Dear Conservatives,
Written by Jack O'Reilly on March 6th, 2005Well, it’s a nice Sunday afternoon and I had a hankerin’ for some arguin’. It’s come to my attention over the course of this year that many conservatives have been duped by neo-Confederate revisionist history.
I read through the first few pages of this today and was, how do you say, unimpressed. This is not history. It’s historical claptrap. Or perhaps you prefer fiddle-sticks, tommyrot, twaddle, hogwash, hooey, horsefeathers, piffle, poppycock, or rubbish. I just wanted to inform everyone that over spring break I plan on plowing through much of this “history” to see if they have a real argument. That is, an argument with someone other than LBJ or FDR.
Anyway to start some debate, I will offer the following salient points. (Click on more for more)
1. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Lincoln never mentioned slavery while in Congress because he believed “Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.” The question of the day had nothing to do with “States Rights” it had to do with the relation between Territorial and Congressional rights. Lincoln properly phrased the question of the day as this: “Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?” The Northwest Ordinance clearly defined that Congress did have the power to keep slavery out of the Federal Territories. He chronicles the actions of the framers of the Constition in his Cooper Union speech.
2. Lincoln was antislavery. He believed slavery to be an intrinsic evil. The question was, what was the most pragmatic legal way to ultimately eradicate that evil. He was dedicated to the principle of keeping slavery on the path toward ultimate extinction, which would be achieved by halting slavery’s extension chiefly by respecting teh Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Republican party formed as a conservative party, as a reactionary party to the Kansas-Nebraska act which overruled the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln was willing to make virtually any compromise with the South to avoid secession–except the extension of slavery into new lands.
Let all who believe that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained.
3. The real imperialists were the Southern slave interests. Lincoln earned the name “spotty Lincoln” while he was in Congress because he demanded to know the exact spot upon which the Mexican-American War was started. There is much evidence that US forces invaded Mexican lands and were only then attacked. There is much evidence that one of the chief interests in this war was the expansion of slave states in the Union. You don’t buy this? Other Southern imperialist designs:
In 1856, Franklin Pierce recognized the Nicaraguan dictatorship of Southern imperialist William Walker, who hoped to one day admit Nicaragua as a slave state into the Union.
Many other Southern imperialists were fixated on annexing Cuba to satiate their slave-economy.
4. The threat which Dred Scott posed to States Rights cannot be overestimated. While history has clouded our vision, the real threat of States Rights was not of it being abolished in the South, but being made legal in the North. The Supreme Court usurped power from Congress and dictated that slavery could not be restricted from the territories because slaves were “chattel” protected by the Constitution as property. Thus, it is easy to conclude that if Congress has no rights to deny the Constitutional right to property in the territories, why would the States have a right to deny the same “Constitutional right”. Indeed there was a case Lemmon v. The People which involved the case of a Virginia slaveholder who had taken his slave into New York on the way to Texas. As Lincoln said in his “House-Divided” speech: “We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making the slaves free, and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.”
It was no stretch of the imagination to guess the intentions of the Supreme Court. Dred Scott was just like Griswold v. Conn which paved the way for Roe v. Wade. Or as we can see today Lawerence v. Texas, paving the way for nationalized gay marriage.
So conservatives, I leave you with this other excerpt from Lincoln at Cooper Union.
[Adressing his opponents]
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,” fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty;” but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
For more greatness, check out his collected works online.
7
AM
1. Lincoln was not an abolitionist.
True, but this is a man who suspended Habeas Corpus when it suited him. And it is quite interesting I find that he issued the emancipation proclamtion during the war and not after it when the Southern states could have voted upon it. You can say the man didn’t campaign as an abolitionist, but his sympathies were well known and as soon as he had the opportunity he did in fact free the slaves.
2. Lincoln was antislavery.
That is obviously true, but in addition to being antislavery he was also extremely anti black. In fact the man was a common racist who would find no place in modern society.
3. The real imperialists were the Southern slave interests.
This point belongs on DU. Should we then return Texas to Mexico? How about all of the other land we conquered from the Indians? Somewhere along the way conservatives seem to have forgotten that this nation was built through war and conquest as all great powers are. Let me ask you a simple question: would Hati and Cuba be better countries today if we had listen to John C. Calhoun and invaded the Carribean to create additional slave states? The answer is yes. Just as South Dakota is a great place today despite the Indian Wars. Do you like your cheap wheat? Where would it come without South Dakota?
Slavery was dying when the Civil War began. The war had nothing to do with slavery. It was about economic tariffs and the merchants of New England placing stiff protectionist measures on European imports which squeezed the Southern farmer and enriched the New York merchant. Not a very conservative principle.
7
AM
Come on Alex, it is common knowledge that Lincoln said he believed blacks were an inferior race and his solution to the “race problem” was to send them back to Africa.
7
AM
John how can you make such a statement without reading the book in detail? Did you ever stop and think that you might have been “duped” by one-sided, uncritical Northern views of Lincoln? Reading through the first few pages won’t cut it - talk about judging a book by its cover. If you are going to be bullheaded, do not even bother reading the book. It will be a waste of time. Keep in mind, I have a library full of similar books at home. “The South Was Right” is hardly the ultimate representation of our case, but it will sufficiently address the recycled arguments you made above.
7
PM
Michael, you can say that the civil war was all about economics, but READ WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARGUED ABOUT. It was not just the existence of slavery, but the EXTENSION of it.
And no we shouldn’t give back Texas. Just like we shouldn’t give back Israel. This is because we can’t go back in time, but you better believe that I would have stood up for the Cherokees in Georgia.
As to the claim that Lincoln was a racist, do you know how to historicize? In Lincoln’s early life, his views would be racist by modern standards.
Lincoln against Douglas:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever been in favor of making voters of the free Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other white man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”
Point #1: The context of the debate took place as Lincoln was arguing this in Southern Illinois in 1858. At this point many people, the supreme court included, declared that blacks were not people; that they were chattel. Had Lincoln argued for full equal rights he would have had no chance at freeing the slaves. Lincoln was a pragmatic idealist, he realized what was good, true and right, but realized that you had to use practical means to get there. Advocating full equality, would have been a damning blow to freeing the slaves.
Point #2. He was a shrewd political debater. Notice how he says he was never “in favor” of complete social and political equality but he never stated that he was “opposed” to it.
Point #3. Lincoln never says that the difference of color is right or good, but it was an inherent problem. “insasmuch as they cannot so live” lincoln supported being superior “as much as any other white man.”
SLAVE DEPORTATIONS. READ THIS CLEARLY.
Lincoln did not want to send the slaves back to Africa because he was a racist. He was merely following the plan that had been enunciated by Jefferson and Monroe (hence Monrovia, Liberia). This is what CONSERVATIVES do, they follow the paths of the wise who came before. There were actually many former slaves in favor of this. Lincoln supported it because he knew the inherent problems that would be caused by 4 million freed slaves living in the lands of their former captors. He didn’t believe it was right, he just saw things the way they were. Lincoln changed his mind after meeting with a delegation of black leaders in 1862, who informed him that they had no desire of returning to Africa. He thus changed goals to working for political and social rights at home.
Point #4. When Lincoln had the power as president he DID fight for black freedom and equality. He was the first president to advocate black suffrage for the educated and the veterans of the war. Without Lincoln, the Civil War would not have ended slavery. By 1864 even the most radical Republicans were willing to sue for peace, but Lincoln knew that the blood of 600,000 Americans had not been spilt to leave the scourge of slavery upon this free land.
7
PM
Michael, he only issued the Emancipation Proclamation after the war began because he believed he did not have the right to abolish slavery in the states where it already existed. He said this time after time after time.
It was paranoid (or illiterate) pro-slavery people who fomented the belief that Lincoln was an abolitionist.
He issued the Emancipation Proclamation because under his War Powers he was granted to take such actions necessary. This is why he did not emancipate the slaves in Union controlled territory. The Constitution did not permit it.
7
PM
Congress has the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. They were not in session. Lincoln had to move to save Maryland, or there may have been no United States of America left. He made the right decision.
Besides the so called “Confederate States of America” no longer recognized the US constitution. So what claim do they have against Lincoln?
7
PM
I don’t have time to fully engage John’s arguments, as I am utterly immersed in mid-terms. I have answered John’s arguments in personal discussions that have lasted many hours. I will be authoring a series of rebuttals in the coming weeks.
7
PM
John, was Lincoln being pragmatic in his First Inaugural Address when he said he had no intention of freeing the slaves. As you have argued before, Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery, so the South had no reason to secede. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. Given his comments in the debates and the First Inaugural, it is more likely that Lincoln freed the slaves for PRAGMATIC reasons - to keep France and England out of the war - and not because he was an idealist with a grand scheme to free the slaves.
7
PM
(I don’t have any idea what I’m talking about but read on anyway if you like)
The point that John can never refute is twofold : why was the South not allowed to secede and why were they not allowed to gradually emancipate their slaves, the way the North HAD done, and the way it had been done for centuries in Latin America. Secession is perfectly permissible under the Constitution, in fact New York and Virginia only ratified the Constitution with the condition that they be allowed to secede. To say that the South was not allowed to secede from the Union, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of federalism. The federal government is created via a compact among states, and they can withdraw from that compact at anytime. If you look at it from these terms, Lincoln was a foreign invader, overtaking a sovereign nation that had exercised its constitutional right to “form a more perfect union.”
Now, we can all agree that slavery is evil; the question was how to end it. The South wanted to end it on its own terms – the way the North had been allowed to - without a big, federal government infringing on their states’ rights and telling them how to live. Hmmm.. sounds like something a CONSERVATIVE would argue. Lincoln’s E.P. and many of his actions during the war were the precursor to big government. Anyone who truly believes in small government and states’ rights and the 10th Amendment should realize that their ideological forefathers were on the South, and not the Whig-infested North.
Lincoln’s solution - the Emancipation Proclamation - has been a disaster for blacks, forcefully assimilating them into a culture that was unprepared to deal with their rapid equalization. This federal usurpation of state sovereignty created virulent racial tensions in the South that set the stage for the big government legislation of the 1960’s. It also created a psychological inferiority complex within blacks, one that resonates to this day. Indeed, Lincoln’s version of manumission has been a disaster for blacks, not to mention it set the stage for the advent of big government in American politics, forming the very foundation for the Great Society and the New Deal. This war had nothing to do with slavery, for the South was fighting for a limited federal government and the cherished principles of federalism. In this regard, slavery was just the political context where the larger principles of liberalism and conservatism faced off.
Also, Lincoln substituted the Southern slave masters with the federal government - a legacy that we still see today, especially in blacks that have become perpetually dependent on the federal government for their very livelihood and well-being. Let’s call it “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” Blacks were never allowed to peacefully assimilate into American culture – which is what the South wanted- and earn their citizenship and place in society. If the South had been allowed to gradually emancipate its slaves – like the North – and federalism was allowed to win the day, who knows what kind of country we would be living in today. More to come.
8
AM
Gary,
Point #1 Lincoln believed he had no right, under the Constitution, to touch slavery where it existed in the States. Then why did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation, you ask?
Because when the Rebellion began he had rights to take military action. A nation at war is entitled to seize the property of its enemies whenever doing so is needed for the war effort. “Early in the Civil War, the Court had held that [seizing property] was applicable to Confederate shipping. Lincoln had strong arguments that the South could only be defeated by abolishing slavery [in the areas of rebellion]. So he was able to rely on his war powers as commander-in-chief to justify this seizure of Southern “property.” He was also deeply opposed to slavery as a moral matter, but he did not believe that this moral belief was a legal basis for acting.”
But this wasn’t a purely pragmatic action. He may have secured more support from France and Britain, but it was A HUGE RISK because of the possibility of losing Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, which were infinitely more important in winning the war than zeee French.
So I would describe the Emancipation Proclamation as a pragmatic action, which led to a higher goal, the preservation of a Nation that would ULTIMATELY ERADICATE slavery. This is the explanation of Lincoln’s statement that he would free all the slaves to save the union or he would free none of the slaves to save the union. The reason? Because he was willing to save a nation that RESTRICTED SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES and thus ensured its ultimate extinction. As the last negotiations before Ft. Sumter was fired on Lincoln was willing to take any measure to save the Union, except “for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation,” while Seward supported such concessions (qtd. in Johnson, 102).
Although secession had already transpired, Lincoln could have attempted to prevent the Civil War from erupting by allowing slavery to extend and exist indefinitely. The Civil War did erupt, however, because Lincoln rejected concessions to extend slavery on the grounds that slavery was morally wrong and must be halted.
Also, the Emancipation proclamation was issued in September and allowed the areas of Rebellion to return to the Union and keep their slaves by January 1 or forever lose their ownership. This showed moderation yet boldness under the rule of law.
Point #2 Why did the South not have the right to secede? Because that is contradictory to the very principle of a Republic based on the consent of the governed. Lincoln agreed that states had the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, but Congress had acted within its authority, which requires members to respect its decisions.
The Southern States seceded because Lincoln would not allow the EXTENSION OF SLAVERY INTO THE TERRITORIES.
How did this violate “States Rights”? Provide me with the agreements Virginia and NY made that gave them the right to secede. I bet that it was the right to secede only if their State’s Rights had been violated.
The most fundamental principle of our Republic is that you agree to Congressional majority rule on national matters, and the national respect of States Rights. Prove how Secession was the result of Lincoln violating States Rights.
It’s ludicrous to say that a state has the right to secede for any reason. If that’s so, why did Jackson have a right to crush South Carolina’s tantrum over the so-called “Tariff of Abominations” 30 years earlier?
Lincoln argued that the Union wen back much further than the Constitution. Indeed the Constitution was written in “order to form a more perfect Union,” thus stating that a union had previously existed which was thus being improved upon. The Declaration of Independence shows our founding. It was the guiding light that Lincoln aspired our nation to achieve, as we should today.
Question: Would Massachussetts have the right to secede from the Union if they legalized gay marriage, and then claimed it was an infringement on their “State’s Rights” that the Federal government banned gay marriage in Puerto Rico?
#3 Why didn’t the South have the chance to self-emancipate? They were given the chance. The fundamental dispute was about the EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. Lincoln believed halting its spread would let the Slave States gradual emancipation. The Emancipation Proclamation was not the best way to end slavery. Gradual emancipation vis a vis the containment would have been. This was Lincoln’s plan. The South rejected it.
The fact was that the slave owners were bloodthirsty for more slave states. First they tried to usurp the rights of Kansas, proferring only a Constitution which allowed either a little bit of slavery or a lot of slavery. Franklin Pierce recognized William Walkers slave dictatorship in Nicaragua with intent to make it a slae state, before he was overthrown.
Also, the E.P. did not guarantee Black Freedom. It was legitimate as an act of war under a time of rebellion. Lincoln could have sued for peace and allowed slavery to exist in the South when he was challenged by John Kerry/Wesley Clark prototype, Gen. McClellan and when radical Republicans like Horace Greeley were willing to allow slavery to exist in the South to end the war. Lincoln had made permanent emancipation a precondition for peace after the areas under Rebellion refused his olive branch in the Emancipation Proclamation.
He worked toward State Emancipation, like in the newly formed Louisiana State Constitution, and pushed for the 13th Amendment to be signed by ALL OF THE STATES.
Lincoln was not speaking hyperbole when he referred to a perpetual war being ignited all the way to Tierra del Fuego. The Slave-owner interest that ignited the Civil War had NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of gradual emancipation, when they were blatantly trying to overtake any land possible.
THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT BLACKS WERE NOT EQUAL TO WHITES.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Which would you have fought for?
Oh, and p.s. The US Constitution states in Article 1 Section 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation”
Long live the unconstitutional CONFEDERATE states of America.
8
AM
I fully understand if you don’t respond till midterms aren’t over. It was, perhaps, quite imprudent of me to start this debate as such a stressful busy time. Very un-Lincolnesque.
8
AM
p.s. This post is 17 MS Word Pages long double spaced. I commend any of you for taking the time to read it.
8
AM
There is so much on here to reply to I hesitate as to even attempt it, but I will in a limited fashion:
Point 3.) Response to Alex, that statement is factually correct here: Henry Clay Whitney, a close friend of Lincoln, is quoted by Bennett as saying the proclamation was “not the end designed by him (Lincoln), but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of the slaves and the payment for them to their masters - at least to those who were loyal.” Link: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm
Furthermore Alex it does you no good when in the midst of a debate you announce that you don’t know something as basic as that about the topic at hand. You like Lincoln (and to be fair there is much there to like). He was a strong president, he won the Civil War, and without a doubt he shaped this nation more than any man before or since. All that being said he thought black people were animals and detested the idea that they would be living with whites as equals. You like Lincoln because he was a great American who happens to be a Republican and happens to be from your home state. You have a great deal of emotion invested into defending Lincoln, but unfortunately that isn’t enough to overcome the man’s own words, writings, and the basic common knowledge that he is and was a racist. For what it’s worth, I don’t despise the man like some and certainly see the merit in labeling him the greatest American ever.
Point 6.) “It was not just the existence of slavery, but the EXTENSION of it.”
I know this, the political paradigm of the times was the slave vs. free states which had very little to do with actual slavery but rather the political idea that a state couldn’t do as it pleased within it’s own borders and that the Federal government had a right to tell a new state in the union that it had to be a free state. If slavery was legal, why should it not be up to the voters of the sovereign states to decide whether or not they are slave or free? The federal government’s greatest power grab was when it tried to decree that it could intervene in a state’s internal affairs.
“And no we shouldn’t give back Texas. Just like we shouldn’t give back Israel. This is because we can’t go back in time, but you better believe that I would have stood up for the Cherokees in Georgia.”
This is a horrible defense on your part. You are saying that Texas DOES belong to Mexico, but “we can’t go back in time”. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. If you could go back in time would you have argued against or for the Mexican War? Imagine the poverty, chaos and drug cartels influence extending all the way to the Louisiana border today! Look, we conquered that land fair and square, why is that even wrong in the first place? And if it is, then isn’t it hypocritical to try and not right this wrong? We CAN “go back in time” we can return Texsas tomorrow with a stroke of a pen, but we won’t we want the power, the people and the land, but why is that bad?
“He was a shrewd political debater. Notice how he says he was never “in favor” of complete social and political equality but he never stated that he was “opposed” to it.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I guess that depends on what the definition of “is” is. Please, don’t contort yourself like a liberal to defend this man’s dislike of black people. You don’t need to do that. The man’s other numerous statements, speeches, his own friends comments, and everyone who knows a nickels worth of history knows that Ole Abe thought black people were nothing but niggers. He was a seriously flawed man for that. He would be damned as a racist today if he were alive. I think this isn’t so much a condemnation of him, but of the society in which he lived and more importantly the wonderous equality of our society today where people truely are equal. Lincoln deserves some credit for the racial equality we all enjoy today, though he is probably rolling in his grave.
“Lincoln did not want to send the slaves back to Africa because he was a racist. He was merely following the plan that had been enunciated by Jefferson and Monroe (hence Monrovia, Liberia). This is what CONSERVATIVES do, they follow the paths of the wise who came before.”
Yes and conservatives in Germany at the end of WWI decided to “follow the wise paths from before” and reconquer Europe. I know the history of Liberia and I also am aware of many blacks who willingly wanted to return to Africa. Lincoln wanted them rounded up like cattle and deported. Blacks had been living as freed men in America since before the revolution, so it wasn’t just the idea that now there would be more of them, the problem in Lincoln’s mind (reinforced by his own writings) was that so many black people shouldn’t live among white people.
“Gradual emancipation vis a vis the containment would have been. This was Lincoln’s plan. The South rejected it.”
When the hell does Uncle Sam have the right to tell Georgia what it does or doesn’t do? After the Civil War of course, when the grand precedent of federal intereference was begun. Slavery was wrong, but Lincoln didn’t have the constitutional authority to force the issue. If the new territory of New Mexico wanted slaves (as they did and had voted upon) then Lincoln has no business telling them they can’t. You entire arguement isn’t based upon constitutional fact, but the moral arguement that slavery is wrong so to hell with the law of the land and constitution, let’s invade the South!
“but Lincoln knew that the blood of 600,000 Americans had not been spilt to leave the scourge of slavery upon this free land.”
The blood of 600,000 Americans was spilt to preserve the fat profit margins of some damn merchant in Boston who wanted protectionist tariffs that drained the wealth from the South. If it helps you sleep at night then think that the war was fought for the same black people that Union Army wouldn’t even serve beside. The Northern people hated blacks and still today racism is much more prevelent in the North than the South. Polls have consistently found the South to be the place where black people say they are happiest and the least racism exists, where whites and blacks get along the best.
Point 9.) I have read this speech before Alex. You are taking the writings of one man and using it to justify your entire point. What percentage of Conferdate VOLUNTEER soldiers owned slaves? How many freed blacks fought for the south? As many as fought for the north. If the war was about slavery, why did the blacks in the south fight for their “masters”? Only 20% of the Southern citizens owned slaves and the majority of them did not own more than one or two. That fact can’t be explained, why would all of these free blacks and whites who had nothing to profit from slavery fight for the State of Georgia? Why would a poor yeoman farmer want to preserve a system that kept the local landlord from hiring him instead of getting free labor from his slaves for life? Because the war was about money and sovereign right of states to do as they pleased. The slavery issue was a head faint and you guys are still falling for it today.
“Slavery did not become an issue until late 1862 when the South was looking like they could win and other countries were debating whether to actively support the South. So after a then rare Northern victory, Lincoln shifted the focus of the war from just preserving the Union to a fight against slavery. This did not sit well with many Northern soldiers or the North at large, but it kept the great powers of out of the conflict.”
All I can say is that Lincoln was indeed the most powerful figure in American history. He has you two so confused as to this nation’s true history. You ask which side I would have fought for? Let me ask you this question? Which side would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have fought for? My ancestors fought on both sides so I can’t say. I probably (like Robert Lee) have fought for the state where I have lived the longest and call home, Georgia. You guys are even talking about the same thing as me and Gary. You think this is about slavery and keep trying to prove that Lincoln didn’t really mean it when he said that blacks and whites weren’t equal. This is about freedom, the freedom that the State of Georgia once had, that was garunteed it by the Constitution to govern itself. The founders intentionally didn’t ban slavery, because they had no right to do so. Lincoln has no authority as president to offer a concession to the slave states, they can have slavery as long as they want to. Don’t you believe in the tenants of Federalism? Of course, but not for this issue right. Well that is the path we took and that is why abortion is legal in every state in the Union today, because Georgia lost it’s sovereignty, the right to tell Washington DC that abortion is illegal. The Constitution grants the federal government no powers to declare slavery illegal or legal or where it can spread by the consent of the people of new states.
Was seccesion legal or illegal? That question deserves it’s own blog that we still have fresh posts in 3005. For the record I think the following: seccesion was clearly legal and constituional, however the North and Lincoln certainly were within the bounds of acceptable behavior to wage war against the South. Unlike some, I don’t begrudge the North the right to “get back” it’s lost territory and people. The “let them go” argument sounds downright un-American. I am sorry to see though that today so many people have no idea what really happened and why all those men gave their lives for their country. It is a shame that their sacrifice is unknown by all but a few people today, why did they fight, for the black slaves or for something else? Would a society so racist really shed that much blood for an issue so few cared about? Or was something else going on, was it about what it’s always about, money/power/land/influence? All wars, every single stinking last one of them are fought over power and its derivatives.
8
AM
By the way, Can you imagine how this nation would be if there had never been a Civil War, if slavery had died a peaceful death some 40 years later, if we hadn’t had no many good men die? We probably would now have all of the Carribean as a collection of states as well as parts of Central America. We would have reached our peak as a superpower well before WWI and the prosperity and equality we enjoy today would have come about anyway and probably sooner. Ah well, the Good Lord has his reasons.
8
AM
Awesome post Mike, I will be piggybacking on all of that later this week.
8
AM
Mike, you can’t judge the Civil War by saying that it was on its way to ultimate extinction, when there was every sign that they were EXPANDING SLAVERY during the lead up to the Civil War.
8
AM
Mike, this is a BLATANT LIE: “All that being said he thought black people were animals”
Retract it now. If you have any honor. Lincoln believed that all men were created equal. Including blacks.
8
AM
The Federal Government would not force new states to be free. LINCOLN SAID THAT NEW STATES HAD THE RIGHTS TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD SLAVERY. But he wanted to keep it free soil during the territorial phase, lest we have a Lecompton Constitution which allowed a LITTLE BIT of Slavery or a LOT OF SLAVERY.
8
AM
Mike you have yet to prove how Lincoln violated “the sovereignty of Georgia.” He did not want to restrict slavery from NEW MEXICO because it was south of 36 30 and under the Missouri compromise that was legal. He wanted to RESTORE THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE, but greedy Douglas repealed it to push a raliroad through and appease the Southern slave owners.
You show a lack for any type of historicism or historical insight. Lincoln made Irish jokes, but he didn’t detest them as cattle or think they should be OWNED BY OTHERS.
Prove to me that Lincoln used the N-Word. He used the word Negroes which was standard for the time.
Lincoln fought for Black Freedom when he became president. He may have had racist views earlier in his life. But so did TRENT LOTT,JESSE HELMS, AND STROM THURMOND. Is it impossible for someone to stop believing in something ignorant.
Let’s hope so, or I should stop arguing now.
You’re argument’s are like the new book by TRIPP that says Lincoln was gay. You judge him by racist standards of today, just like he uses modern homophobia to create the idea that no strait man could share a bed with another man and not be gay.
8
PM
Did the Founding Fathers believe that men who didn’t own property were nothing but “animals”. By Mike’s logic they would. The founders had not granted full political or social equality to non-landowning men.
Do you understand how radical it would have been for Lincoln to run on the position that he would grant blacks the right to vote, when the poor white men had just earned that right 30 years earlier?
You can understand history much better by learning about what actually happened before events transpired, than what occurred after. ‘What if’ history is neat, but we can’t judge historical figures ex post facto.
8
PM
Was Lincoln Racist? From David Herbert Donald:
“Two excellent analyses of Lincoln’s racial views are George M Frederickson, “A Man but Not a Brother: Abraham Lincoln and Racial Equality,” and Done E Fehrenbacher, “only His Stepchildren is also important. It would, I think, be a mistake to attempt to palliate Lincoln’s racial views by saying that he grew up in a racist society or that his ideas were shared by many of his contemporaries. After all, there were numerous Americans of his generation—notably, many of the abolitionists—who where committed to racial equality. At the same time, it ought to be noted that Lincoln fortunately escaped the more virulent strains of racism. Unlike many of his fellow Republicans, he never spoke of African Americans as hideous or physically inferior; he never declared that they were innately inferior mentally or incapable of intellectual development; he never described the as indolent or incapable of sustained work; he never discussed their supposed licentious nature or immorality. For an extensive sampling of statements by Republicans who did crudely express these views, See James D. Bilotta, Race and the Rise of the Republican Party, 1848-1865. Lincoln’s own views on race, on the other hand, were nearly always expressed tentatively. As Fehrenbacher points out, “He conceded that the Negro might not be his equal, or he said that the Negro was not his equal in certain respects.” Even when he agreed that blacks did not have the same civil rights as whites, he nearly always added in the next breath that they were the equal of whites in the enjoyment of the natural rights pledge din the Declaration of Independence.”
Fair and balanced. He should work for Fox News!
9
AM
“he never spoke of African Americans as hideous or physically inferior; he never declared that they were innately inferior mentally or incapable of intellectual development; he never described the as indolent or incapable of sustained work; he never discussed their supposed licentious nature or immorality.”
Oh really John. Consider these quotes from Lincoln from his debates with Douglas,
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] … 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 for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the SUPERIOR POSITION (emphasis added)assigned to the white race…”
9
PM
Gary I actually wrote about this, and posted the quote you have on Comment #6. Perhaps you should read what I had to say.
9
PM
You really should have added the emphasis to “inasmuch as they cannot so live”. Everyone should read Dinesh D’Souza’s chapter “Was Lincoln a Bad Guy?” in Letters to a Young Conservative.
9
PM
Hypothetical Question: If Georgia and South Carolina had been putting Jews in gas chambers instead of Africans in shackles, would that have been protected by “State’s Rights”? Was it Saddam Hussein’s “sovereign State’s right” to have innocent women raped?
I have often debated whether I would have been an abolitionist or merely antislavery like Lincoln. Given the firebrand I am on the abortion issue, it might have been the former. But I think the thing we need is more Lincoln’s today
Where would you guys have fallen? This is the spectrum.
Abolitionist (Every action possible against Slavery; full equal rights.)
Antislavery (By affirming Missouri Comrpomise principle of restricting slavery from the territories set out by the Founders in the NW Ordinance, hoping for its ultimate extinction as it became economically unviable; not necessarily for equal rights but against slavery.)
Popular Sovereignty (The first “pro-choicers” led by Douglas: One man wishes to enslave another man, and no third man should object; Congress has no right to restrict slavery from territories.)
ProSlavery: Why stop at Kansas? Haiti, Nicaragua and Cuba are low hanging fruit. After all slavery is “benevolent”.
9
PM
I reject the premise of this question, because the war - and secession - were ultimately about tariffs and big government Whiggery. Slavery was simply a red herring, as I argued in our e-mail.
9
PM
John and I have been exchanging rapid e-mails, and I thought the blog might be interested in seeing one of my replies to him.
“You claim that Lincoln wanted to, all along, emancipate the slaves. I argue that he was a Whig at heart (the evidence is irrefutable), and everything he did was about securing these American System aims. I am merely arguing that the only reason Lincoln could not tolerate the secession of the Southern states was because they would lose the tariff money. It had nothing to do, by his own admission, with slavery, at least at the beginning. Don’t take my word for it - take Lincoln’s from his First Inaugural Address. He makes it very clear that he would ONLY use military force to collect revenues and property. No mention of slavery. In fact, he says the opposite; he says he wouldn’t touch it. This leads me to my ultimate conclusion that Lincoln was motivated solely by Whiggery, and was only a convenient abolitionist. Call him pragmatic if you would like. There is no way around it, Lincoln was a devoted Whig, and everything he did was about building the American System.
Of course, Whiggery is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to give special favors to select groups, and individuals, as Lincoln and the Whigs were doing. It is unconstitutional and wrong for the same reason that the Great Society was wrong. I can’t believe I have to make this argument to a conservative. Does this part of the Constitution mean anything to you: “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises?but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Indeed, Jefferson was a genius, and knew all along that this would breed evil and corruption. This is why he staunchly opposed the national bank.
And, NO, I do not believe the federal government should be in the business of making interstates, for the same reason I don’t think the government should be subsidizing Amtrak or Greyhound. A private rail system would be far more efficient. The private sector would do a far better job. It is simple economics. Our highway system is becoming archaic, and modernization is unlikely as long as the government is involved. Plenty of CATO and AEI scholars have set forth proposals that illustrate such privatization plans for transporation. If you say that the federal government can make highways, then why not schools, or hospitals, or homeless shelters? Sure, I am making the “slippery slope” argument, but, look around John, everything the South - and Jefferson - said would happen if Whiggery triumphed, HAS happened. WE HAVE ALREADY TRAVELED DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. The government - predictably - didn’t stop at roads, it kept intruding deeper and deeper into our lives. This was what the South was fighting against. It is what Jefferson prophesized in his early writings about the Bank. It is the cause that I thought you and I now share in the 21st century. We have a massive federal government that gives special favors to people all the time in the form of taxpayer funded subsidies - its called the welfare state. This is unconstitutional, for the Constitution does not say the federal government can spend money on any of these things. Any strict constructionist will agree to this. I guess you adhere to such a reading of the Constitution, except of course, if Lincoln is the topic at hand. The point still holds that Lincoln set the precedent for big government (his view just won the day), and it translated into modern liberalism.
It is easy to say Lincoln and the Whigs started the Civil War - and later “freed the slaves” - for economic reasons, because his rhetoric and behavior throughout his entire career is totally consistent with such actions. Lincoln makes it clear, REPEATEDLY, that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed, would prefer to send the blacks back to Africa, thought blacks and whites were inherently different, etc. He even told Horace Greeley in a personal letter, in the middle of the war, that the Civil War was not about slavery, but only about saving the Union. Now, I have never heard Bush or Cheney utter anything that remotely resembles Whiggery, as a matter of fact, they are for lower taxes and lower tariffs. Now, if you think it is a legitimate argument to say that lower taxes are a “giveaway” to Haliburton, and other corporations, then I think you belong in the John Kerry camp. This is the opposite of what Lincoln and the Whigs were doing. They would just take taxpayer revenues and distribute them to special people, so as to build a political base. Just like modern liberals. Your argument is a non sequitur if I ever saw one.
10
PM
I never said Lincoln wanted to emancipate teh slaves all along. I’m not going to remake this argument. Read above if you want.
Oh, and Gary. How again is it that you’re against building roads, but you work for the Department of Education?
10
PM
Salut !