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]

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.

I don't believe Lincoln was a tyrant, but he was not the saint that I was taught all those many years ago back in the Middle Ages. I have a problem with some of his actions and policies, as I've noted above.

If anything, the "Lincoln as Tyrant" articles you object to may actually cause people to rekindle an interest in history, a good thing. I've certainly benefitted and learned from the discussions on these boards. I thank you and others for these discussions.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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...

There is no 'if' to it.

There is no reason in the world that you have a better take on these events than Alexander Stephens.

I posted that list of attempted compromises from late in 1860 before. There is not one word about tariffs.

Proposals of the Washington Peace Conference

The Washington Peace Conference met at the Willard Hotel, in Washington, from February 4th, through February 27th, 1861. The conference was convened at the request of the Virginia legislature, but only some of the states sent representatives. Former president John Tyler of Virginia was the presiding officer.

Their proposals were framed as a single amendment of seven sections. In its essence it is very similar to the Crittenden Compromise, although slightly different in wording and some of the details, borrowing a bit from some of the proposals made to the Committee of Thirteen.

The text here is taken from Edward McPherson's Political History of the United States of America during the Great Rebellion, published in 1865, page 68. This book is a treasure trove of period documents and commentary, and I would like to thank Chuck Ten Brink for sending me a photocopy of the relevant text.

Article 13, Sec. 1. In all the present territory of the United States, north of the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present Territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary servitude or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, accoring to the course of the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.

Sec. 2. No Territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall Territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from States from each class of States heretobefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.

Sec. 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage, and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or through and State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service, for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandize, is prohibited.

Sec. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.

Sec. 5. The foreign slave trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.

Sec. 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States.

Sec. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases when the marshall or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence and intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

See this website:

hpttp://members.aol.com/jfepperson/peace.html

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

I've seen hearsay

You wouldn't recognize hearsay if it was glued to your forehead, Walt. At best, you simply know of the word itself and conveniently use it without meaning to justify things you like and dismiss things that you do not like.

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

Brown's account corroborates the fact that word an administration plot to arrest Taney was known.

President Lincoln had no reason to arrest Taney.

Sure he did - it rid him of a pesky judge who was issuing legal rulings on his unconstitutional actions.

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

Show the treason that Taney committed then.

[GOPcapitalist]

There is no reason in the world that you have a better take on these events than Alexander Stephens.

But there is reason that Robert Toombs had a better take on the events, that being his own proximity to the tariff debate in Washington as a senator. Toombs spoke at length about the morrill tariff and outlined many grievances with it. I've already posted a lengthy excerpt from one of his speeches on that very same issue.

I posted that list of attempted compromises from late in 1860 before. There is not one word about tariffs.

Actually, you posted another list dealing with the constitutional status of the states. As for the compromises themselves, I need only note that The Lincoln intentionally sought to channel them into the slavery issue for political reasons. Henry Adams admitted as much.

[rustbucket]

The points of your post have been thrown up in the air and sent back to you as a blazing ace more than once.

[rustbucket]

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.

The Federal generals didn't seem to have read the 1863 guide for behavior of the Union army in the field. From article 16 of that document, which was issued by Lincoln:

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The points of your post have been thrown up in the air and sent back to you as a blazing ace more than once.

The record speaks for itself. Tariff revenue was $2 per person per year in 1860. It is nonsense to suggest that the war was caused or even materially affected by tariff issues. On the other hand, slaves were worth several billion dollars in 1860.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district.

What is a source for this?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I posted that list of attempted compromises from late in 1860 before. There is not one word about tariffs.

Actually, you posted another list dealing with the constitutional status of the states.

See #465 in this thread.

Tariffs were not a compelling issue, just as Alexander Stephens suggested.

You will tell any kind of lie.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The points of your post have been thrown up in the air and sent back to you as a blazing ace more than once.

The record speaks for itself. Tariff revenue was $2 per person per year in 1860. It is nonsense to suggest that the war was caused or even materially affected by tariff issues. On the other hand, slaves were worth several billion dollars in 1860.

Oops. Wrong subject.

Not only did the rebels take the lead in atrocity, Robert E. Lee refused to exchange black POW's for white in late 1864.

Maybe he thought rebels held by the Union were getting pretty well taken care of. Or maybe he thought slaves and slavery were more important than the lives of his men.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Sure he did - it rid him of a pesky judge who was issuing legal rulings on his unconstitutional actions.

Yet Taney remained on the court until he died. He issued rulings on a variety of legal issues that came before the court, including Walt's beloved Prize Cases, sometimes ruling for the administration and sometimes against. He never spent one day in jail, was never arrested or detained. He didn't resign or go into hiding. If Lincoln had wanted him arrested or gone then why would Taney have remained on the court?

[WhiskeyPapa]

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

The state penalties were pretty much death, death, and death for participating in slave insurrections.

Walt

[rustbucket]

The record speaks for itself. Tariff revenue was $2 per person per year in 1860. It is nonsense to suggest that the war was caused or even materially affected by tariff issues. On the other hand, slaves were worth several billion dollars in 1860.

Sorry, Walt. You've got your replies mixed up again. We weren't talking about tariffs.

I'm tempted to ask whether you took your medication today, but I won't.

[4CJ]

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

I didn't know you cared ;o)

[rustbucket]

Me: Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district.

Walt: What is a source for this?

The Lieber Code of 1863: Lieber Code

I read somewhere that Lincoln had Lieber write the code so that some justification was provided for the Federal Army's actions in the war. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It does seem that there is enough wiggle room in the Lieber Code to permit virtually any kind of action by the army. An article saying one thing can be cited against another article saying something else.

What do you expect from a politician? Lincoln was nothing if not a politician.

[mac_truck]

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.

I guess I was thinking more about California, Texas, and the other western territories purchased or taken from Mexico (which did not permit slavery) that had resident populations. It seems to me the south was forcing slavery on these residents as a condition for entry into the Union.

btw-it appears you know more about the Dred Scott case than you let on.

[mac_truck]

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, specifically. My impression is that Sherman and others decided to fight their campaigns by living off the countryside, rather than trying to extend and protect supply lines that were subject to attack by cavalry and militias. If a city had military value, say as a fort, then that value had to be destroyed. But I seem to recall that the confederates burned Richmond.

Since you brought up field regulations, would you agree that men in uniform, regardless of race, were entitled the same status when captured?

[rustbucket]

Not only did the rebels take the lead in atrocity, Robert E. Lee refused to exchange black POW's for white in late 1864.

One of the causes of the war was that the North ignored the Constitution when it came to their obligation to return escaped slaves. You expect Lee to return captured escaped slaves to the North in spite of a prior claim on them from their (former) Southern owners?

Perhaps Lee was smart enough to realize what "Beast" Butler, Federal Commissioner of Exchange, was doing. As I've posted before, "Beast" admitted that he would have found a way to avoid exchanging prisoners even if the South had agreed to exchange captured slaves who had been fighting for the Union Army.

No wonder some enterprising soul put "Beast"'s picture on the bottom of chamber pots.

[#3Fan]

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.

It doesn't ask kinky questions, does it? :^)

[rustbucket]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, specifically. My impression is that Sherman and others decided to fight their campaigns by living off the countryside, rather than trying to extend and protect supply lines that were subject to attack by cavalry and militias.

My concern was with the wanton destruction of districts, which was what the North started practicing in 1864, if not earlier. I have no problem with an army living off the countryside. Makes sense, and I'm sure both sides practiced it.

What the Union armies did though went far beyond just living off the countryside. It was district-wide wanton destruction and thus against their own regulations.

My in-laws' parents had seen Sherman's men visit their farms. My in-laws were basically good people, but they hated Sherman with an absolute passion.

If a city had military value, say as a fort, then that value had to be destroyed.

Destruction of forts, yes. Destruction of cities, no. I'm not sure that the many months of bombardment of the civilian part of Charleston by Union batteries was justified.