Fighting Facts With Slander

Certain neo-conservatives have responded to the publication of my book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War , with quite hysterical name calling, personal smears, and slanderous language. The chief practitioners of this vulgar means of public discourse are Alan Keyes and employees of his Washington, D.C. based "Declaration Foundation."

On the Foundation?s Web site on Easter Sunday was a very pleasant, Christian blessing, located right below a reprinting of Paul Craig Roberts?s March 21 Washington Times review of my book (" War on Terrorism a Threat to Liberty? "). In a very un-Christian manner the Declaration Foundation accuses Roberts (and myself, indirectly) of "ignorance and calumny." According to Webster?s College Dictionary "calumny" means making false and malicious statements intended to injure a reputation, slander, and defamation. Let?s see if what Roberts said in his column fits that definition.

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag; ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as "The American Bastille" since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners. All of this was catalogued decades ago in such books as James G. Randall?s Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln and Dean Sprague?s Freedom Under Lincoln.

"This amazing disregard for the Constitution," wrote historian Clinton Rossiter," was "considered by nobody as legal." "One man was the government of the United States," says Rossiter, who nevertheless believed that Lincoln was a "great dictator."

Lincoln used his dictatorial powers, says Roberts, to "suppress all Northern opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts." This is not even controversial, and is painstakingly catalogued in the above-mentioned books as well as in The Real Lincoln. Lincoln?s Secretary of State William Seward established a secret police force and boasted to the British Ambassador, Lord Lyons, that he could "ring a bell" and have a man arrested anywhere in the Northern states without a warrant.

When the New York City Journal of Commerce published a list of over 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration, Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General to deny those papers mail delivery, which is how nearly all newspapers were delivered at the time. A few of the papers resumed publication only after promising not to criticize the Lincoln administration.

Lincoln "ignored rulings hand-delivered to him by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to respect and faithfully execute the laws of the United States" says Roberts. Absolutely true again. Taney ? and virtually all legal scholars at the time ? was of the opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus, and had his opinion hand delivered to Lincoln by courier. Lincoln ignored it and never even bothered to challenge it in court.

Roberts also points out in his article that "Lincoln urged his generals to conduct total war against the Southern civilian population." Again, this is not even controversial. As pro-Lincoln historian Steven Oates wrote in the December 1995 issue of Civil War Times, "Lincoln fully endorsed Sheridan?s burning of the Shenandoah Valley, Sherman?s brutal March to the Sea through Georgia, and the . . . destructive raid through Alabama." James McPherson has written of how Lincoln micromanaged the war effort perhaps as much as any American president ever has. It is inconceivable, therefore, that he did not also micromanage the war on civilians that was waged by his generals.

Lincoln?s war strategy was called the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to strangle the Southern economy by blockading the ports and controlling the inland waterways, such as the Mississippi River. It was, in other words, focused on destroying the civilian economy.

General Sherman declared on January 31, 1864 that "To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife he said his goal was "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people." And so he burned the towns of Randolph, Tennessee, Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, and Atlanta to the ground after the Confederate army had left; bombarded cities occupied only by civilians in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1863; and boasted in his memoirs of destroying $100 million in private property and stealing another $20 million worth. All of this destroyed food stuffs and left women, children, and the elderly in the cold of winter without shelter or food.

General Philip Sheridan did much of the same in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, burning hundreds of houses to the ground and killing or stealing all livestock and destroying crops long after the Confederate Army had left the valley, just as winter was approaching.

"A new kind of soldier was needed" for this kind of work, writes Roberts. Here he is referring to my quotation of pro-Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who in his biography of Sherman wrote that "the New York regiments [in Sherman?s army] were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Lincoln recruited the worst of the worst to serve as pillagers and plunderers in Sherman?s army.

Lincoln used the war to "remove the constraints that Southern senators and congressmen, standing in the Jeffersonian tradition, placed in the way of centralized federal power, high tariffs, and subsidies to Northern industries." Indeed, Lincoln?s 28-year political career prior to becoming president was devoted almost exclusively to this end. Even Lincoln idolater Mark Neely, Jr., in The Fate of Liberty , noted that as early as the 1840s, Lincoln exhibited a "gruff and belittling impatience" with constitutional arguments against his cherished Whig economic agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad and road building industries, and a federal government monopolization of the money supply. Once he was in power, Lincoln appointed himself "constitutional dictator" and immediately pushed through this mercantilist economic agenda ? an agenda that had been vetoed by president after president beginning with Jefferson.

Far from "saving the Union," writes Roberts, Lincoln "utterly destroyed the Union achieved by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution." The original Union was a voluntary association of states. By holding it together at gunpoint Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but he destroyed it in a philosophical sense.

Paul Craig Roberts based his column on well-documented facts as presented in The Real Lincoln. In response to these facts, in a recent WorldNetDaily column the insufferably sanctimonious Alan Keyes described people like myself, Paul Craig Roberts, Walter Williams, Joe Sobran, Charles Adams, Jeffrey Rogers Hummell, Doug Bandow, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., and other Lincoln critics as "pseudo-learned scribblers," with an "incapacity to recognize moral purpose" who display "uncomprehending pettiness," are "dishonest," and, once again, his favorite word for all who disagree with him: "ignorant."

"Ignorant" and "slanderous" is the precise language one should use to describe the hysterical rantings and ravings of Alan Keyes and his minions at the so-called Declaration Foundation.

Why don't we shift gears on this thread. DiLorenzo's core contention is that Lincoln trashed the Constitution. I believe we are all in agreement on that. So why don't you Lincoln apologists take the below, point by point, and provide what you consider constitutional justification for each action:

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus;

We are certainly not in agreement that President Lincoln trashed the Constitution; please don't lie about this.

As far as President Lincoln illegally suspending the Writ, where does it explicitly state in the Constitution that the president may NOT suspend the writ? His powers in this regard are nowhere restrained in the Constitution.

In 1814, Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ when a British army approached New Orleans. He wasn't even president.

He arrested several people, including a judge who issued a Writ for another person.

Once the British threat receded, he paid a $1,000 levied by this judge. Later, the Congress refunded this money with interest. That is an historical fact.

They knew that the executive MUST have the power to act.

Congress even passed a "Habeas Corpus" act to delegate the power to President Lincoln, but there is no reason he needed such legislation, as there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit him from suspending the Writ.

Walt

launched a military invasion without consent of Congress;

Not needed. The Militia Act of 1792 gives the president the power to call out the militia of the several states to suppress insurection. President Lincoln cited this legislation in his call for 75,000 militia in April 1861.

In 1862 the Supreme Court cited the Militia Act as amended in 1795 as justification for the government having the power to put down the rebellion.

Walt

imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies;

As president, he could suspend the writ and arrest anyone he liked.

Unlike in the CSA where 40 loyal Texans, 22 loyal North Carolinians, dozens of loyal east Tennesseans were lynched, to say nothing of the murder of Union POW's at Fort Pillow and Saltville, VA, and the lynching of a number of Sherman's men, -- all -- every single one -- of the people arrested by federal officials for disloyal activity -- were released unharmed. The single exception to this that I know of was the one person hanged in New Orleans by General Butler, but did not to my knowledge have to consult with Washington for that. All the persons arrested by Lincoln's habeas corpus orders were released unharmed.

Walt

Sorry you couldn't understand what I wrote.

Once the claim is made by the Supreme Court that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, their must be a clarification of the right to abortion under the Constitution. The Court (or another, trumping federal authority, such as the people by amendment) must retract this false doctrine. And not by saying, "oops, didn't mean that." But by saying, "We got it exactly backwards." Roe V. Wade did not merely allow abortion, it assaulted first principles of the whole regime. That damage will not be repaired by a technical retraction, but by an explanation of what was really wrong with the decision -- which was its denial of human equality. Please note that giving a fundamental explanation of the error would not be the same as imposing a new federal law. That's a separate question, and one that would be interesting to take up. The best route, of course would be a Constitutional amendment.

I hope that's clearer.

Oh come on, 4CJ, you'r really reaching now. That passage from Article I, Section 2 pertains to Congressmen, not state representatives. The Constitution does not give the federal govrnment the authority to tell states how to fill vacancies in their legislatures.

The STATES always fill their own vacancies - in both federal and state offices. The federal government cannot fill either. That's exactly what I previously stated (if I miss the boat please tell me where ;o)

Unless I am mistaken, once the states seceded - they did not have representatives in Washington. Lincoln et al refused to recognize the legally filed declaration of secession as legitimate which would mean the seceding government was still officially the government for the state. Instead of accepting them the federal government recoginized a separate group as legal when they seceded from the state. They can't have it both ways.

ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections;

Source?

One thing that IS known is that it was thought so CERTAIN that President Lincoln would lose the 1864 election that he was actually asked to withdraw by the Republican National Committtee. That is a fact. They apparently were not convinced that President Lincoln either could or would try to rig the election.

It is also an historical fact that the Republican party lost seats in the 1862 election because so many Republicans were in the army and did not vote. It is true that President Lincoln urged his generals to furlough home loyal voters. The idea that he rigged any elections is not well supported in the record.

I won't hold my breath until you provide a reputable source for such.

Walt

..."Virginia, as a State, had the right to secede from the Union. Western Virginia, as something less than a State, had no equivalent right to break away from Virginia -- and everyone in Congress knew it, they just broke the Constitution to pack the Senate with a couple more Unionist-Abolitionist votes"....

Thank you for putting this into words much better than I did. Why in hell does the 'right' believe they are righteous when they desecrate the Constitution, and whine, bitch, moan and groan, when the 'left' does it!

BTW, I agree with your home page.....and perhaps go a bit further.....I believe Maggie Thatcher could well be THE only man in Europe!!

deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior;

Lincoln engaged in no unconstitutional behavior.

This person had already BEEN arrested on the order of the local military commander for making treasonous statements. Lincoln made the best of a bad situation by releasing him on condition he either go to Canada or the so-called CSA.

Walt

It's too funny to see this high stand on credentials. But more on that in a minute.

Nothing in your "evidence" concerns the Lincoln of the 1850's. In case you missed it, the Whigs collapsed in that decade. The Lincoln of the mid and late '50's was not a Whig, but a Republican. You might trouble yourself to consider this point.

Lincoln did accept the Whig economic agenda. My continuous point, and one which has been just as continually ignored, is that there is NO evidence that he thought this agenda was crucial to his own political project, or to the nation, in the 1850's. The party he helped found, and led to national victory, included perhaps 25% of the Northern Democrats, who are defined by opposition to Whiggery as much as by anything else. Lincoln won in 1860, after Fremont, the first Republican, lost in 1856, because he carried much more of the former Democrat vote in key states. It is just historically irresponsible to point to his previous membership in the Whig party and assume that the purpose of his political labor in 1854-1860 was to advance the Whig economic agenda. It is a fantasy.

And it is supported (I repeat, with no hope you listen) by NO evidence in the Lincoln papers, the complete, collected, Lincoln papers, for the years 1852-1860. Lincoln, in private letters, public speeches, fragments never shown to anyone, etc., shows NO interest in economics. Instead of cutting and pasting summaries of the Whig party history from the 1830's and before, try attending to the question of LINCOLN's politics in the 1850's.

On the "credentials" business. I am a tenured professor at a well-known Great Books college. I can read texts. DiLorenzo can't, and his repeated false, and either mendacious or incompetent, misrepresentation of Lincoln's record in the 1850's shows that he should stick to technical libertarian literature, which I understand he can read with some success. His professional "qualifications" to discuss Lincoln are weak.

But I really don't understand why we can't discuss actual Lincoln texts, instead of personal qualifications and encyclopedia summaries of history from other eras. Actually, I do. It is part of the great evasion of the point that Lincoln re-entered national politics in 1854 to counter slave expansion, and that DiLorenzo simply has nothing to say against this plain fact.

Why in hell does the 'right' believe they are righteous when they desecrate the Constitution, and whine, bitch, moan and groan, when the 'left' does it!

You know the answer -- to most of these folks the difference between r/d, left/right, con/lib ad nauseum carries only the signifigance of a game and who is perceived to be the winner. The Constitution is nothing more than an annoyance to them.

“There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action.”
-- Johann W. von Goethe

Regards

J.R.

I can't speak for others but I certainly don't believe that Lincoln was a man without faults.

That's what distinguishes you from the rest.

But warts and all he was a better man than his confederate counterpart, and his view towards blacks, while racist by todays standards, were still better than those of every southern leader.

Better than Stonewall Jackson? The man who established the "Lexington Colored Sabbath School" in 1855? A Sunday School where the participants were rewarded in their studies by the receipt of Testaments or a Bible - presented in a formal ceremony the 1st Sundy of each month. Jackson wouldn't be handing out those Testaments if the students didn't know how to read.

Lincoln wanted blacks repatriated out of the country. Jackson saw to their education and religious training. You have your opinion, I have mine.

The West Virginians did not have sovereignty. The People, viz. the whole people of Virginia, acting within their rights as Sovereign, exercised their right to revolution after 30 years of discussion and five months of exploration of last-minute alternatives...

So you admit it was Revolution. Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Am I legally obligated to participate in your Revolution? Do I not have a right to refuse to participate and maintain my previous allegiances? When Richmond refused to acknowledge Federal authority it did not revert to being the Royal Colony of Virginia. It became an entirely new entity and had no legal claim to sovereignty over any land or any loyalty from the residents of that land unless those people agreed to it. How could the Revolutionaries in Richmond compel the people of Wheeling to participate in Revolution other than by force of arms?

The people of the Western counties refused to participate in Richmond’s revolution. Congress recognized their loyalty and after the Constitutional requirements for statehood were met, recognized the western counties as a new state. Show me one thing in the Constitution that was violated in the admission of West Virginia. One thing.

Please Walt. Remember that in ex parte Milligan (4 Wall. 2), the ENTIRE Supreme Court, all 9 justices, declared that the Constitution applied to all men (including Lincoln) at all times (including war), and could not be suspended:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

And of course I have to throw in something by Marshall where he specifically addressed the very issue at hand - the delegation of Congressional powers to suspend the writ of habeus corpus:

"If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so."
Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75 (1807).

Sorry.

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.