Posted on 02/13/2009 8:05:16 AM PST by Dick Bachert
I don't know what they teach in U.S. history classes today. But back in the middle of the last century, when I was in elementary school, there was absolutely no question about how we were to regard Abraham Lincoln. We were taught to feel a reverence bordering on awe for Honest Abe, the Great Emancipator, the eloquent martyr who saved the Republic.
We were required to memorize the Gettysburg Address. And if we were lucky enough to join a field trip to our nation's capitol, one of the most significant events was our visit to the Lincoln Memorial. (A few of us rapscallions spoiled the solemnity of the moment by sliding down the sides of the monument.)
That was what we were taught in the grade schools of Cleveland, Ohio. And I suspect it wasn't any different in any other school in the North. Some of you sons and daughters of the South will have to tell me what your teachers and history books said.
It wasn't until I became an adult and started reading history on my own that I began to doubt the version of events I was taught nearly six decades ago. For example, did you know that Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the North, including the writ of habeas corpus? That he filled the jails with more than 13,000 political prisoners, all incarcerated without due process? The Supreme Court protested Lincoln's disregard for our Constitutional protections, but the president replied he had a war to fight. Since he commanded the army, Lincoln won that argument.
And speaking of the war, guess who uttered these words:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit."
Okay, I'll admit this is a trick question. The speaker was Abraham Lincoln. But he was not talking about the southern states that tried to secede from the Union. No, these remarks were made in 1847, when Lincoln was defending the right of Texans to demand their independence from Mexico. A dozen years later, when six southern states tried to declare their independence, Lincoln's response was to wage war on them.
As a child, I never questioned the assertion that the South was wrong to secede. And that Lincoln was right to use as much force as necessary to preserve the Union. Later, as I grew to understand the strength and uniqueness of our Constitutional Republic, I began to question both assumptions.
The U.S. Constitution, I came to believe, was a contract — a contract between the various states and the federal government they created. Note that the Constitution had to be approved by the states, not a majority of the citizens. There was no "majority rule" here, no popular vote taken.
But this raises the question, if it was necessary for the states to adopt the Constitution, why wouldn't it be legal for some of those states to rescind that vote, especially if they felt the contract had been broken? More and more, I found myself thinking that the South was legally and morally right in declaring its independence. And the North, by invading those states and waging war on them, was wrong.
And what a terrible war it was. By the time it was over, nearly 625,000 Americans were dead — more American servicemen than were killed in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. Fully one-fourth of the draft-age white population of the South was dead.
The devastation in the former states of the confederacy is hard to imagine. Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah is notorious for its savagery. But he was far from the only Northern officer who ordered his troops to lay waste to southern farms, fields, and plantations. Union troops routinely destroyed crops, sacked homes, and even stabled their horses in Southern churches.
As H.W. Crocker III puts it in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Regnery Publishing, 2008), "If abiding by the law of a free republic and fighting a defensive war solely against armed combatants be flaws, the South had them and the North did not. Lincoln ignored the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court when it suited him. His armies waged war on the farms, livelihoods, and people of the South, not just against their armies."
Of all the big lies about the War Between the States, the biggest of all may be that it was necessary to end slavery. The truth is that many illustrious southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, recognized that slavery had to come to an end. But it should not come by force of arms, they felt; not at the point of a gun, but rather through the free consent of the owners, with the proper preparation of the slaves. To get them ready for their own freedom, for example, Lee's wife insisted the family's slaves be taught to read and write, and the women how to sew.
Despite what most of us have been taught, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It wasn't a law, but an edict. It specifically exempted the Border States and any parts of the South that were already under the control of Federal forces. It applied only to areas that were still in rebellion. So the Proclamation, of and by itself, did not free a single slave.
What it did, however, was change the nature of the conflict. Now the war was no longer about restoring the Union, or preventing Southern independence. Now it was about the morality, and the legality, of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not make the war more popular in the north, but it did end the possibility of other countries, especially France and Britain, from coming to the aid of the South. They might have been willing to assist southern independence; but support a war in favor of slavery? Never.
As Crocker notes, "In Southern eyes, the Emancipation Proclamation was the ultimate in Yankee perfidy — an attempt to incite slave uprisings against Confederate women and children." Then he notes, "Happily, while the proclamation did encourage slaves to seek their freedom, there were no slave uprisings, no murders of women and children — which might say something good about Southerners too, both white and black."
Abraham Lincoln, more than any other president who came before him, changed the very nature of our government. There would never again be as many limitations on the powers of the federal government. And just as tragic, the concept of states' rights suffered a blow from which it has never recovered.
I'm told that more than 14,000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln. Most, of course, are incredibly adulatory. The few that attempt to balance the scales are virtually ignored. While it may not be true that might makes right, it is definitely true that the winners write the history books.
Hysterically funny...
My point was merely that this existed. Many believe that after 1804 or so there was no slavery in the North...not true.There was a small amount up to the civil war as you pointed out.
Can you specify where? I’ve researched it a little and can find no evidence, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t.
I have a degree in History, a masters in Southern History, and I never came across a professor who felt that way. In fact, for most of them, finding a different angle on any historical event, as long as it was based on solid research was a good thing.
The problem with anti-Lincoln research is that it must ignore overwhelming evidence that often refutes it. The Baltimore plot is a prime example. There were plenty of Lincoln detractors when he was president and many of them wrote very negative things about him when he slipped into Washington wearing a felt hat. The assumption was that he wore it as a disguise when there is no evidence to back that assumption. They tried to paint him as a coward when in fact he was simply, and reluctantly, following the advice of Pinkerton. So, if one uses periodicals of the time and nothing else, one is led to believe Lincoln was a coward and wore a full disguise to avoid being recognized, when if fact he was in a train that no one knew had the new president on board. Likewise, one cannot depend on Pinkerton's writing on the subject since he was likely going to be self serving both because his reputation was at stake and he liked Lincoln.
There is nothing wrong with writing negative things about Lincoln, and no president is immune from it. But, the anti-Lincoln writings by secession apologists always place motives for his actions that can't be supported by the evidence. They take things he did out of context of what his options were in order to paint him as a tyrant with no morals. His motivation was to save the union and everything he did, right or wrong was to that end.
As to Mary Todd and the children I don't know what you are referring to. She was not on the trip with Lincoln, so not sure what she has to do with the issue. There were reports that she was ashamed of what he did, but that is totally without foundation. She was so terrified of plots against him she was more likely to want him to do whatever it took to avoid assassination.
“I know Stanton didn’t have a very high opinion of Lincoln early on, but as the war progressed, he came to admire and respect him.”
About the best book I’ve read on any of this is Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals.” Most of his cabinet had a low opinion of Lincoln early on, but came to respect him greatly as the war progressed.
“There are documented cases of slavery in Connecticut (went to high school there), Rhode Island”
Not sure what documents you are referring to, but Connecticut outlawed slavery in 1848. In 1840 Rhode Island only had 4 slaves left, all of who were free well before the Civil War started. I keep reading these posting about slaves in the North, which is of course possible, but since all the northern states had abolished slavery before the war began, whoever owned the slaves was committing a crime.
LOL ! I'd give the degrees back; or at least never talk about them again.
Pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, as Dr. Williams likes to say ... Mary and the children were left to continue on on the train that "Honest" Abe feared would be attacked.
See, the problem for people like you is that people like me have actually researched this stuff. I have copies of the primary accounts of the day. I am making one such account available to you written by a guy who rode on the train with Mary. This is from page 8 of the New York Times of February 26, 1861. And you should note that this is what lawyers call an admission against interests. The Times reporter was a strong Lincoln supporter. The stuff you should read begins at the first new paragraph at the top of the second column ("Mrs Lincoln did not seem in the best of spirits ...") and continues for most of the column. The stuff in the first column is important too, but does not deal with Mrs. Lincoln.
Let me know whether any of this makes an impression upon you.
ML/NJ
“Mary and the children were left to continue on on the train that “Honest” Abe feared would be attacked.”
You are correct she rode on the train without Lincoln. I have not read into the finer details of the event because in the scheme of things it is of little relevance. You are of course researching anything that helps shed a bad light on Lincoln and if that is the best you can do, well, it’s the best you can do. Lincoln had to be convinced by Pinckerton and and aides to switch trains, so the implication he was afraid is your take on it.
What you do is start with a point of view, then accept anything you read that supports that view, and reject anything you read that goes against it. It’s dishonest research. The fact you always refer to Lincoln sarcastically as “Honest” Abe is pretty much a giveaway that for you history is about supporting an agenda and not discovering any truths.
No, Peabrain. You see, I started off like you, northern educated, memorized the Gettysburg Address, worshiped at the Great Memorial in Washington, DC. But then I read some wacko history that said some awful things about the Great Man. This can't be, I thought. But some of those awful things I could verify even with an Encyclopedia Britannica. Since some were true I looked more deeply into the others, including this about Lincoln leaving his family ride on a train he believed might be attacked. The only "awful thing" I haven't verified to my satisfaction is the claim that Lincoln at one point ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. I did eventually obtain George Brown's book which also makes this assertion, but I still have my doubts. The bottom line is that Lincoln was a scumbag and that the histories that most people read have been sanitized to obscure or hide this fact.
(FTR, I have never lived south of the metro NYC area.)
ML/NJ
So on the basis of his train trip and vague assertions about arresting Taney you have decided Lincoln was a scumbag. Talk about peabrains!
ML/NJ
“You obviously have difficulty both with your history and your understanding of the English language.”
You obviously have difficulty with your history and understanding of the English language.
See me after class!
There must have been grandfathered in them because the local historical societies have record indicating slavery existed in such places as late as 1860.
Here is an article from Wiki about Jersey. There were pockets of slavery in New England as well.
New Jersey banned the importation of slaves in 1788, but at the same time forbade free Negroes from elsewhere from settling in the state. [5] In the years following the American Revolution, the emphasis on legal equality and the rights of man caused legislators in some states to consider abolishing slavery. The New Jersey state legislature was the last in the north to do so, passing a law in 1804 for the gradual abolition of slavery. [6] The 1804 statute and subsequent laws freed only slaves born after the law was passed. Furthermore, African Americans had to serve lengthy apprenticeships to the owners of their mothers. Women were freed at 21, but men were not emancipated until the age of 25. Slaves born before these laws were passed were considered “apprenticed for life.”
Although at first New Jersey allowed African American men to vote, the legislature disfranchised them in 1807. In 1830 two-thirds of those enslaved in the North lived in New Jersey. It was not until 1846 that New Jersey completely abolished slavery. [5]Although slavery was abolished in 1846 by statute (”An Act to Abolish Slavery”), it was only a name change. [7] Former slaves were termed apprentices and were still subject to servitude to their owners. It was not until the Thirteenth Ammendment to the United States Constitution was passed that all forms of involuntary servitude were abolished in New Jersey.
I don’t see how those who believed in slavery would have offered freedom to others...also I am from the South essentially-military brat-lived all over including the South. Mom is a Virginian...old family. There was really a caste system in the South even after the end of slavery...best families...Byrd etc.
Well, I stand corrected.
Read my post...indentured for life is still slavery.
I agree. My post was not sarcastic. Apparently, there were still some slaves in the north during the Civil War.
Sorry, I feel really stupid...wasted some good sarcasm on one who failed to appreciate it properly...lol.
Re-read your post...now I feel really foolish...I don’t think I should continue to post incorrectly...ah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
