POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[WhiskeyPapa]

Who is Bubba-2?

Walt

[stainlessbanner]

Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.

[sneakypete]

Who is Bubba-2?

Jorge "Ali Bubba" Bush,who else?

[stainlessbanner]

I'm sure all those who have attacked people who criticized DiLorenzo without reading his book

The irony is that many folks who have never read DiLorenzo's book or heard his speeches are the ones who attack him most. In fact if you search on old FR threads, these guys were bashing the book before it came out.

[one2many]

Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.

Having been absent from this dying forum for quite some time I am curious as to which of the distortionists allowed that he-she-it would be posting no more? ;^)

Wouldn't be ole "cut-n-paste-crapola" hisself would it?

[Dick Bachert]

...and that historical "record" was written by WHICH SIDE?

The vanquished, right?

[WhiskeyPapa]

...and that historical "record" was written by WHICH SIDE?

The vanquished, right?

The -record- is written by both sides. Then it is interpreted. Some interpretations have stronger bases in the record that others.

DiLorenzo's interpretation is poorly supported and presented with an agenda already in place. He has a poor interpretation.

If I were you, I'd decide on my own interpretation based on the what the people of the day said and did. That is what I do.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Nonsense. The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date. You can fib all you like about The Lincoln, Walt, but that won't make his amendment go away nor will it change the text of that amendment, which would have protected slavery indefinately.

[GOPcapitalist]

Mr. "I'm not posting anymore" is peddling his wares on this thread.

Curious. And it looks like you can get it for half price or something. I guess he overestimated his print order with Kinkos.

[one2many]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828843/posts?page=1

[one2many]

LOL

Clarewho?

;^)

[Richard Kimball]

Whut? I dint foller whatcher ment their.

[GOPcapitalist]

Looks like Richard's still at it over at the declaration website as well. Here's his latest little rant. I've included my own remarks on it below

DECLARATION FOUNDATION'S "EDUCATION PAPERS" cont... by Dr. Richard Ferrier, President

At the Declaration Foundation, we have devoted a substantial portion of our civics textbook to an examination of Abraham Lincoln as a model "Declarationist Statesman."

That is to be expected. Use of The Lincoln as a national civic model is a central tenet of the Claremonster agenda and of those who follow it.

We have also exposed the many errors, big and little, that fill a dreadful new book, inappropriately titled "The Real Lincoln," by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo.

A while back I composed a list of the declaration/claremont grievances with DiLorenzo's book, each alleged in dozens of articles they have posted attacking it. The sum of those volumous rants ammounts to virtually nothing more than about 5 or 6 oft repeated complaints. None significantly changes, alters, or refutes any of the major arguments put forth in DiLorenzo's book. Out of those complaints, several are nothing more than hyperanalyzed typos of negligable significance or disputed interpretations of a text misrepresented as errors. The one factual error they did find out of the 200 page book was a contextual problem with a single Lincoln quote that has since been corrected for by the author.

Today, doing a google search for reputable reviews that have supplemented our own work at DF , I came across a new site that offers "The Real Lincoln Workbooks and Videos," as well as DiLorenzo's book, to the homeschool market. Most homeschool mothers are not scholars.

A good many homeschool mothers have greater teaching credentials than the majority of what exists in our public highschools today. While they may not all be college professors, it is condescending and presumptuous to declare that they lack scholarly ability.

Few will have the resources to discover the real character of this malicious and incompetent book.

The continued arrogance of Ferrier's statement aside, there is nothing preventing any homeschool mother from obtaining information on DiLorenzo's book, be it positive or negative, that any one of us could find. It stands to reason that a competant homeschooler could make an educated judgment about the book without biased parenting from the Declaration foundation.

Consequently, a number of good, innocent families will ingest intellectual and civic poison from this source.

Notice the assumptions of this statement. In one stroke Ferrier concludes against "ingesting" what he calls "civic poison" in DiLorenzo's book, yet never once does he bother to establish the attribute he assigns to it. In addition, the sum of his previous attempts to establish that attribute has proven woefully inadequite.

We at DF will do our best to issue a "product warning." We ask you to do the same. And, by all means, look over the links that reveal just how false and ugly a portrait of the Great Emancipator is painted in Dr. DiLorenzo's book.

In other words, read the declaration foundation and claremont websites. Notice that no suggestion is ever made to examine the other side of the issue, namely sites that praise DiLorenzo's book, and reach an educated conclusion from the sum of them.

One of the worst things that can happen to the homeschooling movement is for it to attract the scorn of our fellow citizens because it appears to teach "tin foil hat" nonsense.

This statement ammounts to nothing more than a fallacious appeal to image and misstated popularity combined with marginalization for the purpose of dismissal. By declaring DiLorenzo's book, which challenges the popular perception of The Lincoln, as an unpopular view and by further characterizing that view with the name "tin foil hat," Ferrier completely avoids having to intrinsically consider DiLorenzo's argument and its validity. This sets him up for an appeal to image among the homeschoolers. His message on this one is simple: "Take my word for it - if you read this book it will make your movement look bad." Sorry Richard, but your argumentation is extremely sloppy for a person of your credentials.

It's worse if the materials are un-American, as well.

His next appeal is to emotion. It is essentially, "don't read this book because it is un-American." This tactic permits Ferrier to fallaciously dismiss DiLorenzo's book while avoiding its content entirely.

Please join us in saving parents from teaching their children falsehoods, and spare the homeschool movement from suffering unnecessary contempt from Americans.

Again Ferrier is repeating the fallacious image appeal. Very sloppy indeed.

[Dick Bachert]

Problem is, the "people of the day" are all DEAD and, since there was no electronic recording at the time, we have nothing to rely on but the WRITTEN RECORD. And, historically, that record -- or as much of it as is allowed to be preserved -- is ALWAYS written by the WINNERS.

Case in point: Roosevelt ordered the brass press plates of all books NOT reprinted for a certain number of years resmelted for cartridges for the WWII effort. SEVERAL of those books (one by George Bancroft, founder of the Naval Academy among other things) dealt with subjects FDR would prefer remain out of the public domain to the extent he could remove them. Bancroft's book, "A Plea For The Constitution, Wounded in The House of Its Gardians") dealt with the evils of UNBACKED PAPER MONEY (which FDR was then merrily printing as fast as possible.

Fortunately, two printed copies of Bancroft's book were later found and reprinted by a friend of mine in the early 80s.

UNfortunately, as is now the case with Lincoln, NOBODY seems to WANT the TRUTH, preferring the more comfortable REVISIONIST version of events.

Tell me again that part about "agendas"...

[WhiskeyPapa]

A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Nonsense. The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date.

It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time. In any case, the slave power wasn't convinced of the possible benefits of remaining in the Union. Read the secession documents of the so-called seceded states.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time.

Not in the least. Between roughly 1820 and 1880 practically every single nation in the western world abolished slavery by peaceful means. America was the only one where it came as a result of a massive war of conquest.

[WhiskeyPapa]

UNfortunately, as is now the case with Lincoln, NOBODY seems to WANT the TRUTH, preferring the more comfortable REVISIONIST version of events.

It's DiLorenzo who wants revision. He quotes Lincoln in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

But he ignores the rest of the letter:

"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,

A. LINCOLN"

If you add that part of the letter, it hurts the interpretation that DiLorenzo is pushing, so he ignores it, as he ignores the whole thrust of Lincoln's position:

"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."

8/24/54

"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

August, 1858

"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."

3/1/59

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/23/63

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel...

In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."

4/4/64

"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

4/11/65

sources: "Abraham Lincoln, Mystic Chords of Memory" published by the Book of the Month Club, 1984 and:

"Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas, Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed. 1989

DiLorenzo would just as soon you not see the whole record of Lincoln's words come out.

Lincoln in 1860

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

It's nonsense to suggest that slavery was on its way out, of that anyone thought that at the time.

Not in the least. Between roughly 1820 and 1880 practically every single nation in the western world abolished slavery by peaceful means.

The war came because the slave power resisted a peaceful settlement.

Keeping slavery out of the national territories would have been a good foothold on a peaceful solution and the slave power was adamantly opposed.

Maybe President Lincoln was right when he said that if every drop of blodd drawn by the lash must be matched by one drawn with the sword, then no one could say that the judgments of the Lord were not true and righteous.

That is because the slave power was not willing to give up slavery without a fight. You'll not get the record fairly considered to say anything else:

"The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:

" 'It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated—is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days. ' "

-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

"We have the Executive with us, and the Senate & in all probability the H.R. too. Besides we have repealed the Missouri line & the Supreme Court in a decision of great power, has declared it, & all kindred measures on the part of the Federal Govt. unconstitutional null & void. So, that before our enemies can reach us, they must first break down the Supreme Court - change the Senate & seize the Executive & by an open appeal to Revolution, restore the Missouri line, repeal the Fugitive slave law & change the whole governt. As long as the Govt. is on our side I am for sustaining it, & using its power for our benefit, & placing the screws upon the throats of our opponents".

- Francis W. Pickens, Governor of South Carolina, June,1857

No one at the time thought American slavery was on its last legs, although the slave power stumbled down the one road that would strip them of their human property the fastest.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Lincoln's little pro-slavery amendment would have had the effect of artificially extending the institution well beyond its likely life by making it near impossible to repeal at a future date.

It wasn't Lincoln's amendment. He agreed to it to try and stop the rebellion.

Lincoln's bedrock position was that slavery not be allowed into the territories. He knew if slavery were limited to the areas where it currently existed, it would collapse. Like any empire, the slave empire had to either expand or die. The slavers knew it too. The slave power was willing to fight rather than see any restraint put on slavery whatsoever.

Walt