POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[WhiskeyPapa]

Just as you were wrong in saying it was unanimous.

The United States attorney said that, not me.

I think they have a real neaty cool medication to replace ritalin now, by the way. You act like you need it.

Walt

[Aurelius]

"Well now both the Beavis and Butthead of the "1984" set have weighed in."

"If you can secede and still have U.S. law operate --- the marshals can't haul you off, now-- go for it."

That hardly addresses the issue, Wlat.

But you must be getting lazy. I thought you would at least find a half dozen or so paragraphs of gibberish to cut and paste and post in response.

Do you want to try to address the issue? Or do you not recognize what it is?

[4CJ]

You know that's not true.

Then you are calling Supreme Court Justice Campbell a liar (whose service was recommended by Supreme Court Justice Nelson). It's documented in President Davis' Rise and Fall of The Confederate Government, portions of which I have posted previously. Justice Campbell wrote:

He [Seward] authorized me to say that, before that letter could reach him [President Davis], he [Seward] would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made.

Davis added the following [page 233]:

It will be observed that not only the commissioners in Washington, but also the Confederate government at Montgomery, were thus assured on the highest authority--that of the Secretary of State of the United States, the official organ of communication of the views and purposes of his government--of the intention of that government to order the evacuation of Fort Sumter within a few days from March 15, and not to disturb the existing status at Fort Pickens. Moreover, this was not the mere statement of a fact, but a pledge, given as the consideration of an appeal to the Confederate government and its commissioners to refrain from embarrassing the Federal administration by prosecuting any further claims at the same time. As such a pledge it was accepted, and while its fulfillment was quietly awaited, the commissioners forbore to make any further demand for reply to their note of March 12.

Five days later, the Fort still occuppied, Justice Campbell demands an answer from Seward, the representative of Lincoln:

He [Seward] accounted for the delay as accidental, and not involving the integrity of his assurance that the evacuation would take place, and that I should know whenever any change was made in the resolution in reference to Sumter or to Pickens.

Near the 1st of April, Justice Campbell again asked Seward for information: 'I asked him whether I was to understand that there had been a change in his former communications. His answer was, "None."'

On 7 April Seward replied to Justice Campbell again with the promise that "[f]aith as to Sumter fully kept. Wait and see."

Campbell then wrote "I read that intercepted dispatches disposed the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force, and that this plan had been adopted by the Washington Government, and was in process of execution."

Campbell was assured by Seward that "[b]efore this letter reaches you [a proposed letter by Campbell to President Davis], Sumter will have been evacuated." [p. 590] Finally Justice Campbell writes,

I think no candid man, who will read over what I have written, and consider for a moment what is going on at Sumter, but will agree that the equivocating conduct of the Administration, as measured and interpreted in connection with these promises, is the proximate cause of the great calamity.

I have a profound conviction that the telegrams of the 8th of April, of General Beauregard, and of the 10th of April, of General Walker, the Secretary of War, can be referred to nothing else than their belief that there has been systematic duplicity practiced on them through me.

Lincoln lied, telling Supreme Court Justices Campbell & Nelson one thing, while doing another. A Japanese surprise attack.

[lodwick]

bttt

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln lied, telling Supreme Court Justices Campbell & Nelson one thing, while doing another. A Japanese surprise attack.

Since Justice Campbell dealt with only Seward and never spoke directly with Lincoln how do you know that Seward wasn't lying or, more likely, telling Justice Campbell what he believed Lincoln should do rather than what Lincoln planned to do?

[4CJ]

But the collection of tariffs -was- a sign of federal power, and one that President Lincoln was not willing to relinquish.

1862 imports were down by over 105 Million from 1860 levels - despite the North having to import much of what it previously purchased from the South.

Now before you argue otherwise, if the North imported little - then it paid little in tariffs. If it did import from England/France etc to make up for lost purchases from the South - then then imports of the South (with their corresponding tariff revenues) would have been much more than 105 Million, possibly double. And finally, if the South imported little, then the revenues would not have been vital, and imports would not have fallen, but instead would have been higher than 1860 levels.

And 95% of -that- amount was collected in northern ports. Two customs houses in the south LOST money -- it cost more to operate them than they collected.

By your reasoning, no interior state paid tariffs. Regarding the reason for any differences in amounts, the harbours of the South were shallower than the Northern ports. After all, the North had huge fleets of ships, the South virtually none. And so what if the North paid more in tariffs, as a manufacturing economy, their costs would be passed on to the consumers - meaning much of the South. It's the loss of tariff revenue, coupled with a loss of shipping revenue, the higher costs of raw materials, and loss of much of it's customer base that fueled Lincoln's desires for union the revenues.

This story appears to be apocryphal.

As noted, it was published in the Baltimore Sun, and read by [probably] millions. Can you provide any evidence that Lincoln refuted the article in question?

[thatdewd]

The Court was unanimous in saying that the acts and ordinances of secession had no operation in law.

They were unanimous in not allowing the secession issue to be part of the case, Walt. That's all. You don't comprehend things very well.

The Court split 5-4 on the question of who could prosecute the war, the president or Congress.

Your interpretation of the issues is confused. The main issue was that the legal actions in question (the blockade) were enacted by the President prior to the Congressional Act of July 13, 1861. In a sense, they argued that the President, by enacting war measures before he was given Congressional authorization, was himself declaring war, which is illegal. The court decided that the President's actions were in response to a state of war that existed, with or without Congress recognizing it and it was his duty to respond to a state of war as soon as possible, and not be limited to waiting on Congressional declaration. It was nothing more than a legal point about how early the President can act.

The Supreme Court In the Prize Cases held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war.

ROFLMAO!!!! All that says is that the issue of secession was not allowed to be part of the case. Secession was NOT an issue in the case, Walt. That's what I told you to begin with. Like, duh. They did not allow it to be a legal issue in the case and made NO decision on it.

You don't know the history.

LOL - You don't even understand what you're reading, Hahahahahahahahaha.

[4CJ]

[H]ow do you know that Seward wasn't lying or, more likely, telling Justice Campbell what he believed Lincoln should do rather than what Lincoln planned to do?

As a representative of the Federal Government, of Lincoln and the Executive branch of government, the responsibility stills falls to Lincoln. If you can't delegate responsibility, then who needs subordinates?

But then again, what you impute is that not one, but two US Supreme Court justices are liars, as well as the 3 peace commissioners, one of whom was also a judge.

[Non-Sequitur]

But then again, what you impute is that not one, but two US Supreme Court justices are liars...

I suggest nothing of the sort. Your own tale shows the Justices spoke to Seward and related his assurances. Seward was the one making promises concerning Sumter that he was in no position to keep. Justice Campbell may believe he was used but that is his opinion. And yours.

[4CJ]

5 justices, led by Grier, opined that the blockade was legal via jure belli, or interNational law, and that the issue of secession was being decided "by wager of battle."

[4CJ]

Seward was the one making promises concerning Sumter that he was in no position to keep.

If your commanding officer issues you an order, claiming that it came from the Commander-in-Chief, do you file a request for confirmation, or do you accept his delegated authority to act in behalf of the CIC?

[thatdewd]

Justice Grier quotes the Militia Act, which requires that U.S. law operate in all the states. Shoehorn secession into that.

(sigh) But, as you have pointed out yourself, secession was statedly not part of the case. The legality of the war was not part of the case. Only that a state of war existed was the issue. The Court very purposefully avoided dealing with the legality of secession. The Militia Act also authorizes action against other nations, which the seceeded states considered themselves to be. That is the main reason the Court did not allow the issue of secession to be part of the case and that is why they did not rule on secession in any way manner or form. They only ruled on whether or not the President had to wait for Congressional action before responding to a state of war, whatever the nature of that war.

[Aurelius]

"The act requires that U.S. law operate in all the states."

"It is therefore a bar to unilateral state secession."

I think you must have posted this fallacious argument 100 times over the past couple of years. I am sure that the fallacious nature has been pointed out to you before, but I am going to do it again. It is clear that in the law as written the word "state" refers to a state of the United States. If a state had withdrawn unilaterally from the United States, then the provisions would not apply to it. If you insist that the state could not do that, and therefore the act applies, then you are begging the question.

You are trying to demonstrate that a state cannot unilaterally secede by using the Milita Act. But for the Militia Act to be applicable, you have to first demonstrate that a state may not unilaterally secede.

That's logic Wlat, and I know you hate it.

[mac_truck]

Well now both the Beavis and Butthead of the "1984" set have weighed in

Give'm hell Walt!

[thatdewd]

The United States attorney said that, not me.

Then why don't you post a verifiable source for that quote to prove you didn't make it up or twist it completely out of context like most of what you post.

I think they have a real neaty cool medication to replace ritalin now, by the way. You act like you need it.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha - There, I laughed at you a little slower, you can pretend I took it. You know, like you pretend you have an understanding of history.

[thatdewd]

5 justices, led by Grier, opined that the blockade was legal via jure belli, or interNational law, and that the issue of secession was being decided "by wager of battle."

You are correct, but somehow I think Wlat will soon post that 'jure belli' was Lincoln's favorite soup.

[mac_truck]

[Colt .45]

Gee Walt ... you sure do love to hear yourself talk.

After reading your posts, and letting my nausea settle, I decided to once more throw my hat into this ring. You want to trot out that same tired old leftist argument that the War of Northern Aggression was all about slavery, and the only reason the Southern States seceded was just the sole issue of slavery. Having already proven you to be a buffoon about their (in your own words) "illegal secession", I would figure that you would've dug a little deeper and found out the true reasoning for the tyrant (Lincoln) wanting his war. But you didn't.

Slavery was only one of the rallying cries of Southerners when they withdrew. The main issue was whether a state had the right to determine its own domestic issues and the future of them or not. It was also about the States self-determination of their own economic futures and revenues. And they did have the right to decide their own domestic issues free from governmental interference. In other words Walt ... STATES RIGHTS vs Federal Government Rights. If you study a little deeper into the Founders intent and ideals when the US Constitution was framed, you would find out that Lincoln was acting well outside his scope of Constitutionally approved authority when the secession crisis came, and launched an illegal war over a dying institution (slavery), that the Southern States had the right to determine anyway because it was a domestic issue in each State. When he launched his war, he thus repudiated the ideals of American society that are put forth in the Declaration of Independence, and started us down the road to the colossus of intrusive government that we have now, and the expense of some of our Individual Liberties.

As I have said before, you must remember that the Founders' Intent is controlling when interpeting the Constitution. Now seeing as how you will disagree and try to tell me where I am wrong, before ever going and studying it ... take the suggestion in my tag line, won't you.

[thatdewd]

(yawn)

[WhiskeyPapa]