Posted on 08/16/2002 3:44:14 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Ever wonder what the abolitionists thought about Abraham Lincoln's war, its purported motive of "saving the union," and the claim that it was fought to free the slaves?
Here's what leading abolitionist philosopher Lysander Spooner had to say about it all in 1870 (highlights bolded by me)
Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no visible, permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers who call themselves "the government." That is to say, there is no ONE MAN, who calls himself the state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one who claims that he and his children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or by special appointment from Heaven. There are only certain men, who call themselves presidents, senators, and representatives, and claim to be the authorized agents, FOR THE TIME BEING, OR FOR CERTAIN SHORT PERIODS, OF ALL "the people of the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic evidence that they are so; and who notoriously are not so; but are really only the agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes.
What is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents, senators, and representatives, these pretended agents of all "the people of the United States," the moment their exactions meet with any formidable resistance from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of blood money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow their money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those "people of the United States" -- their own constituents and principals, as they profess to call them -- who resist the robberies and enslavements which these borrowers of the money are practising upon them. And they expect to repay the loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate through a long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest.
Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war [i.e, the Civil War]. In proof of all this, look at the following facts.
Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of priests and kings.
Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices FOR A PURELY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATION, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future -- that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South -- that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These -- and not any love of liberty or justice -- were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.
On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war.
This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war**, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE."
The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you.
These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people.
The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"
By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.
The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered -- so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
**Editor's Note: Spooner's "chief murderer" reference is to Union General and then recently elected President Grant
I don't think the moral dimension played a part, until Lincoln played it up himself. It was his major message in prosecuting emancipation during the war, and also a plank of his political platform. But I don't think people shared it nearly as strongly.
It took the war, and four years of his use of the bully pulpit in wartime, to drive his message home. I'm sure your Grant quote from April 1861, just as Robert E. Lee was winding up his affairs with the War Department and the U.S. Army, is more typical.
The Virginian antislavery movement withered in the 1820's under the weight of sectional abuse piled atop the calls for abolition from Northern orators. This was a large part of the damage the red-hot Abolitionists did. They made it impossible for Southerners to argue the case themselves, or do anything but close ranks and defend their society.
No, the irony is that Marxists like McPherson and some of the Declarationists who've bought a Marxist argument would use as their vehicle the party of the Gilded Age.
As I described it to you in the post you scoffed at, the Marxist use for the Civil War is to present it as a Marxian "second revolution" against the planter "bourgeoisie", a "liberation movement" that they can cite as validating their historical model.
The argument is Marxist or it isn't, not just because I say so. In this case, it appears to be, and I've been persuaded of its essential content by perusing the McPherson thread, and GOPcapitalist's post-up on McPherson at the top of that thread.
Oh, and by the way, nothing says a Marxist can't be right. It's just that you need to know whose bat and ball you're playing with. It's just that when you mess with those people, you know how they'll want things to come out.
As it was explained to me once in a geography or history class long ago, the presence of plentiful hydro power in New England was decisive in starting the industry there. Other Fall Line towns in the Piedmont had mills, too, but not as big as New England.
The presence of the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal was decisive for Northern versus Southern locations. Plus, the big ports were in the north since late colonial times. New York ran away from the rest of the country after the Erie Canal was opened.
Sure, there was coal in the South, but it was the combination: proximity to water transport AND raw materials AND population centers AND ports AND finance AND markets.
It all added up in favor of the Northeast. It wasn't "cultural" -- that's a political construction, as I said before.
On that, we agree. Virginia was without doubt the ‘leader’ of the south. In the late 20s and early 30s, there was very strong support for ending slavery in the state --- I seem to recall the legislature being within a handful of votes of actually doing so. But the radical Abolitionists damnations combined with Nat Turner's rebellion, allowed the pro-slavery faction to push the proponents of abolition into a political box from which they could not escape. IMHO, it was one of those tremendous "missed opportunities" of history. If Virginia had ended slavery, even with a gradual phase-out, I think the pressure on the other slave states, especially those of the upper south, to follow Virginia's lead would have been overwhelming.
This brings me back to the abortion debate of today. The antics of outfits like Operation Rescue and the overblown rhetoric of TV preachers like Fallwell push people on the fence over into the other camp. They allow the pro-choice side to paint the vast majority of those opposed to abortion as dangerous radicals. They do far more harm than good. It is for those reasons that I have little regard to Garrison and others who were strident and un-compromising without taking into account the very real political and economic implications of their demands. Lincoln always took a moderate course in regards to slavery until the latter stages of the war. The only area where he was unwilling to compromise was on expansion and on that he had solid constitutional ground.
I'm not aware of any significant textile mills operating in the Piedmount before the 1890s, but I could be wrong. But by 1860, mills were no longer relying on water wheels. They were steam powered meaning they could be build anywhere that there was access to fuel, and the south had plenty of that available.
A little long, but an interesting read.
I have not explored that issue, but I suspect that it would have been similar to what many of the northern states had done when they eliminated slavery --- a Grandfather arrangement where current slaves remained "property" for life but children of those slaves would either be born free or entitled to freedom at age 21.
That is just a guess. I'll have to do some research to find more information. Virginia, to their credit, would have taken a much larger economic hit than say New York or New Jersey who were both late in ending slavery in the North, but the record shows that there was a near majority in Virginia for doing so in the Jacksonian era.
Sadly, a “missed opportunity” that could have changed the course of history.
You are welcome. I have to go back again and re-read to see what I really think, and I am also interested in checking out his book, Old South, New South.
Let me know your impressions.
Yes, I think it would have been nearly impossible without an enormous emission of debt. In his discussion of the issue apropos Texas's social and economic development in the antebellum period, T. R. Fehrenbach, my manual source, gives the economics of emancipation thusly:
"Aside from the emotional questions of right or wrong, or subordination and equality, emancipation by 1860 had become economically unreasonable. In Texas, the assessed value of all slaves was $106,688,920 -- 20 percent more than the assessed value of all cultivated lands. Whatever its moral capital, the South had invested its economic capital in blacks. Like many another capitalist or dominant group before and since, the Southern gentry, in coping with a labor problem, had fallen into a terrible cultural and racial trap. It was more vulnerable to criticism than either the Northern industrialist paying out slave wages or a government using forced labor, because the cotton planter was creating no fruits for the descendants of his workers to enjoy. [This is a huge, overlooked point about slavery.] The great mass of Negroes were never expected to rise out of bondage. And the profits of the plantation economy were rapidly creating a new leisure class that, however admirable in many respects, was already an anachronism in the 19th-century Western world.
He goes on to compare the planters to the old 18th-century squirearchs of the Atlantic seaboard, who in the North were shoved aside by the Millocracy but who continued to lead society and its affairs in the South.
The arithmetic is such that it would have taken a national undertaking and debt issue to redeem the slaves, and would have taken generations to work off. But even at that, as Fehrenbach points out, the slaves would have come out of bondage in many cases with only the shirts on their backs and nowhere to go. Even the abolitionists didn't have a clue what to do afterward, and Lincoln, in his letters, professed his own shortage of answers in the 1850's.
You are correct. Even in his eulogy to Clay, he recognized both the economic problem and the human problem of the constructed 'racism' of emancipation. But during the war, Lincoln often pointed out the costs of the war per day/month/year vs. the value of the slaves in a given state.
IMHO, the rational answer (by 19th century realities) to slavery was a gradual, compensated, emancipation with a combination of education and resettlement to the territories and/or colonization. The fact was that the very small but politically powerful southern aristocrat class of the south prevented any serious movement in that direction in order to preserve the status quo in their favor and to the determent of 95% of the nation. They manipulated policy and opinion for no other purpose than maintaining their elite status.
The south should not blame the civil war on Lincoln (or the Abolitionists who never had one-tenth the political power of the much smaller elite planter class.) The guilt of 600,000 dead and the trials and troubles that followed, rightly belongs on the memory of the southern aristrocrats! It is revisionism in the extreme to do what DiLorenzo and the rest have done in absolving the southern aristocrats while calling it Lincoln’s needless war. The war was indeed “needless” in that the vast majority, North and South, did not want or need slavery. But the war became inevitable because of the pure arrogance, greed and refusal to compromise by that small but powerful faction. They deserve no fond memories ---- IMHO.
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.