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]

The Militia Act of 1792, as amended in 1795 requires that U.S. law operate in all the states.

Those that are still part of the union.

Wishful thinking.

No state, as the war showed, has been out the Union even for a single day.

Walt

[thatdewd]

ME: "binding and perpetual except..." - LOL. Now you're backing up and inserting conditions that contradict your earlier statements.

Wlat: I'm paraphrasing Madison. You don't know the history.

LOL - Here's your original statement:

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

I proved that lie for what it was, so you then modified your position with:

"The assumption at all the ratification conventions was that the Constitution was both binding and perpetual except for intolerable abuse."

Which leads us back to the top of this post for my response. The only thing you were doing was being proven ignorant of history. BTW, as I have already shown, your modified statement is just as false as your first. As to "intolerable abuse", that is not the condition stated in the declarations. For example, New York merely said the powers could be reassumed "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness". That condition was accepted by the framers.

You don't know the history.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Attempts at unilateral state secession are treason."

That is nonsense.

The Supreme Court said otherwise.

"All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."

Walt

[Aurelius]

"The Supreme Court said otherwise."

The Supreme Court has been known to utter nonsense; admittedly they don't do so as consistently as you do.

[thatdewd]

Neo-Union? The Union has been extant unbroken since at least 1774.

Sure. You people distort, pervert, rape, and malign history using 'the union' as your excuse and disguise. You are not 'unionists', you are subversive agents attempting to replace the historical union with a "new" union that is nothing more than twisted creation of your diabolical revisionism. You are "neo-unionists".

[WhiskeyPapa]

For example, New York merely said the powers could be reassumed "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness". That condition was accepted by the framers.

But not Madison.

And none of these state ratifying conventions even suggests that U.S. law applies.

Funny that the New Yorkers mention happiness, for it is the pursuit of happiness that Jefferson refers to in the D of I.

And the D of I was absolutely an appeal to natural rights. And none of these states says that anything but natural or God given rights are involved in reassuming their power. Even the newspaper article you wrongly put forward alludes to natural rights.

Walt

[Aurelius]

" Attempts at unilateral state secession are treason. "

From the United State Constitution
Article III, Section 3:

"Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

"Attempts at unilateral state secession" don't qualify.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Neo-Union? The Union has been extant unbroken since at least 1774.

Sure.

That's right.

"Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."

A. Lincoln, 3/4/61

Whatever else it is, it's not revision.

Walt

[thatdewd]

No state, as the war showed, has been out the Union even for a single day.

You should read the debates in the congressional record following the war, the ones regarding exactly what terms would be required for the re-entry of the Southern States. Johnson's intendedd leniency in regards to that matter was one of the reasons he was impeached. Congress certainly didn't agree with you. In fact, ratifying certain amendments to the constitution were prerequisites for re-admission at the time the votes were done. The Southern States during the war certainly would not agree with you, and neither would many (oftentimes most) northerners during and just after the war. The States that had to apply for re-admission obviously wouldn't agree with you.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Court's decision is either illegal and void, or the union is void. Take your pick, it definitely is one or the other.

On the contrary, there is a third choice - the decision is valid and the Union is unbroken. That is the one I chose.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

"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.

The rule in the Prize Causes has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the law making and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason, is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war. It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason."

-- Richard Henry Dana, U.S. attorney, 1868.

Walt

[Aurelius]

Your original statement was:

"Attempts at unilateral state secession are treason."

Your quote in your post #311, in its characterization of "treason", consistently includes reference to "war", so it does nothing to support your original statement.

[thatdewd]

And none of these state ratifying conventions even suggests that U.S. law applies...

So now you apparently believe they were never in the union to begin with, since those documents (and the stated conditions within) are what made them part of it.

You really are trying make the entire union void as a fraudulent agreement. No longer satisfied with merely calling the Constitution a "pact with the devil", it seems.

[thatdewd]

Me: "sure."
Wlat:That's right.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that was a sarcastic "sure".

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Fascinating reading. Thank you for posting it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Congress certainly didn't agree with you. In fact, ratifying certain amendments to the constitution were prerequisites for re-admission at the time the votes were done.

The issue was whether or not to seat congressmen from the rebel states, not whether or not they had ever been out of the Union.

A part of Lincoln's last public address in 4/11/65 that might need more scrutiny is this:

"We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these States and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it."

Of course Lincoln always maintained from the very start of the war that the rebel states were -not- out the Union at all.

He might have foreseen the bitter wrangling that was going to befall the country after a cessation of hostilities. But we'll never know that.

Walt

[thatdewd]

On the contrary, there is a third choice - the decision is valid and the Union is unbroken. That is the one I chose.

Then you are either ignorant of basic legal principles or you simply don't care.

[thatdewd]

The issue was whether or not to seat congressmen from the rebel states, not whether or not they had ever been out of the Union.

I will agree with you that Lincoln's personal opinion was that they never left. However, he was not Congress. Congress made the States reapply, and imposed conditions for their re-admission such as ratifying the Constitutional amendments and including certain things in their State Constitutions, etc.

[mac_truck]

speaking of basic legal principles..

Its been argued here that Amendment X of the US consitution is the legal mechanism for secession. Do you disagree?

[groanup]

"sound familiar?"

I'm afraid I lost you.