Posted on 02/13/2009 8:05:16 AM PST by Dick Bachert
I don't know what they teach in U.S. history classes today. But back in the middle of the last century, when I was in elementary school, there was absolutely no question about how we were to regard Abraham Lincoln. We were taught to feel a reverence bordering on awe for Honest Abe, the Great Emancipator, the eloquent martyr who saved the Republic.
We were required to memorize the Gettysburg Address. And if we were lucky enough to join a field trip to our nation's capitol, one of the most significant events was our visit to the Lincoln Memorial. (A few of us rapscallions spoiled the solemnity of the moment by sliding down the sides of the monument.)
That was what we were taught in the grade schools of Cleveland, Ohio. And I suspect it wasn't any different in any other school in the North. Some of you sons and daughters of the South will have to tell me what your teachers and history books said.
It wasn't until I became an adult and started reading history on my own that I began to doubt the version of events I was taught nearly six decades ago. For example, did you know that Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the North, including the writ of habeas corpus? That he filled the jails with more than 13,000 political prisoners, all incarcerated without due process? The Supreme Court protested Lincoln's disregard for our Constitutional protections, but the president replied he had a war to fight. Since he commanded the army, Lincoln won that argument.
And speaking of the war, guess who uttered these words:
"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. This is a most valuable — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 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 their territory as they inhabit."
Okay, I'll admit this is a trick question. The speaker was Abraham Lincoln. But he was not talking about the southern states that tried to secede from the Union. No, these remarks were made in 1847, when Lincoln was defending the right of Texans to demand their independence from Mexico. A dozen years later, when six southern states tried to declare their independence, Lincoln's response was to wage war on them.
As a child, I never questioned the assertion that the South was wrong to secede. And that Lincoln was right to use as much force as necessary to preserve the Union. Later, as I grew to understand the strength and uniqueness of our Constitutional Republic, I began to question both assumptions.
The U.S. Constitution, I came to believe, was a contract — a contract between the various states and the federal government they created. Note that the Constitution had to be approved by the states, not a majority of the citizens. There was no "majority rule" here, no popular vote taken.
But this raises the question, if it was necessary for the states to adopt the Constitution, why wouldn't it be legal for some of those states to rescind that vote, especially if they felt the contract had been broken? More and more, I found myself thinking that the South was legally and morally right in declaring its independence. And the North, by invading those states and waging war on them, was wrong.
And what a terrible war it was. By the time it was over, nearly 625,000 Americans were dead — more American servicemen than were killed in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. Fully one-fourth of the draft-age white population of the South was dead.
The devastation in the former states of the confederacy is hard to imagine. Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah is notorious for its savagery. But he was far from the only Northern officer who ordered his troops to lay waste to southern farms, fields, and plantations. Union troops routinely destroyed crops, sacked homes, and even stabled their horses in Southern churches.
As H.W. Crocker III puts it in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Regnery Publishing, 2008), "If abiding by the law of a free republic and fighting a defensive war solely against armed combatants be flaws, the South had them and the North did not. Lincoln ignored the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court when it suited him. His armies waged war on the farms, livelihoods, and people of the South, not just against their armies."
Of all the big lies about the War Between the States, the biggest of all may be that it was necessary to end slavery. The truth is that many illustrious southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, recognized that slavery had to come to an end. But it should not come by force of arms, they felt; not at the point of a gun, but rather through the free consent of the owners, with the proper preparation of the slaves. To get them ready for their own freedom, for example, Lee's wife insisted the family's slaves be taught to read and write, and the women how to sew.
Despite what most of us have been taught, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It wasn't a law, but an edict. It specifically exempted the Border States and any parts of the South that were already under the control of Federal forces. It applied only to areas that were still in rebellion. So the Proclamation, of and by itself, did not free a single slave.
What it did, however, was change the nature of the conflict. Now the war was no longer about restoring the Union, or preventing Southern independence. Now it was about the morality, and the legality, of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not make the war more popular in the north, but it did end the possibility of other countries, especially France and Britain, from coming to the aid of the South. They might have been willing to assist southern independence; but support a war in favor of slavery? Never.
As Crocker notes, "In Southern eyes, the Emancipation Proclamation was the ultimate in Yankee perfidy — an attempt to incite slave uprisings against Confederate women and children." Then he notes, "Happily, while the proclamation did encourage slaves to seek their freedom, there were no slave uprisings, no murders of women and children — which might say something good about Southerners too, both white and black."
Abraham Lincoln, more than any other president who came before him, changed the very nature of our government. There would never again be as many limitations on the powers of the federal government. And just as tragic, the concept of states' rights suffered a blow from which it has never recovered.
I'm told that more than 14,000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln. Most, of course, are incredibly adulatory. The few that attempt to balance the scales are virtually ignored. While it may not be true that might makes right, it is definitely true that the winners write the history books.
And, who do you think they hired? And was it more expensive? Did the hired help require feeding and clothing?
I’ve read McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom and he is far more generous to Lincoln in that book than most of the anti-Lincoln posters here. That is expect for the Epilogue where he morphs into the typical modern day liberal college professor. As far as Lincoln on the slavery issue, it would be Frederick Douglass whom I would quote, especially his speech dedicating a monument to Lincoln in 1876.
That the country dramatically changed after 1865 is undeniable, but it was much closer to the ideals of 1776 than it had been previously. Slavery is simply not compatible with the Declaration of Independence, and anyone who thinks it wasn’t about slavery hasn’t read the secession documents approved by the South Carolina or Georgia legislatures.
As for books to read, I would recommend Harry Jaffa, The New Birth of Freedom.
I can’t think of one government bureaucracy Lincoln created that remains with us today. Starting with T. Roosevelt and the FDA, they are too numerous to mention.
While this was specifically aimed at George, III, that was the wording of the document leading to and further defining the “contract” eventually made by the states with the central government.
If someone can point me to where the Founders wrote and signed off on a Declaration of DEPENDENCE (on the central government — our NEW and IMPROVED king), I’d LOVE to see a copy. In fact, please post it here for all to see and marvel at.
Yeah. Michael Holt, he's an idiot.
(My guess is that you are more selective than the folks like Holt in what you read and how you interpret it.)
ML/NJ
That may be because McPherson, like anyone in his profession is limited in what he can write, or because he would rather not write the ugly truth. Look up the Baltimore Plot in BCoF. You will find a rather mysterious short paragraph about it. There was word of an assassination plot to be effected in Baltimore so Lincoln changed trains to avoid notice in Baltimore. McPherson reports that Lincoln "regretted the decision." Hmm? What's wrong with this picture? Die in Baltimore, or arrive alive in DC? What's to regret? There is a "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey might call it, and it doesn't reflect very well on "Honest" Abe's character. Leaving it out is such an honest omission.
ML/NJ
“Simply because he was never supported by the Administration as he should have been; troops were withheld from him, when he called loudly for them.”
There is no doubt the troops loved “Old Mac,” but that doesn’t change the fact he was without a doubt one of the worst commanding generals who ever commanded an army. He was very good at organizing an army and getting it in shape to march, but when faced with the enemy he had, as Lincoln so aptly put it, “the slows.”
I don’t think you could find but a handful of Civil War historians who would ever argue that McClellan was at best a poor commander, at worst a commander who defied orders to promote his own ambitions.
One of the things that made the soldiers love Grant was that after the Wilderness Campaign they discovered themselves marching south instead of north. No more retreating after a battle to lick wounds and within a year the war was won.
In the end, McClellan’s true colors showed when he ran on a platform of negotiating with the South and was soundly defeated.
“But there were pockets of the North on the eve of the Revolution where slaves played key roles in the economic and social order:”
I don’t think anyone is arguing there wasn’t ever slavery in the North. The difference is that by the 1804 all had been set free.
Slavery in the South was not profitable and was based mostly on culture. A field hand slave cost about 1,800 dollars, which does not include cost of feeding or housing. A plantation owner that owned 20 field hands probably lost 10 percent to death or runaways bringing the actual cost of a slave to about 2,000 dollars. The daily wage for a free farm worker in those days was about 1 dollar a day. If you subtract the non growing or harvesting days it would cost a plantation owner about 150 dollars a year to employ a farm workers instead of slaves. Given that a slave likely did not work any harder than he absolutely had to, the free farm worker would also have to be more productive.
So, a plantation owner was tying up 2,000 dollars in capital for labor that would cost him about 150 dollars a year for free labor and not require any capital investment. Much of this was why the south was so poor in capital and depended on the north for most industry, causing a lot of the sectionalism that separated north from south.
Plantation owners argued that slavery was necessary given the need for labor to produce cotton cheaply enough to feed northern industrialists, but this was an argument formulated to justify slavery, and not the other way around. One has to believe either southern growers were either the worlds worst businessmen or had other motivations for why they used slave labor.
I don’t recall the exact dates but I believe there were no more slaves in the north after 1804. Slavery was also dying in the south at about that time, then the cotton gin came along.
1790—First United States Census Nearly 700,000 slaves live and toil in a nation of 3.9 million people.
1793 Fugitive Slave Act The United States outlaws any efforts to impede the capture of runaway slaves.
1794—Cotton Gin Eli Whitney patents his device for pulling seeds from cotton. The invention turns cotton into the cash crop of the American South—and creates a huge demand for slave labor.
1808 United States Bans Slave Trade Importing African slaves is outlawed, but smuggling continues.
1820—Missouri Compromise Missouri is admitted to the Union as a slave state, Maine as a free state. Slavery is forbidden in any subsequent territories north of latitude 36°30´.
Yes, he was an arrogant and disrespectful commanding officer. Lincoln tolerated him far too long in my estimation. I’ve often wondered if Scott McClellan was related to Little Mac. If so, stabbing their boss in the back must be in the genes.
“McPherson reports that Lincoln “regretted the decision.” Hmm? What’s wrong with this picture?”
What’s wrong with this picture is that you omit important facts. Pinckerton detectives who guarded Lincoln told him of the plot and urged him to switch trains. He did it but it led to all kinds of speculation by anti Lincoln newspapers that he snuck into town in a disguise, and it became lore over time. In fact, he came into town in his regular clothes and there was nothing sneaky about it. Lincoln regretted giving his detractors ammunition to insinuate he was a coward.
“That may be because McPherson, like anyone in his profession is limited in what he can write”
Ya know, this is insulting to anyone with half a brain, not to mention the many historians who write what they believe to be the truth. The idea that men like McPherson write what they don’t believe because there are forces out there that prevent them from writing what they want is just plain ignorant. It’s what people who can’t defend their position say about people they don’t agree with.
He once made Lincoln wait in his parlor for an hour then sent his wife down to tell Lincoln he had gone to bed and couldn’t see him. An officer who does that to his commander should be sacked immediately. Lincoln’s cabinet urged him to fire McClellan for that insult. Lincoln put the country ahead of his own pride and did nothing, believing Mac was the only officer he had to lead the troops.
I remember reading about that specific episode with McClellan, and wondering why Lincoln tolerated his insolence. I’ve never heard what McClellan’s relationship was with Stanton. I know Stanton didn’t have a very high opinion of Lincoln early on, but as the war progressed, he came to admire and respect him.
I'm sorry too have insulted you then.
You see, I know some of these guys. Not McPherson, but some in his circle and with nearly the same standing. Obviously I cannot name names. But I have been told face to face, following a class where I commented that the winners write the history, by someone with standing: "You know that is still true. If I tried to write about some of the things you said today, it wouldn't be good for my career."
Regarding the Baltimore Plot, I see you too omitted any mention of Mrs. Lincoln and the children. And BTW, it wasn't Pinkerton detectives. It was Pinkerton himself.
ML/NJ
When the South Carolina Legislature, the first state to leave, PUBLICLY states in a UNANIMOUS declaration that the reason they secede is because of slavery; when some historian claims that it was about something else; I hold as authoritative that declaration and assume the historian, as is their wont these days attempt to revise history to conform to their personal taste.
I read enough books by “historians” who try to perform freudian phsyco-analysis on all the characters. OK, Lincoln was melancholy, gay, hated his mother ya da ya da ya. Spare me. I can read his speeches, letters, proclamations, etc. I can read the accounts of those who knew him: Douglass, Herdon, Seward, Grant etc. I’ll take the historians who stick to the facts. Lincoln wasn’t gay. Shakespeare wasn’t gay, and Jesus wasn’t married to Mary Magdalen. There’s no Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster or Space Aliens at area 51and Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby Kennedy...
There are documented cases of slavery in Connecticut (went to high school there), Rhode Island and other places in the North as late as 1860...very small pockets.
There were slaves in the North in New England even around the time of the civil war...very limited numbers...but still existed.
ML/NJ
This was in the District of Columbia...as I recall not everywhere.
Very true.
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.