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

[Ditto]

If one holds that a seceded state is no longer a state, then U.S. law may continue to operate in all states in absence of its operation in that seceded state.

Sounds like the Mendez Brothers defense to me. Ya, we killed our parents, but don't punish us because we're just poor orphans.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Don't try to change the subject again, Walt. The Lincoln's reelection activities are not the issue here.

I'll address any subject I like.

You were saying that Lincoln was a political opportunist. Donald's work suggests that Lincoln was a man of principles that could not be shaken. That is a fair interpretation.

More Donald:

Donald states (about Lincoln in August of 1864), "...Had he failed to to insist on abolition as a condition for peace negotiations, he explained, he would be guilty of treachery to the hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who had 'come bodily over from the rebel side to ours.' Such betrayal could not 'escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man.'

...this was interpreted the next day in the New York Times thusly:

"Mr. Lincoln did say that he receive and consider propositions for peace...,if. they embraced the integrity of the Union and the abandonment of Slavery. But he did not say that he would not receive them unless they embraced both these conditions."

Lincoln further said:

"There have been men who have proposed to me to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson & Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South. I should be damned in time & in eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends & enemies, come what will."

Now, Lincoln made these statements in late summer 1864 -- when he seriously thought the 1864 election could not be won.

He was a man of principle; the record shows that much.

Walt

[Ditto]

The amendment stated that slavery could not be ended the way it was ended - by amendment.

Show me one example of anyone, even the wildest abolutionist, contemplating ending slavery by amendment in 1860. They all knew then it could only be ended by the states, individually. That is why people like Greeley called the Constitution a pact with the devel.

The war, as wars tend to do, changed the realities. But in 1860, it was beyond comprehension for it to have ended that way. The south knew it, and the people who proposed that amendment knew it. That is why that amendment was a non-starter from the get-go. It was simply a desperation attempt to hold the Union together.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I'm reminded of the scene in "1984" where Richard Burton's character asks John Heard's character if he has received his latest version of Newspeak.

As you should be. You've been practicing a tortured form of politically motivated linguistic gymnastics on this thread since you arrived here.

Ha. You are the one suggesting a state is not a state.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Sounds like the Mendez Brothers defense to me. Ya, we killed our parents, but don't punish us because we're just poor orphans.

Nonsense. Walt's claim is that the applicability of federal acts to all states prevents them from seceding though it is not specified. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise - its a non-sequitur.

[4CJ]

Quote the book on how tariffs figured in to all of this.

Not from the above book, but a few others will suffice. For clarity I took the liberty of coloring Lincoln's comments red.

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.

And these:

Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.

"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"

"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!" [italics in original]
Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.

And another similar account of the preceding:

"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?"

"Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
Evert A. Duyckinck, National history of the war for the union, civil, military and naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861.

The meeting was written up in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.

[Aurelius]

"The act requires that U.S. law operate in all the states."

"It is therefore a bar to unilateral state secession."

As GOPcapitalist has pointed out, that is a non sequitur, (and one fully worthy of your buddy of the same name).

Perhaps you would like to explain how you think your conclusion follows without begging the question. Quoting "1984", or some other novel, won't cut it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Ha. You are the one suggesting a state is not a state.

No Walt. I am asserting that a state which acts to cease its existence as a state is no longer a state by way of that act. It's a simple relationship of being. If a certain act causes A to cease to be A and instead become B, it is fraudulent to assert that B is still A. Yet that is exactly what you are doing.

[Ditto]

Walt's claim is that the applicability of federal acts to all states prevents them from seceding though it is not specified. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise - its a non-sequitur.

Walt is right in line with the father of the Constitution, James Madison. Madison said quite plainly that unilateral secession was not constitutional.

[4CJ]

The rebels were like the Japanese in 1941-45.

LINCOLN was like the Japanese in 1941, lying to the peace commissionars and Justice Campbell about the attempted restocking of Ft. Sumter: invading while lying.

[mac_truck]

The only freedom the confederates fought for was the freedom to own slaves!

[WhiskeyPapa]

The rebels were like the Japanese in 1941-45.

LINCOLN was like the Japanese in 1941, lying to the peace commissionars and Justice Campbell about the attempted restocking of Ft. Sumter: invading while lying.

You know that's not true.

Washington,

April 6. 1861

Sir--

You will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort-Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, without will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort"

After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself--

But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort-Sumpter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered, by the United States force; or, shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Gov. Pickens, but return here forthwith-- [On Following Sheet:]

I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort--

[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]

Notice carried by R. S. Chew to Gov. Pickens, and his report as to how he gave the notice--

Charleston S. C.

April 8th 1861

To The President

Under the foregoing orders I left Washington at 6 P.M. Saturday April 6th, 1861, in company with Capt. Theodore Talbot, U. S. Army, and arrived at Charleston, S. C. on Monday at the same hour. Finding that Fort Sumter had neither been surrendered, evacuated nor attacked, I immediately thro' Capt. Talbot, requested an interview with Governor Pickens, which was at once accorded to me, and I then read to him the portion of said orders in italics, and delivered to him the copy of the same which was furnished to me for that purpose, in the presence of Capt Talbot.

Govr. Pickens received the Copy and said he would submit it to General Beauregard, he having, since the ratification of the Constitution of the Confederate States by South Carolina, been placed in charge of the Military operations in this vicinity-- Genl. Beauregard was accordingly sent for, and the Governor read the paper to him.

In reply to a remark made by Governor Pickens in reference to an answer I informed him that I was not authorised to receive any communication from him in reply--

Respectfully submitted

R. S. Chew

War Department

As you -very- well know, it was Seward, not Lincoln who met with the rebel commissioners.

But any kind of lie will do in support of "southern" heritage.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Walt is right in line with the father of the Constitution, James Madison. Madison said quite plainly that unilateral secession was not constitutional.

Your response fails to address my statement - that Walt's conclusion about secession does not logically follow from his premise. Madison's opinion may certainly weigh in on another aspect of this debate, as may that of Jefferson, whose writings permit the possibility of secession. But neither of those authorities are the issue at hand. Therefore your citing of Madison is a non-response.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Walt is right in line with the father of the Constitution, James Madison. Madison said quite plainly that unilateral secession was not constitutional.

Your response fails to address my statement - that Walt's conclusion about secession does not logically follow from his premise.

The text of the Militia Act is no non-sequitur:

According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:

"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

You'll note it says nothing about a state having passed an ordnance of secession to be a bar to federal action.

And the Supreme Court did not see it that way in the Prize Cases ruling either.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Madison's opinion may certainly weigh in on another aspect of this debate, as may that of Jefferson, whose writings permit the possibility of secession.

No one denies the possibility of secession -- not Madison and not Lincoln. Madison called secession only another name for revolution. What is clear is that unilateral state secession is outside U.S. law.

Walt

[Aurelius]

"...unilateral state secession is outside U.S. law."

It is indeed "outside U.S. law" in the sense that it isn't mentioned. Being "outside U.S. law", however, is by no means the same thing as being illegal.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"...unilateral state secession is outside U.S. law."

It is indeed "outside U.S. law" in the sense that it isn't mentioned. Being "outside U.S. law", however, is by no means the same thing as being illegal.

Well now both the Beavis and Butthead of the "1984" set have weighed in.

If you can secede and still have U.S. law operate --- the marshals can't haul you off, now-- go for it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I am asserting that a state which acts to cease its existence as a state is no longer a state by way of that act.

You try it.

"The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).

-- James Madison

Walt

[thatdewd]

You don't know the history.

LOL - Once again, and as always, you are wrong. Most Constitutional scholars (good ones) will cite the 1863 date, since the cases were not heard until February of 1863 and the decision rendered that year. They were filed in December of 1862, but not heard or decided on until the next year, 1863, because the Court wanted to wait until a new Justice was seated. So much for that controversy. However, in regards to more important issues, like what it was they decided on, your idiotic statements regarding the finding of the cases were wrong. Just as you were wrong in saying it was unanimous. The Supreme Court's decision on the "Prize Cases" did not decide secession was illegal. Nor did it declare the war an illegal insurrection. It did not even deal with those issues, they were not the point of the cases. They only thing the Court decided was that it was constitutional for the President to react to a state of war (irregardless of what type) without waiting for Congressional declaration. Once again, and as usual, you are wrong.

[WhiskeyPapa]

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?" Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.

This story appears to be apocryphal.

But you forgot this:

"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...

If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not.

Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860

Tariffs were a piddling amount -- less than $2 per year per person in the USA. And 95% of -that- amount was collected in northern ports. Two customs houses in the south LOST money -- it cost more to operate them than they collected.

But the collection of tariffs -was- a sign of federal power, and one that President Lincoln was not willing to relinquish.

Walt