Lessons from Lincoln

The American Enterprise Online ^ | January 18, 2006 | Joseph Knippenberg

[rustbucket]

I've posted in the past the US Congressional resolutions about their intent in the war. Here is the House resolution: Link

What was so striking to me in my earlier post that you replied to was the Times rather ludicrous insistence that there was no one in the North that advocated the various positions they listed. That was a true reverse, one-and-a-half, triple-twist spin if I ever saw one.

One of those claims above was that no one in the North proposes to interfere with the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. If so, it was only because a large number of laws and restrictions were already in place to do just that, thwart the Federal law.

Here is a link to a summary published in 1860 of the various laws, fines, etc., used by Northern states to hinder the Fugitive Slave Law. Personal Liberty Laws

Click on the URL link shown at this University of Michigan site, then scroll down to the article on Personal Liberty Laws.

Even in the face of these restrictions, some people persisted and were able to get through all the legal red tape and recover their slaves from some Northern states. Not so in all Northern states, however. I read somewhere that the last slave returned from Massachusetts to an owner was in 1854.

[rustbucket]

Incidentally, in my recent foray into the New York Times microfilm, I did find a map showing the channels leading into Charleston Harbor. It appeared in the April 12, 1861, issue. You and I have discussed these channels before.

There were four channels shown in the Times map: the Main Ship Channel, the North Channel, the Swash Channel, and the Overall Channel. The Main Channel looks fairly easy. It was wide but did make a broad left hand turn to avoid Sullivans Island.

Tne Times in their article accompanying the map says:

... small boats. tugs, and steamers of light draft can enter the harbor through the North Channel, the Swash Channel, or Overall Channel, and thus escape the batteries on Morris Island altogether. The only fire they will encounter will be from the land batteries on Cummings' Point, and from Fort Moultrie.

The Times had a rather arrogant assessment of how the battle for Fort Sumter would go. They also persisted for months in misspelling the word 'Sumter'. This was in the face of all the articles about the fort in other newspapers that managed to spell the name correctly. But they were the Times and probably thought the nation would change their spelling of the fort to be consistent with the Times.

Here is what the Times said on April 12th:

Sumpter [sic] on the one side and the Fleet off the North Channel on the other, will effectively cover any relieving expedition, whether of open boats, tugs, or small vessels, from any maritime attack, and confine all resisting operations to the land batteries. Experience has shown -- as in the case of Gen. WILKINSON’S passage down the St. Lawrence during the last war [the Mexican War doesn’t count as a war in the Times view?], with five hundred boats, suffering but a trifling loss, in the face of strong shore batteries – that batteries cannot effectually prevent the passage of an armament. Still less can be done when the batteries themselves will be exposed to such a terrific fire as Major ANDERSON can for some hours at least, pour with his whole force on Moultrie and the battery near Cummings' Point, the only two places from which boats or light draft vessels can be fired upon to any purpose.

But ANDERSON’S fire will not be the only one to which Moultrie may be exposed, as the smaller vessels can take with impunity positions from which shell may be thrown with great effect. No matter how brave or skillful the Southern troops may be, they will be under a fire which will render the entire stoppage of relief to Fort Sumpter [sic] nearly impossible.

A storm prevented Northern ships from crossing over the Charleston bar and dispersed the Northern tugs that were to take in supplies.

Then the Times says the following:

… Why the Southern Commander, be he JEFFERSON DAVIS or Gen. BEAUREGARD, has delayed pouring on Sumpter [sic] his full force, and crushing it beneath an iron hail, if he could; why he has waited until, instead of concentrating his fire in security on one small point, he now has to defend a long straggling line [ten miles of shoreline], from a powerful fleet, it is impossible to tell. The reason may have been political; it may have been that there was not the vaunted readiness; it may have been incompetency; and it is not impossible that when the yawning abyss opened before them with all its horror, they may have lacked the insane courage required for the final leap.

The question shows a lack of understanding of Southern intentions. IMO, if the South had wanted war, they would have struck long before the North was ready just as the Times said and not waited until the Northern fleet was already on the way. The South had commissioners in Washington trying to negotiate peace until the last moment. They were lied to by the Lincoln administration about the evacuation of Sumter and not offically received by Lincoln.

[R. Scott]

I did not realize that the U.S. reinstated slavery in the South once it was under Union control.

The union did not "reinstate" slavery - it was rarely abolished.
Have you ever read the Emancipation Proclamation?

The Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Slavery did not end when an area was taken by union forces. Slaves became “contraband of war”, and in general were not freed. Often they were used – unpaid except for food – to build union earthworks.

[4CJ]

...a large number of Northerners were convinced that the war had to result in an end to slavery.

To punish the South, to cripple the Southern economy, to subjugate both economically and politically the Southerners that had the temerity to want to separate themselves from Northerners. The North waged war against a people they despised to prevent them from leaving, and then insisted via Reconstruction on plundering her of what remaining wealth she still possessed.

[4CJ]

According to the Cyclopaedia of American Biography, E.A. Pollard was news editor of the Baltimore Sun at the beginning of 1861

Really?

POLLARD, Edward Albert, journalist, b. in Nelson county, Va., 27 Feb., 1828; d. in Lynchburg, Va., 12 Dec., 1872. He was graduated at the University of Virginia in 1849, and studied law at William and Mary, but finished his course in Baltimore. Mr. Pollard then emigrated to California and took part in the wild life of that country as a journalist until 1855, after which he spent some time in northern Mexico and Nicaragua, and then returned to the eastern states. Subsequently he went to Europe, and also travelled [sic] in China and Japan. During President Buchanan's administration he became clerk of the judiciary committee in the house of representatives, and he was an open advocate of secession in 1860. At the beginning of the civil war he was without political employment, and was studying for the Protestant Episcopal ministry, having been admitted a candidate for holy orders by Bishop William Meade. From 1861 till 1867 he was principal editor of the "Richmond Examiner," and, while an earnest advocate of the Confederate cause during the war, he was nevertheless a merciless critic of Jefferson Davis. Toward the close of the war he went to England in order to further the sale of his works, and was then captured, but, after a confinement of eight months at Fort Warren and Fortress Monroe, was released on parole. In 1867 he began the publication in Richmond of "Southern Opinion," which he continued for two years, and also in 1868 established "The Political Pamphlet," which ran for a short time during the presidential canvass of that year. Mr. Pollard then made his residence in New York and Brooklyn for several years, often contributing to current literature. His books include "Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes of the South" (New York, 1859); " Letters of the Southern Spy in Washington and Elsewhere" (Baltimore, 1861); "Southern History of the War" (3 vols., Richmond, 1862-'4: 4th vol., New York, 1866); "Observations in the North: Eight Months in Prison and on Parole" (Richmond, 1865); "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates" (New York, 1866; written also in French for Louisiana, 1867); "Lee and his Lieutenants" (1867); "The Lost Cause Regained" (1868); "Life of Jefferson Davis, with the Secret History of the Southern Confederacy" (1869); and "The Virginia Tourist" (Philadelphia, 1870).

[text relating to his wife redacted]

His brother, Henry Rives [Pollard], editor, b. in Nelson county, Va., 29 Aug., 1833; d. in Richmond, Va., 24 Nov., 1868, was educated at Virginia military institute, and at the University of Virginia. Later he published a newpaper [sic] in Leavenworth, Kansas, during the troubles in that territory, and thence went to Washington, where he was employed in the post-office department. At the beginning of the civil war he was news editor of the "Baltimore Sun," but removed to Richmond, where he became one of the editors of the " Richmond Examiner." After the war he was associated in the founding of "The Richmond Times," and for a time was one of its staff. In 1866 he revived the "Richmond Examiner," and controlled its editorial columns until 1867, when he disposed of his interest. He then established, with his brother, "Southern Opinion," of which he continued until his death one of the editors and proprietors.
Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography, James G. Wilson and John Fiske, eds., New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company (1888), Volume V, pp. 58-59.

[kenavi]

The union did not "reinstate" slavery - it was rarely abolished.

I don't know what you mean by "rarely abolished". It is no secret that in the EP, Lincoln offered a carrot and a stick to the slave-owners in the rebellious states: "Stay with the Union, and keep your slaves," or "Try to secede, and lose them."

This was entirely consistent with his position before the War, that if slavery had to endure to keep the Union intact, then let slavery endure. However, don't allow slavery to spread to the new states.

It was you who said that the EP was "pure propaganda". Well it wasn't, as slavery was abolished as the southern states fell under Union control. Now you become champion of the slaves, saying that former slaves were pressed into forced labor by the Union troops. Well, a lot of things went on and go on on the ground in every war we fought and are fighting which, if abscribed to the direct responsibility of the person holding the office of the Presidency at the time, would damn him in history's recollection. But it is wrong to do that, as the wrongful acts of individuals do not negate our nation's essential rightfullness in undertaking the conflict.

[rustbucket]

Why did the British care about US affairs? The tariff accounted for a large part of that interest. It's not surprising that British newspapers and observers emphasized tariffs in their coverage of American politics to a degree that few Americans would. It's also not surprising that financial papers, especially those with an interest in the cotton trade would focus on the issue of protectionism. But just as one might go wrong today by taking the views of French or German or Russian newspapers as authoritative about the motivations of the Bush administration, so too, foreign papers could be deceptive as regards what was on the minds of Americans in the 1860s.

I've not argued that the South went to war mainly because of the tariff situation. It was one of many factors that led to the war. I think that people of the South reacted more strongly to the slavery issue than to the tariff.

That being said, a large portion of the burden of the tariff did fall unfairly on the South. The Brits correctly recognized that. A high protectionist tariff transferred Southern wealth to Northern manufacturers and provided jobs for Northern workers.

The city I live in places a large tax on cars rented on the airport to pay for our sports stadiums. The city is extracting money from out-of-town people who don't have an effective voice against this action. Who said the spirit of the Morrill Tariff was dead?

[rustbucket]

Here is another 'evil Southerners, holy Northerners' gem from the New York Times. This one is from the April 5, 1861, issue.

SECTIONAL HATRED IN THE UNITED STATES

One point he [William H. Russell, correspondent of the London Times] is able to stick to a conclusion, -- he has discovered that there is no nation on earth which hates another so cordially as the Southern Secessionists hate the people of the Free States, whom they seem to look at as their bitter and uncompromising enemies. It is safe to assume that he finds no such spirit of hostility on the part of Northern men towards their Southern brethren.

[R. Scott]

Well it wasn't, as slavery was abolished as the southern states fell under Union control.

Then why were the slave areas in union control exempt from the proclamation?

[kenavi]

Then why were the slave areas in union control exempt from the proclamation?

Because A. Lincoln was a mean ol' man. Satisfied?

[x]

Thanks for the correction. I see now that I confused the two Pollards (I must have used the search function to take me to "Baltimore Sun" and skipped over some of the text). Maybe that makes my research skills less credible, but it doesn't change the fact that the editor who published the report of the alleged meeting quickly quit Baltimore for Confederate Richmond.

Henry Rives Pollard wasn't a "Lost Cause" historian like his brother, but he doesn't seem to have been the most reputable sort of journalist either. Shot to death for a gossipy article he printed, Rives Pollard almost got himself shot earlier when he attacked a rival editor with his cane over an article that had offended him. That's typical for many journalists of his day, but hardly exemplary.

[x]

Here is another 'evil Southerners, holy Northerners' gem from the New York Times.

Why not give the newspapers the benefit of the doubt? Sumter wasn't attacked until a week later, and Northerners still weren't sure how to react to secession. That went for the leaders, but especially for the man in the street.

After the attack, average Northerners were much more decided in their opinion and determined to fight back. In South Carolina, by contrast, passions were running high in the weeks -- and perhaps even months -- before the war.

[Heyworth]

Then why were the slave areas in union control exempt from the proclamation?

Because they weren't in rebellion, therefore Lincoln didn't have the authority over them as a military measure that he did over the Confederate states. What he could do, and did, was urge passage of the 13th amendment. Again, you guys slam Lincoln for being a dictator who disregarded the Constitution, then slam him for not being a dictator and ending slavery in Union states by proclamation.

[4CJ]

Thanks for the correction. I see now that I confused the two Pollards (I must have used the search function to take me to "Baltimore Sun" and skipped over some of the text). Maybe that makes my research skills less credible, but it doesn't change the fact that the editor who published the report of the alleged meeting quickly quit Baltimore for Confederate Richmond.

Actually I'm not slighting anyone research skills - I'm guilty as well. And regarding Rives move to Richmond later, maybe he was apprehensive that Lincoln might arrest him for excercising his right of free speech.

Shot to death for a gossipy article he printed, Rives Pollard almost got himself shot earlier when he attacked a rival editor with his cane over an article that had offended him. That's typical for many journalists of his day, but hardly exemplary.

Some people take offense when the truth is printed about them - Lincoln arrested many. The Grants issued a statement that their daughter had not eloped, Edward Pollard issued one stating that Rives had not written the piece in question. Grant was found not guilty, despite being apprehended with the murder weapon (and others) in his 3rd floor room above Rive's dead body. Maybe he was freed because he was possibly related to Ted Kennedy, or maybe it was simply that he was from a very wealthy family?

I think the earlier incident occurred when Rives published a piece about his competitor cooking the books. Maybe he should have just invited him to go quail hunting ;o)

[4CJ]

Again, you guys slam Lincoln for being a dictator who disregarded the Constitution ...

The US Supreme Court had previously (prior to the war) rendered a decision requiring that the owners of private property seized during war be renumerated by the government. What Lincoln claimed was not a contitutionally delegated power.

[Heyworth]

The US Supreme Court had previously (prior to the war) rendered a decision requiring that the owners of private property seized during war be renumerated by the government. What Lincoln claimed was not a contitutionally delegated power.

Do you have the case?

[4CJ]

Do you have the case?

Of course if it's really necessary. Perhaps you can enlighten me before doing so, specifically what clause of the Constitution grants the executive or military the power to seize private property without renumeration. I'll grant that the Supreme Court did hold in Kelo that private property could be seized for transfer to non-public interests, but it was still with renumeration. Additionally, the Supreme Court did hold 9-0 in ex parte Milligan that the Constitution cannot be suspended and applied at ALL times to all people including the Executive.