Looking back at the Confederacy with modern eyes

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | January 22, 2007 | JERRY PATTERSON (Texas Land Commisioner)

[Van Jenerette]

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html

This is REQUIRED READING for my college classes.

Deo Vindice

[stainlessbanner]

That list has been refuted on prior threads. Many of the claims have little to do with the larger concepts and passages in DiLorenzo's book.

Epperson buids strawman arguments to "refute" DiLorenzo's work. A more factual account is linked from that website here

[stainlessbanner]

The Union soldiers actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

[stainlessbanner]

Lee's identification with his home country (state) is an example of the Compact Theory - the United States of America was created by free and sovereign states.

Jefferson and Calhoun advocated the Compact Theory, while Lincoln and others believe the Union existed before the states were created. An analogy would be a marriage before the two spouses were born.

[Non-Sequitur]

In early 1863, Lincoln discussed with his Register of the Treasury a plan to "remove the whole colored race of the slave states into Texas."

I'm aware of one side of this equation, the letter from Anthony Dignowity to Lincoln, but it takes two sides to have a discussion. Can you please post Lincoln's reply to Dignowity showing he was interested in pursuing such a plan? Please?

[Non-Sequitur]

The Union soldiers actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves

Well, two-thirds of them anyway.

[smug]

the winner also runs all the schools and they are staffed by people who liked the winner's story.

Not always,when my oldest kid was in grade school in South Carolina his teacher to my delight always referred to it as "The War of Northern Aggression".

[Non-Sequitur]

As a young politician in Illinois before the Civil War, Lincoln often voiced his belief that blacks and whites would live best if they lived separately.

Considering how free blacks were treated in the North, and how blacks, free and slave, were treated in the South where was Lincoln wrong in his belief? Please don't try and assign some 20th century politically correct criteria to it but use the beliefs of the period and answer this one, simple question. Where...was...Lincoln...wrong?

Free blacks were not welcome in the North, that is well documented. They couldn't serve on juries in any state and couldn't vote in most. They couldn't serve in the militia or get government jobs. The weren't accepted as equals. They could get an education, but for the most part they were greeted with suspicion and hostility, especially among the immigrant population. Once could go so far as to say that the situation for freed blacks up North were in some ways as bad as it was for freed blacks down South.

Because free blacks were not welcome in the South, either. That is well documented, too. They couldn't serve on juries in any state, couldn't vote in any state, couldn't move freely from state to state since every Southern state I'm aware of prohibited free blacks from entering. In most states they were limited in the occupations they could pursue. In most states education was unavailable to them - Virginia went so far as to pass a law stating that if a free black resident left the state to get an education they were barred from returning. States like South Carolina and Virginia had laws with provisions that allowed them to return freed blacks to slavery. Many states had required legislative approval to emancipate slaves and I believe it was the Alabama Supreme Court that ruled that emancipation was a gift and slaves lacked the legal standing to accept such a gift, so private acts of emancipation were invalid. All in all a grim existence.

So tell us, Mr. Jenerette. You're Abraham Lincoln. You see how free blacks are treated North and South, and how the slaves are treated. You know that there is nothing you can do that will change how people view blacks in the country. Why is suggesting an opportunity that allows free blacks to carve out their own future free from white oppression such a bad thing? Why would taking steps to promote such a plan be evil? Lincoln was no different in his beliefs in this area than were men like James Monroe or John Breckenridge or Roger Taney or even the sainted Bobby Lee. They all supported colonization plans with their beliefs and their money. Why is Lincoln deserving of criticism and not them?

[smug]

Why is Lincoln deserving of criticism and not them?

Lincoln is almost deified in history as the emancipator and what have you. He needs to be viewed in his true entirety and not the false fables. It is not so much criticism but accuracy.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln is almost deified in history as the emancipator and what have you. He needs to be viewed in his true entirety and not the false fables. It is not so much criticism but accuracy.

Yeah. And Bobby Lee is deified as the marble man who opposed slavery. Somebody had better check his record, too. The misconceptions aren't all on the Union side.

In any case, those around here like you and Mr. Jenerette who have actually done a considerable amount of reading on the subject know better. Hypocrisy isn't becoming of us. We know the facts behind Lincoln, and condemning him while giving others with the same opinions a free ride is dishonest.

And why not take a stab at my original question. Considering the times and what faced them, what was really wrong about Lincoln's position?

[smug]

what was really wrong about Lincoln's position?

Basically nothing, until the entirety of the northern States elected him to implement his beliefs. Or so the south saw it. They (the southernors) did not buy into his "moderate" position. As I have stated before: The election of Lincoln was part of the reason for secession. He was elected without winning a single southern/northern slave state. It was quite evident that the population of the north was now large enough that compromise/consensus was no longer necessary between the two regions. The South had entered the union in the same state as the north; with slavery legal and in practice. By the time of Lincoln's election most of the north had made slavery illegal, many of these slaves being sold down south that their owners would not lose their investment. That was fairly simple as the number of slaves "up north" was small in comparison to that of the south which had a preponderance of it wealth tied up in chattel slavery. The South, if just wanting to preserve slavery, could have rejoined the union and helped pass the "Corwin Amendment"; but by that time the gulf between the two regions was to their satisfaction real and undeniable. And to do so would relegate them to be the redheaded step child forever in the shadow of their more numerous and industrializing masters "up north".

[Ditto]

After reading DiLorenzo's book, I now consider the civil war a war of northern aggression and rank Lincoln as the most destructive president to our constitutional republic, followed by Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Nixon.

Reading DiLorenzo trying to understand Lincoln and the Civil War would be the same as watching a Michael Moore movie to understand George Bush and the War on Terror. And if anything, even Moore does not distort facts as badly as DiLorenzo did in his "Real Lincoln."

DiLorenzo is a total nut case.

If you are really interested in Lincoln and the Civil War, I'd suggest you expand your reading list.

[achilles2000]

Patterson would be a far better governor than Governor Good Hair.

[BnBlFlag]

"Patterson would be a far better Governor than Governor Good Hair".
You got that right!

[Ditto]

He was elected without winning a single southern/northern slave state.

What were the "Northern" slave states?

[Terabitten]

Count the number of times slavery is given as a reason for secession. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

I count exactly none.

The reason given, over and over again, is the Federal government taking more power than it Constitutionally has, as evidenced by the issue of slavery.

It's a fine point, but an important one.

[Non-Sequitur]

The reason given, over and over again, is the Federal government taking more power than it Constitutionally has...

Considering that the Southern politicians wielded a disproportionate level of power when it came filling offices like President, Vice President, President Pro Tem of the Senate, Speaker of the House, Supreme Court Justices, Congressional Committee Chairmen, and the like then wouldn't it be fair to say that if the federal government had taken on more power than it Constitutionally had then it was the Southern political leadership that grabbed it?

[x]

I've said in the past that Epperson sometimes lists errors of interpretation as errors of fact, but his list is a good starting place for those who've been taken in by DiLorenzo's bs to begin to free themselves from his influence.

The creature who wrote the article you linked to was under the impression that all he had to do was cut and paste arguments and write a response under them to "refute" something.

Thanks for posting it anyway. People will be able to make up their own minds (though it might help if they had an opportunity to see other examples of your source's tortured reasoning).

For a better discussion DiLorenzo's charlatanism take a look at Richard Gamble's review of DiLorenzo's first Lincoln book.

Gamble agrees with most of DiLorenzo's argument, but still finds him to be incredibly sloppy and his book to be "exasperating, maddening, and deeply disappointing."

Now imagine what those of us who aren't convinced by Tommy's book think of it.

It's too bad that more scholars didn't take Tommy's book seriously enough to subject it to real criticism.

[Little Ray]

Doesn't matter.
The question isn't slavery, the question is the right to secede. Most states adopted the Constitution but specifically reserved the right to secede later.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Most states adopted the Constitution but specifically reserved the right to secede later.

I don't suppose you have anything to support this claim, do you? It's true that a couple of states did attempt to ratify with their fingers crossed behind their backs, but, apart from the issue of whether such a thing is legal, it was hardly "most."