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 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.

No doubt you are correct that Southern politicians wanted these areas to become slave states and may have done just what you said.

Texas, which became independent of Mexico in 1836, did permit slavery both before and after joining the Union, so the South wasn't forcing anything on the people of Texas that they hadn't already decided for themselves.

Southern New Mexico generally sympathised with the Confederates and welcomed Sibley's invasion in 1862. I'm guessing there were slaves there. Northern New Mexico was Union country and Californians were highly against slavery.

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

Not really. Just came from scanning it for these FR boards. I've exceeded my knowledge of it already.

[rustbucket]

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

I immediately thought of the American Islamic from Marin County captured in Afganistan when I read your comment. He is not being treated like the rest of those prisoners.

My post 678 more or less addresses your comment. I guess my answer is no, not if there were prior claims on those soldiers. If a soldier had committed what was considered crime in his home state, then took up arms against his home state, should he simply be released in a prisoner exchange? I guess we could always ask Governor Ryan.

The blacks no doubt considered it a crime to be held as a slave in the first place. I would have.

[thatdewd]

You look at Lincoln's actions and say, "what a bum!" It's just sour grapes. Boo hoo hoo! Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts -- and made us look like fools -- and put you in the wrong also, per Robert Toombs --. Boo hoo hoo.

You're starting to appear more unbalanced than normal. I was only discussing history. As I said, he needed a conflict that appeared to not be of his making, so he delibertely provoked the situation at Sumter for that purpose. He admitted it to Fox afterwards: "our anticipation is justified by the result." There is no boohooing or any of the other crap you perceived in what I said, Walt. My statement is correct, and supported by Lincoln himself. Lincoln, and the record, put me in the right. It is you who were put in the wrong, as evidenced by your childish reaction.

History has judged. But you're welcome to your opinion. The facts are plain enough. Mr. Lincoln's reputation can withstand your lame, unfounded assault.

I did not assault Lincoln, I only stated the historical fact that he did not want peace at that point in time and provoked the South into firing first. He admitted it to Fox: "our anticipation is justified by the result." Strange that you consider simple historical fact to be an "assault" on the character of Lincoln.

[thatdewd]

You can't be bothered to share Fox's estimate?I don't know that he made one, or that it was substantally different from General Scott's -- 5,000 regulars, 20,000 volunteers and six months preparation.

ROFLMAO!!! Your complete ignorance of history is absolutely astounding. FOX'S PLAN IS THE ONE THAT LINCOLN ENACTED, AND IS THE EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE!!! That is a simple and well known fact of history. And you don't even know "if" Fox even made a plan. You are OBVIOUSLY ignorant of history and especially of Abraham Lincoln. The mission to reinforce Ft Sumter WAS Fox's plan. Lincoln pulled one ship out from under him at the last minute without telling him, and Fox was NOT happy about it afterwards. Other than that one ship, what happened WAS Fox's plan. You are definitely ignorant of history, especially regarding Lincoln and the events surrounding Fort Sumter. LOL, Scott's plan was completely rejected and is meaningless in regards to the events as they happened.

[thatdewd]

ME: My point was that Scott's opinion was immaterial since Lincoln had dismissed it and had decided to go with Fox's opinion.

Wlat: You didn't communicate any point very well, or with any honesty.

Quite the opposite, as can clearly be seen in the posts. Your repeated posting of Scott's opinion is a deliberately DISHONEST attempt to cloud the issue, or a very proving demonstration of your complete and astounding ignorance regarding those particular events.

[thatdewd]

ME: "My interpretation is far better supported by the historical record than yours."

Wlat: No it's not. The data you use stops in about 1858. What you use after that date is taken out of context or cannot be corroborated.

LOL - I often use the information from your own quotes, since you stupidly post information that refutes your own position. In addition, I quoted repeatedly from Abe's very last speech a few days before his assassination to prove my point. I have not taken anything out of context, as a simple review will prove. You, on the other hand, almost always take things out of context, as I have repeatedly shown.

[thatdewd]

Honorable Michael Hahn

My dear Sir:

March 13. 1864.

I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first-free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a Convention which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in---as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.

Yours truly

A. LINCOLN

You can find this letter in the "Library of the Americas" Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and Presidential Proclamations 1859-65 Don Fehrenbacher ed. But it's been posted many times before. To suggest that your interpretation is well supported in the record is just nonsense. You can find almost this exact wording in Lincoln's last public address of 4/11/65.

Thanks, Wlat, this letter proves my position quite well, just as Abe's last speech does. Notice the very exclusionary aspects of Abe's idea of black suffrage. Also notice that he had no intentions of doing anything other than "suggesting" his exclusionary idea of suffrage to the 'rebel' slave States (hmmm...what of the UNION slave states). Notice especially, that HIS idea of black suffrage was qickly made illegal. I wonder what kind of tests he would have used to determine the "very intelligent". His intentions for the REST of the freed slaves that didn't pass his tests are quite apparent based on his discussions with General Butler.

[thatdewd]

When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question. "Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted."Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."

He's only talking about manpower and keeping it away from the enemy. Notice his fear that it would go "back to the support of the rebellion".

[thatdewd]

BTTT

[GOPcapitalist]

If Lincoln had wanted him arrested or gone then why would Taney have remained on the court?

As usual, your logic is a non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. For anyone who is interested, here is why Non-Sequitur's statement is a Non-Sequitur:

P1 - His first premise is that The Lincoln never arrested Taney.

P2 - His second premise is that Taney remained on the supreme court until he died, which was after the Merryman ruling.

C - His conclusion is that The Lincoln could therefore have not issued an order to arrest him.

This conclusion is false because itis not supported by a relation between the two premises and has little logical connection to either. In simpler terms, no reason exists as to why The Lincoln could not have contemplated arresting Taney and initially persued that route, then backed away from it. And based on corroborating historical records, that seems to be exactly what happened.

[GOPcapitalist]

See #465 in this thread.

I already did, Walt, and its been rebutted line for line. I also responded to another commentary on the same subject by Alan Nevins. Remember that one, Walt? You posted it a few days back. I rebutted it line for line as well. And to date, you have yet to even ACKNOWLEDGE either of those rebuttals much less address the fact that both exposed blatant lies by you and your sources.

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

Stephens was wrong and, at the time of his argument, was pursuing a unionist position against the secessionist positions of Toombs and others. Toombs, in advocating secession, said very clearly that the tariff was an issue and discussed it at length. I already posted the excerpt from his speech for you and others to read.

It is also evident that Toombs was not alone in this position. In fact, it seems that Stephens' position was a minority. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia that I recently transcribed from the congressional records. To my knowledge, it is previously unpublished beyond those records back in 1861.

"Mr. President, it is very disagreeable to speak, as I do on this occasion, with a consciousness of my utter inability to prevent the passage of this bill. I have no doubt that the adoption of this measure is a forgone conclusion. I believe it has been generally understood that the adhesion of the State of Pennsylvania to the Republican party was upon the condition of the passage of this Morrill-tariff bill. Still, I owe it, perhaps, to those whose opinions I represented on this committee, and to my constituents, to expose, if I can, the shallow pretexts on which it is sought to adopt this measure, and strip itt of those disguises in the shape of specific duties, under which its enormous taxation is hidden." - Sen. Robert Hunter of Virginia (Congressional Globe, 36-2, page 899)

Hunter's speech in opposition to the Morrill bill thoroughly analyzes its statistical implications and covers seven pages of the congressional record - all of it devoted entirely to grievances with the tariff. The subject of most of these grievances is the false pretense under which the tariff is being pushed and its real effect of giving artificial advantages to northern industrialists at the expense of the non-industrialist population of the country (meaning the south). His conclusions on the Morrill bill were adamant and certain of its cause of many grievances with the south:

"But pass this bill, and you send a blight over that land [Virginia]; the tide of emigration will commence - I fear to flow outward - once more, and we shall begin to decline and retrograde instead of advancing, as I had fondly hoped we should do. And what I say of my own State I may justly say of the other southern States. But, sir, I do not press that view of the subject. I know that here [in Congress] we are to weak to resist or to defend ourselves; those who sympathize with our wrongs are too weak to help us; those who are strong enough to help us do not sympathize with our wrongs, or whatever we may suffer under it. No, sir' this bill will pass. And let it pass into the statute-book; let it pass into history, that we may know how it is that the South has been dealt with when New England and Pennsylvania held the power to deal with her interests." - Senator Hunter (page 905)

Well Walt. Passages like that from the congressional record sure do shine some light on your oft asserted yet never substantiated claim that the Morrill bill could never pass if the south opposed it! But its all right there straight from a leading Southern senator and tariff opponent who readily admits that the impassioned southern opposition to the tariff cannot stop what he saw as its inevitable passage. He voiced that opposition in the strongest of terms possible and at such a length as to make it one of the longest speeches of the entire session. Yet you come along and claim that none of it exists, that the tariff issue is not there, and that the south could have stopped the Morrill bill by barely even lifting a finger. In other words, you, your AOL newsgroup, Alan Nevins, Noam McPherson, and your entire crowd of marxist sympathizing historical revisionists have been lying all along.

You will tell any kind of lie.

No Walt. Unlike you, I prefer the truth. I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum. I have already shown your own indulgence in dishonesty and fraud above, Walt, as is directly evidenced in Senator Hunter's speech. He contradicts practically everything you've been saying about him and his side for untold years on this and other forums.

Though this reality is painfully obvious to any sane, coherent, and reasonably intelligent individual, I do not expect you to alter your fibs in any way nor even acknowledge the existence Hunter's speech, or Toombs' speech for that matter, or Wigfall's, or any of the other anti-tariff speeches from that great secessionist winter of 1861. You are in the business of fraud, not history, and a central part of that fraud entails shutting your senses off to anything and everything that contradicts your narrowly defined worldview of cultist Lincoln worship and sinful blasphemy before the false temple to his idolatrous name in the city of Washington.

[GOPcapitalist]

The record speaks for itself. Tariff revenue was $2 per person per year in 1860.

Let's try an experiment, Walt. Cite that stat to an economist then tell him that tariffs therefore only cost the people $2 on average for 1860. Please report back to me what he has to say after the conclusion of his laughter at and ridicule of your idiocy.

It is nonsense to suggest that the war was caused or even materially affected by tariff issues.

Speeches by Senators Toombs, Wigfall, and Hunter say otherwise, Walt. So do the newspapers in 1862, which reported that the tariff had virtually wiped out previous levels of commerce between yankeeland and Europe. In fact, it seems that the only true nonsense being peddled here is in the economically ignorant, factually dishonest, and intellectually fraudulent commentary you post on the tariff issue every time it comes up.

[GOPcapitalist]

I guess I was thinking more about California, Texas, and the other western territories purchased or taken from Mexico

Check your history a little closer. The United States never bought or took Texas. It joined by annexation treaty as a previously independent republic.

[4CJ]

[Walt is] in the business of fraud, not history, and a central part of that fraud entails shutting your senses off to anything and everything that contradicts your narrowly defined worldview of cultist Lincoln worship and sinful blasphemy before the false temple to his idolatrous name in the city of Washington.

Bump.

[GOPcapitalist]

I just found this little quote from Sen. Wigfall in the congressional records. Amazingly after all those years, it still has certain yankees pegged to a T!

"That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us. Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, "you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed," then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door. If New England would only be content with the blessings which she imagines she has, we would not disturb her in her happiness." - Sen. Louis T. Wigfall, March 2, 1861

[rustbucket]

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).

I see things like the following in Davis's speech on the 10th:

For the few days which I remain, I am willing to labor in order that catastrophe shall be as little as possible destructive to public peace and prosperity. If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights that we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us. (pg 312)

...if we must leave you, we can leave you with the good will which would prefer that your prosperity should continue. If we must part, I say we can put our relations upon that basis which will give you the advantages of a favored trade with us, and still make the intercourse mutually beneficial to each other. If you will not, then it is an issue from which we will not shrink; for, between oppression and freedom, between the maintenance of right and submission to power, we will invoke the God of battles, and meet our fate, whatever it may be. (pg 310)

Is there a Senator on the other side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of the Territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny that we have equally paid in their purchases, and equally bled in their acquisition in war? Then, is this the observance of your compact? Whose fault is it if the Union be dissolved? Do you say there is one of you who converts either of these positions? Then I ask you, do you give us justice; do we enjoy equality? If we are not equals, this is not the Union to which we were pledged; this is not the Constitution you have sworn to maintain, not this the Government we are bound to support. (pg 311)

Did we unite with you in order that the powers of the General Government be used for destroying our domestic institutions? (pg 311)

The only references I found to burning were the following. Perhaps this is what you mean for Davis's quote. (I didn't see Wigfall speaking on January 10. Where does he make the statements to which you alluded?)

In a country of populous cities, of manufacturing towns, where population is gathered from the country into towns and villages, the torch and sword can do their work with dreadful havoc, and starving millions would weep at the stupidity of those who had percipitated them into so sad a policy. We do not desire these things. We seek not the injury of anyone. We seek not to disturb your prosperity. (pg 310)

Mississippi's galant sons will stand like a wall of fire around their State; and I go hence, not in hostility to you, but in love and allegiance to her, to take my place among her sons, be it for good or evil. (pg 312)

[rustbucket]

Wigfall had a talent for characterization. Thanks.

[GOPcapitalist]

Here's a good quote of Wigfall's "war mongering" from his last day in the Senate, March 2, 1861. Maybe this is what Walt is talking about:

"Then, knowing that the Union is dissolved, that reconstruction is impossible, I would, myself, had I been consulted by the Union-savers, have told them that Union-saving was impracticable. I would have advised that you should treat these soveriegn states with the courtesy, at least, that you treated Brigham Young. When he threatened to set up for himself, you sent commissioners there; but, when soveriegn States assume the right of self government you send the bayonet and the broadsword... ...[I]f you have one particle of sense left, you will set about immediately seeing how this dissolution that has already taken place can be stopped from going further; how you can save some of these border states still to tax, and levy revenue and tribute from; how you may still find somebody that you can persecute with impunity; begin hatching up some sort of a compromise that will pay southern trators for misrepresenting facts to their constituents. Do these things, and you may keep some of those border states still in; but above all things, try to have the dissolution that has already taken place a peaceable one. It may go very hard with us, and will certainly cost us a good deal of money; but you will not make much by the operation of war - not much. Your people will not thank you for reducing them to the dire necessity of direct taxes. Your ship-owners will not thank you for laying up their ships at their wharves to rot." - Sen. Wigfall, March 2, 1861

Sounds like quite the war mongering city and school burner to me!

[thatdewd]

to wlat:
You are in the business of fraud, not history, and a central part of that fraud entails shutting your senses off to anything and everything that contradicts your narrowly defined worldview of cultist Lincoln worship and sinful blasphemy before the false temple to his idolatrous name in the city of Washington.

BUMP for TRUTH!!!

[mac_truck]

I guess I was thinking more about California, Texas, and the other western territories purchased or taken from Mexico

Check your history a little closer. The United States never bought or took Texas. It joined by annexation treaty as a previously independent republic.

(Yawn) Both California and Texas were both independent republics before joining the union. And before that they belonged to Mexico. May we assume that Mexico didn't give them up willingly? After all the United States did fight a war with Mexico over the matter.

Whats your point,other than to change the subject?