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?

[rockrr]

If there was still any nagging doubt about its liberal tactics, just take a gander at the DegenerateLamp’s post #657

[DiogenesLamp]

The implication is clear in your sentence; you really believe that since Lincoln was part of the Illinois legislation he was responsible for , "very cruel laws as relating to blacks," and that he helped pass, "laws aimed at preventing them from settling in Illinois, and for treating them horribly when they did."???

I gave you a link to a message in which this very assertion is being made, and another link to a book which shows such a law was actually passed during Lincoln's tenure in the Illinois legislature.

I did do a bit of digging and found that Lincoln was one of five who voted against one discriminatory law, but the message I linked for you asserts he did vote for other laws of a similar nature.

But don't seize on just the Lincoln bit, also address the Illinois white citizens rounding up Free blacks and selling them into slavery in the South. Acknowledge that Illinois, as a state, was just as racists and hateful as people try to make the Southern states out to be.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting: "You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola."

First, noting DiogenesLamp's previous observation that agreements made under duress are not considered legally valid: both agreements, by Union forces at Forts Pickens and Sumter were made under duress, and threat of military action by Confederates.
Such threats and actions, when carried out, make the Confederacy the aggressor power which started Civil War.

Second, it may be a fine point of language, but Winfield Scott's April 4 order to "reinforce" Fort Sumter was eventually changed to just "resupply" Sumter, so long as there was no Confederate resistance.

Any claim that these actions were "declarations" or "acts" of war are equivalent to saying US resupply / reinforcement missions to Guantanamo Bay are "acts of war" against Cuba.

In both cases a decision for war is purely that of the aggressor power, be it Cuba or the Confederacy.

[x]

I guess that’s what he was doing with that guy in that nightclub the other night — avoiding a hate crimes conviction.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersomdem: "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 misunderstandings of history are as limiting as your misunderstandings of the Bible.
You are not serious about either, you are only here to mock both.

Lincoln is quoted as saying he was often forced to his knees in prayer, because he could find no place else to turn.
But full blame for all Civil War deaths obviously belongs to the Confederate leaders who first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, then refused to surrender short of total defeat.

[jeffersondem]

“But full blame for all Civil War deaths obviously belongs to the Confederate leaders who first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, then refused to surrender short of total defeat.”

I recognize I do not have the talent to explain the purpose and workings of a constitutional, republican form of government to you so I have asked my friend from Georgia, DeForest Kelley, to explain it to you in a way you can understand.

DeForest Kelley: “Dammit Dem, I'm a Doctor, not a magician!”

[BroJoeK]

Team Cuda: " I had not known that the British Empire maintained forts on US territory after the Revolutionary War, with their status not finalized unitl 1814.
I’ll have to read more about this."

Somewhere I saw a detailed report and map of these forts, but a quick google only gives me this one: British forts on United States land, 1783 to 1814.

And here:

"Britain officially ceded the area north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachians to the United States at the end of the American Revolutionary War with the Treaty of Paris (1783), but the British continued to maintain a presence in the region as late as 1815, the end of the War of 1812."

[BroJoeK]

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."

The fact is that all charges of treason were eventually dropped, even in cases where it would unequivocally apply: so-called Copperheads in Union states, still US citizens, who provided aid and comfort to the Confederacy which had declared, and was making war against the US.

Lincoln had set the tone, and other leaders like President Johnson and US Grant followed up, to prevent the worst punishments of Confederate leaders.

So the argument today makes no sense, since people of that time carefully considered the question and decided not to prosecute -- certainly for political reasons, not due to somebody's scholarly legal opinions.

[Boogieman]

Your comment is self-contradictory. You can’t restrain the federal government by taking power away from the states and the people. The only way to restrain the federal government is by limiting it to its enumerated powers, and the power you want to give them is not one of those.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "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 presume you enjoy mockery, since it's usually easier than serious thought, right?

Your claim that the Declaration makes our Revolutionary war a "defense of slavery" is just false.
I'll say again: American slavery was not threatened by Brits except in retaliation for our rebellion.
If there was no rebellion, the Brits had no problem with slavery here.
Indeed, thousands of British loyalists who left the United States at war's end took their slaves with them.

Bottom line: in 1776 Brits had no problem with American slavery, and the Revolutionary War was fought not "to defend slavery".

[BroJoeK]

Team Cuda: "UN-Fortunately, Davis, Pickens, and Beauregard obliged him."

There, fixed it for you. ;-)

[jeffersondem]

“Your claim that the Declaration makes our Revolutionary war a “defense of slavery” is just false.”

If the colonies were not defending the peculiar institution who was?

[BroJoeK]

Team Cuda: "Love the graphic."

Thanks, the whole subject has been debated here at great length.
This is as close as I've ever got to what the actual facts are.

And there's even another step we can take with this, when we consider the example I mentioned above: if a Southern cotton grower purchased machinery manufactured in the North -- for example, railroad or steamship equipment.
Now employees of the Northern manufacturer use some of their earnings to purchase European imports, and pay the duty on them.

In what sense, if any, can we say that the Southern planter has somehow "paid for" the Federal revenue from that duty?

I would say: in no sense, and therefore even though 50+% of US exports were cotton, it is not at all fair to say that the South "paid for" the duties on 50+% of the resulting imports.

Make sense?

[DiogenesLamp]

Whether I approve or not is not the issue here. The question is: why, I repeat why, did Deep South Fire Eaters declare their secessions, beginning in December 1860.

And the answer has nothing to do with whether you approve or not? I don't see it as relevant at all. I don't consider the right conditional on anyone's reasons for leaving, it is sufficient that they wish to leave.

It was a fact of US constitutional law that the President had authority to free "contraband" slaves in the protection of the US Army, but not slaves in states which had not declared their secession.

That old constitutional thing didn't stop him when he didn't want it to stop him. He even admits he broke a few rules. " Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation."

No, he was just fine with breaking it if he felt it was necessary. What it wasn't was politically viable. Had he forced Union states to give up their slaves, he would have had a mutiny. No, he could only make that happen after it became clear that the Army would be freed up to deal with other reluctant states if they balked.

So why is it that you people think this is such a clever issue to raise? Surely the real facts are simple enough for anyone to grasp?

Apparently not, because here we are with people constantly bringing up Slavery while ignoring the fact that the Union did not start a war with the South to abolish slavery, they started a war with the South to abolish independence, and the reasons why they abolished slavery were manyfold, and not so much out of concern for what was best for the slaves.

Again, had the Union been all about the slaves, they could have attacked the five Union Slave states. The supply lines would have been shorter.

Oh, but FRiend, there was vastly less arm-twisting or duress than you imagine here for one simple reason: those state legislatures now included, for the first time elected black representatives.

I am aware that it did, because they refused to allow white people to vote. Leaving only black voters and electing a black legislature was a revenge tactic designed to humiliate and and punctuate forcible Union rule, but it eventually became such an embarrassment to the Union that they did away with the "whites not allowed to vote" restrictions rather quickly.

What is odd is that it is difficult to find any reference to this bit of history, as if this whole incident was scrubbed from the History books. Very few history books mention it anymore. Don't find much on the internet regarding it either.

But getting back to the point, by bringing this up, I take it that you are asserting that the 13th amendment was ratified in the Southern states by black legislatures?

Is this what you are asserting?

[DiogenesLamp]

The fact is you have no idea what "my standards" are, even though I've endlessly explained them.

You've endlessly explained that the Slave holding states had no right to independence because they were slave holding states.

That is the summation of all your arguments.

[HandyDandy]

I know. Therefore I will “Grant” you that one. Grant went after the POTUS when he tried to pull that stuff with Lee.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just one of the many many lies and strawmen by dimbulb.

Mr. Union cheerleader, I very much suspect you do not actually know what is a "strawman", but I have little doubt you grasp "lies" all too well.

It imputes a "standard" to you and then goes about the task of tossing it like a Molotov cocktail into the room.

When people keep bringing up their reasons for leaving as if it precludes their right to leave, then they have expressed a standard.

Their standard is that people don't have a right to leave unless those people leave for reasons with which they agree.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then you have to ask: how stupid can a people be who provoke, start and declare war on a nation with, in your words: "five times the population and the vast bulk of the Industrial might"

I think this is the third time that I suggested you read through the thread so that you can read that series of messages posted by PeaRidge pointing out that the Union was on their way to start one regardless of what the Southern states did.

It's mind-boggling, just and mind-boggling as your endlessly repeated defenses of them.

It's mind-boggling that after so many repetitions you still lack the comprehension to grasp the essential point; The Declaration does not stipulate "for every reason except for the continuation of slavery."

Again, when you say "Slavery" I think "Liar is trying to misdirect the subject again."

[DiogenesLamp]

When the Confederacy started & declared war on the United States,

Number 4. Four times I now tell you to read through the thread regarding the messages that demonstrate the Union was invading. Read the series of messages Posted by PeaRidge.

[DiogenesLamp]

Virginian George Washington, the great man who stood head and shoulders above the great men of the founding generation, said the exact opposite of what you say, at great length and it explicit detail, in his valedictory Farewell Address.

First of all, I dispute that your characterization of it is true, and Secondly I dispute that a "Farewell Address" trumps the Declaration of Independence.

Are we to now rule our nation based on what Famous speeches say rather than Acts signed by representatives?