

Chambersburg? Chambersburg was such an oddity that is was well publicized for being out of the norm behavior for Confederate forces who were known for good behavior.

[central_va]

The Confederate threat to the North was tactical not strategic. Even a partisan like you knows that.

OTH the Union strategy was to conquer and occupy the South.

[jeffersondem]

You said:“But Jefferson's Declaration, far from defending slavery, was originally anti-slavery.”

I replied: “When I speak of the Declaration of Independence, I am referring to the one that was adopted - the one everyone signed. In other words, not drafts that were not adopted.

“And the DOI documents the reasons why the political bands were dissolved.

“One reason was this: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .” This is a reference to slave rebellions. Look it up.

“The thirteen colonies intended to stop slave rebellions.

“I am as uncomfortable saying this as you are learning of it but the 13 northern and southern colonies agreed to fight to preserve the peculiar institution.”

BJK you got caught wish-casting; then garbled the reference to the the “merciless Indian Savages”; now you seek to make a weak point strong by citing tangential facts to create a misdirection(But even more served the American Continental Army, to the point where one British army officer at Yorktown in 1781 reported the Continental Army was about one-fourth black).

I know what you are trying to do. Believe me, I know. I've done it myself. But there is no shame in your learning new facts and moving on.

I'm clear on your final.

[jeffersondem]

“If the Confederacy were truly “no threat”, then Lincoln would have no need to “trample” anything.”

If Poland were truly “no threat” to the Soviet Union, then Stalin would have no need to “trample” anything in 1939.

See if you can find a fallacy in this kind of thinking.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

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

The hypothetical was a person declaring his property a new country. You said people have a right to do that.

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

Yep, it was treason against the king, and we had to fight to keep our land. The south didn't run their secession through the Congress so it was an illegal secession to begin with. Amazing to me Lincoln waited for an act of war before responding.

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?

If the people decide that there is goods and services rendered from taxation or tariffs, it is not slavery. I assume you use the roads that you think you owe nothing for. Distribution of wealth is slavery though. But using distribution of wealth to say you owe nothing for roads and such is you enslaving the rest of us.

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.

Yep. I bet you still use them though.

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.

Yep. I bet you went to school though (although sometimes it's hard to tell with you).

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.

Yep, the union troops fought a lot harder for the nation, I agree. Thanks for the compliment. 600,000 dead for slavery, as the south declared their secession and war was all about. Pick your own damn cotton next time!

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

LOL! You're thinking of the Alamo. The Mexican War was after Texas joined the union and way after the Alamo. My great great grandfather fought in that war, as a US soldier from Illinois.

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.

No threat yet they attacked Fort Sumter and wanted slavery in all the territories of North America.

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?

Ask the Dems, I didn't vote for it.

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

Oops, you owe, owe, so off to work you go.

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.

Yes, I agree. And like I said, we lost our vote with vote fraud. But that doesn't mean you get everything else free.

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?

But you reap the benefits from these expenditures. You're against the interstates, but you use them and pay lower prices at Walmart because of them.

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

And that man can move at any time. You didn't. You used. You owe.

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.

Your fellow Americans voted for it. If you didn't want to pay for it you should have moved.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

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.”

So you're saying because the north didn't use their full resources to return slaves to their "masters" that the southern states were not bound by anything in the Constitution. I see cops speeding all the time for no good reason, so I don't have to follow any traffic law?

I think a state trying to break up the union is on a different level than an escaped slave.

I know you believe in “Union by bayonet” but article IV is not your friend.

I believe in states following the Constitution when they want to leave, and if they're not willing to follow this agreement, then bring in the bayonets, especially after an attack.

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.

It was designed to keeps states from implementing dumb acts that other states would have to pay for.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

This is an interesting comment. Can you tell us more about the better kind of slavery and the God-ruled slavery?

Deuteronomy! God was very detailed on how to treat slaves and their children. I didn't see anything about being chained in barns and stealing daughters to send to the farm stud.