HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/22/2015 | Prof. Walter Williams

[SeekAndFind]

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln was also not as concerned about "Where" such duties would be collected as he was that they be collected.
Again, PeaRidge posted material that seems to indicate the Union was in a serious deficit condition at the start of the war."

What the graphics I posted demonstrate is that the loss of, say Charleston or Savannah would have little to no effect on Federal Government import duty revenues.

And the Federal Government's financial condition was only critical in early 1861, because of the demands of a rapidly looming civil war.
It took major changes by Congress to hugely increase Federal finances so they could pay for war.

So, if anything, the government's financial situation would have lead Lincoln to minimize expenditures and seek accommodation with the Confederacy.
But that's not what happened.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In the case of Southern Secession, there was no need to list causes, because the "causes" had been the subject of debate throughout the Nation for decades."

But several seceding states did officially list their reasons for secession, links have been posted here already, here for example is Mississippi's.

DiogenesLamp: "...an invasion fleet was ten miles away from Ft. Sumter and ready to land.
The Union was invading, they just stopped the mission after they heard that Ft. Sumter was under attack."

But there was no "invasion", it was a pre-announced resupply mission to Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
It was no more an "invasion" than US ships sent to resupply or reinforce Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision to use this mission as an excuse to launch military assault on Fort Sumter was strictly Jefferson Davis', who gets full blame or credit for all the resulting war's death & destruction.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I don't consider the right conditional on anyone's reasons for leaving, it is sufficient that they wish to leave."

But that is not what our Founders said, not in their Declaration of Independence, not in their Constitution, not ever.

In their minds there had to be necessity, solid reasons and lawful process before declaring independence.

If you wish to remove all those conditions, that's your desire, fine, but it's nothing anybody else needs to take seriously, FRiend.

DiogenesLamp: "That old constitutional thing didn't stop him when he didn't want it to stop him. He even admits he broke a few rules."

Referring to denial of habeas corpus, which Congress eventually authorized, as did the Confederate Congress for Jefferson Davis.

DiogenesLamp: "Had he forced Union states to give up their slaves, he would have had a mutiny."

If I remember most Southern Union states abolished slavery on their own, before the 13th Amendment was ratified.
And of course, all Southern states eventually ratified the 13th Amendment.

DiogenesLamp: "...the Union did not start a war with the South to abolish slavery, they started a war with the South to abolish independence..."

The Union never started Civil War, period.
The Confederacy provoked, started and declared war, sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri, months before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.

DiogenesLamp: "I am aware that it did, because they refused to allow white people to vote."

All white men could vote who had not served the Confederacy.
And in many counties throughout the Confederate South, that was the majority of whites who did vote.
Remember, we are still talking 1865 here, not later years of reconstruction.

DiogenesLamp: "What is odd is that it is difficult to find any reference to this bit of history, ...
But getting back to the point, by bringing this up, I take it that you are asserting that the 13th amendment was ratified in the Southern states by black legislatures?"

Sorry, my mistake... President Andrew Johnson from eastern Tennessee, helped establish and negotiated with state legislatures in 1865.
These were composed of such Unionists as could be found in each state.

Kentucky finally ratified in 1976, and Mississippi was the last state to ratify the 13th Amendment, its ratification officially certified on February 7, 2013.

So obviously, there were many in former Confederate states who didn't go along with abolitionism.

On the whole period of reconstruction, that is almost never debated on these threads, with the result that I am quite vague on those events, prone to error... ;-(

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You've endlessly explained that the Slave holding states had no right to independence because they were slave holding states.
That is the summation of all your arguments."

Then you are dumber than rocks, what are you doing wasting people's time here?
Go crawl back under that rock you came out of, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: ""Original Intent" is that a group of Slave Owning States had a God given right to gain independence from a Larger Union.
The rest of what you wrote is just drivel, and not cognizant enough to bother with rebutting."

Your words in no way describe the Original Intent of Founders who wrote and ratified the US Constitution.
And your efforts to drive a wedge between the Declaration and Constitution are just ridiculous, of no merit: case dismissed.

[rockrr]

The difference is that the world was evolving past the concept of slavery. most of the “civilized” nations were in the process of or had already eliminated slavery. Every northern state had either outlawed slavery or had defined a path to emancipation.

The south held out and was determined to not only perpetuate slavery, but to expand it. I can understand why - after all they had a considerable investment in what appeared to them to be a guaranteed money-maker.

I’ve heard other southern partisans make the claim that “they just wanted things to stay as they were”. The problem with that was that the world was changing (not just the northern states) and the slavocracy was finding itself increasingly on the outs with everybody.

[rockrr]

I agree Tau Food. If one is to talk in defense of the united States there will come a time when they will have to defend the mixed bag that is Manifest Destiny. If one is to talk in defense of the confederacy there will come a time when they will be obliged to support the south’s abiding interest in the Particular Institution. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest and indeed to flirt with delusion.

The posts that I have seen offered up here are straightforward and unambiguous - with the exception of one poster who insists upon twisting the words of others and imputing values unto others whole cloth. He is innately dishonest and unworthy of engaging.

His loss not ours.

[celmak]

But don't seize on just the Lincoln bit, also address the Illinois white citizens rounding up Free blacks and selling them into slavery in the South. Acknowledge that Illinois, as a state, was just as racists and hateful as people try to make the Southern states out to be.

You assume that I see the antebellum period as a North/South problem - you could not be more wrong! I see it as a slavers/abolitionists problem; and by the 1830's-40's the Demorats (spelled the way I wish to) became the Party of slavery. If slaver laws passed in Illinois during the time of Lincoln, it was mainly because of Demorats (maybe with some pro-slave Whigs at the time). For me, this North/South thing was incidental/providential.

[jeffersondem]

“Please cite any founding fathers that state or imply the Full Faith and Credit Clause (or any other part of Article IV) was intended to regulate secession.”

You don’t cite any founding fathers supporting your position. I think we both know why.

[jeffersondem]

“I rest my case on constitutional grounds, as long as the constitution is moral.”

And when the northern states discovered the constitution was not moral, they began the killing.

Yes, the north rebelled against immorality and the immoral constitution. Strange thing that: it was the southerners who were called rebels.

[jeffersondem]

“The problem with that was that the world was changing (not just the northern states) and the slavocracy was finding itself increasingly on the outs with everybody.”

An argument could be made the above opinion is justification for killing 600,000 people in a total war. In fact, the argument is made here all the time.

[EternalVigilance]

Again, all you have to hang your hat on is a claim to a non-existent “right” to do wrong, to enslave other men. Apart from such an illegitimate claim, the illicit constitutional provision is moot.

[EternalVigilance]

And when the northern states discovered the constitution was not moral, they began the killing.

Actually, the killing started because of a continued southern claim to a "right" to do one of the most egregious wrongs there can ever be, which is to enslave their neighbor.

[rockrr]

Except that the north didn’t instigate the conflict - the south did.

[DiogenesLamp]

We’ll let President Washington speak for himself:

You obviously didn't bother reading mine, so i'm not going to bother reading yours.

[EternalVigilance]

Stay ignorant then. See if I care.

[jeffersondem]

“Except that the north didn’t instigate the conflict - the south did.”

Are you speaking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, err, I mean the Fort Sumter incident?

[PeaRidge]

Rarely do we find direct evidence of Lincoln ordering invasion and seizure. You might find this interesting (from the OR).

April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.

You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

[PeaRidge]

"But it was demanded by the slaveholders, with the threat of the dissolution of the national Union that had been forged in the fires of the Revolution."

Not exactly accurate.

The following is an extract from the sermon of Rev. Dr. N. Adams, of the Essex Street Church, Boston, delivered on Fast Day, January 4, 1861:

“We at the North are certainly responsible before God for the existence of slavery in our land. The Committee of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, consisted of Messrs. Rutledge, of South Carolina, Randolph, of Virginia, and three from the Free States, viz: Messrs. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Gorham, of Massachusetts, and Ellsworth, of Connecticut.

“They reported, as a section for the Constitution, that no tax or other duty should be laid on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States should think proper to admit; not that such migration or importation should be prohibited. This was referred by the Convention to a committee, a majority of whom being from the Slave States, they reported that the Slave Trade be abolished after 1800, and that a tax be levied on imported slaves.

But in the Convention, the Free States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, voted to extend the trade eight years, and it was accordingly done; by means of which it is estimated there are now at least three hundred thousand more slaves in the country than there would otherwise have been.”

“A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.”
-—Thomas Jefferson

[jeffersondem]

“But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

E.T. - it seems like just yesterday you were approvingly quoting Washington’s words. Knowing that you advocated a sacred obligation to the constitution made me feel warm all over.

Now I see you post references about an “illicit constitutional provision.” I am beginning to doubt your commitment to Washington’s words - or to the Constitution that Washington advocated.

E.T. you are conflicted - because the northern cause you advocate is, and always has been, conflicted.

The north fought to free the slaves. The north did not fight to free the slaves. Lincoln was opposed to secession; after he advocated rebellion. The north said states could never leave the union. The north insisted the states had to be readmitted to the union. The north “had to” destroy the South in order to save it.

E.T. you need to stop debating history and stop debating yourself. Whenever something comes up, the only thing you should say is “Lincoln freed the slaves.” You will look like a hero.