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?

[DiogenesLamp]

Here are a couple of links for you. See if you can figure out what they have in common with your position.

http://www.damninteresting.com/up-in-the-air/

http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-cecil-the-lion-and-the-goodwhite-badwhite-cold-civil-war

[DiogenesLamp]

In response to Brass Lamp, EternalVigilance wrote:
How about you simply read the next post.

I would suggest that if it has the name "EternalVigilance" attached to it, you simply skip over it, unless you happen to like wading into non sequitur and nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

We broke from England because of the tyranny of taxation without representation, a moral cause.

Had England decided to win, it wouldn't have been a "moral cause" it would be declared an "immoral clause" and people like you would be arguing that it was right and proper for England to smash this immoral attempt at Independence.

If the topic was ever subsequently brought up, someone like you would be foaming at the mouth regarding the absolute immorality of Colonists throwing off their perpetual allegiance to the King. As the King was selected to rule by God, defying the King is the Ultimate immorality.

Your problem is that you have no grasp of zeitgeist.

[DiogenesLamp]

ladyjane: "I’m not sure the northern states ever tired of slavery.

Massachusetts never enacted any laws against slavery."

In fact, according to this source, Massachusetts was the first state to free all its slaves, in 1783, through a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, enforcing the 1780 Massachusetts constitution.

And of course you do not grasp the distinction between passing a "law", and a court riding roughshod over the law. Ladyjane is correct. Massachusetts didn't pass a law, They simply had liberal judges overturn what was then existing law.

Liberal Massachusetts has seemingly always had a penchant for Judicial Activism, and generally cares little what the law actually means.

[DiogenesLamp]

For certain, a more careful look shows that every other Northern state abolished slavery gradually, ...

Well of course they did. It gave Northern Slave owners time to go sell their slaves in the South and recoup their money.

This allowed them to keep the profits they made from slavery.

[ladyjane]

The Massachusetts Supreme Court did not free them. It allowed them to sue for their freedom.

My statement said Massachusetts never enacted any laws to free the slaves. That is true.

[ladyjane]

African slavery was no different from nor worse than any other kind of slavery. There has been slavery all over the world for all time. The Muslims enslaved millions. They bought their slaves from blacks in Africa, they captured their victims at sea or they invaded countries in Europe for slaves. England enslaved tens of thousands of Irish and sent them to Australia. It’s been a human tradition to enslave others.

And many indentured servants were treated worse. Remember the first slave in this country was an indentured servant who was enslaved by a black man. He never signed up for slavery.

BTW most other groups of former slaves and even non-enslaved immigrants have been able to assimilate into the culture and have thrived. Blacks in this country seem unable to do that and want to blame it on something that happened over 150 years ago to people they never knew.

[Tau Food]

I can't help but notice that some people seem to find it easy to succeed in this world and some people seem to find it easy to fail. When I read an article like the one this Derbyshire guy wrote, I wonder: should we consider people who fail to be victims because they fail, or do these people fail at least in part because they convince themselves that they are victims.

Does it help to view other people as either being with us or against us, as being either one of them or one of us, goodwrites or badwhites? Does it simplify things? Does it ease our pain? Does it explain or excuse our failures?

What role does attitude play in success and failure, happiness and misery? Is it somebody else's duty to gift us with success or happiness? Can anyone else gift us with these things?

I know that Derbyshire was born in England. Later, he looked around the world and applied for American citizenship. Like everyone else, I complain from time to time about this or that, but I know that Derbyshire made the right choice - the USA is the best place to be. We're very lucky.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And of course you do not grasp the distinction between passing a "law", and a court riding roughshod over the law.
Ladyjane is correct.
Massachusetts didn't pass a law, They simply had liberal judges overturn what was then existing law."

Let's try an analogy: when was there ever a law against gay "marriage"?
Never, because it was always understood that marriage was between a man & woman, no other laws necessary.

Likewise, once the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled their Constitution made slavery illegal, no further laws were considered necessary.

So I don't "get" why you think this is a big deal.
After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Vermont was the first state to take action against slavery, in 1777, and Massachusetts the second, in 1783.
Yes, it appears that no Northern state abolished slavery overnight, but certainly by 1860 slavery was pretty much just a bad memory in all Northern states.

And your problem with this is what, exactly?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It gave Northern Slave owners time to go sell their slaves in the South and recoup their money."

Also time for older slaves to die naturally, which was certainly the preferred outcome.

But speaking of selling slaves "down South", that was in fact the reason states like Virginia agreed to the Constitution's ban on international slave imports.
Virginians and other "old South" states made fortunes selling their slaves into "new South" states like Mississippi and Alabama.
So, abolishing the possibility of importing new slaves from Africa only made Virginia bred slaves much more valuable.

By the way, Massachusetts recorded one "slave" in it's 1840 census, but none in any census either before or after.
So, all claims that Massachusetts somehow tolerated slavery because it lacked some law or other, must be viewed as just the normal run-of-the-mill cockamamie nonsense we've come to expect and love from our indefatigable Lost-Causers.

We have no actual records of any Northern slaves being sold "down South", but outside New York and New Jersey, if any, the numbers could only theoretically be in the hundreds, since there were never more than a few slaves.
And certainly more Southern slaves escaped North on the Underground Railroad than were ever sold in Northern states for transport South.

Over that same time period, hundreds of thousands of Old South slaves were sold to plantations in the Deep South.

We should note that those counties with the fewest slaves also had the most loyal Unionists.
1860 percent of slaves in Southern Counties (darker=more):

[BroJoeK]

Ladyjane: "African slavery was no different from nor worse than any other kind of slavery....
...And many indentured servants were treated worse...."

But there was a huge difference between African-slavery and European indentured service, and it begins with the fact that indenture was entered voluntarily as a way to pay off debts, and always included a set time limit.
Children of indentured servants were not themselves indentured, once their parents had fulfilled the terms of their contracts.

Yes, there were some abuses of the indentured service system, but it's estimated that between 1620 and 1776 about half of the 500,000 European immigrants came to America as indentured servants, fulfilled their contracts and went on to live normal lives.

Nothing remotely similar can be said of the 300,000 African slaves brought here in chains.

[ladyjane]

Nothing remotely similar can be said of the 300,000 African slaves brought here in chains.

That's right. Slaves who came here were lucky. They got to live.

Unlike the African slaves who were taken to the islands and South America. Many of them died of tropical diseases. If you believe the reports, very few of those going elsewhere survived. BTW there were many indentured servants who were also sent to the Islands and South American. They didn't survive.

The slaves who came to America were the luckiest. They came to the land of opportunity.

They are the only group that hasn't taken advantage of that opportunity.

[ladyjane]

Massachusetts legislature never had the courage/fortitude/or whatever to vote on slavery. I’ll say it again, Massachusetts never passed any laws against slavery.

It’s very much like Massachusetts and gay marriage. They never passed laws against it. It was Maggie Marshall (born in South Africa) who ruled from the Supreme Court who allowed it.

Here is a very interesting website. I think we will both find it interesting.

http://slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm

[BroJoeK]

Ladyjane: “The slaves who came to America were the luckiest. They came to the land of opportunity.”

Of course that’s right — first because, if you had to be a slave, then the USA was the place to be one, and second, once freed from slavery, African Americans quickly became the wealthiest people of African descent in the world.
No argument about that.

Ladyjane: “They are the only group that hasn’t taken advantage of that opportunity.”

Too true of some, but certainly not all.
Indeed, most of recent pathologies amongst poor blacks have the same root causes and symptoms as amongst poor whites: Big Government welfare programs intended to keep poor people dependent, unemployed and unmarried.
After all, if the government supplies your every need, why go looking for a job, or a spouse?

[BroJoeK]

Ladyjane: “Massachusetts legislature never had the courage/fortitude/or whatever to vote on slavery.
I’ll say it again, Massachusetts never passed any laws against slavery. “

I’ll say it again: so what?
Every ten years between 1790 and 1860 the Federal Government conducted a census, just as it does today.
In all that time, Massachusetts only recorded ONE SLAVE.
Not one thousand, or one million, ONE SLAVE, period, in 1840!
So how can you fault a law, or the lack of a law, when RESULTS clearly show the absence of slavery in Massachusetts?

Indeed the great complaint from 1861 Deep South secessionists was that northern states like Massachusetts were not vigorously enough rounding up and returning their runaway Fugitive Slaves.

So, in 1860 Massachusetts was a sanctuary state, not a previously unsuspected “slave state”.

[ladyjane]

This is getting tiresome.

I made a statement that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legislature never passed any laws against slavery.

That statement stands. Good grief you can’t argue that statement.

I am not going to say it again.

Any other inferences you want to make about that statement you may. But they are your inferences.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Had England decided to win, it wouldn't have been a "moral cause" it would be declared an "immoral clause" and people like you would be arguing that it was right and proper for England to smash this immoral attempt at Independence.

Uh, no I wouldn't. I believe there should be rebellion anywhere a people lose their representation if that people have the integrity to conduct themselves in a Godly way.

If the topic was ever subsequently brought up, someone like you would be foaming at the mouth regarding the absolute immorality of Colonists throwing off their perpetual allegiance to the King. As the King was selected to rule by God, defying the King is the Ultimate immorality.

No, my 5-great grandfather fought for representation here out of Norfolk in the American Revolution. Representation is in my blood. If you look at my posting history you'll see I post mostly on Christian threads. When a nation strays from biblical principles, there should be rebellion or separation. Britain violated God's Word through their unfairness to the American Colonists and before that by their policies against free enterprise. Deuteronomy is very economically conservative.

Your problem is that you have no grasp of zeitgeist.

No, most Americans know and have always known slavery is evil. It's what our Constitution is about, except the parts the southerners wrote. lol

[BroJoeK]

Ladyjane: “I made a statement that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legislature never passed any laws against slavery.”

Your statement is obviously intended as a criticism of Bay Staters, for, at a minimum the “hypocrisy” of opposing slavery in OTHER states, while supposedly tolerating it in their own.
Indeed, if you don’t intend to be critical, then why even mention it?

But census data shows that, in fact, Massachusetts never “tolerated” slavery from 1790 through 1860, and other reports say they were part of the Underground Railroad to free Fugitive Slaves.

So, your point is pointless.
Sorry about that.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't help but notice that some people seem to find it easy to succeed in this world and some people seem to find it easy to fail. When I read an article like the one this Derbyshire guy wrote, I wonder: should we consider people who fail to be victims because they fail, or do these people fail at least in part because they convince themselves that they are victims.

After reading your comment, I had to go back and read the John Derybshire article in an attempt to figure out how you got your take on it. I failed.

To me, the point John Derbyshire is making is that there are two classes of Whites in this country. There are the Northeastern (and now West Coast) Liberals, who develop a "new" and "enlightened" standard of what is "moral" and then try to impose that same standard on the rest of us, and thereafter treat with disdain anyone not sufficiently filled with the fervor of their perceived moral enlightenment. If you do not see the echos of the abolition movement in this, then you are not grasping the concept.

This business about the Lion is merely another manifestation of the same phenomena, just in a different way. Nowadays it has become popular to assert a sort of elevation of animals above humans. As has been pointed out many places elsewhere, the US Liberals are quite upset that a Lion in Africa got killed, but pay little attention to humans getting killed by Lions in Africa. I will point out that G.K. Chesterton said: "Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience."

When he mentions "Good Whites" and "Bad Whites" he is facetiously mocking the divide between Liberals and Conservatives, and likewise pointing out how Liberals are able to control the narrative by their influence on the Media and entertainment industries.

Does it help to view other people as either being with us or against us, as being either one of them or one of us, goodwrites or badwhites? Does it simplify things? Does it ease our pain? Does it explain or excuse our failures?

Does it simplify things? Yes. It simplifies things greatly. You may not be aware of this, but most people don't want to wade through a bunch of philosophical dreck to decide what to do. "Us" and "Them" clarifies things enormously, and people favor it because it is instinctive in human nature.

Your personal dislike of this natural methodology for drawing battle lines is immaterial. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the standard that most people use.

I know that Derbyshire was born in England. Later, he looked around the world and applied for American citizenship. Like everyone else, I complain from time to time about this or that, but I know that Derbyshire made the right choice - the USA is the best place to be. We're very lucky.

It is currently, but only because the rest of the planet is racing to get worse faster than we are getting worse. This is still not to say that the US of today is as good as the US of yesteryear.

It's not. We are less free, the cost of living continues to rise, threats abound all around us, and the predictable consequences of previous bad policies are about to come due.

That we are still least bad misses the point. We are going to become increasingly bad if something is not done to stop it, and that "something" is looking increasingly remote with each passing year.

We know civilizations can collapse, because we have witnessed it happen in history too many times. It appears we are heading for one.

[Tau Food]

We are less free,

I feel pretty free here in America.

Can you think of some things that you personally want to do but can't do here? What are the three most important things?