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

[thatdewd]

The Pesident of Cngress referred to in the AoC would be the equivalent to the Speaker of the House under US Constitution. AoC Article IX details the powers of Congress of the United States. There were no Executive powers enumerated under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

I never said there were executive powers. I said there were 'Presidents' under the AofC. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was the Federal Government in total. It's President was the head of the entire Federal Government, not just a part of it. The AofC did not give the Federal Government anywhere as much power as the Constitution does, so no, a President under the AoC did not have the same power that a President under the Constitution does. No one said any different. Apparently you're just twisting around trying to come up with another angle for your silly BS. I said there were 'Presidents' under the Articles of Confederation, and I was correct. You didn't even know that, which doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't really understand the US constitution or the seperation of powers enumerated therein.

LOL - Between the two of us, I'm the only one that has displayed ANY understanding of the US Constitution and the seperation of powers. Your repeated ignorance on the subject is astounding.

Your failure to recognize the role of the Court to ajudicate disputes between the states leads you (and others) to make statements like this one.

LOL - The States that seceded had no grievance with anyone regarding the issue of secession that would necessitate (or even justify) their approaching the Court. Once they had seceded, if the States that remained in the union objected to it, they could have filed a grievance. They were the only party involved that could, would, or should. As usual, you display a complete ignorance of the subject.

A group of midgits get together, and They decide they are tall. Does that mean the rest of us have to believe them?

LOL - Too bad your analogy isn't analogous. The States that seceded had no legal grievance regarding secession with which to even approach the Court. I notice you can't refute that statement. Your lack of understanding on how the Supreme Court works is really starting to make you look like a 'midgit', a "mental midgit".

[TexConfederate1861]

Congressional record.....refute it if you dare....

[thatdewd]

You are aware, are you not, that the note you posted never reached Washington. It was intercepted and kept by the Confederate authorities.

The only "new" information in it that he not previously expressed to Washington was the fact that he had learned they were going to do it anyway. His thoughts about what would result had previously been expressed in earlier letters. He was so convinced that course of action would not be taken that he was constantly worrying Washington for his 'bugout' orders. That particular letter eloquently presents everything in one place, otherwise I would have had to post a series of letters, or cut them up into snippets.

[x]

I guess July 31, 1894 must have been Fantasy History Day. Oglethorpe and his colonists were Englishmen devoted to philanthropic purposes. That they were able to resist the temptation of slavery for a time is commendable, but as philanthropic values faded they did eventually succomb. Slavery had been practiced unofficially and under the table from the earliest years of the colony. Oglethorpe's ban on slavery and rum was unpopular from the beginning and as time went on the clamour for legalizing slavery grew louder and louder. The argument was that Georgia would remain poor unless it followed South Carolina's example. The settlers eventually suceeded in getting Oglethorpe replaced and his policies overturned.

The idea that it required evil, silver-toungued Yankee devils to convince noble Southern hold-outs is absurd. It reflects the black-white, edenic myth behind so much neo-confederate thought. The Fall was universal, and can't be reduced to such simplistic terms. In the first place, most of the slave traders were Englishmen. The slave trade built Liverpool and built-up Bristol and other seaports. New Englanders participated as did Spanish, Portugese and others, but Wheeler's seduction theory is a fantasy. In the second place slavery was already established in Virginia and the other colonies. It was the role of slavery as a path to wealth and power that seduced Georgians and others, not the persuasive "Yankee" serpent. In the third place, South Carolina had many settlers from the West Indies and close ties to the sugar islands of the Caribbean. They were already seduced when they came here. And their slave-based wealth did more to corrupt the poor beggars of Savannah than any New England slave trader could have.

In the Constitutional convention the strongest opposition to ending the slave trade came from Georgia and South Carolina. It is true that Ellsworth and Sherman, Connecticut delegates supported South Carolina, but the reason for this is unclear. They said their support was on "state's rights" grounds. Others have suggested that it was a tactic designed to win Connecticut concessions in its favor on other issues. But the idea that "the North" defeated "the South's" efforts to get rid of the slave trade is simply wrong. Other Northern delegates had no desire to prolong the slave trade and didn't try to.

At this point, Wheeler shifts gears. It's no longer a matter of an anti-slavery South. Now the South is fighting to protect its "right" to own slaves. The right of other communities to ban slavery on their territory gets short shrift from him. But beyond this, why make such exaggerated claims for Southern abolitionist sentiment when the defense of slavery was such an important part of thought and action in the the slave states? Why not just let the chips fall where they fall? To say that Southerners thought that the Constitution guaranteed them return of their slaves is enough. One doesn't have to torture history by turning slaveowners into frustrated and deceived former abolitionists. If they'd been truly serious about abolition, they would have followed through with it.

If John Quincy Adams relayed a petition for dissolution of the union to Congress he was playing a role in the time-honored process of petition for the redress of grievances. His action may not have been popular or the right one to take practically, but it was a far cry from unilateral secession, the seizure of property and raising an army against constitutional government. Freedom of speech and expression certainly allow a community to express its discontent with how things are going in the nation as a whole. A fuller picture of the era would present similar protests by South Carolina, Alabama and other states, communities and individuals and allow us to see the peculiarities, similarities, and differences of such protests, rather than cherry pick incidents from the history of one Northern state or one town within it.

Wheeler's analysis of editorials from four Northern newspapers is also weak. Such papers were willing to accept secession at first -- "advocate" is too strong a word. But by Sumter the situation looked very different to them. Those who had assumed that there was no point in keeping jurisdictions and populations in the union by force or aginst there will came to believe that there was every reason to counter violence undertaken to pull lands and people out of the union and expropriate federal and private property. Neo-confederate arguments tend to assume that the states or some confederacy of them have an absolute sovereignty to do as they wished. Northerners who might have had few problems allowing the Gulf States to go their own way, were provoked to take action when it became clear that the new Confederacy would use force to take property and land. If Wheeler really wanted to understand history, rather than simply craft a defense of his own actions, he would ask what was behind the evolution of Northern opinion.

The positive side of Wheeler's speech is that it shows just how little ground there is for neo-confederate mythmaking. Rather than Southern slaveowners being the first victims of the American empire, they were in the forefront of its creation, whether in 1812 or 1846 or with Wheeler himself in 1898. It shouldn't be presumed that the differences that provoked war in 1861 were permanent or more important than the general agreement about fundamentals that has united Americans throughout their history.

[mac_truck]

I never said there were executive powers.

Of course you didn't. I asked you to show me where they were in the AoC and you responded Article IX. Which is WRONG!

I'm on to your little game of denying what you said several posts later little man.

[thatdewd]

Of course you didn't. I asked you to show me where they were in the AoC and you responded Article IX. Which is WRONG!

LOL - You're actually attempting to claim I told you there were executive powers in the AofC, which I never did. Your ridiculous abuse of the adjective "perpetual" from the AoC was what started this, but let us review the issue currently at hand:

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

From your post to me, #450:

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

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

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

My response to that question, contained in post #455:

"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."

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

I had immediately corrected your erroneous understanding of my statement. Your question, directly attached to my reference to "presidents", makes it very clear you were asking me to explain my use of the word 'presidents'. I corrected your error regarding 'executive power' and answered your question about my use of the word 'presidents'. Your comprehension aberrations are getting so bad that now you can't even follow a conversation. BTW, it still appears that "perpetual" means 'about ten years'.

I'm on to your little game of denying what you said several posts later little man.

LOL - see actual posts above, 'your weenie-ness'.

[GOPcapitalist]

The court, I would argue, has an important function, but has equal arbitration duties with the other two branches.

In the sense of constitutional theory, I agree completely. I would term this equal function among the three branches as a right. The issue differs though in cases of authority, and that is why the court makes the rulings of constitutionality. While all three branches have the right to function in this manner with regard to their approaches to the constitution, the mechanism of authority for it was given to the court as its primary check upon the other branches.

[GOPcapitalist]

You speak as if secession were an ingrained maxim of the Constitution.

I speak of it in this case as an assumption because the holding of that assumption must occur first before I can assess the arguments of degree pertaining to that assumption argued by The Lincoln. It is in this light that I note, holding secession to be constitutional, that The Lincoln's slippery slope about it was not a logically valid or expected situation.

However, though the Constitution doesn't provide means to leave, it does give power to the national/federal government to fight insurrection.

That it does. I would argue that the act of insurrection though generally pertains to the common concept of insurrection - an attempt by a band of individuals to overthrow the existing government. That says nothing though of an act by legitimately seated parts of that government from taking legislative action to separate their own portions away from that government while permitting it to exist in the remainder uninterrupted.

We may assume that, at the very most, a state may leave through Constitutional amendment. That would, of course, require the approval of the other states.

Such an assumption is not necessary. The reason for this is self evident, that being that the ratification of the constitution by an individual state did not require approval of the other states for acceptance. Rather, it was voluntary. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, for a voluntarily joined union to prohibit voluntary exit from it is to exert a force contrary to the nature of that same union's voluntary origins.

And why not? Much of the infrastructure and federal taxes were applied to the each state.

That they were, but they were also paid for by taxes collected in each of the states. It is not as if the seceding south "stole" the belongings of the north by simply claiming for themselves properties within their borders. For that to be so, one must hold that the entire properties of the 1860 federal government were in fact exclusive holdings to which only the yankee states were entitled. Such is nonsense since the south paid taxes too and in many cases provided the property and resources for the construction of those sites. When The Lincoln responded to secession by claiming all those southern properties for the "union," he was in reality asserting a claim that they were the exclusive domain of the northern states regardless of where they were located or the southern contribution to their purchase.

In addition, even as a separate entity, the state(s) would still reap the benefits of a strong neighbor, but without having to financially support it.

Do you suggest then that nations of the world be required to pay tribute to regional strengths in their proximity? And all that goes without mentioning that the south proved itself to possess military capabilities and strengths of its own that fended off the might of that same neighbor on inferior resources for four long years.

I don't think my argument relies on a slippery-slope fallacy,

When one asserts that the acceptance of state secession will necessarily lead to city, town, and neighborhood secession, that is a fallacy of slippery slopes. It is a fallacy as the connection is not necessary and in fact a condition exists to differentiate between state secession and other secessions.

Even if was a logical fallacy, though, that doesn't necessarily mean it is not true

A request to prove a negative is itself another fallacy. Accordingly your argument fails both in the initial slippery slope and in its request of a negative proof.

any assertion that it was necessarily not true based on a fallacy is guilty of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

No. Post hoc is a fallacy of causality. An assertion of a negative proof is a fallacy of conclusion based upon a previous fallacy of negative premise.

I wasn't offering a certainty, but a possibility, and it was based on the logic of the South.

Possibilities are fine, but do not carry much weight as an argument. On a similar note, I could legitimately state that it is _possible_ the sun will not rise tommorrow. But that does not lend any reason per se to the assertion that the sun will not rise tommorrow, nor does it adequitely establish that the possibility of the sun not rising tommorrow should be reason to act against that possibility.

[GOPcapitalist]

Still avoiding any substantive consideration of the tariff issue, eh Walt? The assertions of you and your sources from the AOL "newsgroup" have been outed as fraudulent. Rebut me if you dare.

[TexConfederate1861]

My whole point in this exchange was to show WLAT that Secession was considered a time-honored accepted practice and basic right of states from the BEGINNING. In 1894, this was still fresh enough in the minds of Congress. Furthermore, it shows that the Republican Party had NO intention of allowing slavery to continue, therefore the South did percieve a real threat, not just in their own minds as some Neo Yankee Lincoln Worshippers would have us believe.


I believe he makes his case quite well.

[TexConfederate1861]

Judson Kilpatrick was a pillaging, bloody, S*O*B, and if his men didn't rape that girl then they certainly committed enough attrocities elsewhere to justify what was done to them. My only regret is that they should have hung Kilpatrick higher than Haman.

Justice Served it seems....don't whine about that incident, that dog just won't hunt!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Judson Kilpatrick was a pillaging, bloody, S*O*B, and if his men didn't rape that girl then they certainly committed enough attrocities elsewhere to justify what was done to them.

So much for the rule of law.

Walt

[mac_truck]

Yes, thanks for providing a concrete example of how you perform cheap intellectual sleight of hand.

Your original reference to the word ""presidents" in the Articles of Confederation is here 429. Lets examine what you really said.

That government was replaced by the one we have now, you know, the one we actually were discussing. 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? The previous presidents under the AofC are not counted because that government and it's "perpetual" union only lasted about TEN YEARS. Or do you think Washington was the eleventh President?

You make two clear references to George Washington in your statement. Once before the quote I referenced in 450 and once after. You even ask me if I think Washington was the eleventh president, informing me that you're improperly referring to executuve power within the context of AoC.

To clarify your use of the word "presidents", I refer back to your statement and ask "Since you made this statement perhaps you could point to the specific Article of Confederation that deals with executive power."

Being a dimwitted confederate, you took the bait and responded here 455 that its Article IX. Of course, the correct answer would be that there are no executive powers enumerated in the Articles of Confederation.

Now, could you be more WRONG about something chucklehead?

[WhiskeyPapa]

My whole point in this exchange was to show WLAT that Secession was considered a time-honored accepted practice and basic right of states from the BEGINNING.

Experience under the AoC proved that the states had too much independence. Although the Constitution uses a lot of euphemistic language, there is no doubt that the framers meant to bind the states to the national power and make them subservient to it.

The framers wasted no time passing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Militia Act of 1792 (amended in 1795). Both of these acts preclude any unilateral state secession under U.S. law. It does the neo-reb position no credit to say, "oh but that was done by a bunch of federalists!", as one neo-reb did one time.

Secession, as Madison said, is just another name for revolution. If we establish that as a definition, we can cut out about 1/3 of the notes in this intermniable neo-reb rant.

Secondly, what you neo-rebs just totally discount is that the majority of the people in the country at the time saw things the way I describe them, or there wouldn't be a country. You can wail and whine all you like. You're making a generational judgment on historical people. The rebel armies disintegrated, the rebel government fell apart. Those are the facts of the matter. More people maintained their allegiance to the national government, accepting an interpretation at least similar to that I relate.

The State of Maine's resolutions were typical:

State of Maine

Resolves in favor of harmony and union

Resolved, That we the people of the State of Maine devotedly cherish the constitution and laws of the United States, and have ever been willing to assist in maintaining the National Union, and to respect faithfully the rights of all its members.

Resolved, That in the present attempt to coerce the government of the United States, and the will of the majority of the people thereof, to the will of the minority, by treason most foul, and rebellion the most unjustifiable, it is the right and the duty of the state to proffer to the national government for its own maintenance and for the suppression of this treason and rebellion. all the means and resources which it can command.

Resolved, That while as a member of the family of the states, we are ever ready to review our course in reference to any seeming infringement of the rights of sister states, still we can never so far forget the pride of our sovereignty, or the dignity of our manhood, as to hold parley with treason or with traitors.

Resolved, That whenever we shall see the sentiment of patriotism and devotion to American liberty manifested in the slave-holding states, we will vie with such states in the restoration of harmony, and will tender to such, every fraternal concession consistent with the security of our own citizens.

Resolved, That it is our right and our solemn purpose, with "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor," to defend to the last our Federal Government, and the strength and the glory of our national capitol, by whatever hands assailed,as the only hope of our own and of the world's freedom and progress.

[Typed from a photocopy supplied by Sylvia Sherman of the Maine State Archives.]

[end]

See Jim Epperson's website for more:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/maine.html

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Still avoiding any substantive consideration of the tariff issue, eh Walt?

See #465 in this thread.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Per "Days of Defiance" by Maury Klien, Scott actually said 5,000 regulars, 20,000 volunteers and six months would be necessary.

That was Scott's opinion, (and it still hasn't been expressed correctly) which was only one of many.

Cite a second opinion on the force neccesary to reduce the rebellion in Charleston.

Yes, General's Scott's appreciation of the situation is only an opinion.

And your posts to FR are only an opinion, and so are mine.

Are you discounting opinions generally?

Lincoln had no reason to incite a war in Charleston or anywhere else. There was quite a roil in Virginia at this same time. Lincoln was trying to mollify the Virginians. Starting a war in South Carolina was not in his mind.

Offering only to end supplies to Charleston was a brilliant stroke worthy of the best chess master. It put the ball (to mix metaphors) right back in the rebel's court.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

LOL - Not exactly...there were conditions: "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not....We cannot, then, make them equals." - Abraham Lincoln. He did think they had rights, and that slavery was wrong, but he also thought that they were inferior to whites and should practice their rights someplace far away from white people. As long as it wasn't out west, that is. He wanted that to be strictly lily white for lily white people. The 'great enslaver' (according to you) was also the 'great white seperatist' (according to himself).

Lincoln's postion on race changed over time. That is why your interpretation is flawed.

President Lincoln's attempt to legitimize blacks as Americans can be seen in these letters he wrote :

Private

General Hunter

Executive Mansion

Washington D.C. April 1, 1863

My dear Sir:

I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to preserve and increase them.

Yours truly

A. Lincoln

_________________________________________________________

Hon. Andrew Johnson

Executive Mansion,

My dear Sir:

Washington, March 26. 1863.

I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought. Yours truly

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

Hon Soc of War

Executive Mansion

Washington

July 21, 1863

My Dear Sir:

I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.

Yours truly

Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constiution include voting rights for blacks. A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.

It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.

President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/23/63

"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.

"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."

--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis

Lincoln's sense of fairness made him seek to extend the blessings of citizenship to everyone who served under the flag.

His great political skill made him realize that blacks --were--not-- leaving -- he played that card and no one was biting, black or white. That being the case, he knew he had to prepare for the future, and that future involved full rights for blacks.

Walt

[outlawcam]

While all three branches have the right to function in this manner with regard to their approaches to the constitution, the mechanism of authority for it was given to the court as its primary check upon the other branches

I see what you're saying; however, I would stress as a matter of utmost importance that the other two branches have an equal responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That the court is there does not abdicate that responsibility (See CFR bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, because he felt the court would overturn the unconstitutional parts).

[outlawcam]

Well Mr. capitalist, we may yet realize how iron sharpens iron. Hopefully you get as much from this exchange as I do. Though we have some ways to go regarding differentiating between secession and insurrection, and identifying, if any, a legal right of secession, we have the potential to spend a considerable amount of time on logic, as well. Let's get right to it.

It is in this light that I note, holding secession to be constitutional, that The Lincoln's slippery slope about it was not a logically valid or expected situation.

Your description as Lincoln as "The Lincoln" is an appeal to emotion fallacy. You are attempting to paint supporters of his action, particularly regarding Ft. Sumpter, as worshipers of an idol. That appeals to the emotions of every Christian, Jew, or Muslim on this forum. However, I can overlook that to address the basis of your argument.

We have two different assumptions on the table. One is that secession is legal, and the other that states COULD (not WOULD, as would be indicative of the slippery-slope fallacy you describe) hold ransom the national/federal government for any reason it wished, if they could just leave at any time. The larger states, in particular, could do this moreso at the expense of the smaller states than vice versa, thereby negating completely any real power the smaller states had.

Now let's talk about assumptions, possibilities, and probabilities for a little bit. Why is government needed at all? According to Alexander Hamilton, because man will not conform to the dictates of justice and reason, without constraint. Does that necessarily follow? No. It is an assumption. Why must a government be constrained? Does it necessarily follow that every government will violate the rights of individuals and groups? No, but reason and experience has demonstrated its probability. What does reason have to do with it?

A sober judgement of man's nature evaluated by reasonable men led them to the conclusion that power and the lust for power, fame, and wealth will lead otherwise reasonable men to destruction. John Adams--probably alone of the founders--had a very healthy (and well-documented) recognizance of his own vanity and ambition. However, the other founders were very aware of the dangers of all kinds of power, because they knew that power gained was freedom lost. Necessarily so? No, but it was a reasonable conclusion gained from experience. Is it necessarily so that cities, provinces, and households could secede? No, but possible, and for certain people, even probable, if that sort of power were granted. By denying the right of individual to withdraw from a social compact at his own will, so do states deny themselves the logical right to withdraw from a social compact at will, especially given the compacts specific provisions against insurrection and for the guarantee of republican governments.

What about a Bill of Rights? Was it necessary? Reasonable men disagreed. A Bill of Rights, Hamilton said (and initially Madison agreed), was not only unecessary, but dangerous. Having one implied the state had powers not granted, and gave it a "colorable pretext to claim" more than were granted. Does it necessarily follow that because we have a Bill of Rights, Congress will take more power than was granted? No, but look at where we are now, with a Bill of Rights. So, either a Bill of Rights prevented even more usurpation (perhaps this is true), or it did precisely what Hamilton claimed it would. Who knows? But reasonable men can disagree, and fallacy or not one way or the other (for it can be said both sides were guilty at the time of a slippery-slope fallacy as well), both are reasonable conclusions.

The Constitution, therefore, was framed with possible and probable in mind, and if one thing gave a branch or government too much power over another, they excluded it, checked it, or provided for a way to correct it. If it were possible that a right would be violated, they provided the means to protect it. In this case, the methods to correct an injustice were petition, legislation, and Constitutional amendment. Later states claimed nullification (the conflict over which, I'm convinced led directly to a fallacious Barron vs. Baltimore decision) and secession, but neither logically follows. Any government must be able to enforce the provisions of its charter. If it cannot enforce every one of them, then it cannot logically claim the power to enforce any of them. Government is nothing if not the power to enforce its provisions, and thus, without such power it is not a government at all.

I would argue that the act of insurrection though generally pertains to the common concept of insurrection - an attempt by a band of individuals to overthrow the existing government.

Since insurrection was not defined by law, wouldn't it have been a good idea to define it before they took off? However, what you described, I would argue, did occur, because they overthrew the government of that land, declared it null and void, and assumed the role for themselves that belonged to another entity. It doesn't matter that it was only a portion of the whole. The national/federal government was properly elected, and every state agreed to the terms under which that would occur.

. The reason for this is self evident, that being that the ratification of the constitution by an individual state did not require approval of the other states for acceptance.

That's not exactly true. Ratification of the Constitution required nine states' approval. Eight wouldn't do. In addition, the Constitution stipulates that the national/federal government would guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government. Notice what it does not say. It doesn't say "recommend," or "stipulate." It says it will guarantee it, which implies a level of enforcement for those who agree to the terms of the Constitution. There is a sort of mixed responsibility here. Both the national/federal government and the state governments have a role in this, pertaining to sovereignty. Additionally, for new states to be admitted, not only must the state approve of the terms of the Constitution, so must Congress approve of the state's constitution. It's called an Act of Admission. According to historical records, had Utah, for instance, not perpetually done away with its pro-polygamy laws, it is unlikely that it would have ever been allowed by Congress to join. Arizona's constitution was initially approved by Congress, but Taft vetoed it, and the Arizona state legislature had to make some changes before it was admitted.

That they were, but they were also paid for by taxes collected in each of the states. It is not as if the seceding south "stole" the belongings of the north by simply claiming for themselves properties within their borders.

Part of joining the national/federal government under its own terms meant agreeing that the federal government could both collect taxes and spend it on certain items. Only on those items for which it was responsible could the federal government spend any money, but that for which the national/federal government was responsible, the states were not.

That works in the reverse as well. The southern states also had some say, by way of their representative votes as part of the collective, national/federal government, in the properties and responsibilities of the national/federal government located in northern states. I don't think Lincoln claimed the properties as exclusive to the northern states, but to the national/federal government, which he saw as made up of all of the states.

When The Lincoln responded to secession by claiming all those southern properties for the "union," he was in reality asserting a claim that they were the exclusive domain of the northern states regardless of where they were located or the southern contribution to their purchase.

Non sequitur fallacy. As I said, Lincoln considered the states rebelling provinces of the complete national/federal government. That they were in the south was a matter of geography, and inconsequential to any sort of malice or prejudice. Also, I sincerely think that had the war ended earlier and had Lincoln not been assassinated, the transition back to peaceful participation would have been much smoother. He always sought the preservation of the union and reconciliation.

Post hoc is a fallacy of causality.

Right. The existence of a fallacy doesn't cause the argument to be untrue, or else I might discount every ad hominem, non-sequitur, and appeal to emotion on this thread, which I daresay would negate most of them. If it did, then we'd find ourselves in the middle of a "This statement is a lie" logical paradox, so let's not entertain the notion that a fallacy makes something untrue for long.

Having already addressed your last paragraph on possibilities (of the sun's not rising and so forth), I'll close for now, hoping you're having as much fun as I am. :)

[rustbucket]

...we the people of the State of Maine devotedly cherish the constitution and laws of the United States

Like other Northern states, Maine passed personal liberty laws that in effect nullified part of the Constitution and the fugitive slave law. Rightly or wrongly, Northern states were not living up to their part of the Constitutional bargain.

It seems a bit hypocritical of them to claim that they "devotedly cherish the constitution" out of one side of their mouth, while working against the Constitution out of the other.