Skip to comments.White without Apology
Posted on 08/13/2003 6:57:47 AM PDT by bedolido
click here to read article
One major problem. He had no legal authority to do so. The Confederacy had seceded, just as the colonies had seceded from Britain in 1776, and as had 9 of the several states from the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. Even if Lincoln did have some legality to issue the EP as a "war" measure, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the owners of seized property must be renumerated. Lastly, even the Constitution prevents the taking of property by the federal government, and Lincoln wrote a letter to his law-partner Herndon that his actions were unconstitutional.
Funny you should mention that. Two days before his "dying day" he gave his last public address where he called for voting rights for blacks. A confederate guy in the audience named Booth was so outraged by that thought that he made the "dying day" happen.
As to the Peoria address, why is it that you guys always forget the punchline that called for the end of slavery? Don't they publish that in the Lost Cause talking points?
PS. Show me one instance where Lincoln called for "deportation". He surely supported voluntary colonization as a way to avoid the problem of race relations that we are still facing 150 years later, but he never called for anyone to be "deported." He knew very well that freedom would not automatically bring equality. Was he wrong?
I know I have posted this to -you personally- before.
Lincoln's war power only extended to areas in rebellion. Being military CIC per se didn't give him the power. Slavery was clearly protected in the Constitution. The rebels cluelessly liabled themselves to the president's war power when their iunsurection took the nature of armed revolt that could not be handled by the usual courts and marshalls.
Lincoln vetoed in 1864 the Wade Davis bill --because-- he thought its provision of making slave ownership a federal crime was unconstitutional.
Had you read the Conkling letter I posted earlier today, you'd have seen Lincoln's rationale for issuing the EP. But I suppose you just skipped over it.
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that the secessionists had the status of foreign combatants even though they were domestic.
President Lincoln clearly had the power to issue the EP.
Or would you rather it not have been issued?
Your heroes all thought of the slaves as property -- not human at all, right?
Sorry, I don't follow you. Could you restate this?
Was it moral to not free those slaves he could have while to issue a decree freeing those slaves over which he had no control?
To free a man from slavery is always a moral good. That Lincoln's EP did not free all men does not mean that it was a bad thing, just that it was not a perfect thing.
It was flawed and self serving. That you wish to ascribe glory to that is fine.
We are humans. Everything we ever achieve is flawed. That doesn't make our achievements worthless. That's making the best the enemy of the good. If only the most pure of motivations are worthy, how are we to progress at all?
Then secession is an illegal act? Surely the colonists went outside English law in making their rebellion.
This is an "either/or" question that cannot be answered so simply.
Anti-slavery was a big part of the platform he was elected under, but it was not the whole of the man. He did not ask for the war, but he had the sworn duty, as President, to preserve the Nation. To that end, he bent all his efforts, and with the hindsight of today, I thank the Lord it was preserved. The evils of the 20th century would have crushed a divided America.
I admire him for doing his best to serve his Nation in the job he was elected to do. A lesser man would have broken.
Long a supporter of abolition, he ran for President as a member of the idealistic, young Rebublican Party. He was elected due to his more politically popular opponants splitting the vote, only to have half of his Nation rise up in war. He spent his whole time as President with this struggle, enduring untold amounts of personal attacks from within his own side, while dealing with the Southern secession and war.
During this he experienced the loss of a beloved son, a succession of incompetant field commanders early on, enormous pressure from Europe to lift the blockade, and riots in the North. Add the unprecedented carnage that was introduced by a combo of outdated tactics and modern weapons.
Yet, he persevered in his duty. Then when, victorious at last, he could set his hand to peace and healing, he was murdered in front of his wife by a coward casting himself as a patriot.
The stuff of Epic Tragedy, the flawed Hero to weep for. Shakespeare could have written it.
Many of course would argue that.
I know. I've read them. Haven't seen a convincing argument yet that passes Occam's Razor. Let me know if anyone comes up with anything new, like primary source evidence that supports them.
Until then, it's just Lew Rockwell agitprop. The Lost Cause types seem to need a villain to make them seem validated. Trouble is, most of the big figures of the Civil War, on both sides, were just doing what they saw as the demands of God, Duty and Honor. Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Davis; they were more alike than different.
Many of course would argue that.
President Lincoln is often bashed by the neo-rebs for supporting a constitutional amendment in his inaugural address that supported the maintenance of the domestic institutions of the states, i.e. slavery. What this shows of course is that he bent over backwards to avoid war.
The slavers had their slaves, but that wasn't enough. Only -expansion- of slavery would keep their ponzi scheme going. Lincoln opposed expansion of slavery, so war was the only option the slave power saw to maintain their slave empire.
They sowed the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind.
I couldn't say it better than this:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."
A. Lincoln, 3/4/65
He had the sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Lincoln wanted to return the freed slaves back to their homeland, the land from which they were forcibly removed. That was very noble of Lincoln.
And four days before it he called on General Butler's advice for carrying out colonization.
PS. Show me one instance where Lincoln called for "deportation".
"With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market---increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor." - Address to Congress, December 1, 1862
Headquarters, District of Texas
Galveston, Texas, June 19, 1865
General Orders, No. 3.
The people are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property, between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them, becomes that between employer and hired labor. -- The Freedmen are advised to remain at their present homes, and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts; and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere. By order of Major General Granger
(Signed,) F. W. Emery, Maj. & A.A.G.
As reported in The Galveston Daily News, June 21, 1865.
False. The expansion argument in the American territories was settled in 1861 when the south voluntarily reliquished their claims to those lands. Had this truly been Lincoln's "bedrock" position as you so frequently claim, he had already attained it without lifting a finger due to secession. Yet Lincoln was obviously not content with that and instead pursued war anyway. He pursued it because it was necessary for him to collect the revenues. Without it his tariff scheme, the same scheme that a few weeks earlier he had called the most important issue facing Congress, wouldn't work.
It was just as Lincoln told his friend Hawkins Taylor when the latter visited Springfield in December 1860 - the tariff, more than any other issue, was what got him into the White House and it was an issue that he would remain firm on.
"He fully agreed with me that to the Tariff Whig element of Penn was he most indebted (and he will not betray it). Towards Penn he feels most greatful and particularly &c towards Cameron who did not send a Packed delegation to Chicago as some others did" - Hawkins Taylor, record of his meeting with Lincoln, December 21, 1860 (emphasis contained in the original)
I would not argue with that at all. I would venture that today we are more polarized generally politically and socially and culturally. Kinda scary isn't it? If reasonable men bound by duty and honour etc found fit to fight a war then, how are we to interpret today where we are obviously more fragmented. All we need are some key issues to come to a boil. We lack the geographic division largely although the conservative (as in the old fashioned status quo or reversion mindset) is still more Southern than elsewhere. Simple musing. I'm putting my money on gun rights and abortion as powder keg issues one day. We must teach our children to be vigilant.
So what do you want, LBJ's the GREAT SOCIETY? It was in-fact reconstruction. Where were they to go? Look at Iraq now and picture Texas in June of 1865.
You impose such a double standard that your credibility to anyone who understands the history makes you a total fool. You insist that Lincon be Hubert Humphery or he is evil while you worship a slaver like Davis. That is revisionist nonsense and rustbucket, you are guilty.
So what kind of wages was Jeff Davis proposing to give to blacks under his iron fist? Was there a demand for white cotton pickers at his plantation?
You, like rustbucket, impose a standard on Lincoln that none of your Confederate heroes could possibly reach, or would even want to. They stood for the opposite.
Lincoln was pragmatic and saw that neither blacks nor whites would adjust either socially or economically to emancipation. 150 years of American history have shown that he was more than correct in that assessment, but he was not alone. Other leaders dating all the way back to Madison also favored Colonization as the preferred method to end slavery while avoiding racial division. Was Madison a bad guy too?
Lincolns advocating separation of the races via colonization was surely not politically correct by current standards (unless you are a Skin-Head or a Black Panther) but where exactly does that leave him in relation to all the bronze icons in Richmond that you worship so deeply who fought to protect slavery?
My, my. Touchy aren't we. I simply pointed out that you had not posted the entire pronouncement. Let me understand your logic here. You posted the partial pronouncement; I posted the full pronouncement. Yet I am the revisionist?
LOL on the Hubert Humphrey / Abraham Lincoln connection. What an insult to Lincoln, and one I wouldn't have thought of.
I hope you don't mind if I poke a few more holes in your worldview. FYI, the Federal Provost Marshal in Galveston in June 1865 threw a bunch of the slaves in jail so that he could keep them for work he wanted done. Reported in the Galveston paper.
Doesn't quite fit your view of history? My apologies.
He was .... Liberia is proof of his intentions to repatriate the blacks after the Civil War.
And four days before it he called on General Butler's advice for carrying out colonization.
There's no credible proof that Lincoln and Butler met in this time frame. Lincoln did nothing to support colonization after 1/1/63. After black soldiers were enlisted, he began to seek equal rights for them.
That would be treason, wouldn't it?
"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. And yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free colored persons remaining in the country, which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious.
"It is insisted that their presence would injure, and displace white labor and white laborers. If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity. Is it true, then, that colored people can displace any more white labor, by being free, than by remaining slaves? If they stay in their old places, they jostle no white laborers; if they leave their old places, they leave them open to white laborers. Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and, very surely, would not reduce them. Thus, the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed; the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very probably, for a time, would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and, consequently, enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market---increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor.
"But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth, and cover the whole land? Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make them any more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the whole country, and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could the one, in any way, greatly disturb the seven? There are many communities now, having more than one free colored person, to seven whites; and this, without any apparent consciousness of evil from it. The District of Columbia, and the States of Maryland and Delaware, are all in this condition. The District has more than one free colored to six whites; and yet, in its frequent petitions to Congress, I believe it has never presented the presence of free colored persons as one of its grievances. But why should emancipation south, send the free people north? People, of any color, seldom run, unless there be something to run from. Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes,and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them."
Taken in context, rather than out of context, the quote is actually an arguement against
forced deportation rather that in favor of it as you claim.
Liberia was founded in 1817 by the American Colonization Society. It Lincoln was responsible then that's pretty slick work for an 8 year old.
President Lincoln's special address to the Congress on 12/01/62 was pretty much the last arrow in his quiver on colonization. After that, there seems to be no mention of colonization by him anywhere again. Early in 1863, he switched over to directing that more black troops be enlisted, and suggesting that they be given the vote. As someone over on the moderated ACW newsgroup suggested, urging colonization is the dog that didn't bark. Lincoln makes no public statement about it all after 12/01/62.
That's a shame, isn't it?
Precisely why I can't figure out why would-be conservatives continually attack Southerners.