POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[one2many]

FYI

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

[TheBattman]

Thought you might appreciate the ping...

[D. Miles]

Print this up and get to passing it around the water cooler. That's whatI'll be doing.

[one2many]

Thanks.

Unfortunately the products of the factory schools of today cannot access the prose of the correspondence between learned men of that era. Hence they throw their minds up and turn away in dismay and never mine the truths of history within. Someone would do us all a great favour to put the two letters into the vulgate of our time.

Takers?

[T. Jefferson]

I recall reading that after the war there was a proposal in front of Congress that contained 3 choices concerning slaves, including shipping them back to Africa.

[one2many]

I am not aware of that but I would be quite interested in know more about it. Thanks.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Budge]

Thanks for the ping. Bump for later... (bedtime now)

[WhiskeyPapa]

This was posted once before, I'm thinking.

I don't know what DiLorenzo's agenda is, but it has nothing to do with a fair reading of historical events.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

I guess DiLorenzo thinks he is being clever, but it's in any general text on Lincoln or the war that his bedrock position was that slavery not be allowed to into the national territories. That was enough to set off the slave power, and the war came.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that secession was outside the law in The Prize Cases (1862). The president's powers were adequate to put down the rebellion under the Militia Act of 1792, which was cited by the Court in the majority ruling.

DiLorenzo is just preying on the ignorant by incompletely rehashing events, the history of which are readily available in the record.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union.

The Republican Party had a political monopoly before the war too, because the slave power made sure to split the Democratic Party to ensure the election of Lincoln.

They did this to facilitate a destruction of the United States. Their aim was a slave empire stretching into South America and encompassing all the Carribbean.

For example:

" Senator A. G. Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."

---- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

See also "Battle Cry of Freedom", by James Mcpherson, especially Chapter 3, "An Empire for Slavery".

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861.

My emphasis

See what a convenient little lie this is?

DiLorenzo is -surely- familiar with Lincoln's second inagural address:

"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."

DiLorenzo's interpretation can only stand with out of context, flawed data, and it can only sway the ignorant and hateful.

Walt

[rdf]

These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere.

As President of the Declaration Foundation, I take the chance to say that we are honored to be mentioned, even with malice by the writer, with the Claremont Institute.

This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party.

Freepers who know anything about Alan Keyes, the Chairman of DF, and me, its president, will no doubt be amused at the ignorance of this remark. In the recent controversy over affirmative action, I have both praised and criticised the administration's actions, as I do regularly. I praise them when I think them faithful to American Principole, and criticise when they are not, as was notably the case in the stem cell matter.

They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history.

To judge this for yourself, go and order our book.

Having fought political correctness for over a decade, served as vice-chair of the anti-race preferences California Civil Rights Initiative, labored against the establishment ... and partly Republican "School-to-Work" scheme, and even published in Journals on the debased idea of "multi-culturalism" I find DiLorenzo's remarks more comical than offensive.

Finally, as to being unwilling to let the selected facts cited by DiLorenzo be spread, I will, as I usually do with his silly writings, post them at the DF website.

I'll also post there Jaffa's latest piece criticising the notion of Diversity, as embodied in the Republican Administration's brief in the Michigan affirmative action cases ... from the Claremont website.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated.

I guess one could claim Lincoln and the Congress were doing all they could to "protect Southern slavery", if you ignore the fact that the Republican Party was totally opposed to any expansion of slavery.

I guess that's protection of a sort.

A more reasonable interpretation than DiLorenzo's is that Lincoln and the Congress were willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant (at least Lincoln was) that slavery remain on a path to ultimate extinction.

Whatever Lincoln thought, it was vastly more advanced that what some southerners were saying:

It was because the free Negro menaced the institution, because manumission undermined it, because all self-help systems for the slave corroded It, that pro- slavery men urged new legislation. Their object was not to surround slavery with an atmosphere of terror. It was to shore up an institution built on quick- sand and battered bv all the forces of world sentiment and emergent industrialism.

Ruffin was personally the kindliest of masters. The unhappy fact was that it had become impossible to safeguard slavery without brutal violence to countless individuals; either the institution had to be given up, or the brutality committed.

The legislators of Louisiana and Arkansas, of Alabama and Georgia, with humane men like Ruffin and the Eastern Shore planters of Maryland, had faced this alternative. They had chosen the institution. The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:

It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated—is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days.

This has the ring of the Richmond publicist Fitzhugh, and would have been repudiated by many Southerners. But Jefferson Davis said, July 6, 1859, "There is not probably an intelligent mind among our own citizens who doubts either the moral or the legal right of the institution of African slavery." Senator A. G. ' Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."

-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

[Snuffington]

To judge this for yourself, go and order our book.

Nice plug Richard. I'm sure all those who have attacked people who criticized DiLorenzo without reading his book, will withold all criticism of your arguments until they read yours. :-)

Incidentally, your book ordering link is broken. Here is a corrected one.

[sneakypete]

I wonder how long it will take Bubba-2 to invite JJ to the White House and declare him one of his bestest friends? You can be sure he will be giving this his full support if it's in the news right before the 2004 elections.

[rdf]

Thanks for the correction.

Folks in a hurry can order the book at half price as a pdf download.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[sneakypete]

They did this to facilitate a destruction of the United States. Their aim was a slave empire stretching into South America and encompassing all the Carribbean.

And here I was thinking Bubba-2 wasn't a traditional Republican! I was wrong all along,and it looks like the Republicans of the 1860's may yet get their wish. Sooner or later they will manage to destroy US sovereignty and join with Mexico,and then the corporations will take over as the Constitution is replaced,and we will all become employees/serfs/slaves.