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]

And this applies as well: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." - Article IV.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks for the "pact with a devil" reference. What an unbelievably un-American thing to write.

[GOPcapitalist]

That is plainly laughable. You can not have read anything about Sumter and have made such a silly claim.

Much to the contrary. There exists an order in The Lincoln's collected works for the delivery of signal flags for a military purpose during the first week of April 1861. Supporting records pertaining to Anderson's command give a strong indication that the flags were for delivery to the fort in order that they could coordinate militarily after the arrival of his fleet. Additionally the orders to the commanders within that fleet indicate very clearly that a coordinated military effort was to take place in the inevitable event that they were stopped from entering Charleston harbor.

The measley 3-ship re-supply convoy had neither enough firepower on the ships nor enough men to "assert control" over Charleston harbor.

Nonsense. That "re-supply convoy" consisted of three heavily armed warships, plus the Lane which would have joined upon their arrival. The intent of the ships, indicated in the orders to the captains of those vessles, was to coordinate a military exercise of force between themselves and with assistance from the fort's batteries in order to permit them to reach the fort, resupply it, increase its garrison, and drop off ammunition in preparation for its military defense. A coordinated plan of naval intrusion under cover of the Sumter's guns and out of range from most of the mainland forts was perfectly feasible in scope, anticipated by the confederates, and ordered by The Lincoln.

[rustbucket]

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

That is consistent with an April 12, 1861 communique to the Montgomery government from Confederate General Beauregard that mentions Fox:

I have intercepted a dispatch, which discloses the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force.

This plan was adopted by the Government at Washington, and was in progress of execution when the demand was made on Major Anderson.

[signed] G. T. Beauregard

[GOPcapitalist]

Like stand waite and Aurelius and, of course, yourself?

Among others. To put it nicely, you aren't known as the brightest bulb on these threads. Not even among your allies.

My goodness, to think that I would have my mental abilities questioned by the likes of y'all. Whatever will I do now?

Perhaps attempt to educate yourself and refine your skills at argumentation.

[GOPcapitalist]

President Lincoln was always ready to stop shooting and start talking.

You mean like he did at Atlanta when innocent civilians pled before his general Bill Sherman not to loot and burn their city? Or are you talking about his well known willingness to discuss and negotiate POW exchanges?

Lincoln's bedrock position was that there be no expansion of slavery.

It was generally a position of his. It is also a position that he could have achieved had he let the confederacy willingly alienate itself from any access to the territories by seceding peacefully. But the fact that he acted differently indicates there were other motives at play. Among them, his seeming obsession with the collection of revenues seems to be one of these.

He knew slavery would die if it were restricted.

That is interesting speculation on your part, but unfortunately for you it is little more. Call it wishful thinking, delusion, ignorance, or what have you. History indicates very clearly that The Lincoln was perfectly willing to extend slavery indefinately by constitutional amendment if doing so would further his political causes and power.

[GOPcapitalist]

I have intercepted a dispatch, which discloses the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force.

This plan was adopted by the Government at Washington, and was in progress of execution when the demand was made on Major Anderson.

[signed] G. T. Beauregard

Thank you for posting that document. And Ditto, I direct your attention to it for its relevance to our discussion. I believe you recently suggested that no such plan was attempted.

[GOPcapitalist]

What an unbelievably un-American thing to write.

And Walt is no stranger to un-American things! Here is what he had to say about September 11th:

"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02

SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448

And here is what he said when I confronted him on that statement:

"I don't retract any of that." - WhiskeyPapa , 11/26/02

SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/796067/posts?page=146#146

[thatdewd]

"I have intercepted a dispatch, which discloses the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force."

Indeed. Fox was a "US Agent" hand picked by Lincoln. He was a former naval officer, and had naval combat experience. He personally devised the plan for the union to bull their way into the harbor and offload troops, guns, and ammunition in direct violation of every pledge made to South Carolina. In one communique he even explained how his plan was based on a European naval battle that faced numerous shore batteries like that in Charleston, and that his plan would work on the same principles. The whole deal was deceit and dishonesty from the onset. South Carolina dealt in good faith, and received treachery in return.

[mac_truck]

Apparently, according to your understanding, "perpetual" means 'about ten years'. Or do you hold that George Washington was NOT the first President of our country?

Like the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation were antecedent to the US constitution and speak directly to what our founding fathers envisioned this nation to be. That they would entitle the first document to use the term United States of America to identify our nation the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" , speaks volumes about what they thought of the concept.

A decade later they sought to improve upon the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. As the preamble of that great document states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That you would scoff at important antecedent portions of our nations founding principles, demonstrates a shallowness in your own understanding and appreciation of american history.

The previous presidents under the AofC are not counted because that government and it's "perpetual" union only lasted about TEN YEARS.

Since you made this statement perhaps you could point to the specific Article of Confederation that deals with executive power.

[mac_truck]

If it were simply a dispute between states belonging to the Union, then your argument for a Supreme Court role would make more sense.

Yes, I agree. In 1860 this is exactly what you had, a dispute amongst the states in the various sections. At this point I'm suggesting that one or more states could have taken their grievance to the US Supreme Court and obtained a favorable ruling from it on the constitutionality of seccesion. This could of happened even before the newly elected president took office.

Instead, the confederates fired on the US Flag and suffered the consequences.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hey Walt! If I am not mistaken, it seems that you have abandoned your earlier involvement in discussions of the tariff issue. May I ask why?

In any event, here's another snippet from the historical record on that same subject.

" The combined effects of these two tariffs must be to desolate the entire North, to stop its importations, cripple its commerce and turn its capital into another channel; for, although there is specie now lying idle in New York to the amount of nearly forty millions of dollars, and as much more in the other large cities, waiting for an opportunity of investment, it will be soon scattered all over the country, wherever the most available means of using it are presented, and it will be lost to the trade of this city and the other Northern states. There is nothing to be predicted of the combination of results produced by the Northern and Southern tariffs but general ruin to the commerce of the Northern confederacy... The tariff of the South opens its ports upon fair and equitable terms to the manufacturers of foreign countries, which it were folly to suppose will not be eagerly availed of; which the stupid and suicidal tariff just adopted by the Northern Congress imposes excessive and almost prohibitory duties upon the same articles. Thus the combination of abolition fanatics and stockjobbers in Washington has reduced the whole North to the verge of ruin, which nothing can avert unless the administration recognizes the necessity of at once calling an extra session of Congress to repeal the Morrill tariff, and enact such measures as may bring back the seceded States, and reconstruct the Union upon terms of conciliation, justice and right." - The New York Herald, March 19, 1861

[GOPcapitalist]

A decade later they sought to improve upon the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution

The constitutional meeting was called to consider questions of revision to that document, but in the end they replaced the articles with the U.S. Constitution. Its asserted perpetual nature was therefore not perpetual. It ceased and was replaced by the current Constitution.

"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, Chapter 19 (emphasis added)

[GOPcapitalist]

At this point I'm suggesting that one or more states could have taken their grievance to the US Supreme Court and obtained a favorable ruling from it on the constitutionality of seccesion

Even under the circumstances of this possibility, no guarantee existed that Abe Lincoln would honor the ruling. He willfully ignored other court rulings in the same time frame on the grounds that he did not like their outcome, most notably the U.S. Circuit Court ruling in Ex Parte Merryman.

It is also a matter of history that the confederates thoroughly made their case for constitutional secession within the framework of the 1860 government. They did so at length before the Congress.

Instead, the confederates fired on the US Flag and suffered the consequences.

As I have noted previously to you, your reasoning in this statement suffers from severe moral and logical flaws. You chose not to respond previously and this case may be no different, but the issue still remains. By asserting that the south "suffered the consequences" of the actions at Fort Sumter, you imply that what happened over the next four years was a necessary result of that act. It is akin to rationalizing all conscious act, and with it guilt, on the part of the north by asserting little more than "the south made us do it" to justify the brutalities of the war they waged. Much to the contrary, the sins of war committed against the south were not a consequence of Sumter but of the conscious choices of the north to sin in the way they waged that war. As I noted previously, just as is true of the south, The Lincoln had untold many courses of action he could have taken in 1861. The decision of the northern government's reaction to secession was not in southern hands though. That decision, upon which the decision of war and the manner in which that war was to be waged and rested, belonged to The Lincoln. Out of untold many paths ranging from varied scales of war to peace and diplomacy, he chose to pursue the bloodiest one.

[thatdewd]

That they would entitle the first document to use the term United States of America to identify our nation the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" , speaks volumes about what they thought of the concept.

Yes, especially considering they did away with it after about ten years. They, unlike you, were able to learn from their mistakes. It was a noble idea in principle, but it just didn't work.

That you would scoff at important antecedent portions of our nations founding principles, demonstrates a shallowness in your own understanding and appreciation of american history.

Wlat, is that you? LOL - I did not "scoff" at any part of our founding principles, I "scoffed" at your deliberate misuse and twisting of the words in those documents to support your own purposes. BTW, I'm starting to think you are Wlat using another screen-name.

Since you made this statement perhaps you could point to the specific Article of Confederation that deals with executive power.

To be correct, I said "president". There were "presidents" under the Articles of Confederation. Look at Article IX (Rights Granted The Federal Government): "The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee,...to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years" - LOL.

[thatdewd]

At this point I'm suggesting that one or more states could have taken their grievance to the US Supreme Court and obtained a favorable ruling from it on the constitutionality of seccesion.

That's completely illogical. They very obviously did not question the constitutionality of secession, therefore they had no "grievance" regarding it's constitutionality to take to the Court. If the States still in the union had a problem about it, then they should have taken it to the Court. The new england states obviously didn't question the constitutionality of secession, they flirted with the idea more than once. It was not a new idea.

[thatdewd]

And this applies as well: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." - Article IV.

Good point. Every State in the union that fielded troops against the Southern States certainly violated that Article.

[thatdewd]

Thanks for the "pact with a devil" reference. What an unbelievably un-American thing to write.

I must confess it (and some others) had been shown to me by another freeper, 'ovrtaxt'. Walt calling the Constitution that certainly does seem to cast considerable doubt on his alleged position regarding "the union".

[Non-Sequitur]

Among others. To put it nicely, you aren't known as the brightest bulb on these threads. Not even among your allies.

I'll just have to learn to live with the disappointment, I guess.

[Non-Sequitur]

The very first congress denied citizenship status to blacks, as did every other congress until the 14 Amendment was ratified.

In what way?

What was so galling to many, is NOT that blacks were deemed property (see preceding sentence), it was that the ruling would have allowed the emigration of blacks into the west.

Including the south?