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

[Ditto]

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.

If so, your assignment is to give the class one example from the 1860 secession crisis using primary sources only of an issue involving a "state's right to determine" or a state's "self-determination" that did not revolve around the issue of slavery. Remember -- primary sources only, not propagandists like DiLerenzo.

[Non-Sequitur]

A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when that union was created.

When the original states ratified the Constitution, and when later states petitioned to be admitted, they all agreed to abide by the Constitution and that the Constitution trumped their state Constitutions and local laws when there was a difference between the two. Since the southern acts of unilateral secession were ruled to be in violation of the Constitution then their actions were illegal.

The New England states certainly didn't think it was "perpetual" 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)

But unlike the southern states the New England states didn't enter into a rebellion. If they had I would have expected the governments reaction in 1814 to be the same as it was in 1861.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

But you have not problem with one2many or billbears or 4ConservativeJustices and their spirited defense of the south and their attack on all things Lincoln? Agendas are OK so long as you agree with them, is that it?

[mac_truck]

I'm not arguing that secession wasn't an issue discussed PRIOR to ratification of the US constitution. That there was such discussion meant that the framers were aware of the issue, and by design did not include a mechanism for withdrawal from the perpetual union each former colony willingly entered into.

The idea that the confederacy was following some legal format when it attempted to withdraw from the United States is nonsense. Perhaps if one or several states took the matter of secession to the US Supreme court, they might have gotten a favorable ruling. But they fired on the US flag instead, and suffered the consequences.

BTW Samuel Colt was a Connecticut Yankee, so does that make you a Yankee lover...?

[mac_truck]

Well if you're saying that the southern slave powers attempted revolution in 1861, then I agree.

and thank you for quoting a credible source on the matter.

[mac_truck]

So...You aren't a Texan are you?

I'm an American son, and the last time I checked that includes your piney neck of the woods.

[GOPcapitalist]

You'll tell any kind of lie.

You describe yourself, Walt, better than any other poster on this thread with that statement and your embarrassing recent behavior validates this. You fibbed when you claimed that ideas of secession were made up generations after the founders, when several cases exist where showing this to be in error. You may be mad that I called you on it or that others have called you on it, but that is no reason to project your fault of habitual dishonesty onto innocent others.

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

Exactly what are you smoking, Walt? I quoted him directly in my previous post. Here it is again.

"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

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.

Again, Walt, that you personally do not like the facts may make you mad, but that is no reason to project your fault of willful ignorance onto innocent others.

The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union.

And so he may have. What you fail to note, though, is the distinction between asserting a consolidated union to be a worthiable goal and asserting that union to be an unbreakable permanent fixture. Like it or not, Walt, you are notorious for taking quotes - any quote - from various founders where the word "union" is simply mentioned in any number of contexts or meanings, and upon the simple mention of that word you declare it to be a ringing endorsement of The Lincoln. That is called fraud, Walt, and you commit it daily.

[GOPcapitalist]

But they fired on the US flag instead, and suffered the consequences.

Actually, they fired on the US flag under the circumstance that it flew over a hostile army attempting to maintain its presence inside their borders. They fired on that flag at Fort Sumter the day after a union warship bearing it near the fort fired on a civilian confederate ship attempting entry into Charleston. The circumstances of the Sumter attack were further complicated by the fact that The Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to instigate a battle by attempting entry into the fort. Circumstances such as these place the historical event of Fort Sumter in a context that is lost in your simplistic account of events. In their light, no longer is Sumter a battle of the "bad guys" simply firing on the "good guys" as you would have it.

As for your assertion that the south "suffered the consequences" for firing on Sumter, such reasoning does not stand up to any test of moral judgment. It is absurd to suggest that an isolated firing on a single fort without any casualties provided necessary cause for the violent invasion and subjugation of the south over the following four years. Much to the contrary, The Lincoln consciously chose that path, the bloodiest path, among untold many options.

[Non-Sequitur]

Much to the contrary, The Lincoln consciously chose that path, the bloodiest path, among untold many options.

"Firing on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly srike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal." -- Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis, April 1861

So The Davis knew exactly what would happen if he fired and he did it anyway. And Toombs was right. It was unnecessary, it did put the south in the wrong, and it was fatal. Lincoln didn't kill the confederacy, it was a victim of suicide and The Davis pulled the trigger.

[Ditto]

The New England states certainly didn't think it was "perpetual" 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)

Gnat's hair my butt. The few New England fire-eaters at the Hartford Convention were voted down by the vast majority. The New Englanders could control the nut cases in their midsts. In the South, the nut cases ran the show, and they eventually destroyed their own people.

[groanup]

Are you experiencing obsessive, compulsive behavior?

[groanup]

"Agendas are OK so long as you agree with them, is that it?"

Agendas are fine and need to be pointed out when identified. You're putting words in my mouth.

[groanup]

"Not making much headway are you?"

Oh I don't know. A lot of people who believe what Southerners did, that government had violated its contract with the governed, just elected Republicans to both houses of Congress.

[thatdewd]

Under natural law, not United States law.

LOL - That's not a defense of your false statement, Wlat. You said, and I quote: "There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law". Your statement was completely false, and if the above is your response to the evidence I presented that proved it, then you are admitting your error. They would not have deliberately included statements that they could reassume those powers if they thought the union "permanent". As to "United States law", since some States very purposefully stated in the very documents that created the union that they could reassume the powers ceded to that union, the entire union itself would be void as a fraudulent agreement if the union declared it illegal for them to do so.

You don't know the history.

LOL - Apparently I know a lot more than you. Yet once again you have forced me to expose your ignorance and lies about history.

I'm still waiting on a verifiable source for that one quote, BTW. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to respond to a number of such requests I've made over the last month. It seems you can't answer those requests, which is an answer in itself.

[foreverfree]

bump

[thatdewd]

When the original states ratified the Constitution, and when later states petitioned to be admitted, they all agreed to abide by the Constitution and that the Constitution trumped their state Constitutions and local laws when there was a difference between the two. Since the southern acts of unilateral secession were ruled to be in violation of the Constitution then their actions were illegal.

You are aptly named. The legality or illegality of secession has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Wlat's false statement regarding the unity of the framer's understanding, which you appear to be supporting. I was not arguing for the legality of secession. I was only quoting from the ratification declarations to disprove Wlat's ludicrous statement that "There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law", a false statement disproven by the record, just I have shown. They created the Union with the understanding that a State could withdraw from it and reassume those powers. They said so in the very documents that created the union. Once again, some very obviously believed that it was NOT "permanent", and even said so in the documents that created the union. Wlat's statement and position is therefore completely false, as usual.

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. Therefore his statement that "There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law" is completely and totally false. You are wrong to support Wlat's obviously false statement.

BTW, secession was never ruled to be illegal before or during the war. Also, BTW, any decision declaring it illegal would be the same as declaring the original agreement void as fraudulent since some states joined with the purposely stated understanding they could withdraw and reassume those powers. Either secession was legal, or there was no union.

[thatdewd]

The few New England fire-eaters at the Hartford Convention were voted down by the vast majority.

A majority yes, but "vast" is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. The moderates did prevail, obviously, but your statement is misleading, to say the least. The "vast majority" did agree on one thing, however. A State did have the right to secede. There was no real question of that right by the "vast majority". The cowards and traitors in New England wanted to secede in 1814 so they could continue to trade with the enemy during the middle of a war. They were so determined in their despicable betrayal that they even refused to provide troops for their own protection, let alone the country's. They wanted to make money by trading with the enemy during war, and let others "provide for the common defense". The Hartford convention absolutely destroyed the Federalist Party. The war of 1812, and New England's treasonous behavior in regards to it, ended while they were in convention to decide about seceding over it, and the humiliation and ridicule resulting from their position dealt a death blow to the Party.

[thatdewd]

--Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
That wasn't tripe, was it?

So now you believe that northern newspapers hold the deciding argument. That's fascinating, Wlat. In New York state alone, 46 newspapers supported the legality of secession.

One of my favorite quotes is from a Washington DC paper, the Washington States and Union:

"Vermont, New York, and Virginia, upon entering the Union, were wise enough to distinctly enunciate this principle in setting forth the independent sovereignty of a State, when they reserved the right to "resume the powers delegated to the federal government" whenever they were found to be used in an oppressive manner - a right which is as pure and as sacred as any political heritage under heaven" - March 22, 1861

That's not an editorialist's mere opinion, it's a statement of fact, and of history.

[TexConfederate1861]

You sound like a Dallasite to me...

and I am a Texan FIRST, a Southerner, SECOND, and an American THIRD. In that order.

Like Robert E. Lee, I am loyal to my home first.

[TexConfederate1861]

In your case...WLAT....it is worse than tripe...try Chitlins!