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]

LOL.

[GOPcapitalist]

You ignored my reference to Alexander Stephens.

Much to the contrary, Walt. I pointed out your incorrect use of that speech, which discussed the pre-Morrill tariff rates. Those rates were replaced by the Morrill Act. The new rates adopted in of May 1860/February 1861 were the issue at hand - NOT the pre-Morrill rates that the confederates supported. Try again, Walt. And while your at it, why no response yet to the historical fraud and dishonesty I exposed in that Nevins quote you posted? Oh wait. I almost forgot. You do not acknowledge that which you do not want to hear.

[GOPcapitalist]

You are absolutely right on the Taney arrest thing. Hummel found a previously unpublicized document on this from an official who The Lincoln had supposedly instructed to carry out the arrest. It's author appeared to be present when the warrant was discussed. Lincoln cultists responded by trying to discredit it on the grounds that no other collaborating document survives from other persons involved. They made their case to that end after Hummell's book was published but neglected one key fact. The arrest warrant is corroborated by Taney himself and eyewitnesses to his courtroom at the same time Hummel's document tells of the happenings on The Lincoln's side. Taney confided his awareness of a plan to arrest him over his Merryman ruling to other judicial officials in Maryland, and one wrote at the time of having discussed the plot specifically with Taney after hearing of it himself and urging Taney to flee the region of Baltimore for his own safety.

So when the Wlat brigade shows up to deny the fact that their false god tried to arrest the Chief Justice over a court ruling he did not like, direct them to Taney himself.

[GOPcapitalist]

There's no proof of that.

Actually Walt, there is. Your "moderated newsgroup" neglects corroborating documentation of the arrest plot as it was known by Taney himself.

"After the court had adjourned, I went up to the bench and thanked Judge Taney for thus upholding, in its integrity, the writ of habeas corpus. He replied, "Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man" (he had completed his eighty-fourth year), "but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were." He then told me that he knew that his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation, but that the danger had passed, and he warned me, from information he had received, that my time would come...Although this crime [of arresting Taney] was not committed, a criminal precedent had been set and was ruthlessly followed." - George William Brown, Mayor of Baltimore from 1860-61

[rustbucket]

Mr. Freud comes to mind.

I found a Sigmund Freud Action Figure (about the size of GI Joe) in a novelty store the other day. I bought it to give as a gift. I guess I could have used it myself.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There's no proof of that.

Actually Walt, there is. Your "moderated newsgroup" neglects corroborating documentation of the arrest plot as it was known by Taney himself.

"After the court had adjourned, I went up to the bench and thanked Judge Taney for thus upholding, in its integrity, the writ of habeas corpus. He replied, "Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man" (he had completed his eighty-fourth year), "but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were." He then told me that he knew that his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation, but that the danger had passed, and he warned me, from information he had received, that my time would come...Although this crime [of arresting Taney] was not committed, a criminal precedent had been set and was ruthlessly followed." - George William Brown, Mayor of Baltimore from 1860-61

There's no proof that it was ever considered to arrest Taney.

It's just part of the neo-reb rant of lies, half truth and deceit. It's a non-fact based rant that you help perpetuate here on FR. If there were anything to the story, you're not the one to suggest it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You ignored my reference to Alexander Stephens.

Much to the contrary, Walt. I pointed out your incorrect use of that speech, which discussed the pre-Morrill tariff rates.

Seven states published secession documents before the Morrill tariff was passed. Your position is just a bunch of lies.

Aleck Stephens wrote his brother on New Year's day 1861 that South Carolina was seceding from a tariff it helped to make.

Look at the timeline.

January 4 Alabama militia sieze the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, AL. Alabama has not yet seceded.

January 5 Alabama militia sieze Ft. Morgan and Ft. Gaines in Mobile Bay.

January 7 Florida militia sieze the Federal fort at St. Augustine. Florida has not yet seceded.

January 8 Florida militia attempting to sieze Ft. Barrancas are driven off by Federal troops.

January 9 South Carolina militia fire on US merchant vessel Star of the West, preventing reinforcement and resupply of Ft. Sumter garrison.

Mississippi secedes.

January 10 Louisiana militia sieze all Federal forts and arsenals in the state. Louisiana has not yet seceded.

Florida (belatedly) secedes. Federal troops abandon Ft. Barrancas.

North Carolina militia capture Ft. Johnson and Ft. Caswell. North Carolina has not yet seceded.

January 11 Alabama (belatedly) secedes.

January 12 Florida militia demands the surrender of Federal troops in Ft. Pickens. The demand is refused.

Mississippi fortifies Vicksburg and closes the Mississippi River to all traffic. Mississippi is the only state on the river, at this point, which has seceded.

January 19 Georgia secedes.

January 21 Mississippi militia sieze Ft. Massachussetts and Ship Island.

January 25 Georgia militia sieze the federal arsenal at Augusta. North Carolina calls for a referendum on secession.

January 26 Georgia militia sieze Ft. Jackson and Oglethorpe Barracks.

Louisiana (belatedly) secedes.

January 31 The U.S. Mint in New Orleans is siezed by Louisiana militia.

February 1 Texas submits an article of secession to popular referendum for February 23.

February 4 Delegates from the six seceded states meet in Montgomery to form the Confederate States of America.

February 9 Tennessee rejects secession in popular referendum by a large margin.

February 16 Texas militia sieze the federal arsenal at San Antonio. Texas has not yet seceded.

February 18 Texas militia besiege Federal army headquarters for Texas in San Antonio and force the surrender of over 3,000 troops. Texas has -still- not seceded.

Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.

February 21 The Confederate Provisional Congress orders Mississippi to end the blockade at Vicksburg.

February 23 Texas voters approve secession by a 75% majority, secession to take effect March 2 (Texas Independence Day).

February 28 North Carolina voters narrowly reject secession (by fewer than 1,000 votes).

The Morrill Tariff was signed on March 2.

The cause of the war was slavery, and the slavers made it plain.

Soon to be CSA congressman Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention, said, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Such comments were typical.

You discredit everything you say with your nonsense positions.

Keitt was later KIA fighting for the slave power.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Actually Walt, there is. Your "moderated newsgroup" neglects corroborating documentation of the arrest plot as it was known by Taney himself.

"After the court had adjourned, I went up to the bench and thanked Judge Taney for thus upholding, in its integrity, the writ of habeas corpus. He replied, "Mr. Brown, I am an old man, a very old man" (he had completed his eighty-fourth year), "but perhaps I was preserved for this occasion." I replied, "Sir, I thank God that you were." He then told me that he knew that his own imprisonment had been a matter of consultation...

That's hearsay by definition.

But as Taney was little more than a shill for the slave power, it's not a big surprise that he would accept it.

Of course, you're a shill for the slave power too.

Walt

[outlawcam]

Given the events of the weekend, I find it difficult to focus on the conversation at hand. It is especially so since the hairs we are splitting are so fine that they can only be seen on a microscopic level. While ordinarily fun for me, right now I just find the arguments unrewarding and unimportant.

My best wishes go to you, sir, and your family. Perhaps I'll catch up with you on a future mutual item of interest.

[mac_truck]

My complaints about Lincoln are that he violated the Constitution and permitted the sacrifice of thousands of prisoners of war, both Union and Confederate

My understanding of the POW exchange issue is that Lincoln held firm to the principle that ALL men in uniform (black and white) should be subject to exchange. Davis wanted to exchange only white prisoners and return the blacks to bondage (or worse). So why no southern complaints about Davis on this issue?

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.

Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan learned to fight confederates in the West. You can thank the southern armies and militias in Missouri and elsewhere for the tactics adopted by these men. Was there a concious decision by the northen armies to make the south feel the pain and hardship of war? Absolutely. Was it effective in taking the fight out of the southerners? you bet it was.

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.

The first US Congress banned slavery in the Northwest Territories without offending the constitution, so why should new territories be treated differently? Especially when the people LIVING in those territories didn't want slavery. It seems to me that the supremist south was forcing its views on the north and west at the point of a drawn sword called Seccesion , rather than the other way around.

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

Again, I don't believe that making the western territories free from slavery was going back on one's word, anymore than I believe the founders banning slavery in the Northwest territories was going back on theirs. Lincoln originally had said that he wasn't about ending slavery in places that had it already. The supremist south knew that if it didn't force slavery on any new territory entering the union, that they'd come in free. This fact can be documented from any number of primary sources.

I believe the Lincoln as Tyrant perspective is a "Big Lie" and a diversion created to avoid national introspection on the causes and effects of the Civil War. The extent to which this perspective enjoys popularity amongst conservatives is questionable, and will always be fought against.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

Large numbers of rebel troops captured at Vicksburg in violation of their paroles were re-captured at Chattanooga. This was big reason the exchange cartels broke down. The rebels would not abide by them.

The rebel government allowed Union prisoners to languish in hell holes. It may be that this was the intentional or de facto policy of the rebel government in order to pressure the federals into a return to the exchange cartels. They wanted this because their available manpower was less than the north's.

The federals, in an attempt to force better treatment for Union prisoners, made a policy of keeping rebel prisoners in conditions similar to those known to be inflicted on Union prisoners.

The rebels took the lead in all this, as they did in all atrocity and horror in the war.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

More information on the POW situation:

More details are at members.aol.com/jfepperson/pow.html.

12/24/62:

Jefferson Davis issues a proclamation which states (1) White officers of black troops will not be treated as POWs; (2) The black troops themselves will not be treated as POWs; (3) Union Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler is to be hanged w/o trial immediately upon being captured; (4) No Union officers will be paroled until Butler is caught and hanged. All four of these provisions were violations of the Dix-Hill Cartel.

12/28/62:

In response to Davis's proclamation, the Federals end the exchange and parole of Confederate officers.

5/25/63:

Non-exchange and parole of Confederate officers is re-affirmed in orders from Halleck to all commanders in the field. This is done largely in response to the CS Congress passing a law implementing a small variation of Davis's 12/24/62 proclamation.

7/13/63:

Secretary of War Stanton orders an end to the exchange and parole of enlisted men. This is done largely because of increasing arguments over the parole provisions of the cartel, and the feeling that this aspect of the agreement is (unfairly) being manipulated by the Confederates to their advantage.

Fall, 1863:

Confederates return to service most of the Vicksburg garrison, an act which the Federals claim is not justified by the cartel. This hardens Federal attitudes towards the exchange process. So, as of 1/1/64, the exchange cartel is more or less entirely disrupted, as a result of reasonable objections being made by the Federals, and we have yet to see US Grant's name being mentioned. Now, here comes his involvement:

4/17/64:

Lt. Gen. US Grant issues orders that exchanges remain halted until the Confederates compensate the Yankees for the release of the Vicksburg garrison, *and* agree to treat black soldiers equally with white. Grant's role was to confirm a policy already in place, a policy reached as a result of difficulties in managing the cartel. Grant's views on exchange are well-known: He thought it was a bad idea. There's a quote from him to the effect that re-opening exchange might be humanity towards the men in the camps, but keeping it closed was humanity towards the men in the ranks. That's a harsh judgment, but it is no less accurate for being harsh."

From the ACW moderated newsgroup

Walt

[rustbucket]

My understanding of the POW exchange issue is that Lincoln held firm to the principle that ALL men in uniform (black and white) should be subject to exchange. Davis wanted to exchange only white prisoners and return the blacks to bondage (or worse). So why no southern complaints about Davis on this issue?

It was Union policy not to exchange prisoners regardless of what the Confederates did. As US General "Beast" Butler, Federal Commisioner (or Agent?) of Exchange, said:

In case the Confederate authorities should yield to the argument...and formally notify me that their slaves captured in our uniform would be exchanged as other soldiers were, and that they were ready to return to us all our prisoners at Andersonville and elsewhere in exchange for theirs, I had determined, with the consent of the lieutenant-general (Grant), as a last resort, in order to prevent exchange, to demand that the outlawry against me should be formally reversed and apologized for before I would further negotiate the exchange of prisoners.

It may be remarked here that the rebels were willing enough to exchange prisoners at this time, man for man, were we to permit it to be done.

The Constitution required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

I have posted before the early 1864 offer of Confederate Agent of Exchange, Judge Robert Ould, to have Union doctors come to the Southern prisons and treat and feed the Union prisoners. This was ignored by the Federals.

In the summer of 1864, Ould offered to purchase medicines with gold, tobacco, or cotton and have Union doctors come through the lines to dispense the medicines to Union prisoners. This was ignored by Federals.

In the summer of 1864, Ould offered to release 10,000 to 15,000 Union prisoners including well men with no equivalent exchange of Confederate prisoners. This was ignored by Federals until late November 1864. Had the Federals acted sooner most of the deaths at Andersonville could have been avoided.

It seems to me that Federal policy was not to exchange prisoners because Union prisoners were a drain on the South. They sacrificed the lives of their own soldiers and Confederate soldiers as well.

The Feds cranked up PR about how badly Union prisoners were being treated. However, as Walt Whitman said in a letter to the New York Times in Dec 1864:

In my opinion, the Secretary has taken and obstinately held a position of cold-blooded policy, (that is, he thinks it policy) in this matter, more cruel than anything done by the secessionists. ... In my opinion, the anguish and death of these ten to fifteen thousand American young men, with all the added and incalculable sorrow, long drawn out, amid families at home, rests mainly on the heads of members of our own Government...

[GOPcapitalist]

That's hearsay by definition.

No, not really. It's an eyewitness recollection of an earlier conversation in which he personally participated. Now if Brown claimed to have been told the details of that conversation by another, then yes - it would be hearsay of the generally unadmissable type. But since Brown was as much a participant in the conversation he reports as Taney, his testimony is admissable as that of an eyewitness. To use a modern analogy, if you told me that you were planning to rob a bank then did so, the court would probably accept my testimony of that conversation. But if you told your buddy Non-Sequitur you were going to rob a bank, and he then told me but later came to deny it, the court would probably reject my testimony as hearsay.

But as Taney was little more than a shill for the slave power

Calling Taney names says nothing about the unconstitutional acts of The Lincoln, Walt. Try again.

[GOPcapitalist]

Seven states published secession documents before the Morrill tariff was passed.

That is a half truth. 7 states seceded before it passed the Senate, but after it passed the House and after it had the support of the incoming President. You avoid that fact at every opportunity, Walt. Why is that?

Your position is just a bunch of lies.

Name one to substantiate your allegation. Otherwise do not shoot your mouth off like that.

Aleck Stephens wrote his brother on New Year's day 1861 that South Carolina was seceding from a tariff it helped to make.

If he did so, that assertion is itself problematic as (1) south carolina had no grievance with the tariff it helped make - the pre-morrill schedule that was about to be repealed, and (2) South Carolina did not make the new Morrill tariff - they voted against it unanimously in the House.

Look at the timeline.

Already did. And you intentionally left out some key dates -

May 10, 1860 - House of Representatives passes the Morrill tariff on a strictly sectional vote with practically unanimous southern opposition.

August 1860 - The Lincoln's platform endorses protectionist tariffs

November 1860 - The Lincoln is elected president. In identifying his political plans, he indicates that the tariff bill is a top priority.

February 15, 1861 - The Lincoln publicly states that passing the tariff will be the single most important issue of the next legislative session if it is not done before the end of the current one.

[rustbucket]

The first US Congress banned slavery in the Northwest Territories without offending the constitution, so why should new territories be treated differently?

For one thing, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, which IIRC was, as a treaty, the law of the land. It appeared to permit slavery throughout that territory. The 1820 Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in the northern part of that territory, was later held as unconstitutional by Taney in the Dred Scott decision.

[GOPcapitalist]

There's no proof that it was ever considered to arrest Taney.

You've already seen two pieces of corroborating evidence that exactly that was considered, Walt. One is from Lamon, who states himself to have been tasked with that job. The other is from Brown, who participated in a conversation with Taney about the dangers that both were facing with regard to arrest. In addition I've read biographic reports of Taney that state he informed people around him of the anticipation for his arrest at the time of Merryman. A nineteenth century biography of Justice Curtis also recounts that a crime was almost committed against Taney by the administration over Merryman - an obvious reference to his planned arrest.

The evidence of a plot to arrest Taney is in the very least corroborated by more than one source. You do not like that fact though so you attack those sources and even deny their existence. But nothing more is to be expected from an intellectual lightweight and habitual liar like you, Walt.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There's no proof that it was ever considered to arrest Taney.

You've already seen two pieces of corroborating evidence that exactly that was considered, Walt.

I've seen hearsay and I've seen Ward Hill Lamon's account compromised by the fact that it is not corroborated.

President Lincoln had no reason to arrest Taney.

But just being the Chief Justice doesn't mean he couldn't commit treason.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Since you appear to be in the business of reposting debates that have already occurred in place of your own work, Walt, let's take a look at the response.

From the ACW moderated newsgroup:

"You have left out a great deal of the Davis Proclamation. The Proclamation can be found at OR, Serial 118, page 795.

We note first that the Proclamation comes in response to the perceived "murder" of William B. Mumford and the refusal or inability of the USG to provide details or an explanation for the killing. The correspondence between the two sides is outlined. Then comes a crucial phrase, President Dvais declares "the said Benjamin F. Butler to be a felon deserving of capital punishment. I do order that he no longer be considered or treated as a public enemy of the CSA but as an outlaw and common enemy of mankind, and that in the event of his capture the officer in command do cause him to be immediately executed by hanging...."

Now, this is important because it explains why the Proclamation is being issued--to announce to the world that Ben Butler is a war criminal and not entitled to the protections afforded honorable combatants.

In summarizing the Proclamation, you have changed its sequence and, in doing so, its impact. So, the first thing that actually happened was a declaration of "outlawry" as applying to Butler. Note that came only after the USG had failed to respond. Such declarations of outlawry were often used and, as I noted on another thread not long ago, continued in NC until the last few years. I suspect we could find one from the Union side if we looked.

Now, turn to the end of the Proclamation. There we see Davis anouncing why this is being done. He says the CSA here is "not guided by the passion of revenge but that they reluctantly yield to the solemn duty of repressing by necessary sverity crimes o which their citizens are victims...." So, this whole Butler proclamation is actualy an act of reprisal. IOW, "Your man, Butler, violated the law of war by hanging Mumford. The USG appears unwilling to do anything about it, so we will."

The Proclamation does not say slaves will not be treated as POWs. It says they will be turned over to State authorities.

The Proclamation does not say no Union officers will be paroled until Butler is turned over. It says the officers under Butler will not be considered to be soldiers "engaged in honorable warfare," but instead will be held as "robbers and criminals deserving death...."

The Proclamation then explains that Union enlisted men will be treated as POWs and "sent home on the usual parole." There is no mention of exchange.

The Proclamation does provide that "like orders be executed in all cases of [of] commissioned officers when found serving in the company of armed slaves in insurrection."

None of this is in contravention of the Dix-Hill Cartel. Why? Because the Cartel addressed the exchange of "prisoners of war." This Proclamation says that until the USG provides more information, these people will not be considered as POWs. Since the Cartel did not define "Prisoner of war," there was nothing to prohibit each side from coming up with its own definition. And both sides followed this model, i.e., denying PW status to persons suspected of violating the law of war."