Lincoln: Tyrant or champion or both?

I have now interviewed both Dr. Tom DiLorenzo and Dr. Richard Ferrier regarding our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. I entered the controversy intrigued, but really without a dog in the fight. As I have too often said, "It is not a question of who is right or wrong but what is right or wrong that counts."

I am not a Lincoln hater and I don't idolize the man. Like most of you, I am an interested student.

As usual, both sides have merits and shortfalls. However, in the wake of the two interviews, myriad e-mails and having read, "The Real Lincoln" and the Lincoln-Douglas debates, I have reached personal conclusions.

But, frankly, my conclusions are tainted. I have a few pet peeves. Honesty, to me, is important both in content and in character. I consider "Duty, Honor, Country" as more than a cute phrase, but a credo. Oaths are important, significant, and not to be entered into or broken cavalierly.

When any person swears a sacred oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution," they have made a lifelong commitment. I am routinely annoyed and offended by people who take the oath and subsequently (by thought, deed and action) undermine, abrogate or attempt to alter the very document that they have sworn to "preserve and protect."

I consider those who violate that oath as being guilty of fraud, perjury and treason.

When I interviewed DiLorenzo I told him he had provided me with an epiphany. I have frequently noted that when the framers were forming the republic, Jefferson and Hamilton had a long series of debates. Jefferson was arguing for states' rights, and Hamilton wanted a big federal bureaucracy – like we have now. Historically, Jefferson won the debate.

I have been trying to figure out at what point in our history Jefferson lost. I used to think it was inertia building until 1913, and then FDR. But actually, Lincoln should get the credit for defeating Jefferson for Hamilton.

DiLorenzo said, "One of the main themes of my book is that Abraham Lincoln was the political son of Alexander Hamilton … Lincoln took up the Hamiltonian mantle of big, centralized government, centralized planning, autocratic leadership. The great debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians were ended at gunpoint under the directorship of Abraham Lincoln, in my view. And I think that debate was ended by 1865."

Ferrier told me his complaints with DiLorenzo were "falsehood in details, sloppiness of scholarship and a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence, and American history and our political philosophy."

I'll get to the "falsehood" charge, but "a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln" is really a kinda high-handed and pretentious way of saying, "I'm right and he's wrong." Although DiLorenzo didn't say so, I suspect he probably feels the same way about Ferrier and his other critics. By extension and association, Ferrier also must feel Professor Walter Williams has a "fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln."

Ferrier made some good points. However, in my view, in one defense, he further diminishes his idol as disingenuous, calculating and adroit at parsing "weasel words."

In discussing slavery, he confirmed Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He corrected the DiLorenzo citation, but said, "Lincoln, who was a lawyer and was careful with his words, did not say 'I do not believe in that equality. I do not think it is a good thing.' He said, 'I have no purpose to introduce it.' Those are the words of a careful lawyerly politician …"

In other words Lincoln was using Clintonian verbiage carefully qualifying the definition of what "is" is. So, when Lincoln said, "I have no purpose," Ferrier says he meant, "I don't at the moment intend to bring about such equality." And if he had said anything else in Illinois in the 1850s, he couldn't have been elected to dogcatcher. So Lincoln (according to Dr. Ferrier) was being duplicitous – in other words, dishonest.

Both these professors score points in the debate. DiLorenzo apparently misstates citations and uses quotes to support his position and ignores quotes that undercut it. By the way, Ferrier likewise seems comfortable ignoring facts that contradict his preconceived opinion.

DiLorenzo and Ferrier are academics and scholars. I am not. However, a lot of the things Lincoln did were specifically designed to abrogate, eviscerate and destroy the very document to which he swore an oath. For Ferrier and company to say, "Well, gosh, the other guys were doing it too," is not an adequate defense.

Karen DeCoster has been accused of excess in her criticism of Lincoln. However, in my view, she is right when she says he was, "A conniving and manipulative man … he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe."

...many of the Northern troops were slaveowners and had a disdain for blacks in general; the draft riots in New York where hundreds of blacks were killed is proof of that.

The NYC draft riots were the work of poor immigrant laborers (primarily Irish) who were stirred up by the "Peace" Democrats and taught by them to fear the prospect of hords of free negroes moving north to take their jobs. Although they were the biggest riots in U.S. history (which bespeaks well of Americans), only 105 confirmed deaths resulted, with most of those being the rioters themselves. In addition to targetting blacks (and killing 11), they targeted Republicans, Protestants, and anyone on the streets who appeared to be well off (as they chanted "down with the rich"). (See Battle Cry, page 610.)

It is safe to say that none of the rioters ever served in the army (or were slaveholders), since following the riots the NY City Council appropriated funds to pay the $300 draft commutation fees of all NYC draftees.

There may have been some slaveholders in the Union Army, and there were certainly many who were less than enlightened when it came to racial attitudes -- nevertheless, when Lincoln made it clear by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation that the war was indeed being fought to free the slaves as well as to preserve the Union, the vast majority of Union soldiers and most Northern citizens continued to support the war effort.

In addition to that, 40 Texans whose only crime was loyalty to the Union were hanged during the month of October, 1862 in Gainseville, Texas by CSA oficials --except for about 14, who were lynched while CSA officials looked on.

You've posted about this many times. Now for the rest of the story...

I found some details about this incident tonight in Lone Star Blue and Gray, Essays on Texas in the Civil War edited by Ralph A Wooster, copyright 1995. There is a chapter in the book on Union sentiment in Texas by Claude Elliott.

This chapter says, "In late 1862 a dangerous plot known as the "Conspiracy of the Peace Party" was discovered in the northern counties, particularly in Cooke, Wise, Grayson, Collin and Denton. This Peace Party was made up of Union sympathizers and those who were loyal to neither side but who were dissatisfied with the war."

"The organization was secret, with signs, grips, and passwords. The members were sworn to secrecy, and those who were found worthy were entrusted with three degrees. The first degree bound the member to secrecy and obligated him to avenge an attack on a fellow member. The second degree supposedly tested the candidate on robbery and jayhawking, while the third pledged him to support a movement to re-establish the old Union."

" The two prime objectives were to resist the draft and set up a spy system for the army of the North. In case of a draft of the militia to meet an invasion by the Federal army, the members were instructed to enlist and desert to the enemy when the battle was on. Their plans embraced a plot to cooperate with two Union armies which were to invade Texas concurrently, one from Kansas and one from Galveston. ..."

A drunken member invited some Confederates to join -- the Confederates notified the Confederate army of the invitation and joined the "peace" group the following night. They discovered the plans and aims of the group and reported what they found. CSA General Hudson declared martial law.

Rumors flew. "...armies of Unionists were said to be planning to fight their way northward to burn homes and kill men, women, and children. ... In the excitement the populace rose en masse and hanged about twenty-five Unionists without benefit of trial". [Other places cite a lower number.] "The army searched the countryside and arrested about one hundred and fifty. A jury was formed and the trial began. Some confessed; others were convicted; forty were hanged." [I think the forty includes those that were hanged by the mob.]

There is another version of the hanging of 40 Unionists in Texas in an on-line 1889 Texas book. See pages 50-51 of the Old Texas Book

That's all good info.

My source says that the Unionists had made no overt actions, but had only a loose organization and vague plans to assist Union forces once they approached the area. The book from which I got the names of the 40 hanged men was written by a grandson of one of those men. Nathaniel Clark was one of the men hanged. His son was Lemuel Clark. The younger Clark had enlisted in a Texas militia unit in order to avoid CSA army service.The author of the book (Civil War Recollections of Lemuel Clark)was his son. So my source may not be perfectly objective.

I did find a website the other day that indicated that the hanged men were pretty much non-slave holders and the main instigators were all slave holders, including CSA colonel James Bourland, who owned a large number of slaves.

It makes a comparison with pro secessionists in Maryland who cut telegraph wires, burned bridges and killed federal troops.

The Maryland secessionists were every one released unharmed, including the famous Mr. Merryman.

At least 14 of the Texans were lynched by a mob while CSA troops looked on.

Walt

Just off the top of my head I can recite two well known Confederates that were killed for no reason other than being a prisoner and one that was sabered because he was a battery commander after he was captured.

Well, that's three.

About 640 federals were killed by CSA forces in three incdents.

Those are: Fort Pillow KY, Lawrence, Kansas and Saltville, VA.

Forty loyal Texans were hanged, as were twentytwo loyal North Carolinians. Some dozens of East Tennesseans were hanged.

Over 50 of Sherman's men were lyched by CSA forces. Let's call that 750 to 3.

If there were any really well known massacres of southerners by federals on the scale I am talking about, I'd be glad to hear of them.

Walt

Hey, I found that newsgroup note from 1999 where the "rebmaster" over at the League of the South threatened me. "Mr. Davis sends: Walt, whiskpop3@aol.com was recorded about a week ago. Just wanted you to know you are being watched. If this trend continues, the following list of email addresses you regsitered in the past will be used as evidence and be given to the proper authorities at AOL for a possible cancelation on your account. walterm140@aol.com lngremmbr@aol.com rojolobo1@aol.com cutiedomi@aol.com volsgoone@aol.com rubyeg@aol.co tennfierce@aol.com histry101@aol.com histry1001@aol.com histry1oo1@aol.com unionmn17@aol.com whiskpop@aol.com whiskpop1@aol.com popwhisk2@aol.com whiskpop3@aol.com My advice is to quit abusing the Dixie Perspective rebboard. John Davis Rebmaster, Dixie Perspective" Cool, huh

So you got caught using over a dozen different fake posting names in order to spam a private message board where they obviously did not want your membership, and of course you are proud of this?

Yes, I am proud of it.

And these names weren't fake names, they were screen names I used to get to the "Rebboard"/Dixie Perspective.

Now, back in that time frame, if you went to the LOS website, you'd get a cheery welcome and an invite to post. When you signed up, you'd get an auto e-mail, again with a cheery greeting. So I always had a cheery greeting and an invite to post. And as soon as I would, they would cancel my ID and I'd create a new one. After a few weeks of this, they changed the process. You then had to submit an e-mail with some biographical info and a reason why you should be allowed to post on the Rebboard, or Dixie Perspective board or whatever it was called. Later they took the whole thing down, and I've no idea if they have anything like that now.

The point is, and was, that the LOS was in no way interested in a free exchange of ideas or sources. They were totally against free speech.

I thought it worthwhile to pursue that.

Oh, also, the LOS website used to have George Washington and Robert E. Lee pictures on the opening page. After I started quoting GW so much on their Dixie Perspectives, they took down GW's picture and substituted Thomas Jefferson's. I don't know, of course, if there were any congruence between my postings and this change, but it did happen about the same time.

I also about this time got an e-mail from George Kalas thretening to have me arrested on federal charges of sending unsolicited e-mail to him personally.

He doesn't much like an exchange of ideas either, near as I can tell.

Walt

About 640 federals were killed by CSA forces in three incdents. Those are: Fort Pillow KY, Lawrence, Kansas and Saltville, VA.

Walt, what figures are you attributing to Fort Pillow? The great bulk of the Fort Pillow Federals appeared to have been killed in battle. Surrendered Federals were reported to have grabbed their guns back up and started fighting again after surrender -- I wouldn't count any of those as killed POWs.

There's a lot of confusion. I'd be glad to see your research.

A quick search found this:

"He saw some rebels go in a tent where Sergeant Mills and Privates Lewis Ingraham, Peter Lake, and Anderson Smith, all of my battery, were lying on their beds wounded and kill them, shooting them through their heads and bodies, notwithstanding their cries for mercy. He then was forced to give up his jacket and put on a rebel coat, whereupon he was brought to a place about a mile in the rear of the fort and put under guard, together with, as he believes, 50 other prisoners, black and white. He saw among them Lieutenant Bischoff, Sixth U.S. Heavy Artillery(colored), and First Sergt. J. D. Fox, with 5 men of my battery. He, unable to move around on account of his wound, was tied up to a tree and lashed with a gun-sling. He saw the rebels kill several (to him unknown) colored soldiers after the surrender. Some of them were shot, others knocked on their heads with muskets until they died. Some few of the rebel officers and men objected to these cruelties and outrages, but could not prevent it. He says he saw several wounded, but does not know more than one of my men killed during the fight.

Mr. A. Alexander, a citizen of Memphis and sutler in my battery, was bravely fighting the rebels notwithstanding his age (over 50 years). He is reported to have been killed during the fight and afterward seen dead, still holding in his hand the musket he used so well. He leaves a destitute widow with two small children. He was a poor, but honest man.

The above are the main points of Private John Kennedy's report, who was prisoner with the rebels to the forenoon of the 15th instant, when he managed to escape.

I have the honor to be, colonel, your most obedient servant, CARL ADOLF LAMBERG,

Capt. Second U. S. Light Arty. (colored), Comdg. Batty. D.

Walt

This was interesting:

"Capt. Theodore F. Bradford, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was signal officer for the gun-boat, and was seen by General Forrest with the signal flags. The general in person ordered Captain Bradford to be shot. He was instantly riddled with bullets, nearly a full regiment having fired their pieces upon him. Lieutenant Wilson, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was killed after he had surrendered, he having been previously wounded. Lieut. J. C. Ackerstrom, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, and acting regimental quartermaster, was severely wounded after he had surrendered, and then nailed to the side of the house and the house set on fire, burning him to death.

Lieut. Cord Revelle, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was shot and killed after surrender.

Maj. William F. Bradford, commanding our forces, was fired upon after he had surrendered the garrison. The rebels told him he could not surrender. He ran into the river and swam out some 50 yards, they all the time firing at him but failing to hit him. He was hailed by an officer and told to return to the shore. He did so, but as he neared the shore the riflemen discharged their pieces at him again. Again they missed. He ran up the hill-side among the enemy with a white handkerchief in his hand in token of his surrender, but still they continued to fire upon him. There were several Confederate officers standing near at the time. None of them would order the firing to cease, but when they found they could not hit him they allowed him to give himself up as a prisoner and paroled him to the limits of the camp. They now claim that he violated his parole the same night and escaped. We have heard from prisoners who got away from the rebels that they took Major Bradford out in the Hatchie Bottom and there dispatched him. We feel confident that the story is true.

We saw several negroes burning up in their quarters on Wednesday morning. We also saw the rebels come back that morning and shoot at the wounded. We also saw them at a distance running about, hunting up wounded, that they might shoot them. There were some whites also burning. The rebels also went to the negro hospital, where about 30 sick were kept, and butchered them with their sabers, hacking their heads open in many instances, and then set fire to the buildings. They killed every negro soldier Wednesday morning upon whom they came. Those who were able they made stand up to be shot. In one case a white soldier was found wounded. He had been lying upon the ground nearly twenty-four hours, without food or drink. He asked a rebel soldier to give him something to drink. The latter turned about upon his heel and fired three deliberate shots at him, saying, "Take that, you negro equality." The poor fellow is alive yet, and in the hospital. He can tell the tale for himself. They ran a great many into the river, and shot them or drowned them there. They immediately killed all the officers who were over the negro troops, excepting one, who has since died from his wounds. They took out from Fort Pillow about one hundred and some odd prisoners (white) and 40 negroes. They hung and shot the negroes as they passed along toward Brownsville until they were rid of them all. (Out of the 600 troops, convalescents included, which were at the fort, they have only about 100 prisoners, all whites, and we have about 50 wounded, who are paroled.

Major Anderson, Forrest's assistant adjutant-general, stated that they did not consider colored men as soldiers, but as property, and as such, being used by our people, they had destroyed them. This was concurred in by Forrest, Chalmers, and McCulloch, and other officers.

We respectfully refer you to the accompanying affidavit of Hardy N. Revelle, lettered A, and those of Mrs. Rufins, lettered B, and Mrs. Williams, lettered C.

Respectfully submitted. F. A. SMITH, First Lieutenant Company D, 13th Tennessee Cavalry.

WILLIAM CLEARY, Second Lieut. Company B, 13th Tennessee Vol. Cavalry.

Walt

From the following site: Fort Pillow

"...there can be no doubt, nor has it ever been denied, that some men - perhaps a considerable number - were shot after they, as individuals, were seeking to surrender. However, as Second Lieutenant Daniel Van Hom of the colored artillery regiment put it in his report, 'there never was a surrender of the fort.' Instead, as Colonel Barteau described the situation in an interview published in 1884, 'they made a wild, crazy, scattering fight. They acted like a crowd of drunken men. They would at one moment yield and throw down their guns, and then would rush again to arms, seize their guns and renew the fire. If one squad was left as prisoners ... it was soon discovered that they could not be trusted as having surrendered, for taking the first opportunity they would break loose again and engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by negroes who had once surrendered.'

'As the Federal flag fell Forrest spurred his horse from the knoll a quarter of a mile away, from which he had watched the fight, into the fort, promptly ordered all firing to cease and, with the help of Chalmers and other officers, began to restore order.' "

The Federal forces of West Tennessee had been really hard on civilians prior to Fort Pillow and some of Forrest's troops held deep resentment toward them. I imagine there was some vengance exacted during the Fort Pillow battle.

From That Devil Forrest by John Allen Wythe: "Some of those in high authority on the Union side may, in a measure, be justly held accountable for the deep hatred which existed among these men. General William Sooy Smith, the chief of cavalry of the military division of the Mississippi, no later than January 17, 1864, had, in writing to General Grant, said: 'We have given Colonel Hurst a roving commission with his regiment (the Sixth Tennessee Union Cavalry), and directed him to 'grub up' west Tennessee. I think he will reduce that district to order."

"That Colonel Fielding Hurst proceeded thoroughly to 'grub up' west Tennessee is evident from the fact that, as stated in Federal records, he and his command were assessed by the Federal authorities at Memphis, and forced to pay a very considerable sum of money extorted from citizens."

That Devil Forrest also mentions a report made to Forrest of attrocities by Hurst's command on Confederate troops. "About February 15th, 1864, Lieutenant Joseph Stewart and Privates John Wilson and Samuel Osborn, members of Newsom's regiment (Forrest's cavalry), while on duty under orders from their commanding officers, were captured by Hurst's command, and three days thereafter their bodies were found, they having been shot to death. About the 5th of February, 1864, Private Martin of Wilson's regiment (Forrest's cavalry), was captured by this same command and was shot to death, and the rights of sepulchre forbidden while the command remained, some four days. Lieutenant Willis Dobbs, of Newsom's regiment, while under orders of his superiors, was arrested at the residence of his father, in Henderson County, Tennessee, about March 9, 1864, and put to death by torture. Private Silas Hodges saw the body of Lieutenant Dobbs very soon after his murder, and states that it was horribly mutilated. Private Alexander Vale, of Newsom's regiment (Forrest's cavalry), was arrested and shot to death in Madison County, Tennessee, about March 8, 1864."

Nice guys, those Feds. Just like Sheridan's, Sherman's, and Hunter's troops, I guess. No attrocities from the Union side, my eye.

This was interesting:

Frankly, Walt, I don't believe what you posted. It may have been so stated in Union propaganda, but that doesn't make it true. Were it to have been true, I believe that the guilty would have been punished after the war, if not before.

From the site I posted in my last note comes the following:

In one of the hearsay statements included in the Union reports it is said that the Confederates "took out from Fort Pillow about one hundred and some odd prisoners (white) and 40 negroes. They hung and shot the negroes as they passed along toward Brownsville until they were rid of them all. "In fact, the prisoners captured, other than the wounded who were turned over to the boats on the day after the fall of the fort, were promptly removed to Mississippi and arrived in Okolona on the evening of April twentieth." Long afterward Dr. Wyeth [the author of That Devil Forrest] collected sworn testimony from half a hundred Confederate survivors and eyewitnesses of the fight, indignantly denying these and like charges. Disregarding this and other Confederate evidence on the subject, however, and relying only on statements from Union sources, it is apparent that no one of the five principal points of the [Congressional] committee's report can be sustained upon critical examination of the record.

Yes, I am proud of it. And these names weren't fake names, they were screen names I used to get to the "Rebboard"/Dixie Perspective.

They were fake names, Walt. They are evidence of the fact that you got kicked off their board several times and responded by registering another email address so that you could return only to be kicked off again. It should have been a hint to you that they did not invite your presence there, which is their right as owners of a private message board. Some mesage boards are public, some are not. You have a legitimate license to participate in boards that extend posting privilege to you or do not prevent your posting, but you have no right to post in those that do not want you there. From the looks of things, that board's owners did not want you there, which was there right, yet you repeatedly attempted to violate that right of theirs by circumventing them with all the fake email addresses you registered.

That they cancelled your ID is evidence that they considered your post to be in violation of their posting procedures, whatever they may have been. And as owners of that board, they had every right to set those guidelines at whatever they wanted. So don't try to play innocent, Walt, when you obviously knew they did not want your continued posting there.

The point is, and was, that the LOS was in no way interested in a free exchange of ideas or sources.

Not necessarily. The fact that they kicked you off their private message board only means that they did not want you there in particular. Having encountered many yankee sympathizers in various debates, I can honestly say that you are by no means the most friendly or appropriately behaved of that crowd (though you do represent the bulk of 'em).

They were totally against free speech.

Re-read your constitution, Walt. Freedom of speech does NOT give you a right to barge into another person's meeting so that you may proceed to insult them. It was a private message board. They had every right to allow or ban anybody and everybody they wanted.

I also about this time got an e-mail from George Kalas thretening to have me arrested on federal charges of sending unsolicited e-mail to him personally.

Considering the length you went to in creating fake email accounts so that you could post on a private message board where they had repeatedly indicated to you that you were not welcome, I don't consider it a stretch by any means to assume that you are also capable of unsolicited spam of others with your political opinions. As that email address was owned by the individual who requested you cease your activity of sending him unsolicited email, it was not your right to continue doing so, hence his threat to seek prosecution of you. In short, you got what you asked for in both cases.

Disregarding this and other Confederate evidence on the subject, however, and relying only on statements from Union sources, it is apparent that no one of the five principal points of the [Congressional] committee's report can be sustained upon critical examination of the record.

There was a lot of confusion, no doubt about it.

I read Forrest's account. He claimed 20 killed and 40 wounded CSA, as I recall. Most of the Union affiants said the CSA forces were bloodily repulsed twice before they actually took the fort and that that Forrest used a ruse while conferring under a flag of truce to get closer to the fort. That doesn't ring true to me. Seems like the Union soldiers would have fired on them if they tried to move closer even under a flag of truce.

Some of the Union affiants say that the black soldiers fought bravely; at least one said they threw down their arms and ran. Major Boothe was described as shot in the head by one affiant, in the heart by one, and in the chest by another.

The one website I found said that 400 of the 600 Union defenders were killed, and indicated that most were killed while prisoner. I wouldn't be willing to reduce the number of killed prisoners below 300. The one website said all the POW's retained by the CSA were white. This number was about 100 There were no black POW's, although blacks made up the bulk of the defenders. About 50 wounded Union defenders made their way back to Union lines.

As to the idea that surrendered defenders picked up weapons and continued firing I'd say that if you saw your friends bayoneted when they attempted to surrender -- even if you were not immediately threatened -- you might pick up arms again in desperation. I'd also say that POW's should be better administered than that. The force in the fort was @ 600 effectives. Forrrest's attacking force was between 5,000 to 7,000. That would leve plenty to guard prisoners. Also, the CSA government policy of killing all white officers of black units and re-enslaving black Union POW's was still in force. If one saw that, as I say, some POW's were being murdered out of hand, one might attempt to resist again. I discount this story of the Union soldiers surrendering and going back on that.

As for these statements from CSA soldiers. They were just as easy to get post war when they were all KKK members.

Walt

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.