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

[mac_truck]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

OK.

What were the abuses the seceding states suffered that caused them to disunite?

What ends were being destroyed?

What made the spoiled confederates pick up their ball and go home?

[thatdewd]

Rights and laws are two different things. See the Declaration of Independence for a discussion of rights under Heaven vice the laws of men. There was nothing illogical in what mac said. What you said was and is, pure BS.

LOL - What he/you said is completely illogical for the reasons I have already stated, and I notice you are unable to prove otherwise. I am not surprised you consider the Constitution to be a "pact with the devil".

[Non-Sequitur]

But you said the Court's ruling isn't law. Here's your exact words: "And it isn't law in the first place."

And I stand by that. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. In the case of Texas v. White it was ruling on the Constitutionality of an act of the Texas legislature regarding secession. It ruled that the unilateral act of secession passed by the legislature violated the Constituiton.

This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling...

Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.

As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law.

But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?

My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.

How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?

[Non-Sequitur]

A wiser--or less desperate--man would have practiced forbearance.

The answer could be simpler than that. Davis knew that if the Confederacy was to survive, much less thrive, it needed the larger border slave states. North Carolina and Virginia were vital for their survival. Without them the Confederacy would always be an economic colony of someone. With them the south might even win the war.

[thatdewd]

Straight from "1984".

LOL - Compare Lincoln to the tyrannical shenanigans in that book if you want to.

[4CJ]

What were the abuses the seceding states suffered that caused them to disunite?

Non eneumerated powers exercised by the federal government: protectionist tariffs, subsidization of internal improvements such as canals, roads, railroads, harbours etc., a federal banking system, bounties paid to fishing, shipping and manufacturing interests, the refusal of northern states to abide by their agreement regarding slavery, the attempts to incite insurrections and revolts, the attempts to prevent migration west & northward - which was declared unconstitutional years before - to name a few.

What made the spoiled confederates pick up their ball and go home?

Why couldn't the spoiled yankees abide by the terms of the Constitution and decisions of the US Supreme Court?

[Non-Sequitur]

Don't forget the biggie. What the south viewed as a threat to their institution of domestic slavery.

[mac_truck]

When the court's marshall was refused due to Lincoln's suspension of the writ, Taney was left to rule on the constitutionality of that suspension.

I'm not sure I follow. The case was in US Curcuit court, right? How did Taney rule on a constitutional matter without having the matter before the US Supreme court?

-btw what did Merryman do to get thrown in jail on a suspended writ of habeaus corpus?

[thatdewd]

I don't see anything inconsistent with what President Lincoln told the rebel authorities.

ROFLMAO.

Two hundred recruits and the 65 men in Sumter were not going to faze the rebels. I don't know exactly, but I bet there were at least 10,000 armed rebels in and around Charleston.

Those 200 were not all the troops and that is a moot point anyway, as even adding ten extra troops and the ammunition would make Lincoln a liar.

Maybe a source on that can be cited.

It's from the "Official Records", Series One, Volume One, "Operations in Charleston Harbor", Chapter One, page 236. See, I, unlike you, can respond to requests for sources. Hmmmmm.....

General Scott definitely told the president that at least 20,000 men would be required to open the port.

And other officers said less. There were many different plans submitted and discussed, Scott's was but one of them.

It's -so- funny how hard the neo-rebs work to catch ol' Honest Abe in a lie.

LOL - It's -so- easy for anyone to do it. And -much- funnier to watch you deny the record, panic and then flood the thread with things that either disprove your own point or have nothing to do with the topic.

[thatdewd]

They would seek a ruling from the US Supreme court to avoid damage to the institutions and nation from whence they came. To prevent a Civil War. Pretty good reasons if the true intent of the confederates was to go in peace, don't you think?

Once again, there was nothing to seek a ruling over. The seceding States had no grievance in regards to the legality of secession. If the other States objected to them excercising their right to secede, then they should have filed a grievance in regards to it. The seceding States had no grievance in regards to secession that would require them to even approach the Court over the issue.

At the risk of causing your head to explode, let me add something from one of those old meaningless documents you neo-rebs like to thumb your nose at: "Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes" -2nd Continental Congress July 4th 1776

LOL - No one is thumbing their noses at old documents, only at revisionists and propagandists who attempt to twist and misuse the words from those documents.

[mac_truck]

me- What were the abuses the seceding states suffered that caused them to disunite?

you- Non eneumerated powers exercised by the federal government: protectionist tariffs, subsidization of internal improvements such as canals, roads, railroads, harbours etc., a federal banking system, bounties paid to fishing, shipping and manufacturing interests, the refusal of northern states to abide by their agreement regarding slavery, the attempts to incite insurrections and revolts, the attempts to prevent migration west & northward - which was declared unconstitutional years before - to name a few.

Is that all of them? I wouldn't want to find out later that I missed an important confederate cause that you forgot to tell me about.

Does failure to support the invasion of Cuba fit in there somewhere?

[thatdewd]

Your conspiracy theories are getting wilder and wilder.

Anderson saw the obvious outcome of the scheme:

Colonel L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

COLONEL: ...

I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. Even with his boat at our walls the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good to be accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of position, surrounded by strong works, which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government.

We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have, therefore, to rely at night entirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the way which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,

Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

-----------------------------------------

The only thing to be gained by Fox's scheme was to provoke a fight, and Secretary of War Simon Cameron had stated that to Lincoln:

"The proposition presented by Mr.Fox, so sincerely entertained and ably advocated, would be entitled to my favorable consideration if, with all the light before me and in the face of so many distinguished military authorities on the other side, I did not believe that the attempt to carry it into effect would initiate a bloody and protracted conflict. Should he succeed in relieving Fort Sumter, which is doubted by many of our most experienced soldiers and seamen, would that enable us to maintain our authority against the troops and fortifications of South Carolina?"

Provoking a fight was the only thing to be gained. Drawing the first shot, so to speak.

[rustbucket]

FYI, the first part of the ex parte Marryman ruling itself states the situation. See: ex parte Marryman

Later in this ruling, Taney says:

...a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the district attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing, even before himself, to close custody, in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.

The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.

[thatdewd]

And I stand by that. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. In the case of Texas v. White it was ruling on the Constitutionality of an act of the Texas legislature regarding secession. It ruled that the unilateral act of secession passed by the legislature violated the Constituiton.

By creating "law", the "consensus of states" rule of law. The Court "invented" a condition not based on the Constitution or supporting documents. A rule of law that illegally usurps the pre-existing conditions in the documents that created the Constitutional union.

Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.

You specifically said that in response to my statement that they did not quote anything from the Constitution that stated the "consensus of States" condition they based their ruling on. My statement is true, they did not. Therefore they do not disagree with me, they disagree with you! LOL.

But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?

LOL - You are getting flustered and it shows. Breathe deeply...your fears that I have somehow become omnipotent are not true. LOL - I have only been giving my personal opinion that the ruling was illegal, and therefore void. I would love to see that illegal decision before the Court on appeal.

How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?

LOL - Don't worry, I'm not really omnipotent. See above.

[GOPcapitalist]

I'm not sure I follow. The case was in US Curcuit court, right? How did Taney rule on a constitutional matter without having the matter before the US Supreme court?

The federal court system's lower courts make rulings on constitutional issues all the time. Those rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has the final say in the court system on the matter, but often the supreme court does not take the case or the parties simply abide by the lower court's ruling. To give you some modern examples, the fifth circuit court of appeals has ruled that an affirmative action system is unconstitutional. The rulings in current times apply to that circuit's jurisdiction (unless they are stayed from taking effect), which in the case I just mentioned means the University of Texas cannot use its affirmative action program. That case could be appealed to the supreme court and either affirmed or overturned if the supreme court decided to take it, but until then it is a binding constitutional ruling that requires the University of Texas to not use its previous affirmative action program.

In similar fashion, Taney ruled for the circuit court covering Maryland where Merryman was imprisoned. His decision on constitutionality was therefore binding in the case of Merryman and others under that jurisdiction (Merryman was one of hundreds of Maryland prisoners arrested in suspension of the writ). The Lincoln could have appealed it to the Supreme Court if he believed he could get it overturned. As a side note, a reversal of Taney's decision would have been unlikely as it is a very sound ruling with extensive precedent and historical evidence behind it. I strongly suspect that The Lincoln knew this. He could have still appealed it though as that is the legal procedure. Otherwise he was obliged to follow it. As it happened though, he did neither and simply ignored it. In other times, he could have and likely would have been impeached for such an act.

btw what did Merryman do to get thrown in jail on a suspended writ of habeaus corpus?

He was beleived to be a participant in the secessionist movement for Maryland. No charges were ever specified though due to the writ's suspension. He was released some time later after a continued prison stay without any charges ever filed.

[4CJ]

Don't forget the biggie. What the south viewed as a threat to their institution of domestic slavery.

LOL, it wasn't illegal, and was still legal until the 13th Amendment.

Don't forget the biggie. What the north viewed as a threat to their golden goose.

[4CJ]

LOL - No one is thumbing their noses at old documents, only at revisionists and propagandists who attempt to twist and misuse the words from those documents. Agreed. Here's a few mre from those old documents:

"Any Govt. for the U. States formed on the supposed practicability of using force agst. the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, wd. prove as visionary & fallacious as the Govt. of Congs."
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Remarks in the Federal Convention on the Power to Negative State Laws", 8 June 1787, p. 100.

"The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures, are these:
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
... That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefensible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadiquate to the purposes of its institution."
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments", 8 June 1789, p. 441.

"The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively."
James Madison, James Madison: Writings, (edited by Jack N. Rakove, 1999), "Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments", 8 June 1789, p. 444.

The man was a genius.

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't see anything inconsistent with what President Lincoln told the rebel authorities.

That is because you blind yourself to the possibility that The Lincoln was anything less than a perfect and virtuous god. You ignore what you do not want to see and commit a great and sinful idolatry in the process.

[GOPcapitalist]

This isn't about "besmirching" anyone, it's just history. It's the record. He lied.

That he did, as was frequently the case with Lincoln. You will never get Walt to admit it though, as he has convinced himself of Lincoln's diety level of perfection. He will never concede a fault in his false god - not even that Lincoln forgot to tie his shoe lace one morning, much less that he sinned or lied.

One time I pointed out Lincoln's lie over the very subject of this thread's article - the other 13th amendment. In addition to endorsing that amendment in his inaugural address, Lincoln claimed to have not yet read the text of it in that speech as of March 4, 1861. To demonstrate that this was a lie, I posted a December 26, 1860 letter to Lincoln from William Seward in which the latter informed the former that he had proposed that very same amendment before committee. I also quoted an eyewitness historical account sayin that Lincoln lobbied Congress extensively on the amendment before his inauguration.

Along with the fact that he paraphrased the amendment in his inaugural, both are conclusive proof that he was lying when he claimed not to have seen it on March 4, 1861. But Walt couldn't even bring himself to admit that! He actually adopted a line of argument saying that Lincoln recieved Seward's letter and worked to pass the thing, but had never, in all that time, bothered to read the two lines of text of the same amendment he was pushing and paraphrasing in his speeches. It was basically "yeah, he did all that stuff with it but he never read the thing while he was doing it"!

I'm afraid that Walt is beyond the help of any sane person on matters such as these. He is not in the business of history. Nor is he even in the business of simply respecting or upholding Abe Lincoln. His trade is the worship of Lincoln and his method is to stomp out, decry, and belittle anything and everything that does not share in or lend support to his act of idolatry.

[thatdewd]

I'm afraid that Walt is beyond the help of any sane person on matters such as these. He is not in the business of history.

Given his often fantastical positions, History is not his friend. In fact, it is his worst enemy.