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

[4CJ]

That would depend on whether he is acting on the instructions of the President or if he's gone off on his own and making policy on his own.

On 1 Apr 1861, Seward wrote to Lincoln that they should abandon Ft. Sumter.  Lincoln replied that same day staing that he did not "propose to abandon Fort Sumpter."  In reference to foreign relations, the President wrote, 'Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or devolve it on some member of his cabinet.'  (Collected Works Of Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, ed., Vol. IV, pp.317-318.)

On 18 Apr 1861, The Daily Delta (New Orleans) editorialized:

It was to him [Justice Campbell], a Judge of the highest tribunal of the Government of the United States, that Lincoln and Seward gave the most positive assurances of peaceful purposes and of his determination not to reinforce the forts. This assurance was given as late as the 8th of April, after the orders had been sent from the War Department to fit out the naval expedition and move the troops southward to reinforce Sumter and Pickens.

They also write that Senator William Gwin of California, and congressmen Nelson and Etheridge of Tennessee received the same assurances.   Regarding responsibility of Lincoln, I'll allow this statesman address the issue himself:

         The absurdity of any such attempt to disassociate the action of the President from that of his Secretary, and to relieve the former of responsibility for the conduct of the latter, is too evident to require argument or comment. It is impossible to believe that, during this whole period of nearly a month, Mr. Lincoln was ignorant of the communications that were passing between the Confederate Commissioners and Mr. Seward, through the distinguished member of the Supreme Court -- still holding his seat as such -- who was acting as intermediary. On one occasion, Judge Campbell informs us that the Secretary, in the midst of an important interview, excused himself for the purpose of conferring with the President before giving a final answer, and left his visitor for some time, awaiting his return from that conference, when the answer was given, avowedly and directly proceeding from the President.  

         ... No disavowal of his [Seward's] action, no apology nor explanation, was ever made. Politically and legally, the President is unquestionably responsible in all cases for the action of any member of his Cabinet, and in this case it is as preposterous to attempt to dissever from him the moral, as it would be impossible to relieve him of the legal, responsibility that rests upon the Government of the United States for the systematic series of frauds perpetrated by its authority.

Jefferson Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,  New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1881, Vol I, pp. 275-276.

What did some of the founding fathers say about executive reponsibility?  Mr. Ames opined,  "the officers: they will be stimulated to do their duty to the satisfaction of the principal [the President], who is to be responsible for the whole executive department."

Mr. Lee stated,  "[t]he executive is the source of all appointments ... it will be his fault if any wicked or mischievous act is committed."

[4CJ]

Shouldn't the territories be administered in keeping with the wishes of the majority?

No - this is not a democracy - it's a constitutional republic. If disputed, the Supreme Court can decide the issue, but otherwise, why have a requirement against prejudice?

If he wished to move to a territory that prevented slavery then he was free to do so but without his chattle. He could leave them behind in Alabama, sell them, give them away, whatever. The government was not taking them away from him, it was not denying him of his life or liberty or his ownership in slaves. But Congress was within its power to tell him that he could not take them into a territory.

I disagree. Remember the 7-2 Dred Scott decision?

[4CJ]

I would be the first to say that if you are in charge, you are responsible. So in that sense, Lincoln was responsible for what Seward said to the rebel commissioners. I'm not sure, but I don't think Lincoln knew Seward was meeting with them at all.

Walt, I'm shocked. In fact, I'm impressed.

[Colt .45]

Okay ... how about the Free Trade zone the Southern States wanted to establish. That would've been a HUGE drain on the Northern merchants economy! And as far as the issue of slavery went, it wasn't a national issue, it was a domestic issue for the Southern States to decide. Lincoln was going to offer an amendment where slavery would be guaranteed in perpetuity to the Southern States! Lincoln wanted the revenue in the form of a protective tariff for the Northern merchants. He wanted it from the Southern States, and was NOT going to allow them a free trade zone. He kept Ft. Sumter as an insurance policy that he would've been able to collect tariffs from any foreign ships trading with the Confederate States. It was the key to Charleston Harbor.

[Colt .45]

"The -people- preserved the Union."

No Walt .... The President of the United States unconstitutionally provoked and went to war to forcibly keep the Southern States from seceding. There was no referendum on whether the Northern States wanted to preserve the Union in 1861. Ft. Sumter was fired on and then Lincoln got what he wanted, the chance to subjugate the Southern States. Lincoln was acting in a self-serving capacity, he usurped his constitutionally mandated authority, and the Yankees went along for the ride. By 1865 Government-over-Man was the norm. That is NOT how the Founders set this counttry's government up.

[mac_truck]

While they were still members, they exercised their rights under the 10th to legally secede from the union.

How was this done? Did they bring a legal proceeding forward? What mechanism was employed?

[Colt .45]

"So how hard would it have been for some state(s) to bring this case to the US Supreme court, and get a legal ruling on the matter?"

Since when did you have to go before a magistrate to invoke a God-given right? Lemme guess ....

Plaintiffs - "Oooh, oooh ... Yer Honor, can I use my God-given right to change my situation? "
Magistrate - "No, because the President doesn't like it."
Plaintiff - "Isn't the President trying to play God in this instance?"
Magistrate - "No son ... he is GOD."

The Supreme Court was in place to settle disputes between two or more States. When Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote a dissent against Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Lincoln had a warrant issued for Taney's arrest. So how would the Supreme Court have been able to help? The Southern States reverted to their recognized God-given right to change their form of government. They didn't need to go and ask permission. They were asserting their Inalienable rights! Look up the word "inalienable" and tell me if it means one must ask permission first?

[mac_truck]

And as far as the issue of slavery went, it wasn't a national issue, it was a domestic issue for the Southern States to decide.

I suppose you never heard of the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Personal Liberty laws passed by the northern states?

[Non-Sequitur]

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

I don't think that I'm the one trying to twist legal issues to fit my agenda.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There was no referendum on whether the Northern States wanted to preserve the Union in 1861.

Not needed. The Militia Act gives the president the discretion to act.

Of course Congress later voted funds to prosecute the war, and hundreds of thousands of loyal Union men volunteered to fight.

What about all those conscripted soldiers down south? Did they have a chance to vote on having their enlistments involuntarily extended?

Walt

[thatdewd]

speaking of basic legal principles..

Here's one for you: "precedent".

Pronunciation: 'pre-s&-d&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2 : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind.

For example, you established a precedent by not responding to a twice asked question of mine, indicating that it is acceptable to you for me to not respond to your twice asked question. BTW, My twice asked question to you was specifically in regards to something you stated.

[mac_truck]

You have presented a different arguement [ie:the ratifying state(s) declarations] as to the legality of secession than others. My question sought to clarify your position.

With that said, do you disagree that Amendment X provides the legal mechanism for state(s) secession?

[Aurelius]

"Not needed. The Militia Act gives the president the discretion to act."

Don't try to pull that. Several of us have argued that the Militia Act was not applicable, and you have failed to show otherwise.

[thatdewd]

I don't think that I'm the one trying to twist legal issues to fit my agenda.

I'm not twisting anything. According to well established legal principles, the Court's decision in that case would make the entire union a fraudulent agreement, and therefore void. BTW, I do not think it was a fraudulent agreement. The framers accepted the conditions just as they were stated in the ratifications. The Justice's "consensus of States" requirement is a direct violation of those stated conditions.

[thatdewd]

You have presented a different arguement [ie:the ratifying state(s) declarations] as to the legality of secession than others. My question sought to clarify your position.

??? I was specifically addressing your false statement that the union was considered "perpetual" from the get-go. My presentation regarding the ratification documents was to show that it was NOT considered "perpetual", otherwise they would not have included the provisions that they could reassume the powers. I was not arguing the legality of secession at that time. I have since been drug into the argument by NS, and I do indeed think it was legal.

With that said, do you disagree that Amendment X provides the legal mechanism for state(s) secession?

No, I do not disagree. It would be the reserved right of each State to determine the exact mechanism it employed to reassume those powers if it deemed it necessary. That is why there were differences in the various secession conventions. Each State execised it's reserved right to determine the mechanism it would employ according to the established preferences of it's citizens. They were all done democratically, by the will of the people. Nothing was required of the union, or of other States. Action, and the mechanism for it, was only required by the withdrawing State.

I answered your question, but you still have not anwered mine. Here it is again: 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?

[4CJ]

How was this done? Did they bring a legal proceeding forward? What mechanism was employed?

Just as they assembled conventions previously to debate ratification, they assembled in conventions again, this time to vote on secession, or rescinding their delegated powers. Just as ratification was a vote of the people of the each state - speaking only for themselves, the votes of secession were votes of the several states independant of all others, again only for that state.

[thatdewd]

Don't try to pull that. Several of us have argued that the Militia Act was not applicable, and you have failed to show otherwise.

LOL - He never stops. On a side note, did you know that "waltrot" is a medieval english word that means 'pretentious nonsense'? Maybe "Walt" is not short for "Walter", afterall.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Not needed. The Militia Act gives the president the discretion to act."

Don't try to pull that. Several of us have argued that the Militia Act was not applicable, and you have failed to show otherwise.

Too bad the Supreme Court, the Congress and the people thought otherwise.

Walt

[one2many]

Fascinating reading. Thank you for posting it.

It was my pleasure and priviledge to do so. Thank you.

[Aurelius]

"... the Supreme Court, the Congress and the people thought otherwise."

Show that in the record. (As you are so fond of saying.)