tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post7641532112634254045..comments2023-10-04T01:07:51.125-07:00Comments on Lost in the Myths of History: Lincoln on the Spread of SlaveryChristinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00714569232976515363noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-17650951804521985882011-09-20T15:35:17.730-07:002011-09-20T15:35:17.730-07:00Thank you, Tess. I am glad you keep an open mind a...Thank you, Tess. I am glad you keep an open mind and continue to search for the truth through life. <br /><br /> We'll just have to agree to disagree.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-64783523876361266572011-09-20T15:29:00.385-07:002011-09-20T15:29:00.385-07:00Dear Matterhorn,
'You seem very ready to assu...Dear Matterhorn,<br /><br />'You seem very ready to assume dishonest motives on the part of historians and biographers of Lincoln. Why not be similarly skeptical of the motives of libertarian political authors?'<br /><br />One of the tenets of my life is never to assume anything. After six plus decades of looking underneath much of what passes for 'so' in this world, I've found that anything approaching 'truth'<br />is usually beneath the surface of what is generally agreed upon. Five decades of researching subjects that I love, and in some cases don't like at all have lead to the views I hold, and like the Franklin quote, I've had to make some adjustments :-) along the way. My views on Lincoln are among those have changed over time.<br /><br />I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it...Voltaire<br /><br />Warm regards,<br /><br />TessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-61358043034497111502011-09-20T14:50:27.947-07:002011-09-20T14:50:27.947-07:00There also seems to be serious dispute about wheth...There also seems to be serious dispute about whether he actually ordered Taney arrested:<br /><br />http://alincolnblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-lincoln-and-arresting-judges.htmlMayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-15097977668253610592011-09-20T14:02:36.181-07:002011-09-20T14:02:36.181-07:00BTW, Maryland was a powder-keg at the beginning of...BTW, Maryland was a powder-keg at the beginning of the war, and Lincoln would obviously be especially worried about secessionist sentiment there, since Washington D.C. itself is surrounded by Maryland...<br /><br />You seem very ready to assume dishonest motives on the part of historians and biographers of Lincoln. Why not be similarly skeptical of the motives of libertarian political authors?Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-8524442351446052972011-09-20T13:52:06.987-07:002011-09-20T13:52:06.987-07:00Tess,
There was a very thorough study of Lincoln&...Tess,<br /><br />There was a very thorough study of Lincoln's actions in regard to civil liberties, done by Mark Neely, which I can recommend: <br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Fate-Liberty-Abraham-Lincoln-Liberties/dp/0195080327<br /><br />He also did a companion piece on similar problems in the Confederacy:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Rights-Political-Confederate-Constitutionalism/dp/0813918944/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1316551000&sr=1-4<br /><br />Please, be careful of overwrought accounts by libertarians. I'd also be careful of assuming that "smaller government" is necessarily better. We need GOOD government, not small government per se. In all the libertarian fear of "centralized federal power", some seem to neglect the fact that local elites can be just as much of a danger to human life and liberty (look at the slaveholding local elites of the South, for instance!) <br /><br />In desperate wars, when nations are struggling for their very survival- it's the struggle for survival that tends to take precedence. Excesses are bound to happen in such a context. Remember, the first purpose of the Constitution, stated in the preamble is to form a more perfect UNION. Lincoln saw maintaining the Union as his main task and considered that measures normally out of bounds could become constitutional under extraordinary circumstances, out of necessity, for this constitutional purpose. <br /><br />We have to be very careful with comparing his actions to those of other presidents, in earlier or later wars, because none of them faced the same threat to the survival of the United States, that he faced. <br /><br />The care and caution Lincoln took in his emancipation policy, tolerating slavery for so long because it was a 'states' right' and so on, shows that he did not just ignore or throw the Constitution out wholesale. Many extreme abolitionists would have preferred for him to do so. <br /><br />And Taney, you do realize that he was also the one responsible for the Dred Scott Decision? <br /><br />Whatever mistakes Lincoln may have made, I don't think he was a dictator at heart and his freeing of four million people outweighs these issues, IMO.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-56659827933326199782011-09-20T09:11:08.890-07:002011-09-20T09:11:08.890-07:00Preceding the arrest of the Maryland legislators, ...Preceding the arrest of the Maryland legislators, Lincoln’s most shocking, even treacherous act, swept under the rug by Lincoln’s loving biographers, grew out of ex parte Merryman. John Merryman was a known Southern sympathizer in Maryland. He was arrested by General Cadwallader and imprisoned in Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Merryman petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Chief Justice Roger Taney, and the general was ordered to bring Merryman into court for adjudication. The general refused.<br /> <br /><br />Ordering the arrest of the chief justice<br /><br />In response, the Court ordered federal marshal Bonifant to bring the general and Merryman to court. Taney could have organized an armed posse of deputy marshalls to arrest the general, but that might have resulted in bloodshed and was avoided.<br /><br />As an alternative approach, Taney wrote a blistering opinion — today considered one of the greatest opinions of the Supreme Court — and had a copy delivered to President Lincoln. The opinion condemned the action of the president and reviewed the leading authorities on English as well as American constitutional law.<br /><br />An undoubtedly enraged Lincoln took it upon himself to execute an order to arrest the chief justice for having the gall to give orders to the president and to condemn his acts against the Constitution. And remember: Taney was simply doing his duty, as under the Constitution the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues, not the president, not the Congress, not anyone else.<br /><br />According to the writings of U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon, questions arose about serving the arrest order on the chief justice, and where he should be imprisoned. Lamon recalls that Lincoln gave the arrest warrant to him with instructions to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he receive further orders.”<br /><br />Lincoln was saved the condemnation of history, possibly impeachment and removal from office as well, by a reluctant federal marshal who wisely refrained from arresting the chief justice of the United States. But notwithstanding the failure to arrest the chief justice, this episode marked the end of constitutional government in the United States, as a British periodical, Macmillan Magazine, observed in 1862:<br /><br /> There is no Parliamentary (congressional) authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat. At his simple bidding, acting by no authority but his own pleasure, in plain defiance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the press muzzled, and judges prevented by armed men from enforcing on the citizens’ behalf the laws to which they and the President alike have sworn. <br /><br />http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100e.asp<br /><br />Warm regards,<br /><br />TessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-14056284523828967362011-09-20T09:08:41.233-07:002011-09-20T09:08:41.233-07:00Dear Matterhorn,
Thank you for a lively discussio...Dear Matterhorn,<br /><br />Thank you for a lively discussion, and one in which I think we have agreed to disagree. :-)<br /><br />Nothing you have written has come off as offensive in any way.<br /><br />Being of a more Libertarian philosophy, I personally feel that the smaller the government, the less opportunity for individuals and rights to be trampled.<br />Suspending rights enumerated in The Constitution, whether done in 1861, or as has been done in our more recent memory is IMHO, never alright.<br /><br />Suspending the Constitution<br /><br />Fort Sumter was bombarded on April 12, 1861. By the end of the month, the Republican administration had ripped the guts out of the Constitution, as constitutional government passed away in the United States, not to return for almost five years. Here is the sequence of events:<br /><br />First, on April 15, Lincoln called up the militia from all of the states to put into the field an army of more than 75,000 men. The Constitution puts this power with the Congress: Article I, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections....”<br /><br />Six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,<br /><br /> I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina. <br /><br />The other five governors answered in the same vein.<br /><br />Second, also on April 15, Lincoln called Congress into session, as required by the Constitution for “extraordinary Occasions,” but delayed the meeting of Congress almost three months. By contrast, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, Roosevelt called Congress into session the very next day, December 8, 1941.<br /><br />Third, less than a week later, April 21, he ordered the purchase of war materials, five naval vessels, which under the Constitution required congressional appropriations.<br /><br />Fourth, the same day, he ordered the navy to blockade all Southern ports. A blockade is an act of war, requiring the resolution of Congress.<br /><br />Fifth, on April 27, he suspended the right of habeas corpus — unquestionably one of the most important of our civil liberties, for it prohibits government from making arrests without just cause, that is, from locking people up and throwing the key away, so to speak. In time, more than 10,000 were arrested and imprisoned by military officers, often for crimes that never existed in any law book, manufactured by the generals, often just plain silly. One unfortunate fellow, while drunk, was arrested and imprisoned for shouting, “Hurrah for Jeff Davis!” Under the Bill of Rights, a person cannot be charged with a crime except by an indictment from a grand jury, nor can a person be convicted except by a jury of fellow civilians. No military trial of civilians was permitted, or so said the Constitution.<br /><br />Lincoln’s denial of these most basic constitutional rights led to the destruction of civilian government in Maryland, where in late 1861 he had soldiers arrest and imprison the members of the legislature believed to be Southern sympathizers and who might vote for Maryland’s secession. Democratic government ceased in Maryland for the duration of the war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-85150763520180646582011-09-19T19:16:29.724-07:002011-09-19T19:16:29.724-07:00PS: I appreciate your polite way of voicing disagr...PS: I appreciate your polite way of voicing disagreement, Tess. I apologize if any of my comments come off as offensive in any way.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-62621394807399186242011-09-19T18:47:26.387-07:002011-09-19T18:47:26.387-07:00Another strange thing about DiLorenzo is that, whi...Another strange thing about DiLorenzo is that, while blaming Lincoln for being insufficiently abolitionist and insufficiently committed to racial equality, he also blames him for opposing Southern secession, which would have left blacks indefinitely in slavery. Slavery was very strictly, explicitly protected in the Confederate Constitution, and despite all the talk of 'states' rights', individual states could not ban slavery within their borders in the CSA. An important contrast with the USA, where states could choose to outlaw slavery and where slavery was not even mentioned *by name* in the Constitution. Based on that alone, I will always support the Union over the Confederacy. <br /><br />But in any case, my main point in this post was not to debate secession or all the ramifications of Lincoln's views on race relations, but merely to show that his hatred of slavery was sincere, and genuinely based on a concern for its victims. I think that much is clear from this letter. This does not mean I think he was a god or a saint.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-59165855048160165632011-09-19T17:59:59.002-07:002011-09-19T17:59:59.002-07:00Another (quite moderate and cautious) article on L...Another (quite moderate and cautious) article on Lincoln and colonization, by Magness himself: <br /><br />http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html<br /><br />Dear Tess, of course I know that he did, indeed, support colonization projects, but why assume he did this for sinister reasons? From what I have seen of his writings/speeches on the issue, he was more motivated by a concern that blacks and whites would not be able to live together in peace, not least because of the bitter prejudices of his fellow whites against the blacks. The whole sad history of race relations for over a century after the Civil War shows that his worries were well-founded. This is the "context" people like DiLorenzo don't seem to take into consideration. De Tocqueville himself, visiting the US several decades before the Civil War, predicted that a race war would break out at some point. Fortunately, this did not occur, but it shows that L. was not alone in his concerns. <br /><br />In any case, I've never seen any proof that he planned to FORCE blacks out of the country. Why is it such a crime to support voluntary emigration of a persecuted group at a very troubled time? <br /><br />As for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's main point in those speeches, as is clear when one reads them in their entirety, was to protest the extension of slavery to the new territories, and ultimately the existence of slavery. Douglas, who was in favor of letting slavery spread to the new territories, tried to turn the audience against Lincoln by claiming he was promoting full civil equality of the races, which was an abhorrent idea to many whites at the time. So Lincoln denied he was trying to introduce full civil equality of the races, and drew the discussion back towards slavery itself. It was delicate enough to oppose slavery at the time, and politics is the art of the possible.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-88450043585229411272011-09-19T16:52:52.057-07:002011-09-19T16:52:52.057-07:00Dear Matterhorn,
With respect I think that Lincol...Dear Matterhorn,<br /><br />With respect I think that Lincoln's thoughts and feelings were quite clear, and it isn't a matter of taking them out of context.<br /><br />An article from The Washington Times on Feb. 8, 2011:<br /><br />Thanks to the intrepid research of historian researchers, Dr. Phillip W. Magness of George Mason University’s Institute for Humane Studies here in Fairfax, VA and Sebastian N. Page, a junior research fellow at Oxford, the little known story has been found and will be published as “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement" (University of Missouri Press: ISBN0826219098) due out next week (02/14/11.)<br /><br />Talking with Dr. Magness tonight, he mentioned his overriding interest in the whole emancipation subject, and the discovery of a note regarding a meeting between Lincoln and former Union Gen. Benjamin “Beast” Butler at the White House on April 11, 1865 to discuss reviving the subject of colonization.<br /><br />His interest whetted, he began the long research task, both at the U. S. National Archives and at the British National Archives outside London.<br /><br />“Lincoln personally pitched the scheme to the British ambassador only three weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation,” Magness told me, however “It was a matter of diplomatic secrecy, so it left a very sparse paper trail.”<br /><br /><br />Please excuse me, as I haven't been able to spend the time I would like with the links you have suggested. It is my intention to do so by the week-end.<br /><br /><br />Don't know if you are aware that Thomas DiLorenzo, Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are Roman Catholics.<br /><br />Warm regards,<br /><br />TessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-27161742814494084172011-09-19T11:16:49.514-07:002011-09-19T11:16:49.514-07:00By the way, here is a website responding to DiLore...By the way, here is a website responding to DiLorenzo's claims, in detail:<br /><br />http://www.jfepperson.org/dilorenz.htm<br /><br />Best wishes, Tess, and thank you again for taking the time to comment.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-59473490330070499432011-09-19T10:37:33.962-07:002011-09-19T10:37:33.962-07:00Thank you, Tess, for the links and your kind comme...Thank you, Tess, for the links and your kind comments. I am familiar with DiLorenzo and similar points of view. In fact, I used to share your negative view of Lincoln to some extent. Having looked into the matter further, though, I really do think that most of these accusations are based either on taking words and actions out of context, failing to grasp the complexity of Lincoln's problem or the exigencies of war, and, in the cases of some authors, outright lying. I can recommend this article: <br /><br />http://vernerable.wordpress.com/the-civil-war/against-neo-confederates/<br /><br /><br />If Lincoln was such a horrible racist, it does not make sense that Frederick Douglass would have come to think so highly of him.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-57538790444105925052011-09-19T08:59:51.752-07:002011-09-19T08:59:51.752-07:00P.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRc1pDPPSg&a...P.S.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRc1pDPPSg&feature=related<br /><br />Judge Napolitano's book A Nation of Sheep, is a keeper.<br /><br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />TessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-78500088118421061382011-09-19T08:39:12.412-07:002011-09-19T08:39:12.412-07:00I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been ...I will say then that 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, that 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 forever 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 the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.<br /><br />~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.<br /><br />These are the words of the real Lincoln, who was as much a white supremacist as any man of his time. In fact, he was a much more extreme white supremacist than most, for he advocated "colonization" or the deportation of black people from America for his entire adult life. As soon as he entered politics in the early 1830s he became a "manager" of the Illinois Colonization Society which sought to use state tax funds to deport the small number of free blacks living in Illinois out of the state (the state amended its constitution in 1848 to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state, an amendment that Lincoln supported).<br /><br />Lincoln followed in the footsteps of his idol, Henry Clay, who was the president of the American Colonization Society, and quoted Clay often on the subject. During his presidency he established a colonization office in the Department of Interior and funded it with $600,000, while working diligently to plan on deporting black people to Liberia, Haiti, Jamaica, Central America, the West Indies – anywhere but the U.S.<br /><br />These historical facts have long presented a problem for the purveyors of the comic book/fairy tale history of Lincoln that has been taught to Americans for generations. For they suggest that, rather than being a racial saint, as the comic book/fairy tale version of history contends, the exact opposite is true. The Lincoln cult has mostly covered up these truths by seeing to it that they rarely, if ever, make it into the public school textbooks. But just in case the truth does seep out, the Cult has concocted several excuses, "justifications," and rationales for Lincoln’s extreme racist language and actions.<br /><br /><br />A recent DiLorenzo piece: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo213.html The Founding Father of ' Collective Responsibility'. <br /><br /><br />I love Benjamin Franklin, and can personally relate to this quote:<br /><br /><br />"Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin <br /><br /><br />It seems a fit for this lovely site.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />TessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7709719917194381170.post-80705403178564658992011-09-19T08:36:57.218-07:002011-09-19T08:36:57.218-07:00(In 2 parts)
Dear Matterhorn,
Thank you for your...(In 2 parts)<br /><br />Dear Matterhorn,<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful post. My view of the subject is quite different and the following links express some of what I<br />consider the myths around the war and Lincoln.<br /><br />"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."--Charles Dickens.<br /><br />"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." Charles Dickens<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ZMUx_0wqo Lincoln's Tariff War (at about 27 1/2 minutes what the Dickens quotes describe becomes clear.)<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac C-Spans Brian Lamb interview with DiLorenzo on Lincoln<br /><br />The following is from: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html<br /><br />(Thomas DiLorenzo is the author of Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln. He is Professor of Economics at Loyola University Maryland:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com