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]

I didn't know that word. Interesting.

[mac_truck]

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?

Some states, specifically Vermont, New York, and Virginia, did so because they were concerned that the US constitution does not provide a mechanism to allow them to withdraw unilaterally.

If state ratification declarations are the legal mechanism for secession, then the first seven states, (with no withdrawal language in their ratification declarations), withdrew illegally. Only Virginia, which withdrew later would have done so without violation of the US constitution.

Are you saying that each state entered the union under different and distinct terms as determined by their ratification declarations?

[4CJ]

I enjoyed the post as well. Many thanks for all the treasures you come up with.

[mac_truck]

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.

So the state(s) process of secession was set out (documented) ahead of time somewhere, correct? Otherwise how would the People know it was being done properly?

Did every state have its own procedure for doing this, or did they all follow the same set of rules?

Was any provison made for what would happen if they didn't follow the correct procedure?

After all they wouldn't want to make such changes for light or transient causes, right?

[4CJ]

Are you saying that each state entered the union under different and distinct terms as determined by their ratification declarations?

The states, as sovereign entities, created the federal government as their servant - not their master. They each seceded from the existing Articles of Confederation & Perptual Union, their right to do so stated by Madison in Federalist 43: "the great principle of self- preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. ... The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate."

In other words, while the right of secession was "veiled", the unwritten right still trumphed the legal requirements. Implying that one group of people cannot bind a future group by their actions (which Congress follows even today - one Congress cannot pass legislation binding another).

[one2many]

Gimme a jingle tomorrow. Pager will be on. Sorry to have been out o' pocket so much the last few days. --O2M

[4CJ]

So the state(s) process of secession was set out (documented) ahead of time somewhere, correct? Otherwise how would the People know it was being done properly?

No. Each state followed it's own internal requirements for ratification and secession, based upon centuries of English precedent/colonial actions/state ratifications.

Did every state have its own procedure for doing this, or did they all follow the same set of rules?

See above. Some states voted for representatives in varying manners (by district, counties etc), with varying numbers necessary etc), there was no one perfect method.

Was any provison made for what would happen if they didn't follow the correct procedure?

No - there was no incorrect procedure - even if there were - they states, as parties to the compact, could have protested any dubious ratifications. The only stipulation was that ratification occurred in a convention of people from each of the several states separately. ("The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States ..."). It's not anything new to the states, as each had ratified it's own state Constitution previously.

After all they wouldn't want to make such changes for light or transient causes, right?

Who determines what is light or transient? Ask Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, which didn't even send delegates to the convention. It only took them 14 attempts before the finally ratified, and then only because they & North Carolina suffered threatened economic sanctions for failure to ratify. Either way, there is no requirement proscribed in the Constitution.

[thatdewd]

Some states, specifically Vermont, New York, and Virginia, did so because they were concerned that the US constitution does not provide a mechanism to allow them to withdraw unilaterally.

I would like to point out that those conditions were accepted, and therefore validated as correct principles. The union was not a spider's web one fell into by deceit and became trapped unto death. The acceptance of those declarations stating the right to reassumption of powers was part of the agreement.

If state ratification declarations are the legal mechanism for secession, then the first seven states, (with no withdrawal language in their ratification declarations), withdrew illegally. Only Virginia, which withdrew later would have done so without violation of the US constitution.

They are not the "legal mechanisms" for secession. The secession conventions held by each State were the legal mechanisms by which they decided whether or not to excercise their right to reassume those powers, that is, to secede. Whether or not to reassume those powers was the individual decision of each State, and one of the rights reserved unto it. The form of each State's convention was based on that State's pre-existing format for public referendums to determine the will of the people. After that, if it was determined to be the will of the people, it would be addressed to the union as a declaration, the same as when the State joined. No action was necessary on the part of the union. The ratification declarations are legal testimony to the existence of that right and it's acceptance by the framers. They are the documents that created the union. If that right existed for one, it existed for all.

Are you saying that each state entered the union under different and distinct terms as determined by their ratification declarations?

Absolutely not. That some States included that language in their ratification declarations only proves that it was an accepted idea at the formation of the union, and that States had the right to reassume those powers. If one could, they all could. If not, the framers would not have accepted and allowed those conditions to become part of the documents that created the union. It is worth noting that Vermont was not one of the original 13 and joined afterwards. Even after the original formation of the union, the right to reassume those powers was recognized.

[GOPcapitalist]

Who fired the first shot?

The USS Harriet Lane.

Who organized an army of 100,000?

Both sides.

[GOPcapitalist]

The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that secession was not allowed under U.S. law.

Though I have admittedly not studied that case for some time, the last being an undergrad constitutional law course, a reading of this thread indicates that there is significant doubt about this favorite assertion of yours. Accordingly, I'll yield the floor to others who have already taken you to task on the issue of the Prize Cases.

[GOPcapitalist]

are you trying to see just how fine you can split hairs?

No. I'm just pointing out that an argument you attempted fails due to fallacy.

[Non-Sequitur]

It could be just as easily said that the first shot was fired by South Carolina troops at the Star of the West in January. And the first call for 100,000 troops came weeks before Sumter, at a time when you claim the south wanted a peaceful solution. A peaceful solution at the end of a gun apparently.

I'm not trying to split hairs, mind. Just pointing out that an claim you are attempting fails due to fallacy.

[Ditto]

Okay ... how about the Free Trade zone the Southern States wanted to establish.

Funny how trade and tariffs were never even mentioned it in the 1860 NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (BRECKINRIDGE) PLATFORM

That platform, written totally by the Southern States, had only 6 planks. And EVERY one of those planks was about slavery, either directly or indirectly.

Again, I ask you to use primary sourceas, not some DiLorenzo/Crown Rights propaganda. The South never called for a "Free Trade Zone" and in fact they set up protective tarrifs of their own as one of the first acts of their Congress.

Stop living the Lost Cause Myth, C-45. All the information, from primary sources, is easily available. Look it up instead of simply buying the spin of propagandists like DiLorenzo. The reality is much more facinating than any of his myth making.

[Ditto]

The USS Harriet Lane.

The Harriet Lane (Coast Guard Cutter) fired a shot across the bow of a ship entering Charleston Harbor that flew no flag. The Lane would have fired on such a ship in 1850, 1860, 1870, or 2003. When it hoisted the Stars and Stripes, it was allowed to proceed.

You guys are really desperate for arguments if you need to cite the Lane as the first shot of the war.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Okay ... how about the Free Trade zone the Southern States wanted to establish.

Absolutely false, as Ditto points out.

"Before the ACW, the rate of Federal taxation was tiny by today's standards. The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000. The population of the whole US in 1860 was 33,443,321. Thus, Federal taxation per capita was less than $2 per person. Even if the 9,103,332 people in the soon-to-secede Southern states paid all of the Federal taxation in 1860 (which they did not), their per capita cost would still have been less than $7 for the entire year. From these inconsequential sums, another secessionist myth has been created and sustained for 140 years.

Be that as it may, the record shows that tariffs were an irritant, however irrational, to Southern interests up to 1846. In that year, accordingly, Federal tariffs were generally lifted in response to Southern pressures and in favor of free trade. From 1846 until early 1861, what was essentially a free trade regime existed in the whole of the USA. It was only after (and because) rebellion broke out that the US Congress passed the hated Morrill tariffs.

It is instructive to note again that the tariffs that the South protested before the ACW were actually taxes on goods and services imported into the South. In the real world, these imports included significant proportions of luxury goods such as fine British furniture and whiskey, French fashions and perfumes and Cuban rums and cigars. Most of these things were available from the North, and Northern interests wanted to protect their markets in both North and South by adding costs to their foreign competition. Likewise, the South also wanted to protect its markets in the North on products produced in the South but not the North. Accordingly, well before the ACW, southern legislators in the US Congress sought and received substantial tariffs on imports impinging on the domestic markets of Southern agricultural products.

For example, the prewar sugar growers of the deep South and the hemp growers of the upper South got protective Federal tariffs on imported products from their foreign competition.

In point of fact, the long-standing Federal sugar import tariff imposed to protect Louisiana sugar growers was extensively debated at the Montgomery Convention and, in spite the highly-touted Confederate devotion to free trade principles, was retained in the Confederacy through out the ACW. Additionally, the Confederacy placed tariffs on exports, including a duty on exported cotton. I repeat here for emphasis --- tariffs on Southern cotton exports were prohibited by the US Constitution. So much for high secessionist principles concerning tariffs! They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, as goes the modern formula for hypocrisy.

It is humorous to note that the prewar Federal iron import tariff, so despised by Secessionist firebrands, was continued by the Confederacy after some of the realities of fiscal and industrial policy set in. On 16 February 1861 the Provisional Confederate Congress blithely passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. A month later, however, fiscal realities set in and an ad valorem import tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15% --- a rate confirmed in the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861.

For further details, see Robert C. Black's THE RAILROADS OF THE CONFEDERACY (Chapel Hill, NC: U. of NC Press, 1998)."

-- From the AOL ACW forum

As usual you are ignorant of the real events. Or you are just lying.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Who fired the first shot?

The USS Harriet Lane.

No, that would the rebels firing on the Star of the West In January. The Lane was fired upon on April 12-13.

Liar.

Who organized an army of 100,000?

Both sides.

Well, that is an improvement. It's only a half lie.

The rebels called for an army of 100,000 when the U.S. Army was only @ 17,000.

That the Star was fired on in January was in the timeline I provided in the note to which you responded.

You can't even be rational, let alone objective.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

According to well established legal principles, the Court's decision in that case would make the entire union a fraudulent agreement, and therefore void.

You can't look at the Constitution as a mere legal contract. A clause like those put into the ratification documents by states like Virginia and New York would be binding only if both sides agreed to it. But ratification wasn't a negotiation between two sides, it was the acceptance of the Constitution by the individual states. The framers weren't accepting anything, it was the states that were. Therefore, the clauses would be binding only if both sides agreed to it. Instead the clauses in the ratification document were a one-sided assumption of what was permitted under the Constitution. The Constitution was the final word on what was legal and illegal and the Supreme Court ruled that the path that Virginia chose to follow in 1861 was illegal.

[Non-Sequitur]

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

I do, and I believe that had the matter been left to be peacefully settled then future cases would have clarified the court's decision. Many people believed that the court overstepped the bounds of the issue before the court. The southern side must have suspected that the decision wouldn't stand since they chose the path of rebellion.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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

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

I've posted it over and over:

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

-- Majority ruling, The Prize Cases, December 1862 term

As to the Congress, it voted more than adequate funds to prosecute the war, and as for the people, in case you missed it, they fought the rebel armies toe to toe until the latter were defeated and the rebel armies riven by desertion.

Walt

[Ditto]

"Before the ACW, the rate of Federal taxation was tiny by today's standards. The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000. The population of the whole US in 1860 was 33,443,321. Thus, Federal taxation per capita was less than $2 per person. Even if the 9,103,332 people in the soon-to-secede Southern states paid all of the Federal taxation in 1860 (which they did not), their per capita cost would still have been less than $7 for the entire year. From these inconsequential sums, another secessionist myth has been created and sustained for 140 years.

In fact, "The South" accounted for only 25% of all Federal revenues and were a net tax drain on the rest of the Union.

This is a page from soon to be CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens speech before the Georgia secession convention in January of 1861. Stephens surely knew the budget details after all his years in the House and Senate.