Trashing our history: Lincoln

[DesertFox]

Thomas Sowell
Townhall
11 Aug 05

...

Since the 1960s, it has been fashionable in some quarters to take cheap shots at Lincoln, asking such questions as "Why didn't he free all the slaves?" "Why did he wait so long?" "How come the Emancipation Proclamation didn't just come right out and say that slavery was wrong?" ...

Nothing in the Constitution gave a President the authority to free slaves. The only thing Lincoln could use to make his actions legal was his authority as commander-in-chief in wartime. But that meant that he could only free the slaves in territory controlled by enemy forces.

It took not only legal shrewdness but much courage to do what Lincoln did. There was no big political support in the North for freeing slaves. In fact there was much opposition to the idea by Northerners who feared that such an action would stiffen Southern resistance and prolong a war that cost more lives than any other war in American history. More than ten times as many American died in the Civil War as in Vietnam.

Lincoln was out on a limb, both politically and legally. He could have been impeached. At a minimum, he expected to lose the next election and was surprised when he didn't. But today we see the spectacle of pygmies sniping at this giant.

More (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050811.shtml)

[Pennville_Bill]

Abraham Lincoln's legacy


When John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln, he ensured that historians would look on Lincoln in a more favorable light than if he had not been murdered. I am convinced that if Lincoln had survived to finish his presidency, he would be viewed in a harsher light than he is today.

The most simplistic view of Abraham Lincoln is that he went to war with the Confederate States of America to free the slaves in the South. He is seen as "The Great Emancipator", and Republicans cling to le label of "The party of Lincoln". But a more in-depth study of history reveals that Lincoln was the hero many Americans see him as after all. It was Abraham Lincoln, after all, who said this:


I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever 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... I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

-- S. Tibbs

[S-T]

Actually, the author isn't unknown, Pennville_Bill. The author is me.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://scott.sstibbs.com/opinion/2005_column_01.html

[S-T]

It's no secret than I'm no fan of Lincoln. There's a reason I have that Jefferson Davis quote in my signature.

Respectfully a Yankee by birth and a Southerner by choice,

[DesertFox]

But Jeff Davis was wrong, S-T. The question of Nazi domination of Europe was settled by very great violence. So was the question of Japanese domination of the Orient.

Nothing human lasts forever, so his words about "remain unsettled forever" apply to every possible question, not just those settled by violence, and hence are meaningless.

[Teenager]

DF, I would not rely on newpaper authors for history. Instead, read the diaries, journals, newpapers, of the 1800s about Lincolns actions. Today'ss history of Lincoln is distorted that noone can be trusted who writes about, unless the present accurate libraries of history written back in the day. That's what author has done, and he has written a book on Lincoln. It's called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas Dilorenzo.

Lincoln was neither a Christian nor a great man. He respected God, like almost all people did back then, but did not bow or believe in God.

Read the history, not Thomas Sowell or any other columist.

[S-T]

The question of Nazi domination of Europe was settled by very great violence. So was the question of Japanese domination of the Orient. Of course, the German and Japanese empires in Europe and the Orient were made by violence. Germany and Japan instigated violence, as Lincoln did in the War of Northern Aggression.That's what author has done, and he has written a book on Lincoln. It's called "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas Dilorenzo.I checked that book out from the library and read it a couple years ago. It is a really good book. The South Was Right! and Was Jefferson Davis Right? are both really good books as well.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AXVTV.01-AN9APEYXRHVW0._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[DesertFox]

Teenager, Thomas Sowell isn't just another newspaper columnist. He is also author of some of the most searching, far-reaching scholarship of this era. He has published (I'm guessing here) maybe 40 books of respected scholarship. When he speaks, it's worth your while listening.

[2nd_Amendment]

It's "fashionable" to question Lincoln's credibility because the questions are legitimate. The "Civil War" was fought in order to consolidate federal power over the states, period. Lincoln knew this, supported it and had made it clear in earlier years he had no moral, social or political interest in ending slavery. He used it, as the expert politician he was, to further a cause he DID believe in.

We are dealing still today with the consequences, from Federal expansionism to racial antagonism, of Lincoln's desire for centralized power. None of that makes him Evil, but the end of slavery certainly doesn't make him a saint, or above question, either.

[DeclinetoState]

DF, I would not rely on newpaper authors for history. I wouldn't rely on today's reporters to provide an accurate history of the Bush administration, or anything else dealing with the early 21st century.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Since Lincoln's purpose was to free millions of human beings, not leave some rhetoric to be preserved in the anthologies, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation in dry legalistic terms that disappointed thoughtless critics in his time and ours, but got it past the Supreme Court.

Exactly. In my opinion, Lincoln is hands down the most eloquent president in history. And while much has been made of Roosevelt’s, Johnson's and even Reagan's political skills, I've always been of the opinion that Lincoln was also the shrewdest politician to ever grace the presidency. In short, he was brilliantly bland when it came to outfoxing the Court. The folks who bemoan Lincoln’s supposed lack of passion against contemporary standards of commitment to certain principles and the folks who naively make him out to be the epitome of democratic idealism, make the same mistake. Lincoln was above all else a politician’s politician, a master of the art, primarily because this otherwise ordinary man -- though smarter than most -- was extraordinarily decent and fearless.

Recently, I’ve read a number of works about Lincoln, including the book that Sowell cites. My appraisal of Lincoln’s presidency, in spite of my libertarian sensibilities, has changed as a result. I now rank him just behind Washington and just ahead of Reagan in greatness, in terms of positive and lasting impact. In my opinion, these three presidents and only these three, with respect to the old question, were not merely made great by trying times and events, nor were they merely the right men at the right time. They would have been great at any time, against any challenge.

Washington was wise and physically courageous, the one indispensable warrior and statesman.

Lincoln was shrewd, doggedly persistent and a brilliant humorist.

Reagan was kind and compassionate, unwaveringly committed to the American ideal.

[S-T]

But was Lincoln's purpose to free the slaves? Or was the Emancipation Proclimation issued in hopes of instigating a slave rebellion and to turn political sentiment in Europe against the South? I think the latter two reasons are much more likely than the former.

Lincoln was no hero. His goal was not to help the slaves, but to consolidate federal power.

[Teenager]

Exactly. In my opinion, Lincoln is hands down the most eloquent president in history. And while much has been made of Roosevelt’s, Johnson's and even Reagan's political skills, I've always been of the opinion that Lincoln was also the shrewdest politician to ever grace the presidency. In short, he was brilliantly bland when it came to outfoxing the Court. The folks who bemoan Lincoln’s supposed lack of passion against contemporary standards of commitment to certain principles and the folks who naively make him out to be the epitome of democratic idealism, make the same mistake. Lincoln was above all else a politician’s politician, a master of the art, primarily because this otherwise ordinary man -- though smarter than most -- was extraordinarily decent and fearless.

. . .

Lincoln was shrewd, doggedly persistent and a brilliant humorist.


No doubt about that. That's one reason why he'd stop at nothing to increase federal powers. He even declared martial, took over the state of Maryland in peace time, and arrested hundreds of people for merely disagreeing with his policies.

You're right, Lincoln was shrewd. No one could/can match his shrewedness. That's one reason why his history is so distorted.

[Teenager]

Teenager, Thomas Sowell isn't just another newspaper columnist. He is also author of some of the most searching, far-reaching scholarship of this era. He has published (I'm guessing here) maybe 40 books of respected scholarship. When he speaks, it's worth your while listening.

You're probably right. I've never heard of him, so I don't know. But this I do know, when it comes to Lincoln, no contemporary writer should be trusted unless you check with history first.

[Pennville_Bill]

Actually, the author isn't unknown, Pennville_Bill. The author is me.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://scott.sstibbs.com/opinion/2005_column_01.html

I stand corrected and will make it a point to give you full and due credit with any future usage of this passage. Thanks for the heads up S-T.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

We are dealing still today with the consequences, from Federal expansionism to racial antagonism, of Lincoln's desire for centralized power.

BRILLIANTLY stated, :claps: . I am currently working through an American Government curriculum with my son (11th grader), and we are just beginning the part discussing the difference in centralized power and power distribution. I HIGHLY recommend this three volume book set.

God and Government by Gary DeMar
American Vision – Online Store (http://www.americanvision.org/proddetail.asp?prod=PAC%2D0123)

[Bluemoon_Rising]

When John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln, he ensured that historians would look on Lincoln in a more favorable light than if he had not been murdered. I am convinced that if Lincoln had survived to finish his presidency, he would be viewed in a harsher light than he is today.

I beg to differ. I believe what John Wilkes Booth ensured was that the northeastern radicals of the Republican Party would set the tone of the Reconstruction period and dominate domestic policy for the next ten years in the vacuum of the weak and ineffectual leadership of Johnson and Grant.

While Lincoln shrewdly welcomed and used the political support the radicals lent him, he did not particularly like them. He thought them to be impractical and vindictive, and knew that he would have to check their unnatural desire to punish the post-war South. Lincoln had envisioned a much faster and a more comprehensive reconstruction program than that which was carried out by his successors, which would have included generous debt relief and property reconstruction programs, whereby the U.S. treasury would have provided much of the necessary funds and material to rebuild private lands and businesses, back and help pay off private debt in order to secure Southern property against cutthroat speculation. He also wanted to relocate as many black families as were willing in the West with generous land grants. He had no desire to punish Southerners, but to console them, to compassionately restore them to the Union. And he wanted to do it quickly.

Instead, the radicals allowed thieving land speculation to run rampant, mostly ignored the restoration of private interests and concentrated their efforts on the reconstruction of public facilities and infrastructure. They provided little or no incentives, let alone the means, to encourage propertyless blacks and poor whites to fend for themselves. It was important to keep them around, you know, the former slaves, to keep blackie in whitey's face, shove black equality down Southerners' throats. The radicals provided plenty of fish, but kept the poles for themselves, leaving the South improvised, dependent and torn by racial strife and resentment.

The most simplistic view of Abraham Lincoln is that he went to war with the Confederate States of America to free the slaves in the South.

Agree. That view is not only simplistic, but wrong. Lincoln had one overriding goal, and that goal was to preserve the Union by most any means available to him, including the total war of Sherman's march. Ending slavery was the inevitable consequence. And while ending slavery was not his first priority or even a matter of attending to indispensable first principles with him, he did think the institution to be abhorrent, a blight on America's soul. He hoped to end it; knew it had to be ended; worked to end it; and seized the events of the moment to end it.

I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever 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. . . . I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. -- Lincoln

Indeed, Lincoln, by today's standards, was a racist. But he was not a vicious man. He did not hate the black man or wish him ill. And above all else, he was a practical man. He well understood what the smarmy, self-righteous radicals -- those pollyannaish nitwits who claimed to believe in the equality of the races -- did not or would not: the federal government could not erase 400 years of slavery and culture, impose socio-political equality from on high and expect it to take overnight . . . or else . . . without disastrous repercussions. Lincoln wanted to relocate as many blacks as possible and provide them with the means to work out for themselves their rightful place in society over time.

[DesertFox]

Wow. What a superb post.

It just put this thread in the Hall of Fame.

[nene]

What Bluemoon said.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

But was Lincoln's purpose to free the slaves? Or was the Emancipation Proclimation issued in hopes of instigating a slave rebellion and to turn political sentiment in Europe against the South? I think the latter two reasons are much more likely than the former.

Lincoln was no hero. His goal was not to help the slaves, but to consolidate federal power.

He did not wish to incite a bloody rebellion. On the contrary, he believed that such an outcome would be counterproductive, that it would only serve to stiffen the South's resolve. His first priority was to defeat the South as quickly as possible and restore the Union. And in any event, he believed that such an outcome near the end was highly unlikely. Had he thought otherwise, he wouldn't have issued the Proclamation when he did . . .and he was proven right. While there was some killing and ransacking on the part of some blacks, such incidents were the rare exception. While some stayed, most blacks simply grabbed what they could carry and peacefully left the plantations. What Lincoln wanted to do was destabilize what remained of the South's economy, irrevocably disrupt its socio-political infrastructure, turn European sentiment against the South and seize the moment to outflank the Court, forcing the events that would inevitably end the government's formal approbation of that insidious institution in America once and for all.

The answer to your question is that above all else he made war on the South to preserve the Union, and then he latter jumped at the opportunity to end slavery when it best presented itself.


Teenager: No doubt about that. That's one reason why he'd stop at nothing to increase federal powers. He even declared martial, took over the state of Maryland in peace time, and arrested hundreds of people for merely disagreeing with his policies.

You're right, Lincoln was shrewd. No one could/can match his shrewedness. That's one reason why his history is so distorted.

Like I said, he wanted to preserve the Union. As for history: I don't know that it is distorted, as the ignorance of some about the order of Lincoln’s priorities is a different matter altogether. Look, some hate what he did, some don't, and each side has its own perspective about the nature of his actions and his motives, about the meaning of the events of the time. I happen to be of the opinion that it was a good thing to preserve the Union and end slavery. Nevertheless, many of Lincoln's actions go against the grain of my libertarian sensibilities, and the extent of the devastation wrought by Sherman especially was obscene.

In any event, I strongly believe it to be a gross distortion to make Lincoln out to have been a power-hungry megalomaniac obsessed with the consolidation of federal power.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

I love the selective screening some of you do about Lincoln, all the while ignoring the reason he got in the Senate race against Douglas in the first place. Or did you all conveniently forget about that?

You sound like the ultra-extreme abolitionists of Lincoln's own time. Get a grip.

[DesertFox]

So why'd he get in the Senate race against Douglas in the first place? :question:

[Bluemoon_Rising]

It's "fashionable" to question Lincoln's credibility because the questions are legitimate. The "Civil War" was fought in order to consolidate federal power over the states, period. Lincoln knew this, supported it and had made it clear in earlier years he had no moral, social or political interest in ending slavery. He used it, as the expert politician he was, to further a cause he DID believe in.

We are dealing still today with the consequences, from Federal expansionism to racial antagonism, of Lincoln's desire for centralized power. None of that makes him Evil, but the end of slavery certainly doesn't make him a saint, or above question, either.

2nd, you can't be serious. Lincoln made war on the South in order to consolidate federal power over the states? That was his goal? That's all he cared about? Near the end of the war, when the opportunity presented itself, "he had no moral, social or political interest in ending slavery"? Preserving the Union and the opportunity to end slavery meant nothing at all to him? All that carnage, the thousands lost, it was all about grabbing power?

If what you say is true, then he was most definitely an Evil man of the most bestial sort.

And while his issuing the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t make him a saint and while the motives of this most ambitious of men were not always as pure as the driven snow or Mother Mary‘s underwear, the sort of problems you’re ascribing to his actions go to the actions of others: it’s folks like the Civil War era radicals, Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson against whom you should be railing.

But like I said, everybody’s got their own perspective. And though I may be presuming too much here, I understand and sympathize with the white Southerner’s typical view of Lincoln. Your ancestors simply wanted to be left alone, and he would have none of it. I love Southerners. They, along with most Westerners, represent the best America has to offer, and they have always been America’s greatest warriors -- brave and committed to liberty. But don’t forget the irony of that commitment, the tens of thousands of black folks that were grateful to finally be free -- and rightly so -- because Lincoln chose to preserve the Union. Don’t forget the years of tears and toil and blood shed endured by the blacks who helped build this nation.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I love the selective screening some of you do about Lincoln, all the while ignoring the reason he got in the Senate race against Douglas in the first place. Or did you all conveniently forget about that?

You sound like the ultra-extreme abolitionists of Lincoln's own time. Get a grip.

[U]ltra-extreme abolitionists"?! You get a grip.

Lincoln was condescending toward blacks, ambitious, calculating, manipulative, but he was also an essentially decent and fearless man. He could be ruthless, as ruthless as they come, but not without remorse. He wasn't a saint, but neither was he a monster. In short, he was just a man, like most any other, complicated, a walking contradiction.

Better?

[DesertFox]

I tend strongly toward Moon's interpretation. We in modern America live in probably the easiest times of all history for everybody (rich and poor alike), and we see how the forces of evil have warped history and made even simple things hard to see thru the distortions. Lincoln lived in much, much tougher times, and it's too much to expect that distortion wouldn't be commensurately greater.

No saint ever becomes president, and no president can do it all by himself. Jesus Christ Himself would have to deal and compromise and dirty His hands. It's just unrealistic to think that Lincoln should have been purer, or should have this or should have that. He did what probably no one else on the planet could have done by keeping America together in spite of a vicious Civil War. I don't think America today would have been better off by being two separate countries, and we owe our oneness to Lincoln.

[Federal Farmer]

Lincoln's motives aside, constitutionally speaking, what Lincoln did in fighting the Civil War was to decide the question of a state's right to secede or nullify the federal power, the only real threats states had against federal encroachment; we live with the results today, most recently a Supreme Court that thinks it's alright to take private property no less. From a conservative's point of view the price was inordinate. The only reason I don't condemn Lincoln is because if not him, somebody else; if not at that time, some other.

[DesertFox]

FF, to turn this around requires only a president who appoints Conservative judges and a Congress that consents to them. That's all it takes. Nothing more.

[Federal Farmer]

The problem with that Fox is that all the history of the Supreme Court I've been reading of late brings to mind one word: arbitrary. This goes back to the beginning of the Republic; its like some yin, then some yang.

Reagan had it right when he said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

[DesertFox]

Of course! That's why Conservative judges matter!

The Constitution recognizes human perversity and builds in structural safeguards against it. But they depend fundamentally on following the script, and liberal judges refuse to do that.

Liberal judges are like actors hired to play King Lear who instead perform Our Town -- not only the wrong play, but the wrong playwright, the wrong theater in the wrong century of the wrong country.





Scum suckin' maggots

[Federal Farmer]

You have more faith than I in the process getting conservatives onto the court, and those remaining true conservatives once there. I've pretty much given up on the institution and am inclined to think the Confederate Congress had it right when they chose not to setup a Supreme Court, but leave judicial review to the state supreme courts.

It's almost comical now to read Hamilton's comment that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution," or Montesquieu's, "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing." They have no sword or purse, but the nine have been given license to make the Constitution say whatever they say it says.

[Teenager]

Federal Farmer, you have hit home right on the nail. I totally agree with what you said on everything in this thread.:claps:

[S-T]

Lincoln's motives aside, constitutionally speaking, what Lincoln did in fighting the Civil War was to decide the question of a state's right to secede or nullify the federal power, the only real threats states had against federal encroachment; we live with the results today, most recently a Supreme Court that thinks it's alright to take private property no less.

:claps:

We supported secession movements all over the world, from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet Republics. This country exists becaise the colonists seceded from England (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24404). And yet self-determination does not apply to the South.

[Lazarus]

Well now, boys and girls, this is a subject for which I have an opinion.... First we need to get some facts straight...

Before the Civil War there was NO Union... This concept of restoring the Union is a post-Civil War concept that was NOT widely held prior to the war... The United States prior to the War were just that - A collection of Sovereign states who were united for national defense from forces from the outside... There was no universally held idea that the Union was a sacred concept...

All military units were mustered and provided by individual states, not by the Federal government as ruling entity - Anyone who has visited a Civil War Battlefield will see monuments to the 2nd Pennsylvania Artillary or the 28th Alabama Infantry... All currency was issued by State banks... And after to the Civil War the phrase "THESE United States" was officially changed to "THE United States... Make no mistake, the Civil War was a war for power between those who favored a strong central Federal government vs those who favored maximum power remaining in the hands of the individual states...

Secondly, the War did not begin over the issue of slavery, nor was it ever fought over slavery... Again this was a post-war concept created by revisionist historians in order to justify the actions of the Federal government... The war began because the North tried to fix the price of cotton below what the Southern growers could sell it for in Europe, and then prevented the South from selling in Europe... This was the straw that broke the camel's back and drove the Southern states to do precisely what the American colonists did with King George... They declared their independance from an oppressive government that no longer represented them - An action that was applauded when taken by the American colonists but one which Lincoln denied the South at the muzzle of a gun...

Slavery was never an issue with the beginning of the war and was not brought into the political argument on a national level until Lincoln was up for re-election... Lincoln's campaign to retain the presidency was not going well... In fact it was questionable whether he would indeed take the party's nomination for the next term - The war was NOT popular in the North and Gen. George McClellen was challenging him for the monimation on the platform of sueing for peace and letting the South go (which was an incresingly popular view in the North...

Lincoln needed some new and righteous platform to stand on in order to regain the party nomination - and he needed to tap some new special interest support... So he brought the issue of Slavery into the political arena for the purpose of the Presidential campaign ONLY - Thus corraling the abolistionist vote... This backfired on him BTW and almost brought down his entire war campaign... Hundreds of Federal troops began to complain that they did not enlist to fight for slaves and many actually deserted their posts and returned home... There were draft riots in New York and Philadelphia - A point noted by R.E. Lee and the strategic motivation for his ill-fated thrust into Pennsylvania...

Slavery in the South was dying a natural death, and contrary to modern day pop culture opinion, the preservation of slavery was NOT the issue for the Southern soldier... The poor dirt farmers and shopkeepers who made up the bulk of the Southern fighting force did not own slaves and certainly did not leave their homes and families to risk their lives to fight for the right of a handful of ultra-rich plantation owners to retain their slaves... R.E. Lee himself had freed all his slaves years before the war ever started and when offered the overall command of the Federal Forces he declined, resigned his Federal commision, and took command of the Confederate armies in Virginia...

Neither was this concept of widespread hatred and abuse of blacks in the South true... There are many well documented accounts (ableit unpopular and supressed today) of both free and slave blacks freely choosing to fight on the side of the Confederacy... Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA) argued that the blacks were an untapped military asset and even took the unheard of step of merging blacks into the units under his command...

Lincoln was not an astute politician - he was a politcal hack the likes of which we have never seen before or since in this nation... He showed no reluctance to suspend and violate the Constitution if it benefited his politcal career... Regardless of how we today view the institution of slavery, the issue was there for Congress to wrestle with - The executive branch is only authorized to enforce the laws passed by the legistlature... The president of the US is NOT a king - he does not have the authority to Proclaim anything...

In short, Lincoln is not only highly overrated by our modern day pop culture historians, he was IMO the most dangerous man to ever sit in the Whitehouse... I am NOT a fan of Emperor Abraham Lincoln...

So says Lazarus...

[Teenager]

Well now, boys and girls, this is a subject for which I have an opinion.... First we need to get some facts straight...

Before the Civil War there was NO Union... This concept of restoring the Union is a post-Civil War concept that was NOT widely held prior to the war... The United States prior to the War were just that - A collection of Sovereign states who were united for national defense from forces from the outside... There was no universally held idea that the Union was a sacred concept...

All military units were mustered and provided by individual states, not by the Federal government as ruling entity - Anyone who has visited a Civil War Battlefield will see monuments to the 2nd Pennsylvania Artillary or the 28th Alabama Infantry... All currency was issued by State banks... And after to the Civil War the phrase "THESE United States" was officially changed to "THE United States... Make no mistake, the Civil War was a war for power between those who favored a strong central Federal government vs those who favored maximum power remaining in the hands of the individual states...

Secondly, the War did not begin over the issue of slavery, nor was it ever fought over slavery... Again this was a post-war concept created by revisionist historians in order to justify the actions of the Federal government... The war began because the North tried to fix the price of cotton below what the Southern growers could sell it for in Europe, and then prevented the South from selling in Europe... This was the straw that broke the camel's back and drove the Southern states to do precisely what the American colonists did with King George... They declared their independance from an oppressive government that no longer represented them - An action that was applauded when taken by the American colonists but one which Lincoln denied the South at the muzzle of a gun...

Slavery was never an issue with the beginning of the war and was not brought into the political argument on a national level until Lincoln was up for re-election... Lincoln's campaign to retain the presidency was not going well... In fact it was questionable whether he would indeed take the party's nomination for the next term - The war was NOT popular in the North and Gen. George McClellen was challenging him for the monimation on the platform of sueing for peace and letting the South go (which was an incresingly popular view in the North...

Lincoln needed some new and righteous platform to stand on in order to regain the party nomination - and he needed to tap some new special interest support... So he brought the issue of Slavery into the political arena for the purpose of the Presidential campaign ONLY - Thus corraling the abolistionist vote... This backfired on him BTW and almost brought down his entire war campaign... Hundreds of Federal troops began to complain that they did not enlist to fight for slaves and many actually deserted their posts and returned home... There were draft riots in New York and Philadelphia - A point noted by R.E. Lee and the strategic motivation for his ill-fated thrust into Pennsylvania...

Slavery in the South was dying a natural death, and contrary to modern day pop culture opinion, the preservation of slavery was NOT the issue for the Southern soldier... The poor dirt farmers and shopkeepers who made up the bulk of the Southern fighting force did not own slaves and certainly did not leave their homes and families to risk their lives to fight for the right of a handful of ultra-rich plantation owners to retain their slaves... R.E. Lee himself had freed all his slaves years before the war ever started and when offered the overall command of the Federal Forces he declined, resigned his Federal commision, and took command of the Confederate armies in Virginia...

Neither was this concept of widespread hatred and abuse of blacks in the South true... There are many well documented accounts (ableit unpopular and supressed today) of both free and slave blacks freely choosing to fight on the side of the Confederacy... Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA) argued that the blacks were an untapped military asset and even took the unheard of step of merging blacks into the units under his command...

Lincoln was not an astute politician - he was a politcal hack the likes of which we have never seen before or since in this nation... He showed no reluctance to suspend and violate the Constitution if it benefited his politcal career... Regardless of how we today view the institution of slavery, the issue was there for Congress to wrestle with - The executive branch is only authorized to enforce the laws passed by the legistlature... The president of the US is NOT a king - he does not have the authority to Proclaim anything...

In short, Lincoln is not only highly overrated by our modern day pop culture historians, he was IMO the most dangerous man to ever sit in the Whitehouse... I am NOT a fan of Emperor Abraham Lincoln...

So says Lazarus...

:eek:


:claps: :claps:


WOW!!!!!

Laz, I gotta say, you outdid yourself this time. You hit every point home every time.

This belongs in the Hall of Fame. Actually, it deserves to be published.

[DesertFox]

I suspect that some of us don't quite agree on Lincoln. :D

[Teenager]

I suspect that some of us don't quite agree on Lincoln. :D


Nope!! ;)


But, would you care to explain what you disagree with over Laz's post?

[Lazarus]

I suspect that some of us don't quite agree on Lincoln. :DNo.... But we think very highly of our friend, Desert Fox...;)

[S-T]

I think Sowell was taking aim at the anti-American elements of the Left that seek to tear down America. They are the "blame America first" crowd. However, what Sowell missed (and what this thread shows) is that many modern critics of Lincoln object to his actions for the same reason honorable men like Jefferson Davis, "Stonewall" Jackson and Robert E. Lee did.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Lincoln's motives aside, constitutionally speaking, what Lincoln did in fighting the Civil War was to decide the question of a state's right to secede or nullify the federal power, the only real threats states had against federal encroachment; we live with the results today, most recently a Supreme Court that thinks it's alright to take private property no less. From a conservative's point of view the price was inordinate. The only reason I don't condemn Lincoln is because if not him, somebody else; if not at that time, some other.

I must say that I'm with you when you write that "what Lincoln did in fighting the Civil War was to decide the question of a state's right to secede or nullify the federal power, the only real threat states had against federal encroachment". On other occasions, 2nd Amendment has eloquently and forcefully made the very same argument. There can be no doubt that Lincoln established a new and lasting precedent, one that is in my opinion a most unfortunate consequence, as I too strongly believe in the states' fundamental right of secession.

Nat-Tex has argued against the constitutional validity of this right, and not without some eloquence and force of his own. Just the same, I remain unconvinced, staunchly aligned with the argument for the right of secession.

Nevertheless, in the case of the Old South, the reasons for secession were dubious, as they were based on economic interests inextricably entangled with the continuation of a hideous institution that defied the demands of natural law and the laws of nature's God. Also, it is unrealistic to expect that Lincoln could have simply ignored the very real danger posed to Northern interests by an independent and hostile nation running loose in the same yard, one bent on competing for control over the same unsettled territory while strategically aligned with Great Britain. War between the free and slave-owning states was inevitable. Whether it were eventually over secession, economic concerns, the normalization of human rights or territorial dominance -- and in truth the war that was was fought over all four -- the land could not have sustained a divided economic, cultural and political ethos forever. Though I don't think you quite had these considerations in mind at the time, as you say, "if not [Lincoln], somebody else; if not at that time, some other."

In any event, I think it historically wrong to blame Lincoln for the abuses of power that are taken for granted by the federal government today. I blame Wilson, above all others, who proposed and successfully campaigned for the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment, which in turn made Roosevelt's "socialization" of America and the erection of Johnson's debilitating Great Society possible. Indeed, the federal courts’ leftist decisions of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies, most especially, would probably have not been practically conceivable or would have had little or no impact if not for the reach provided the federal government by the Sixteenth Amendment!

[Bluemoon_Rising]

No.... But we think very highly of our friend, Desert Fox...;)

I think he's divine.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Nope!! ;)


But, would you care to explain what you disagree with over Laz's post?

Well, Teenager, my earlier posts and the one above are about the very best I can do.

The thing here is that we all agree on the fundamental principles that go to the concerns of sovereignty, individual liberty and property. I know from other posts put up by Fox, for example, that he too supports the basic notion of the states' right to secede. It's the historical circumstances and the problematical nature of the Old South’s economic, cultural and political interests, as well as the larger strategic considerations with which Lincoln and others had to contend, that cause Fox and I to come down on the side of the argument that we do. We do not do so happily or with any sense of complete satisfaction.

[Federal Farmer]

I must say that I'm with you when you write that "what Lincoln did in fighting the Civil War was to decide the question of a state's right to secede or nullify the federal power, the only real threat states had against federal encroachment". On other occasions, 2nd Amendment has eloquently and forcefully made the very same argument. There can be no doubt that Lincoln established a new and lasting precedent, one that is in my opinion a most unfortunate consequence, as I too strongly believe in the states' fundamental right of secession.

Nat-Tex has argued against the constitutional validity of this right, and not without some eloquence and force of his own. Just the same, I remain unconvinced, staunchly aligned with the argument for the right of secession.

Nevertheless, in the case of the Old South, the reasons for secession were dubious, as they were based on economic interests inextricably entangled with the continuation of a hideous institution that defied the demands of natural law and the laws of nature's God. Also, it is unrealistic to expect that Lincoln could have simply ignored the very real danger posed to Northern interests by an independent and hostile nation running loose in the same yard, one bent on competing for control over the same unsettled territory while strategically aligned with Great Britain. War between the free and slave-owning states was inevitable. Whether it were eventually over secession, economic concerns, the normalization of human rights or territorial dominance -- and in truth the war that was was fought over all four -- the land could not have sustained a divided economic, cultural and political ethos forever. Though I don't think you quite had these considerations in mind at the time, as you say, "if not [Lincoln], somebody else; if not at that time, some other."

In any event, I think it historically wrong to blame Lincoln for the abuses of power that are taken for granted by the federal government today. I blame Wilson, above all others, who proposed and successfully campaigned for the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment, which in turn made Roosevelt's "socialization" of American and the erection of Johnson's debilitating Great Society possible. Indeed, the federal courts’ leftist decisions of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies, most especially, would probably have not been practically conceivable or would have had little or no impact if not for the reach provided the federal government by the Sixteenth Amendment!
I agree Blue with your 3rd paragraph and that's why I wrote that sentence. I don't think this geography would have stood being divided and something would have broke eventually, unless calmer, more patient minds had prevailed. It's really too bad they did not, and there were precedents Americans could have looked at to perhaps come to that realization. In the early Republic for example the Alien and Sedition Acts had some rumblings of secession starting. But the rumblings always seemed to be calmed, in this instance perhaps it was Jefferson's winning the presidency more than anything else as at his inaugural he spoke of "we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."

I also agree that it was the income tax amendment that really gave the federal government the means, the resources to build a Leviathan.

[DesertFox]

This may be the best single thread ever to come out of FreeConservatives. Gentlemen, my hat's off to you all.

[nene]

Well now, boys and girls, this is a subject for which I have an opinion.... First we need to get some facts straight...

Before the Civil War there was NO Union... This concept of restoring the Union is a post-Civil War concept that was NOT widely held prior to the war... The United States prior to the War were just that - A collection of Sovereign states who were united for national defense from forces from the outside... There was no universally held idea that the Union was a sacred concept...

It was a Union. True, most may people held allegiance to their respective states. But the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the U.S. Constitution for a reason. The U.S. Constitution was created through a series of compromises and as a result did not completely settle the matter of slavery, among other issues. Lincoln understood that a nation could not remain divided and must allow slavery everywhere or nowhere. He was a great President. If you look at pictures of the man before and after the war, he seemed to have aged 20 years.

[DesertFox]

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."

[nene]

In any event, I think it historically wrong to blame Lincoln for the abuses of power that are taken for granted by the federal government today. reach provided the federal government by the Sixteenth Amendment!

The conflict of the extent of the federal governments power extended way back to Hamilton and Jefferson. If we recall that it was Jefferson that argued that the federal governent powers were limited only to those that that were enumerated in the Constitution. Hamilton argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, aka the Elastic Clause gave the federal government broad powers to basically do everything to carry out those enumerated powers. I agree, that Lincoln should not be blamed for the abuses of power by the federal government today. Hamilton prevailed over Jefferson.

[DesertFox]

Yes, he did. That's being recognized by scholarship and articles just now coming available. For most of our history everyone thought Jefferson won. Now they're seeing just how subtle Hamilton was.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The conflict of the extent of the federal governments power extended way back to Hamilton and Jefferson. If we recall that it was Jefferson that argued that the federal governent powers were limited only to those that that were enumerated in the Constitution. Hamilton argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, aka the Elastic Clause gave the federal government broad powers to basically do everything to carry out those enumerated powers. I agree, that Lincoln should not be blamed for the abuses of power by the federal government today. Hamilton prevailed over Jefferson.

He may have prevailed, but not exactly in the way he had intended.

I myself have always been a proponent of a synthesis between a libertarian sort of Hamiltonianism -- whereby the government aggressively promotes policies that maximize the people's potential to produce and accumulate private wealth -- and Jeffersonainism. The problem today, something to my knowledge Hamilton did not anticipate and would not have supported, is the federal income tax. Prior to that, American had achieved a satisfactory balance between the historic concerns, benefiting from the very best of each. The income tax warps the synthesis. It actually undermines Hamilton's original intent behind the establishment of a more powerful central government than Jefferson would have liked.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I agree Blue with your 3rd paragraph and that's why I wrote that sentence. I don't think this geography would have stood being divided and something would have broke eventually, unless calmer, more patient minds had prevailed. It's really too bad they did not, and there were precedents Americans could have looked at to perhaps come to that realization. In the early Republic for example the Alien and Sedition Acts had some rumblings of secession starting. But the rumblings always seemed to be calmed, in this instance perhaps it was Jefferson's winning the presidency more than anything else as at his inaugural he spoke of "we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."

I also agree that it was the income tax amendment that really gave the federal government the means, the resources to build a Leviathan.


:thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

A few months ago I read a review of a book in National Review in which the book author presented a strong case that Lincoln had a plan to free the slaves and to keep the Union together from the time he took the oath of office, but the attack on Ft. Sumter that started the war prevented him from implementing his plan. I'll try to dig out the NR issue and see if I can post more details.

I am convinced that if the Founding Fathers had believed that states had a right to secede from the Union, they would have included a secession procedure in the Constitution. Since such a procedure was not included in the Constitution, secession was and still is unconstitutional.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The book is Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, by Allen C. Guelzo, and it was reviewed by Mackubin Thomas Owens in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Here are a couple of quotes from Prof. Owens' review:

Unfortunately, Lincoln's defenders often don't do him any favors, claiming-for example-that he "grew in office," away from an original position of moral indifference regarding emancipation. In this magnificent new book, however, historian Alien Gueizo (author of the Lincoln Prize-winning 1999 book Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President) makes a strong case for the traditional account: Lincoln was, in fact, committed to ending slavery-and the Emancipation Proclamation played a central role in his effort. Gueizo argues that "the Emancipation Proclamation was the most revolutionary pronouncement ever signed by an American president, striking the legal shackles from four million black slaves and setting the nation's face toward the total abolition of slavery within three more years." This book is a major accomplishment: It demolishes the simplistic views of Lincoln and slavery that have gained so much currency in recent years.

Gueizo places Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in the context of political and military events. He claims that to understand Lincoln's policy, one must recognize the role of prudence-the practical wisdom that seeks the best means for achieving fixed ends. Aristotle claimed that prudence is the virtue most characteristic of the true statesman, and Gueizo contends that neither Lincoln's critics nor his defenders understand its importance. He argues persuasively that Lincoln's "face was set toward the goal of emancipation from the day he first took the presidential oath"; to achieve this goal, he planned out a policy of legislated, gradual, compensated emancipation. He believed he could convince Congress to appropriate funds for compensating slave owners to free their slaves gradually. His plan was to begin where slavery was weakest: in the northernmost slave states, especially Delaware. The key to his strategy was to convince the legislatures of slave states to change their statutes on slavery. The Constitution, after all, left the issue of slavery to the states. This state-legislative strategy offered the best chance for keeping the issue of emancipation out of the federal court system, where an unfavorable judgment could have been devastating.

The outbreak of war derailed the original version of his grand scheme, but even after the war began, Lincoln believed that if he could convince the legislatures of the loyal slave states to agree to compensated emancipation, he could end the rebellion, restore the Union, and begin the end of slavery. He reasoned that the combination of military success against the Confederacy and compensated emancipation in the loyal slave states would lead to the collapse of the Confederacy, which had staked its hopes on eventually incorporating the so-called border states.

But neither condition came to pass...

[S-T]

This thread inspired another column on the subject.

http://scott.sstibbs.com/opinion/2005_column_16.html

[S-T]

I am convinced that if the Founding Fathers had believed that states had a right to secede from the Union, they would have included a secession procedure in the Constitution. Since such a procedure was not included in the Constitution, secession was and still is unconstitutional.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Federal Farmer]

I am convinced that if the Founding Fathers had believed that states had a right to secede from the Union, they would have included a secession procedure in the Constitution. Since such a procedure was not included in the Constitution, secession was and still is unconstitutional.
I'll have to disagree with you Tex on the basis that the power to prevent secession by a state was not included in the Constitution, and that the United States was formed by consent of the people of the several states, and finally, none of the Founders to my knowledge ever wrote that such an act was unconstitutional.

The fact that the Founders didn't include a statement about states not having a right to secede in Art I Sec 10, implies that they didn't grant to the general government power over such a matter as state secession. This was the argument Madison used against including a Bill of Rights, Madison saying in effect that why include such a Bill since the Constitution didn't grant any powers to the general government concerning such things as freedom of religion, press, etc. In other words, if it is not one of the enumerated powers, it is a power that resides with the states. President Buchanan's Attorney General Jeremiah Black advised him that he did not have a constitutional right to force a state to remain in the Union as, "then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions." Black did not see preventing secession as one of the functions granted the federal government in the Constitution. Buchanan thus said in his last annual message to Congress, "Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these powers." So Buchanan did not see the right to prevent secession in the Constitution even under the "necessary and proper" clause of Art I Sec 8.

Further, the Founders were very careful to see that everything was done in a legal manner and by consent in getting the Constitution ratified by the people of the several states; this to build the legitimacy all good government must have. As Forrest McDonald writes on the subject of whether the compact could be dissolved, "...such a question, like the earlier question of independence, could be settled only by the arbitrament of force, and the Framers' whole purpose was to establish a government based upon consent. Having been through one Machiavellian return to first principles and having seen the havoc it had wrought, they were anxious to avoid another. It was toward that end that they addressed such careful attention to the niceties of legitimizing the Constitution...." The ratification of the Constitution and becoming part of the United States was done by consent of the people of the several states thus building its legitimacy, not by force and the destruction of that legitimacy. The only way of settling the question of dissolvement toward a view of secession being illegal was outside the Constitution, by use of force, by illegitimate means.

Finally, during the Alien and Sedition Act controversy when some Southern states had rumblings of secession neither Jefferson nor Madison mentioned it being unconstitutional, only that they hoped calmer minds would prevail. Gouverneur Morris, one of the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention, said during the 1812 War that secession under certain circumstances was constitutional, and at this time it was for the Northern states to secede. This protest led to the Hartford Convention, held in 1814, which made several resolves over the War issue, the last being a somewhat concealed threat of further action as it said, "...it will in the opinion of this convention, be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint delegates to another convention, to meet at Boston... with such power and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require." Nothing came of this only because the Treaty ending the war came soon after the Convention. But none of the Founders responded by writing letters declaring secession to be illegal under the Constitution.

[S-T]

:claps:

Great post, Farmer.

[Teenager]

I'll have to agree with Desert Fox that this thread has produced some of the best posts at FC. Both sides have presented their cases extremely well with much evidence. It is almost impossible to agree on this subject, because of the facts at hand, and because Lincoln's legacy is so shrouded in mystery.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The book is Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, by Allen C. Guelzo, and it was reviewed by Mackubin Thomas Owens in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Thanks for the tip Nat-Tex. I shall be reading this one.

No one should ever think that with victory Lincoln did not fully intend to end slavery. Once he determined that Southern secession would not go unchallenged -- from that moment on -- he consciously determined that slavery would be abolished once and for all. With Lincoln in the White House, the day the South declared the Confederacy, it decided the matter for the entire nation and guaranteed slavery’s relatively swift demise. Once the cannons sounded, Lincoln was not about to leave the matter to posterity, to a second military conflict down the road. While my reading tells me that ending slavery was not necessarily a first principle with him, Lincoln did truly despise the institution, as he regarded it to be the ever-present goad of strife that made the perfection of the Union impossible. I also know that he intended to pursue policies that would have initiated the process of gradually weaning the country -- particularly the South, of course -- of its dependency on slave labor. But my reading also tells me that his concern went, not so much to the moral principle of the matter, as much as it went to the lasting stability of the Union.

In any event, I’ve never doubted that the original historical interpretation of Lincoln’s intent and his motives had it mostly right all along. Lincoln was a great man and a great president.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Federal Farmer, yours is so far the very best argument I've read for the right of secession. It's logic is incontrovertible and smartly documented. In fact, your observation about Monroe's opposition to the inclusion of an enumeration of rights is its most compelling component.

In the past, touching on other matters, I've made the same observation. Of course, Madison's preeminent concern was that the federal government would be tempted to abuse the language of the Bill of Rights, turn the language upside down, as it were, so that it might empower itself against the original intent of the amendments. And especially since Warren, that's precisely what the federal courts have done!

[Federal Farmer]

Federal Farmer, yours is so far the very best argument I've read for the right of secession. It's logic is incontrovertible and smartly documented. In fact, your observation about Monroe's opposition to the inclusion of an enumeration of rights is its most compelling component.

In the past, touching on other matters, I've made the same observation. Of course, Monroe's preeminent concern was that the federal government would be tempted to abuse the language of the Bill of Rights, turn the language upside down, as it were, so that it might empower itself against the original intent of the amendments. And especially since Warren, that's precisely what the federal courts have done!
Thanks Bluemoon. On your previous post, I have no doubt that once Lincoln knew it was all going to hit the fan that he was going for broke on ending the institution of slavery. And Jefferson, at least from one viewpoint, would have been right there with him (the states' right viewpoint is another matter).

The Constitution provided that after 1808 the importation of slaves would no longer occur. In 1807 in his sixth address to Congress Jefferson said, "I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa." The Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves was then introduced and passed in both the House and the Senate and went into affect Jan 1808.

On Monroe, I think you meant Madison. :-)

[Bluemoon_Rising]

On Monroe, I think you meant Madison. :-)

Yes, of course. LOL! Mind fart.

<font size=1>I corrected it.</font>

[Teenager]

I gave this thread a five star ranking. Good arguments on both sides, and amazingly no flaming!

[Teenager]

Alright, bringing this thread back to the top because I've just thought of something.

We are all familiar with the first battle of Bull Run, where Robert E. Lee crushed the union forces. He could have marched on to Washington D.C., on taken over the Union capital. But, he objected to this idea because his line of thought went something along the lines of this, "We are fighting to free the south, not take over the north." Contrast this with the northern side's line of thought, "we want to keep the south, therefore we must invade, force, and capture them to stay."

Just something interesting.

[Eagle1]

shame i never saw this thread earlier, i cant get enough of the ol' war between the states. love reading about the battles and generals (btw, robert e lee greatest american general ever)

just remember 2 of lincolns biggest mistakes, subsidising business (mainly railroads) and forming an extreme protectionist (high tariff) party; from which it took the republicans until after hoover to recover

he did have a lust for central power, but i would rather have it like it happened than any other way. if we were not united after the war how would we have been able to fight spain and wwI and wwII and the rest?
sure, some pretty shitty things have happened in our past, but without great pain and suffering of many people we would not have the great country we have today.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I gave this thread a five star ranking. Good arguments on both sides, and amazingly no flaming!

I agree Teenager.

[Pendragon_6]

Thanks for the history lesson, guys. Outstanding.