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

[Aurelius]

Thank you for sharing a portion of your version of history with me.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Court agreed unanimously that secession was outside the law.

That, is a lie.

Richard Dana, the U.S. attorney said it. Find a source in the record to show otherwise.

But at least try and act like an adult.

Walt

[Aurelius]

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."

"That quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln."

And, true to form, he got it ass-backwards. Sining by silence doesn't make cowards of men; it is because they are cowards that they sin by silence.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Having entered in a perpetual union, secession from the United States by the slave powers was not supported in the constitution. If the framers contemplated states coming and going from the union, they would have provided structure for it.

Of course that is right. The reason the ratification debates were so rancorous is because the framers knew the Constitution was perpetually binding. A leading federalist, James Wilson, was beaten almost to death by anti-federalists. There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law.

Unilateral state secession is a fiction of a later generation.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

By denying the slaveholders the right to emmigrate west, they were violating the Claims Clause (Article IV, §3, Clause 2 which states, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State".

Poor, poor slave holders.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

[groanup]

"They have the right to try. Your side just didn't try hard enough"

Oh? How do you know? We're still trying.

non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr) n.

An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

[groanup]

Understand that Whiskey Papa and Non-Sequitur have made a career out of cut-and-pasting the Civil War. Their agenda is simply to make all Southerners look bad and all Northerners look good. If I had about ten gigs of Civil War data on my hard drive I could debate with them, however, I have a life to attend to.

Debating with these guys is like debating with an encyclopedia that has been carefully edited to only show one side of an issue.

Sorry WP and NS. That's the way I see it.

[TexConfederate1861]

A. I hold a Masters degree in American History from University of Texas.

B. I don't care WHERE the Yankee propaganda comes from, including the public library....it is still TRIPE!

So...I don't think I need that education. You aren't a Texan are you?



Deo Vindice

[thatdewd]

Richard Dana, the U.S. attorney said it. Find a source in the record to show otherwise.

Read the ruling, Wlat. The Court nowhere decided any such thing in the "Prize Cases". The legal issue was when the war began (irregardless of what the nature of the war was, that point was made by the Court) and if Lincoln had authority to act before the Congressional declaration. The Court did not decide secession was illegal, read the ruling. The Court did not decide it was treason, read the ruling. The Court makes the ruling, Wlat. BTW, once AGAIN I request you to post a verifiable source for that "quote" from Mr. Dana. I'm curious to see the portion prior to the beginning of your snippet (if the quote even exists). I think you have yet once again deliberately taken something completely out of context and misrepresented it (if it even exists). Please post a verifiable source, if you can. Unless you fear being exposed as a fraud, yet again.

[thatdewd]

There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law

LOL - Your BS (or complete ignorance of history) reaches new heights. Some States specifically declared they could withdraw when they ratified the Constitution and created the union. If there were "no illusions" about "permanence" they would not have done that. They very obviously believed that it was NOT "permanent", and even said so in the documents that included them in the union. Your statement is like most of what you say, a lie.

When New York agreed to ratify the Constitution it specifically stated in it's declaration "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."

Virginia's declaration included these words: "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"

A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. The New England states certainly didn't think it was "permanent" or they wouldn't have come within a gnat's hair of seceding themselves a few decades after the Constitution was ratified. (more than once). You have to know this, and yet you still post deceitful lies about history.

[GOPcapitalist]

Of course that is right. The reason the ratification debates were so rancorous is because the framers knew the Constitution was perpetually binding. A leading federalist, James Wilson, was beaten almost to death by anti-federalists. There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law. Unilateral state secession is a fiction of a later generation.

Thomas Jefferson was of the 1788-90 generation. He was also a leading participant in early American government and influenced its development for over three decades covering that same period. His credentials as a founder are unquestioned. Yet this is what he had to say on the Louisiana purchase.

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Jefferson, August 12, 1803

As usual, Walt, you are shown to be fibbing.

[GOPcapitalist]

Uh, Walt. Just for the record, may I ask what you are trying to accomplish by repeatedly posting a large yet poor quality image file of some yankee waving a sword in the air? You've posted it twice already in the last 100 posts on this thread, apparently without any sensible reason.

Seriously though - if you don't have any reason to post excessively large image files (which is currently the case), spare us the download times and abstain from doing it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

As usual, Walt, you are shown to be fibbing.

You'll tell any kind of lie.

Jefferson wasn't the only framer. I notice you can't quote him.

It is just so funny on one level that this nonsense of legal secession is constantly put forward in the face of the facts, the clear words of the particpants, and just plain common sense. The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union. He presented the Constitution to the Continental Congress as a document binding on the states. The Judicary Act of 1789 gave the federal government clear power to strike down state laws. The Militia ct of 1792 gives the president the power to put down insurection against a state or the United States.

In the opinions in one of the very first cases to reach the Supreme Court in 1793, the Justices write:

"As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state."

And:

"We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes."

And:

"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."

Now it seems to me that when the Supreme Court, in one of its its very first cases, comes down so hard on the side of the federal government, that the States should act to protect their rights. But they did not. This states' rights nonsense did not rear its head until it suited certain factions in the south, and for the most heinous of reasons. And I know all about the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and the Hartford conventions and similar rumblings under the Constitution earlier than the civil war era. The point is you have the Supreme Court saying Georgia is not a sovereign state. Georgia's reaction in 1793? Zilch. Trying to break away 70 years later seems...sort of cheesy.

And interpreting the Constitution as a compact of sovereign states flies in the face of common sense. The Articles of Confederation were a failure. Of them Washington said:

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,

having said prior to the Constitutional Convention:

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

A compact of sovereign states would have been even less efficient and less able to act that the the government under the Articles.

Old GW wasn't mincing his words. Makes you wonder how his image got shanghaied onto the greal seal of the CSA, doesn't it?

"It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

3/4/61

Arguments for state's rights simply crumble when exposed to the words of the people of the day. Let me leave you with one last quote:

"It is idle to talk of secession." R.E. Lee 1861

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

When New York agreed to ratify the Constitution it specifically stated in it's declaration "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."

Under natural law, not United States law.

You don't know the history.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Understand that Whiskey Papa and Non-Sequitur have made a career out of cut-and-pasting the Civil War. Their agenda is simply to make all Southerners look bad and all Northerners look good.

Over one hundred thousand men from the so-called seceded states served in the federal army. They look pretty good.

The best thing you can say about the secessionists is that they were fighting for the slave power, or were duped into fighting for the slave power.

You can see that in the fact that once the common soldier realized this, they mostly packed up and went home.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I don't care WHERE the Yankee propaganda comes from, including the public library....it is still TRIPE!

"South Carolina cannot get out of this union until she conquers this government."

--Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860

That wasn't tripe, was it?

Walt

[groanup]

"You can see that in the fact that once the common soldier realized this, they mostly packed up and went home."

Yeah, like the troops that almost refused to lay down their arms at Richmond.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh? How do you know? We're still trying.

Not making much headway are you?

[WhiskeyPapa]