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.

NS, I'm somewhat surprised. We went over this yesterday. You even replied to me:

"The Constitution does not give the federal govrnment the authority to tell states how to fill vacancies in their legislatures. And since the Federal government should be working with local authorities to combat rebellion, then it should make every effort to identify and recognize those authorities. Since much of the Virginia legislature were ringleaders in that rebellion Congress recognized those who didn't and allowed them to partition the state."

Let me take care of this in reverse. Regarding the non-highlighted portion - there is nothing in the Constitution that supports your theory. In fact Lincoln himself argued that the majority of revolutionaries had the right to supress the minority.

Now, if I remember correctly, the Full Faith & Credit Clause REQUIRES the federal and state governments to recognize the acts and proceedings of a state government - as long as that action meets the prescribed guidelines laid down by the federal government. I think I even traced the history of that legislation with another poster (#3Fan if memory serves.) Once the states affixed their stamp of approval - state seal and entry into legislative records - the acts were official. Congress could not rewrite the rules of acceptance since that would violate the prohibition against ex post facto legislation.

ex parte Milligan (9-0 decision) reinforced the idea that the Constituion CANNOT be suspended - even in time of war or rebellion. That being the case - any recogonition of any other state legislature would be unconstitutional and void. Your whole argument (seccession is illegal) mandates that the states were still states - and the federal government has to recognize the legislatures of those states. But if you agree that the states had legally seceded, then the federal government can recognize whomever they want since they are no longer a state.

Your choice. WV admission was unconstitutional, or the secessions were legal and Lincoln invaded a sovereign country - a war of Northern Agression. You decide.

Why do you think the Chief Justice apparently disagrees with you?

One reason could be he never read Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout. But I would tend to doubt that. Evidently he does not hold to the separation of powers theory held by Chief Justice Taney, Justices Catron, Clifford concurring in the dissenting opinion of Justice Nelson in The Prizes Cases.

But I guess that every justice that has ever served has agreed with every decision, and that dissenting opinions never occur. They didn't in Bollman (albeit a 4-0 decision by Marshall, Washington, Johnson and Livingston - Cushing & Chase were ill).

4CJ,

Thanks for posting. That is very interesting. I have read some of Lincoln's other words on Colonization and am aware that he like many of the anti-slave segment had long supported colonization as a solution. But I had never seen this one before. Do you have a link or IP address for the site this is from so I can bookmark it?

Two thoughts came to mind while reading it.

First, this was probably the first time in history that any American black leaders were ever consulted by a President or high government official on any issue. I don't think Lincoln had even meet with Fredrick Douglass at this point, but I could be wrong. What is even more amazing is that he was asking for their support for his plan, not dictating something for them. The part not mentioned here was that Lincoln at the same time was talking up the idea to get authorization to compensate slave owners for their 'property'. He hoped the combination of compensation and a plan to colonize blacks outside the US would overcome Southern objections to emancipation on both economic and social grounds. Much of the propaganda from the Fire Eaters was of the 'horrors' of having millions of free blacks mingling with white society. That propaganda worked equally well in the North and the South among people who thought slavery was wrong, but feared the results of ending slavery.

The second thought was what would the US be like today if his plan had been implemented.
How many freed blacks would have taken the offer?
How different would we be as a country today?
If Lincoln had lived, would he have resurrected this plan in his 2nd term and avoided the Klan, the 14th Amendment and reconstruction?
Would we be a more united country without the 100 years of racial division that followed the Civil War and still lingers today?
Or would we have missed some crucial element and diversity that lead to our 20th century greatness?

It's very interesting to ponder. Thanks for the post.

Only have a moment - the url had something to do with the Colonization Society, but can't remember if it was at memory.loc.gov or where :o(

If I do find it I will pass it on. I previously had a slightly different version (just the speech itself), but this was transcribed directly from the paper in question, replete with editorial headings that obviously were not in the draft submitted by the White House to the paper.

Just as an aside, I'd like to commend you for your post. I know you and I don't debate often - I certainly don't agree with your position often, but I do respect well-reasoned and articulate posts.

"Fortunately, DiLorenzo has penetrated the veil, with no paper trail, verbal trail, or evidence of any kind."

Perhaps the case lacks definitive verification, but it is an enormous stretch to say that there is no evidence of any kind. There is Lincoln's well-known deep admiration for Clay; there is his loyal membership in the Whig party until its demise. There are Lincoln's several apparantly bitter references to Jackson's action in the matter of the national bank. Finally, there is the fact that, upon assuming the presidency and not being hampered by Southerners in the Congress, Lincoln immediately acted to implement the several principle features of the Whig economic program.

I choose neither, 4CJ. Does that really surprise you?

In the first palce I don't think that the the Full Faith & Credit Clause has the meaning you thought it had. Article IV, Section 1 says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

That requires each state to recognize the ations of another state. But since Virginia was in rebellion, and the leaders who had been elected were the ringleaders of that rebellion, then under the second sentence then Congress might actually have the power to determine if the proceedings leading to the creation of the reformed Virginia legislature were legal and base it's recognition on that.

Your broad interpetation of Ex Parte Milligan is as irrelevant as it is inaccurate. The Constitution wasn't suspended, far from it. The requirements in Article IV, Section 3 were followed. The question isn't if the actions of Congress were constitutional since they clearly were. The question is if the reformed Virginia legislature was legal and I haven't seen anything that indicates that they were not. If you can cite which laws were broken then I would like to hear them.

Consider the treatment that free black people endured in the south prior to the Civil War. In many ways it was almost as bad as conditions for free blacks up north. Now consider the treatment of free blacks down south in the hundred years following the Civil War. Lincoln was no fool. He had seen what public opinion towards blacks was like up north and knew what the black population was in for down south once they were free. By encouraging emigration he quite possibly acting on the desire to spare them the treatment he knew they were in for, and to keep the darker predjudices of the people, north and south, from coming out.

FWIW, I'm back to neutral on the W Va. statehood question, just because I'm not sure what the character of the state government that asked Congress for admission actually was. I read the WV link as saying it was the remaining loyal segment of the legsialture, acting for the whole. That would incline me so say it OK.

Other sources make it look like the work of an ad hoc convention. that would incline me, at least at first, to say "not OK."

So I've changed my mind to undecided.

Anyone out there have better sources on this key question?

It's nice to be learning something, and not just going back and forth, more or less unpleasantly!

Cheers,

Richard F.

There is a short treatment of this meeting in Battle Cry of Freeodm, pp 508-10, and a longer and more interesting one in David H. Donald's Lincoln, pp 366-9. Both note that Lincoln had long supported some kind of voluntary colonization, and both suggest a political windfall to Lincoln of undermining the expected Northern anti-Negro reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation, which he was waiting to issue.

Regards,

Richard F.

It would seem to me that in order to decide that the reformed Virginia legislature was illegitimate then you would have to find out what laws were broken in their formation. In a situation where the Virginia was in rebellion and the governor and legislature were the ringleaders, and absent any specific existing guidlines for reconstituting a loyal legislature then you would have to act in a way which would allow democratic representation. Selecting a governor and legislature from a convention in Wheeling is no different than the process used to select a president and a congress for the confederacy in Montgomery. Once assembled then it would seem to me that Article IV, Section 1 gives Congress the right to place their seal of approval on the process.

Am I tilting you back to my side?

Finally, there is the fact that, upon assuming the presidency and not being hampered by Southerners in the Congress, Lincoln immediately acted to implement the several principle features of the Whig economic program.

The most notable was the Homestead Act which removed millions of acres of land from the Federal books and manipulation by well connected speculators into the hands of small family farmers. It changed the face of the country and created a permanent American middle class not dependent of oligarchs, aristocrats or government. Next was the land grant college act, which allowed the 'peons' to get the kind of education that was previously limited to the sons of the wealthy. Then was the transcontinental railroad, which unified the nation and allowed commerce and goods to flow freely from coast to coast generating the biggest surge of economic growth and wealth creation in human history and made America the world economic superpower.

Not surprisingly, the slaveocrats of the south fiercely opposed all those ideas, just like the envorocrats of today would oppose similar programs.

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.