HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/22/2015 | Prof. Walter Williams

[SeekAndFind]

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "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. ... 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 the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

[Team Cuda]

I am really impressed with your research. First Hamilton, then Justice Story, then Justice Sutherland. Very impressive. Not really germane as to whether the South waged war on the government of the United States, but impressive, nonetheless.

Still waiting for the rationale regarding the statement that Lincoln violated the 9th and 10th Amendments, the fact that none of the people who actually seceded saw fit to mention these alleged violations in their Articles of Secession, or any court cases where they challenged these alleged violation in court.

[rustbucket]

I will note that violations of the 9th & 10th Amendment are curiously missing from the Articles of Secession prepared by the seceding States. You would think that if this was the reason they were seceding, they would have at least mentioned them in passing, wouldn’t you?

Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution until after he was in office. However, the Northern states had been nullifying the federal Fugitive Slave Law for years, and their transgressions against the Constitution were cited in Southern causes of secession documents before Lincoln came to power.

Here is Wikipedia on nullification: "Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment."

Texas made the following charge in their "Declaration of Causes" (of secession) in 1861 [my emphasis below]:

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

Mississippi's "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes …" in 1861 said [my emphasis below]:

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes …" in 1860 [my emphasis below]:

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.

Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional in a fugitive slave case. The US Supreme Court slapped them down in a unanimous decision (Ableman v Booth) on March 7, 1859 ruling that the Wisconsin state Supreme Court was wrong and that the Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional.

Wisconsin didn’t like that at all. Their legislature responded with this on March 19, 1859:

"Resolved, That the government, formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

There is merit in what Wisconsin says (they sounded like a Southern state or Jefferson or Madison in that statement), but the return of fugitive slaves was mentioned in the Constitution. Attempts to stop the federal law from accomplishing what was required by the Constitution were unconstitutional. Even Lincoln understood that -- notes from one of his 1859 speeches said that an efficient fugitive slave law was demanded by the Constitution.

Jefferson Davis used the Tenth Amendment as legal grounding for secession, something not prohibited to the states or even mentioned in the Constitution (unlike the return of fugitives from service that was mentioned in the Constitution). Here is what Jefferson Davis said in the Senate on January 10, 1861:

...the tenth amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask where among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any power to coerce a state; where among the provisions of the Constitution do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and if you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out of that source of all power to the Federal Government? It was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of the States.

[Team Cuda]

So, let me understand the timeline correctly.

Lincoln was elected on November 4, 1860
South Carolina secedes on December 20 1960
Battle of Fort Sumter was on April 12, 1861
First Battle of Bull Run was on July 21, 1861

You make the statement that Lincoln didn’t violate the Constitution until after he was in office. So, the original statement by jeffersondem in defense of treason doesn’t hold water unless a Tardis or a DeLorean was in use. Also, as can be seen by the dates above, the first “invasion” of the South didn’t occur until over 3 months after the Confederacy started the shooting part of the war, so any claims that the South was merely defending themselves also do not hold water.

However, you are absolutely right that the Northern States ignoring the Fugitive Slave Law was one of the reasons cited by multiple states in their Articles of Secession.

A lot of these threads are getting confused (at least in my mind). So, let’s be clear what the point is. The point in this thread, I believe, is whether the South met the requirements of treason in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. I contend that they did meet the first requirement, which was “levying War”. This Section contains no out – it is very clear and straight-forward. Referencing the Northern States ignoring of the Fugitive Slave Law is, at best, a defense at trial. As we all know, there were no trials, as the Federal government, for whatever reason, chose not to bring anyone to trial. The mere fact that there were no trials did not mean that the South did not commit treason.

[jeffersondem]

I stand with Rustbucket. See his response.

[Team Cuda]

I responded to rustbucket – a well written, well thought out response. Please note that he said that Lincoln’s alleged Constitutional violations occurred after he was elected, so it was after the Confederacy seceded and after Fort Sumter was attacked, so referencing them for the reason the South waged war on the Country and violated Article III, section 3 doesn’t hold water – you did reference “Lincoln’s violation of amendments IX and X were usurpations.” didn’t you?

[foreverfree]

bump

[jeffersondem]

“Please note that he said that Lincoln’s alleged Constitutional violations occurred after he was elected, so it was after the Confederacy seceded and after Fort Sumter was attacked, so referencing them for the reason the South waged war on the Country and violated Article III, section 3 doesn’t hold water – you did reference “Lincoln’s violation of amendments IX and X were usurpations.” didn’t you?”

Not sure I'm following your thinking. You are determined to dig yourself deeper into the hole but as you rely on chronological complexities to prevent your subduction into the earth, keep in mind two dates: March 4, 1861 - Lincoln's inauguration and April 12, 1861 when Lincoln staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident, err, I mean the Fort Sumter incident. Between those two dates Mr. Lincoln was busy with his planned usurpations. As others have documented here with facts too clear to deny, the northern states had for years violated the Constitution to the detriment of Southern states. The South had had enough.

You are not the first to wave the bloody shirt and scream “traitor.” Before you and Nikki Haley there was Mr. Leon Scott.

August 1, 1960
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.

Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?

Sincerely yours,

Leon W. Scott

President Eisenhower replied:

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

To you Hamilton doesn't matter; Jefferson doesn't matter; history doesn't matter. Now you'll say Eisenhower - Kansas boy, graduate of West Point, Supreme Allied Commander of World War II, five-star general, and President of the United States - doesn't matter.

And the reason none of it matters is because you say Robert E. Lee was a traitor. Well, this thread is titled Historical Ignorance.

[Team Cuda]

So, please explain to me how Lincoln “staged” the Fort Sumter incident? Fort Sumter was a United States Army facility, staffed by the US Army under Major Anderson. It was attacked by Confederate forces under General BGT Beauregard. The only thing that the Union forces did to “stage” the battle was to refuse to surrender the fort when demanded to do so by Governor Pickens on January 31, 1861, and attempt to re-supply the fort via the steamer Star of the West on January 9, 1861. Is it your claim that refusing to surrender is a provocation?

You state that between March 4, 1861, when Lincoln was inaugurated, and April 12, 1861 when the Confederacy staged an unprovoked attack at Fort Sumter, he was busy planning his usurpations. Again, this takes us into Back to the Future land as, somehow, Lincoln’s actions in March and April of 1861 caused South Carolina to secede on December 20 1860.

I do think that Eisenhower matters. I think that Hamilton and Jefferson matter. I also think that Grant, who declined to prosecute Lee or any of the other men who fought for the South matters. Heck, I suspect Lincoln, if he had survived, would also have declined to prosecute, and he matters as well. I also happen to believe that Lee was a honorable gentleman and a great general (the third best general of the Civil War, after all). However, the opinions of all these fine gentlemen do not trump the plain language of the Constitution which defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” I believe that the plain and unambiguous language of the US Constitution matters much more than the opinions of any of these men, no matter how august or honorable they happen to be. Do you think that we have the right to ignore the language of the Constitution because we don’t like the results in a particular case?

It is beyond ludicrous for anyone to claim that the Army of the Confederacy was not waging war on the United States (the use of the word Army in the title is a giveaway, unless they have red kettles and collect money at Christmas). So, we’re back to the fact that the soldiers and politicians of the Confederacy committed treason ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, and we’re back to the fact that the decision of the government to not prosecute does not alter the fact that the treason occurred.

[PaulZe]

fine but the official name is war of the rebellion as in “The Official Records of the war of the Rebellion”

[rustbucket]

Thanks for your reply.

It may be a day or even a few days before I can reply to you. We just became grandparents tonight for the first time, plus I’ve got to go out of town on business.

[rustbucket]

I'll make a quick response to this post of yours before I head to bed.

I responded to rustbucket – a well written, well thought out response. Please note that he said that Lincoln’s alleged Constitutional violations occurred after he was elected, so it was after the Confederacy seceded and after Fort Sumter was attacked ...

I'm sorry, but you are misquoting me. I can't let that stand before I disappear for a while. Lincoln violated the Constitution after he took office [March 4, 1861], not after he was elected [November 1860]. There is evidence that he did instigate the war, on purpose I believe, and I disagree with your Article III violation. I'll save all that for when I get back.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: fine but the official name is war of the rebellion as in “The Official Records of the war of the Rebellion”

OK, here’s a question === who was or were the officials who gave this name? Were they the victorious Northerners or the defeated Southerners?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The War Department, in publishing the Official Records.

OK, here’s a question === who was or were the officials who gave this name? Were they the victorious Northerners or the defeated Southerners?

[DoodleDawg]

So is it “considerably less” or “a bit of a difference”?

The figures are around $200 million in goods purchased from the North. Would you call that "considerably less"? Or "a bit of a difference"?

[BroJoeK]

iowamark quoting: "The Port of New York, alone, accounted for nearly two-thirds of U.S. Government revenue in 1859.
Williams’ assertion that 'Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859″ isn’t a case of “lying with statistics,' because the statistics don’t actually say anything remotely like that.
It’s a case of lying, period."

Greatpost!
From one of your links, here is a visualization which may clinch the argument:

[central_va]

So Doodle when are you going to tell me and Jim Robinson about your position on the repeal of DADT you coward?

[BroJoeK]

Diogenes Lamp: "Had he been so very much against slavery to the extent that he thinks it justifies a war of invasion, he should have said so at the beginning of the war, not after having expended 600,000 lives, and laid waste to entire regions and families, and having to justify the bloodshed with some ex post facto faked up moral rationalization."

But Lincoln never launched a "war of invasion" until after the Confederacy had for months:

• Provoked war by forcefully seizing dozens of Federal properties, including forts, ships, arsenals & mints, while threatening Federal officials and firing on Federal ships (December 1860 through April 1861).

• Started war by military assault on, and capture of, US forces in US Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861).

• Formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

• Sent military aid to pro-Confederate forces in Missouri.

Bottom line: no Confederate troops were directly killed by any Union force, and no Confederate state invaded by any Union army until after the Confederacy provoked war, started war, formally declared war and sent aid to Confederates in a Union state.

So Lincoln only did what his constitutional duty required -- he defeated the military power which attempted to destroy the United States by force.

[jeffersondem]

“So, the only question is, did the South levy war against the United States?”

T.C. at times you contend “the only question” is did the South levy war. When you are smoked out of that position you switch to talk about secession (Again, this takes us into Back to the Future land as, somehow, Lincoln’s actions in March and April of 1861 caused South Carolina to secede on December 20 1860.)

To be clear, secession was not illegal; not an act of treason. Or as General Eisenhower wrote: “. . .the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.”

Note well General Eisenhower's words “unquestioned loyalty.”

And to be clear, sovereign nations defending themselves against invasion by land or sea is not treason.

When Lincoln ordered the ironclad Monitor to attack the South it was intercepted by the Merrimac. One gunner on the Merrimac quit firing at one point saying, “It is quite a waste of ammunition to fire at her. Our powder is precious, sir, and I find I can do the Monitor as much damage by snapping my finger at her every five minutes.”

Like powder, time is precious. It takes me a lot more time to research an intelligent post than it does for you to say something off the top of your head. I'm not going to mortgage my future bouncing facts off your ironclad head. I can accomplish as much by snapping my fingers every five minutes.

I may comment on one of your posts occasionally. There may be a first-time visitor on Free Republic and I don't want them to read something you have written and take it seriously. :)

[PeaRidge]

The question.......is that not proof that Southern demand for goods was high

[jeffersondem]

Congratulations on becoming grandparents! It is good to know the rustbucket line continues. Enjoy the time with your family.