Abe Lincoln was a dictator??? (Need Help combating loony argument)

[erod]

Hi FRiends,

I have two brothers who I love very much, they’re young and libertarian Ron Paul supporters, sigh. We get along and I’m hoping that one day they’ll come back to conservatism, but they have bought into a theory that I don’t think makes much sense:

Abe Lincoln was a dictator.

There are many websites dedicated to this nonsense you can Google "Abe Lincoln dictator" and get some weird stuff, if you want to check it out.

I need your help in busting this myth are there any books I can read on this subject to dispel this stuff? Do you know any of the arguments to combat this nonsense? Ie. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.

Thanks for taking time out of your day to help me out, -Erod

[rustbucket]

The confederate ranks were formed a full month before Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address on Monday, March 4, 1861 and Lincoln didn’t order troops until three days after the confederate attack on Fort Sumter (April 12th).

Source, please.

[RasterMaster]

I failed to bookmark the orignal link that listed the early February date I used, according to the listing in Wikipedia:

“The Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS) was authorized by Act of Congress on February 28, 1861.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Organization

Lincoln’s Inaugural was on Monday, March 4, 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln’s_first_inaugural_address

Needless to say, the confederate army was already well equipped by April to fire on a Federal fort so preparations had already begun much earlier for sparking the Civil War before Lincoln was in office to take any action...

http://www.mce.k12tn.net/civil_war/confederacy.htm

[RasterMaster]

The following timeline gives one hint of the February 1861 date:

February 1861 — The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan — Lincoln’s predecessor — refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

[RasterMaster]

Seven states declared their secession from the United States before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861:

1.South Carolina (December 20, 1860)[4][5]
2.Mississippi (January 9, 1861)[6]
3.Florida (January 10, 1861)[7]
4.Alabama (January 11, 1861)[8]
5.Georgia (January 19, 1861)[9]
6.Louisiana (January 26, 1861)[10]
7.Texas (February 1, 1861)[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

[rockrr]

Oh no. See - we’re at the end of the “factual” portion of our program and into the gratuitous name-calling on this thread. You’ll have to find a “fresh” one if you want to argue... ;-)

[rustbucket]

“The Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS) was authorized by Act of Congress on February 28, 1861.” ...

Needless to say, the confederate army was already well equipped by April to fire on a Federal fort so preparations had already begun much earlier for sparking the Civil War before Lincoln was in office to take any action...

As I posted to you on the other thread, the Provisional Army was not organized at the time of Lincoln's inaugural. Since you mentioned Wikipedia, you might have noticed that Wikipedia said the Provisional Army began organizing on April 27. [Link] That was, of course, after the attack on Sumter and after Lincoln called for 75,000 Federal troops.

Incidentally, the Organization part of that Wikipedia entry you posted to is incorrect about a call being issued for 100,000 men by the Confederacy on March 6, 1861. That is the date the Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to call them up as needed (see my post to you on the other thread). I've been able to find a few occasions before the attack on Sumter that Davis called up troops from the states (with the approval of the state governors). As far as I've been able to find out, Davis did not call up the full 100,000 until sometime after Lincoln asked for 75,000 troops after Sumter.

Since I don't remember posting to you until just recently, and you have an interest in history (which I commend), I thought you might be interested in how newspapers across the country reacted to Lincoln's first inaugural. You linked to his inaugural speech in post 1742. (Old newspapers are a hobby of mine.) Here's a link to an old thread of mine showing how newspapers across the country interpreted the speech. Lincoln's speech did not help matters at all. [Link 2].

[RasterMaster]

I do realize the facts are dangerous to those who failed to learn lessons from historical fact. Like all good DUmocrats, resort to “racist” and other pet names when the historical fact fails to fit nicely into their anti-American agendas.

[RasterMaster]

Thanks for the links....much appreciated, especially documented historical references and sources. I still find that there had to be armies formed prior to February in order to sieze federal forts and disrupt shipping while Buchannan was still in office.

[rustbucket]

At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

The 200 armed troops hiding below decks on the Star of the West so they would not be seen were not delivered either.

[RasterMaster]

By the way, in case you haven’t noticed by now (in reference to my screen name), I really enjoy links with PICTURES....

Democratic Party Platform
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm

[rustbucket]

Thanks for the links....much appreciated, especially documented historical references and sources. I still find that there had to be armies formed prior to February in order to sieze federal forts and disrupt shipping while Buchannan was still in office.

I think at least two states (Arkansas and Georgia) seized forts and armories in the name of the United States to keep them from being seized if mobs formed and attacked them. For example, citizens in Savannah were threatening to do just that. The states held them in the US name until their state decided what to do about secession. Texas gave receipts for the arms and material they seized.

A number of the seized forts were manned only by a Federal caretaker or two, and a squad of my high school ROTC unit could have taken them. In Texas, the situation was different and about 900 Texans far outnumbered the Federal forces in San Antonio. They seized General Twiggs there by shotgun and forced him to surrender. He didn't have much choice. He was hundreds of miles inland in the middle of the state surrounded by an overwhelming force. He was able to negotiate the release of the great bulk of the Federal forces in Texas -- they were granted paroles and many of them were able to leave the state before the attack on Sumter. Those still in the state after Sumter were seized as prisoners and eventually paroled, IIRC.

Is the disrupted shipping you are thinking about the Star of the West? After Sumter, Texans seized the Star of the West. I think it was used by the Confederacy in the Mississippi River and was eventually sunk.

[RasterMaster]

Uncertain since the boat name was unlisted in the link I posted. I searched a bit further to find that in fact it was listed in the Harper’s Weekly as a resupply ship along with the Brooklyn and the Marion....

“On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter.”

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/star-of-the-west.htm

The Harper’s article affirms my earlier postings that the confederacy fired the first shots of the war.

[RasterMaster]

I forgot to include to the last post:

The Harper’s article affirms my earlier postings that the confederacy fired the first shots of the war.....SEVERAL months prior to Lincoln taking office.

In fact the southern states were in direct violation of the Constitution going back to 1808:

http://www.sethkaller.net/catalogs/african-american/47-historical/782-ship-manifest-constitutional-ban

[rustbucket]

Thank you for the link. I love the art work in Harper's Weekly. I have a large soft cover book entitled "American Civil War Reports as recorded in Harper's Weekly" copyright 1994. It includes those Nast cartoons that you posted.

Your link leaves out a devastating (to the Lincoln Administration) part of the Democratic Platform and Nast's accompanying cartoons that states:

"That they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution, the subversion of the civil by military law in states not in insurrection, the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial and sentence of citizens in states where civil law exists in full force, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the denial of right of asylum, the open and disregard of states rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference and denial of the right of the people to bear arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Resolved, -- that the shameful disregard of the administration to its duty in respect to our fellow-citizens who now and long have been prisoners of war in a suffering condition deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public interest and common humanity."

A small part of that text shows up on the right side of the last cartoon in your link. Nast's cartoons weren't very effective refuting those particular charges that were left out. Maybe that is why those cartoons weren't included in the link you posted.

There is testimony, by the way, in the Congressional Globe about interference by Federal troops with the wartime election process (the subject of one of the Nast cartoons), including the striking of all Democrat candidates from the ballot and the arrest and detention on election day those thought to support Democrats. Didn't happen everywhere, of course, but apparently it did happen in some places if testimony of congressmen can be trusted (an iffy proposition to be sure).

[RasterMaster]

Considering the source...the DUmocrats were already in direct violation of the US Constition and regarded it as nothing more than a doormat to wipe their feet upon, as the demonstrated time and again....much as they continue to do today.

[rustbucket]

The Harper’s article affirms my earlier postings that the confederacy fired the first shots of the war.

Some historians have argued that shots fired by Federal sentries at a group of locals trying to enter what they thought was unoccupied Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor the night before the Star of the West incident were the first shots of the war.

I searched a bit further to find that in fact it was listed in the Harper’s Weekly as a resupply ship along with the Brooklyn and the Marion....

“On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter.”

The Star of the West arrived in Charleston Harbor on its own without any accompanying ships, disregarded warnings from a picket ship, disregarded warning shots fired across its bow, and finally turned around after being hit twice by canon shot and suffering minor damage. South Carolina knew the ship was coming. It had been published in the New York Times a couple of days before it reached Charleston.

The mission of the Star of the West was not just to communicate with Fort Sumter. Here are orders for its mission (From Vol. I, Series I, page 131 of the Official Records, my bold below):

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
New York, January 5, 1861.

Major T. H. HOLMES,
Eighth Infantry,
Superintendent Recruiting Service, Fort Columbus:

SIR: By direction of the General-in-Chief, you will detach this evening two hundred of the best-instructed men at Fort Columbus, by the steamship Star of the West, to re-enforce the garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

They will be furnished with arms, and, if possible, one hundred rounds of ammunition per man. Orders will be given to the proper officers of the staff department to furnish one hundred stand of spare arms and subsistence for three months.
The officers assigned to duty with the detachment are Lieuts. C. R. Woods, Ninth Infantry; W. A. Webb, Fifth Infantry; C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, and Asst. Surg. P. G. S. Ten Broeck, Medical Department, all of whom will report for duty to Major Anderson, commanding Fort Sumter.

Yours,
L. THOMAS.

IIRC, South Carolina had made it clear that any attempt to reinforce the fort would be fired upon, The fort had been occupied by Major Anderson and his troops on December 26, 1860 against the policy and orders of President Buchanan who had promised South Carolina representatives that the relative strengths of the forts in Charleston Harbor would not be changed.

[rustbucket]

...the DUmocrats were already in direct violation of the US Constition ...

What part of the Constitution did they violate?

[RasterMaster]

I've listed many violations in previous posts. As best as I can tell, many violations took place as early as 1808, if not before. It was after that date when there were clear violation of the 3/5 compromise - limitations to expansion of slavery and sunset of the importation of slaves. The south continued to import slaves as well as capture free blacks in the north imposing bondage upon them.

Much more was documented in a speech to Congress by Andrew Johnson delivered on July 27, 1861. (see pages 415-435)

The Confederacy even had to modify their own constitution after open piracy against United States shipping. One violation of the US Constitution mentioned by Johnson: "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay"

[rustbucket]

Thanks for the link to the Johnson speech. It will take me a while to read it. I think I will do so in the Congressional Globe version which might be formatted a little better and in a font that is more readable.

One violation of the US Constitution mentioned by Johnson: "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay"

The basic flaw in Johnson's argument here is that the seceded states had withdrawn from the Union and resumed their own governance. They were no longer subject to the US Constitution. That is entirely consistent with the statements about what the Constitution meant by the ratifiers of the Constitution in New York in their ratification document [Link]:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

Virginia and Rhode Island had similar statements in their ratification documents.

I suspect that the Constitution would never have been ratified if it said once you are in you can't get out or you can't leave without permission of the other states that might have been oppressing you or violating the Constitution. In 1860 and again in 1861 a few Republicans in Congress proposed a constitutional amendment requiring seceding states to get the approval of other states before they could secede. They knew there was no restriction on seceding in the Constitution. The act of secession was supra-Constitutional, an act by the entities that had helped create the Constitution and delegated certain responsibilities to the Federal government in the first place.

More later. We are headed out this morning.

[RasterMaster]

"The basic flaw in Johnson's argument here is that the seceded states had withdrawn from the Union and resumed their own governance."

I suppose I should have included the context. That portion of the speech was in reference to his home state of Tennessee providing 55,000 troops and $5,000,000 to the confederacy while still remaining in the union, a clear violation of the Constitution.