Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED
LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by 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



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 801-808 next last
To: groanup
BTTT!
221 posted on 01/26/2003 4:27:09 PM PST by thatdewd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

No propaganda here bozo, self-determination WAS the bottom line. But then with you damnYankee knobheads, the truth was always the first casualty of war.

222 posted on 01/26/2003 5:03:53 PM PST by Colt .45 (Non tu tibi istam praetruncari linguam largiloquam iubes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lol! -Nicely done, Walt.
223 posted on 01/26/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

There was already a mechanism in place to withdraw from the Union ... the supreme authority of the people through the auspices of the 10th Amendment! Your argument means that we have always been in a Government-over-Man society. WRONG! The Framers set it up as Man-over-Government and the People are the ultimate authority ... not the Supreme Court ... not Congress ... not the President, which is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were crucial. The three branches of power were the servants of the People! If you throw in Natural Law, and the Inalienable right of "Pursuit of Happiness" your argument holds no merit.

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

My ancestors came from Missouri, you might recall another couple of famous War of Northern Aggression irregulars that came from there ... Jesse James, and William Quantrill whom also favored the Colt Revolver. I can assure you that they were NOT Yankee lovers. I like the gun, but not the damnYankee stupidity that fostered the Aggression of the Northern States. I am a proud Southerner, not a slavery advocate, but an advocate of Individual Liberty and Freedom of Self-Determination.

224 posted on 01/26/2003 5:21:48 PM PST by Colt .45 (Non tu tibi istam praetruncari linguam largiloquam iubes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: groanup
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.

Thats Pure-D Bullshit. Right from the can.

How many neo-rebs voted Republican in New Hampshire, or Minnisota, or North Carolina for that matter?

Of course Dixie did us proud in the Louisiana runoff didn't she?

225 posted on 01/26/2003 5:56:21 PM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
" '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?"

It is now! Just as everything Midas touched turned to gold, everything you touch turns to tripe.

226 posted on 01/26/2003 6:43:13 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Seward was acting on his own and any misunderstandings between him and Justice Campbell are Sewards fault.

If Colin Powell is having conversations with the Iraqis, Saudi Arabia, the Israelis etc is he acting on his own, or is he a representative of the President?

227 posted on 01/26/2003 6:45:30 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You lied. You got caught.

Whoop ti doo. Chew, "a War Department clerk", versus an associate Justice of THE US Supreme Court. Who would any rational person believe over the other? Justice Campbell (and Justice Nelson), and the peace commisioners were told by an official of the US government that THEY would be informed. They weren't. Lincoln lied.

228 posted on 01/26/2003 6:49:10 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Having entered in a perpetual union, secession from the United States by the slave powers was not supported in the constitution.

What clause in the Constitution attests to it's perpetuity?

If the framers contemplated states coming and going from the union, they would have provided structure for it.

They did - read the Tenth Amendmenment.

The confederacy was formed to protect and expand slavery, which is tyranny in its purest form.

You wield a wide brush - I disagree with your premise. The several states - from their Declaration of Independence from Britain, into the Articles of Confederation, and into the Constitution all supported slavery, as did much of the known world (still practiced today in Africa).

229 posted on 01/26/2003 6:55:37 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So The Davis knew exactly what would happen if he fired and he did it anyway. And Toombs was right.

In typical fashion for you, your conclusion is a...non-sequitur! Your premise, that Toombs advised against attacking based on his own personal prediction, does not necessitate your conclusion that Davis "knew" and invasion "would happen." Rather, it only indicates that in the mind of one of the participants in his government, an invasion was predicted at a time prior to that invasion occurring. Predictions sometimes come true, but they do not necessitate their own actualization. Try again.

230 posted on 01/26/2003 6:56:41 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Not making much headway are you?"

We are making a lot more headway than you and WhiskeyPapa are making in your attempt to impose your distorted wordview on the rest of the world.

231 posted on 01/26/2003 6:58:38 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
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.

Oh that is such bull. If it was "perpetual", then why did some states specifically declare they could withdraw and reassume the rights they ceded to the union in the very documents that created the union? I have already pointed this out to you and yet you keep repeating your patently false bilge that it was understood to be "perpetual". A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. Since the framers were aware of the issue, why didn't they prohibit it, or correct those states that declared the right existed in their ratifications? It is very obvious that it was not considered "perpetual", and that the right of withdrawal existed and was recognized. If it wasn't, then the agreement was fraudulent, and void. Read the ratification declarations of Virginia, New York, and Vermont. They very clearly prove that this "perpetual" nonsense is just that, nonsense. You have been misled by revisionists.

232 posted on 01/26/2003 7:00:48 PM PST by thatdewd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
It seems the obvious escapes you. There is no mechanism in the US constitution for states to leave the United States, because the framers did not contemplate it happening in a perpetual union.

Again, where is anything indicating perpetuity? It seems the obvious escapes you - the founders just seceded from a union that was declared to be perpetual, and that union only lasted a few years.

They did say in Article I Section 10 that "No State shall enter into a Treaty, Alliance or Confederation;"

A state still within the union cannot perform as indicated. A state that has seceded is no longer bound by us laws or the Constitution

and Article III Section 2 vests the Supreme court as the judicial power " to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution"

See above. The Confederate states had left, their allegaince to the Constitution revoked.

But what gives any confederate the right to invoke the United States constitution? Perhaps you could explain why instead of pursuing their so-called claims in the United States Supreme Court, the slave powers chose instead to fire on its flag.

Easy. While they were still members, they exercised their rights under the 10th to legally secede from the union. Once seceded, the federal courts have no authority over them. The Confederates fired on US forces invading their territory - just as the states fired on the British invading after seceding.

233 posted on 01/26/2003 7:04:53 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Of course Dixie did us proud in the Louisiana runoff didn't she?

We certainly came close. If you take out New Orleans Parish we would have won the state. But New Orleans Parish's population is majority black and they vote 95% Democrat for any Democrat under any circumstances even if his name is Hitler. It's the same thing that happened there in '96 - Republicans in the rest of the state voted Jenkins, but New Orleans Parish's one sided voting (not to mention vote fraud) made up for the Landrieu deficit.

And for the record, Landrieu's support was NOT a confederate friendly crowd. I drove over there for a weekend to campaign for Terrell. The Landrieu campaign "volunteers" that were opposite of us consisted of two groups.

The first were NAACP activists being paid $20 an hour to wave Landrieu signs on street corners - they want to ban all things confederate.

The second group consisted of college aged womens studies major lesbo vegan goth types from northeastern universities that the Dems bussed down south for Landrieu. Every last one of them thought they were on another freedom ride to save the south from "evil confederate republicans."

In short, I suggest you get your facts straight before bashing Dixie for the left wing politics of yankeeland and their race hustlers. You might do yourself good to look at Bill Clinton's election numbers as well. He may have come from a southern state, but yankeeland elected him unanimously. Twice. And they did so both times in opposition to the majority in the old CSA states.

234 posted on 01/26/2003 7:16:30 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
A union? One consolidated mass of people into the union?

Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states for ratification was defeated 3-7. The plan that was submitted by committe "to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people" was accepted 9-1 [notice the plural].

The convention did consider the option of submitting the Constitution to the people of the states en masse for ratification: "Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same."

The result: "Not seconded." See Eliott's Debates Vol. V., p. 356.

235 posted on 01/26/2003 7:18:11 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
"Thats Pure-D Bullshit. Right from the can."

No it's not. There are hundreds of monuments all over the South that use those exact words.

"How many neo-rebs voted Republican in New Hampshire, or Minnisota, or North Carolina for that matter?"

I don't know and you don't either. What IS a neo-reb? Is it anything like a yankee redneck?

"Of course Dixie did us proud in the Louisiana runoff didn't she?"

What an ignorant statement. You indicate by that nonsense that we are some sort of "group" that you are loathe to recognize and loathe to appreciate because we didn't vote the way you wanted us to. What a pantload! ROTFLMAO!

236 posted on 01/26/2003 7:18:50 PM PST by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Congress decides what constitutes a needful rule and there is nothing in it that requires it to consult the states first.

Of course, but it must do so without "Prejudice", or favoring a state, or group of states, over another. The properties in quiestion are held in trust - for the benefit of all states, not just a select few.

It may impact the ability of a resident of a state to emigrate to a territory with their chattel in tow, but the Constitution doesn't require that they be able to do that.

No, just the opposite. See Amendment V, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." And Amendment IX as well, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, the federal government cannot enact legislation that deprives an individual of their property without due process and/or compensation.

237 posted on 01/26/2003 7:30:22 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

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

Ever read the DISENTING opinion in the Prize Cases?

238 posted on 01/26/2003 7:34:01 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Ever read the DISENTING opinion in the Prize Cases?

Probably not. As far as Walt is concerned, if it does not support, nay, adore The Lincoln, it simply does not exist.

239 posted on 01/26/2003 8:24:00 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices; GOPcapitalist
Ever read the DISENTING opinion in the Prize Cases?

I don't think he's even read the majority decision, based on what he thinks the Court decided in that case.

240 posted on 01/26/2003 10:19:25 PM PST by thatdewd (Ipsa scientia potestas est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 801-808 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson