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

[rustbucket]

Most of the time you sound a bit more reasonable than 4CJ, GOPcap or the almost Stand Watieish Thatdewd.

That is indeed a high compliment since they are very reasonable people.

As I said before, "Rightly or wrongly, Northern states were not living up to their part of the Constitutional bargain." I didn't make a moral judgment on whether their actions were right or wrong. I just pointed out what they were doing.

If they stop obeying the Constitution because of their moral beliefs, then they can't claim to be following the Constitution. That is their hypocrisy that I pointed out. I'm surprised that you can't see it.

History is history. Let the facts stand for themselves.

[rustbucket]

Not unless you can find some precedent for Taney's Dredd Scott ruling in the law or Constitution. Some pretty sharp people at the time said there was none.

Others rejoiced that the Constitution had been upheld. See the collection of editorials both pro and con: Dred Scott Editorials

Interesting how divergent the views were.

[GOPcapitalist]

No it wasn't.

Yes Walt. It was I rebutted its points in #474 and those of your subsequent post in #532.

You ignored most of it.

Much to the contrary. I rebutted your posts substance virtually line for line. You have yet to even acknowledge either rebuttal.

The lurkers can make their own decision.

And I invite them to! They will see that you are fibbing about my responses in order to avoid having to address them for yourself.

Everything you say is becoming more and more over the top ridiculous.

You are free to suggest that, Walt, but then again, I'm not the one denying the existence of readily viewable rebuttals on the grounds that I do not like their content.

Tariffs were not a compelling reason for war to the people in the ACW period.

Fibbing about history will not make it go away, Walt. The history of tariffs in the war is documented in detail by posts 474, 572, and elsewhere on this forum. You evidently know this yet since you cannot bring yourself to admit your fraud, you have now taken to denying the existence of those posts! Your entire position, Walt, is absurd. If you doubt that, then by all means invite anyone you like to read this forum and agree with your conclusion that posts 474 and 572 do not exist.

[TexConfederate1861]

Well, I don't think rule of law applies to pillaging, raping, Yankee S*O*B's that are invading one's land during war.




Nuff Said!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Fibbing about history will not make it go away.

You ignored my reference to Alexander Stephens.

But then you have to.

"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.

[Mr. Toombs: That tariff lessened the duties.]

[Mr. Stephens:[ Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)"

The whole speech:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/steph2.html

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

As I said before, "Rightly or wrongly, Northern states were not living up to their part of the Constitutional bargain." I didn't make a moral judgment on whether their actions were right or wrong. I just pointed out what they were doing.

"Had the south used her power prudently and acted wisely, she would have controlled the destinies of this Government for generations yet to come...But, flushed with victories so constant and thorough and maddened by every expression of opposition to their peculiar institution, they commenced a work of proscription and aggression upon the rights of the people of the North, which has finally forced them to rise in their might and drive them from power. They commenced their aggressions upon the North in some of the southern states by the enactment of unconstitutional laws, imprisoning colored seamen, and refusing to allow those laws to be tested before the proper tribunals. They trampled upon the sacred right of petition; they rifled and burnt our mails, if they suspected they contained anything of condemnation of slavery. They proscribed every northern man from office who would not smother and deny his honest convictions upon slavery and barter his manhood for place. They annexed foreign territory avowedly to extend and strengthen their particular institution, and made war in defense and support of that policy. They refused admission into the Union of States with free constitutions, unless they could have, as an equivalent, new guarantees for slavery. They passed a fugitive slave bill, some of the provisions of which were so merciless, and unneccessary as they were inhuman, that they would have disgraced the worst despotisms of Europe. They repealed their 'Missouri compromise act,' which they had themselves forced upon the North, against their wishes and their votes; and after having attained all their share of the benefit, they struck it down, against the indignant and almost unanimous protest of the whole North, for the purpose of forcing slavery upon an unwilling people. They undertook to prevent, by violent means, the settlement of Kansas by free-state men. They invaded that territory and plundered and murdered its citizens by armed force...

Every new triumph of the South and every concession by the North has only whetted their appetite for still more, and encouraged them in making greater claims and more unreasaonable demands, until today they are threatening the overthrow of the Government if we do not give them additional guarantees for protection to their slave property in territory in which we do not now own."

--Speech of Representative John B. Alley of Massachusetts, January 26, 1861 (quoted from "The Causes of the Civil War", Kennneth Stampp, ed.)

Some people are not afraid to make moral judgments.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

If they stop obeying the Constitution because of their moral beliefs, then they can't claim to be following the Constitution. That is their hypocrisy that I pointed out. I'm surprised that you can't see it.

You didn't point out any hypocracy, and apparently, you can't.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well, I don't think rule of law applies to pillaging, raping, Yankee S*O*B's that are invading one's land during war.

I always get a big kick out of this piece of text from an AOL forum:

"People who want to start wars should think seriously about where the war might be fought. It is generally unpleasant to have the war fought on your own territory. Secessionists were particularly unthinking in this respect, the ACW being fought almost entirely in the South, with few minor and short-term exceptions such as Lee's failed Maryland incursion in 1862, Morgan's failed Ohio raid in 1863, Lee's failed Pennsylvania incursion in 1863, and Early's arsonist raid on Chambersburg, PA in 1864.

Thus the Union had far greater opportunity to misbehave in Secessionist territory than the reverse. But Rebel forces, in the few opportunities available to them, violated the same rules and useages of war that were breached by the Union.

Thus, we Southerners are a bit hypocritical when we condemn the Union for depredations in the South --- because the Secessionists were the first of the belligerent parties to propose and glorify a Total War policy to be applied against enemy cities, populations and private property.

Both Jeff Davis and Louis Wigfall, before resigning from the US Senate to go south, threatened the burning of Northern cities and the plunder of their populations as punishment (US Senate, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,10 Jan. 1861).

Stonewall Jackson urged the adoption of this policy (Henderson, STONEWALL JACKSON AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, London, 1898), adding that Confederate troops should fight under the "Black Flag" - no quarter, kill all prisoners - and proposing to Virginia Governor Letcher a week after Virginia's secession that he, Jackson, should set the example (Columbia, SC, DAILY SOUTH CAROLINIAN, 6 Feb. 1864).

Letcher proposed in early 1862 that the Confederacy should attack Northern civilians and their public and private property, not simply to affect the enemy's armies but to punish its population for supporting the war (Letcher to Pickens, 28 April 1862. L&D Box 5, Clements Library. U. of Mich.).

From the very beginning of the war, the Secessionists' Total War policy was triumphantly endorsed by newspapers across the South, some of which were later to howl the loudest about Sherman's jaunt through Georgia. For example, thinking incorrectly that Lee was about to run rampant through Pennsylvania in 1862, the Richmond newspapers crowed "We hope that the (Confederate) troops will turn the whole country into a desert", (RICHMOND DISPATCH, 17 Sept. 1862). This sentiment was also widely reflected in Secessionist oratory and correspondence of the early-war period.

Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991).

Early's burning of Chambersburg, PA, on 30 July 1864 predated Sherman's burning of Atlanta, GA. The main difference between the two events was that Atlanta was a fortified and strongly defended town holding a vast number of military installations, munitions factories and army supply depots, whereas Chambersburg was an unfortified, virtually undefended town holding nothing of any military use or value. Confederate troops left Chambersburg after more than 300 of its houses had been burned and many of its citizens robbed (Pauley, UNRECONSTRUCTED REBEL: THE LIFE OF GENERAL JOHN MCCAUSELAND CSA, Pictorial Histories Publ., 1992). Atlanta burned four days later.

In short, Grant and Sherman adopted the Secessionist policy of Total War, applied it more effectively than the Confederacy ever could, and thereby shortened an increasingly hateful and hated war. Yes, Sherman made Georgia and South Carolina howl, but for the second time. The first time Georgia and South Carolina (and Virginia) howled was for the same kind of violence to be applied against Northern cities, populations and private property. "

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

'False and ugly portrait' of Lincoln??

What would you say about any President who issues an ARREST WARRANT for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the CRIME of declaring Lincoln's actions unconstitutional?

There's no proof of that.

From the ACW moderated newsgroup:

"If you read this newsgroup regularly, or read libertarian or neo-Confederate Web publications, you might have heard that Lincoln authorized or ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney. The columnist Joseph Sobran has stated it as fact at least three times, and Jerome Tuccille, the guide for civil liberties on About.com, has also referred to it.

The story seems to stem from the following paragraph in Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's 1996 book _Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men_ (p. 154):

"_Ex parte Merryman_ appears in Civil War histories from many angles. . . But almost never brought up is Lincoln's warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. I have seen this mentioned in only two locations: Frederick S. Calhoun's official history, _The Lawmen:

United States Marshals and Their Deputies_, rev. edn. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 102-04; and Harold M. Hyman,_ A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution_ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), p. 84. Their sources are two independent manuscript collections, which lends credence to the claim's reliability, although I have personally examined neither collection."

Curious about this claim, I consulted both sources. Hyman states that "in an unpublished memorandum, Francis Lieber noted that Lincoln contemplated Taney's arrest, and issued Ward Hill Lamon, marshal for the District of Columbia, permission to arrest him"(p. 84). Calhoun goes into a bit more detail, recounting Lamon's exact claims that "after due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice" and that "It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hand of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia"(Lamon himself was Marshal of D.C.). However, Lamon said, Lincoln had instructed his friend to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders(p. 103)". These further orders never came, and Lamon (obviously) did not arrest Taney.

This is an odd story. Lincoln referred to Lamon as "my particular friend" and clearly valued him as a companion. But there is no record, as far as I can tell, that Lincoln ever consulted Lamon on a decision of high political importance, much less that he entrusted Lamon with such a decision. Also, it was not clear if these were in fact two independent sources; Lieber could have been merely recounting Lamon's claims about such a warrant, rather than vouching for them independently. Still, Francis Lieber was a highly respected lawyer, the principal compiler of the US military code, and his assertion would carry some weight.

The manuscript sources listed are (by Hyman) "Lieber Papers no. 2422"; and (by Calhoun) "'Habeas Corpus', n.d., unpublished draft manuscript. Both are stored at the Huntington Library, in San Marino, California.

Although I would have liked to visit the Huntington (I drove past it on a recent trip to California; it is in a beautiful botanical garden), time and budgetary constraints were in the way. So I wrote a letter, reproducing the relevant quotations from all three books and asking if I might be able to hire someone there to look into the manuscript sources a bit.

I received a very interesting reply from John Rhodehamel, Norris Foundation Curator of American Historical Manuscripts. He had checked the records, and reported that there are not two sources, only one: Lamon. Hyman's reference to the Lieber papers was in error, apparently caused by a confusion of source numbers: Rhodehamel states that "the corresponding document in the Lieber coll., (LI 2422), is not relevant, nor does the Lieber coll. subject index for "Taney" yield anything related to Lamon's story." However, the manuscript "Habeas Corpus", referred to by Calhoun, is LN 2422. Therefore, Rhodehamel concludes: "I think it's clear that Hyman was really citing LN 2422 when he credited 'Lieber papers no. 2422'".

This leaves the whole matter resting on Lamon's manuscript. I ordered a photocopy of it from the Huntington.

I have now examined it, and it's even less convincing than I would have thought. The document takes up five handwritten pages; I'd estimate it's about 1800 words long. There is, as Calhoun notes, no date. The latest date in the document is in 1863, but (as pointed out in an accompanying note written by Don Fehrenbacher in 1976), the context indicates the document was composed well after the events referred to. Also, according to Fehrenbacher, the document is _not_ in Lamon's handwriting. This does not mean it is spurious (most authors or researchers in the 19th century had secretaries copying their drafts), but neither does it inspire confidence.

"Habeas Corpus" appears (to me) to be the beginning of a projected treatise on the Lincoln administration and the writ of habeas corpus. It begins with a list of the suspensions of the writ, and long quotations from relevant legal documents, especially Taney's opinion in the Merryman case (although Lamon, or perhaps his copyist, persistently spells it "Merriman"). After recounting Merryman's arrest, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that petition's acceptance by Taney, Lamon gives his version of the Lincoln administration's reaction (p.3):

"After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest." Lamon was given this document (whatever exactly it was) by Lincoln himself, but told to use his own judgement about actually making the arrest, unless Lincoln gave further instructions. Lamon goes on: "This writ was never executed, and the Marshal never regretted the discretionary power delegated to him in the exercise of this official duty."

Lamon says no more about the supposed arrest order. The "Habeas Corpus" document continues with more quotations from legal opinions and military orders, as well as from Democratic party resolutions opposing the Lincoln administration's policies. Then it ends suddenly, with no conclusion. There is nothing about what ended up happening to the original writ, warrant, or order.

After reading the full text, Lamon's story seems even odder than before.

A Federal law enforcement officer, handed a legal document authorizing the arrest of the Chief Justice, would be unlikely to refer to it as vaguely and variously as Lamon does. The issuance of such an arrest order would clearly be of major historic importance, and would tend to make relevant details stick in the mind. Details like whether it was a warrant, a writ, or an order; by whom and when it was issued; and who was present when the document was handed over. Lamon quotes multiple paragraphs from Taney's _Merryman_ opinion, a public document, but passes over the alleged warrant (or whatever it was), a historic matter of which he has sole knowledge, in only a couple of sentences.

After I informed Jeffrey Rogers Hummel of Rhodehamel's findings, Hummel emailed me stating that "If Ward Hill Lamon is the only source reporting that Lincoln isued an arrest warrant for Taney, then the report is certainly not credible." (He gave me permission to quote him publicly). Seeing the exact words of the report makes it even less credible.

I apologize for the brevity of my quotations from Lamon; I am seeking permission from the Huntington library to include some more extensive quotes from Lamon's manuscript, but I have not yet received it.

I am still researching a couple of aspects of this: I am looking for a sample of Lamon's handwriting so I can confirm "Habeas Corpus" was not handwritten by him, and I am looking for more biographical material on Lamon."

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

What would you say about any President who issues an ARREST WARRANT for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the CRIME of declaring Lincoln's actions unconstitutional?

What would you say about Jefferson Davis who refused to establish a supreme court at all, in spite of the fact that his constitution required one?

[mac_truck]

Lincoln, perhaps, could eventually be condemned by historians as one of the greatest tyrants of the nineteenth century.

The confederate slave powers ARE condemned by historians as one of the greatest tyrants of the ninetenth century

Where have you been, son?

[rustbucket]

You didn't point out any hypocracy, and apparently, you can't.

You are correct, Walt. I pointed out a "hypocrisy", not a "hypocracy".

[rustbucket]

Early's burning of Chambersburg, PA, on 30 July 1864 predated Sherman's burning of Atlanta, GA.

True enough, but Early's burning of Chambersburg followed Union General Hunter's destruction of Southern civilian property in the Shenandoah Valley. Early's actions were in direct retaliation for Hunter's raids. As Early said:

General Hunter in his recent raid to Lynchburg, caused wide-spread ruin wherever he passed. I followed him about sixty miles, and language would fail me to describe the terrible desolation which marked his path. Dwelling-houses and other buildings were almost universally burned; fences, implements of husbandry, and everything available for the sustenance of human life, so far as he could do so, were everywhere destroyed. We found many, very many, families of helpless women and children who had been suddenly turned out of doors, and their houses and contents condemned to the flames; and in some cases where they had rescued some extra clothing, the soldiers had torn the garments into narrow strips, and strewn them upon the ground for us to witness when we arrived in pursuit.

General Hunter has been much censured by the voice of humanity everywhere, and he richly deserves it all; yet he has caused scarcely one-tenth part of the devastation which has been committed immediately in sight of the headquarters of General Meade and General Grant, in Eastern Virginia.

A Confederate soldier noted the following destruction by Hunter's troops:

We had seen a thousand ruined homes in Clark, Jefferson, and Frederick counties,- barns and houses burned and private property destroyed

[rustbucket]

Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991).

From a Union sympathizer, Jacob Hoke, a Chambersburg store owner, who was in Chambersburg during the War and recorded what went on there:

The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted-Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.

[mac_truck]

As I said before, "Rightly or wrongly, Northern states were not living up to their part of the Constitutional bargain." I didn't make a moral judgment on whether their actions were right or wrong. I just pointed out what they were doing.

Go ahead, make a moral judgement. I'd like to know whether you think the northern states WERE right or wrong about resisting the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. I'd also like to know whether you agree that the Dred Scott decision was unconstitutional.

You know it seems to me MORE hypocritical for someone to complain about Lincoln the Tyrant, while the southern slave powers were holding 4,000,000 in bondage and servitude.

Don't you agree?

[rustbucket]

You know it seems to me MORE hypocritical for someone to complain about Lincoln the Tyrant, while the southern slave powers were holding 4,000,000 in bondage and servitude.

My complaints about Lincoln are that he violated the Constitution and permitted the sacrifice of thousands of prisoners of war, both Union and Confederate, in terrible prison camps on both sides. My wife had a POW ancestor who died at Point Lookout as a result of this immoral Northern decision.

I think Lincoln took action that he knew would lead to war. For this I fault him. He wasn't smart enough or wise enough to achieve his ends otherwise. I also fault the Southern leadership for falling into Lincoln's trap at Sumter.

During the war, Lincoln permitted Union generals (Grant, Meade, Hunter, Sheridan, Sherman, Wild, Butler, etc.) to make war on the civilian population of the South. For this I fault him. By permitting such atrocious behavior, Lincoln made it much more difficult for the country to reconcile after the war.

To the extent that Lincoln would have been magnanimous in the treatment of the defeated South, then he would have been wise and good and probably would have never have permitted the excesses of Radical Republican Reconstruction. He would have been great if he could have healed the country, but we'll never know for sure. I'd like to think he could have done it, but his war on the civilian population probably left too big a hurdle.

Here is an example of the type of treatment the South received in Reconstruction after the war. In Texas, armed Radical Republicans seized the capitol building after they were voted out of power and only gave up when President Grant would not send reinforcements. I'll be the first to admit that such behavior is more the legacy of abolitionists than of Lincoln himself.

I have never defended slavery. Slavery was a moral wrong. (So is today's Democrat Party.) It would have been far better if the country could have eliminated slavery peaceably without ruining the South. It would have taken a great person to do this. Lincoln did not quite have it -- not that I can point to anyone who did.

Go ahead, make a moral judgement. I'd like to know whether you think the northern states WERE right or wrong about resisting the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. I'd also like to know whether you agree that the Dred Scott decision was unconstitutional.

Re moral judgments. I have been threatened with death in the Deep South for arguing that a black should have the same rights as a white. Have you?

I do not pretend to understand all the ins and outs of the Dred Scott case. It was probably a correct decision on a legal basis and Constitutional. The country clearly considered and treated slaves to be property at the time of the Constitution and the Constitution. Amendment V of the Constitution addresses some property rights. Taney in his Dred Scott opinion said:

the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words--too plain to be misunderstood.

I don't understand the arguments Taney makes concerning citizenship though he points to numerous Northern state laws where blacks were excluded from citizenship throughout the history of the country.

If Northern states were uncomfortable with enforcing the law and the Constitution, they should have amended the Constitution or seceded. If they seceded they could have run their governments the way they wanted and let the South go its own way peacefully. As it was, the North initially agreed to abide by the Constitution, then later renigged on their word of honor, and then forced their views on others.

Going back on your word of honor is a moral wrong. Or don't you believe that?

[rustbucket]

renigged = reneged

[#3Fan]

Mr. Freud comes to mind.