Our First Republican President

 

April 22nd 1865: The funeral procession for President Abraham Lincoln at Sixth and Chestnut streets in Philadelphia. The catafalque is followed by a crowd of mourners congesting the street and sidewalk. Soldiers are seen holding back the crowd. A recruitment poster advertising enlistment salaries for “Maj. Gen. Hancock’s Army Corps,” adorns a storefront.
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was at Lincoln’s deathbed in the Petersen house at 7:22 am on April 15th when the doctor said “He is gone.” A minister said a prayer and Stanton was the first to reply, “Now he belongs to the ages,” and lamented “There lies the most perfect ruler of men the world has ever seen.”

Advertisements

The Democrats Who Opposed Lincoln

 

This cartoon is from 2007 but the point is still valid. Clement Vallandigham (D-OH) was a Member of Congress (1858-1862) and the leader of the pro-South “Copperhead Democrats.” He was the 1864 Ohio Democratic gubernatorial nominee even though he was living in exile in the South.
Vallandigham said the United States under Abraham Lincoln was “the worst despotism on earth,” and he sought the intervention of a foreign power to help the Confederacy. He urged young men not to enlist in the Union Army and attacked “King Lincoln” for waging a war to liberate blacks.
In Illinois the Democratic majority in the state legislature urged Lincoln to withdraw the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves. Indiana’s Democratic majority in the legislature had the same opinion, and they came close to taking over the state militia so it could withdraw from the Civil War.
They presented a serious challenge to the first GOP president, and Lincoln referred to them as “the fire in the rear.” Vallandigham was convicted of treason but was pardoned by Lincoln. He died at age 50 after accidentally shooting himself.

Answering The Libertarians: The 150th Anniversary of South Carolina Secession

 

It was 150 years ago yesterday that South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. To mark the occasion a “Secession Ball” was held in Charleston last night.
“Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. President Abraham Lincoln did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. . . I agree with Clyde Wilson that America can’t be saved or returned to its roots until the Republican Party is destroyed.” – Thomas DiLorenzo of the Ron Paul Revolution

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, and it would not have been ratified had that provision been inserted in 1787.  The secession issue was one of the reasons legislatures were deliberately kept out of the ratification process. The founders knew the Constitution was not an ordinary law which could be changed by legislative action. To make sure of this, no state legislature approved entry into the Union. Their only role was to establish Conventions to decide the issue.
The issue of secession was raised at the New York convention. Some delegates wanted to amend their ratification with a provision allowing secession. Alexander Hamilton seriously considered this. The issue came to an end because of James Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the question of conditional ratification. Madison basically said once in the Union always in the Union. George Washington also believed secession was wrong, and Thomas Jefferson spoke against this in his first Inaugural.
President James Madison did have to confront this issue. He was the primary author of the Constitution, and after the war of 1812 the New England states spoke of seceding at the Hartford Convention. The scandal that secession had even been mentioned was used by the Democrats to accuse their opponents of treason, and was enough to destroy the Federalist Party. Madison said they had no right to do this. It was also an issue during the 1830 South Carolina nullification crisis.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) says the United States seceded from Great Britain so the southern states should have been allowed to break away from America. The founding fathers believed there was a moral authority to rebel against an abusive and controlling government. The framers did not create the British government as they did the US government along with its mean to change itself.  They weren’t even allowed representation in Parliament.
On the other hand, the South controlled the federal government for most of the time between 1801 and 1860. It probably would have continued even longer had the Democratic Party not split into three parts for the 1860 election allowing Lincoln to win. The American people never signed on to the British Empire, but they had created the Union. They had also created the means to change it should that become necessary.
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s goal was to stop the extension of slavery into new states and territories. He was not trying to abolish slavery at that time. The Emancipation Proclamation and later the 13th Amendment that ended slavery in the United States were a direct result of the war, not the cause of the war.
In his letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln said his objective was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
The 13 original states came together under the Articles of Confederation which uses the term “perpetual Union” in

Article XIII:  “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”

The Constitution did not supersede the Articles. It amended them, and this included a complete revision of the then political arrangement.  In no place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” The Constitution does not say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Preamble of the Constitution is: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” Not a less perfect Union. There’s not a word about abolishing the the perpetuity of the Union anywhere in the Constitution. In the Constitution it does not say what the name of the country is.  The country was named “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation.
The states which voted for secession could have followed a legal route by calling for a Constitutional convention, or passage of an amendment allowing them to secede. To bring about change they would have need a two-thirds majority of the states. They decided to seek change by armed rebellion against the legitimate government. Lincoln said the Southern states could leave, but only if three-fourths of the states approved. He got that figure from Article V, which pertains to the amendment process.
As Madison intimated, the Constitution is a compact between two parties (The state and the union). If one wanted out of it, they had to do more than simply choose to opt out. There is no opt out clause in the constitution. Even in a divorce, both parties have to work out a settlement. One party cannot simply choose to not be married.
The federal government had every right to protect the union and to secure the liberty of the enslaved people. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to do this through peaceful and political means.  What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it’s people?
Congressman Paul also says “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
This suggestion was tried several times beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s administration, but the South had no interest. America also had a voluntary slave export program. As usual, Ron Paul makes everything  sound easy. What was the government to do if people did not want to sell their slaves?

When America Finally Turned Against Slavery – The Wilmot Proviso

The February 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican War. The United States acquired tremendous new territory and at the end of the year war hero Zachary Taylor would be elected as America's last Whig President.


“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo.

Passage of the Wilmot Proviso in the House of Representatives was truly a great moment in America history. It is one of the few Congressional debates which completely changed the political landscape. All of the old issues (the tariff, a national bank and internal improvements) were placed on the back burner. House voting patterns and party loyalties radically changed, and slavery now dominated the Congressional agenda. Continue reading

Abraham Lincoln, Slavery and the Constitution

Libertarians are continuing to attack President Abraham Lincoln. They claim he defended slavery and violated the Constitution. Lincoln understood the institution was protected in part by the Constitution; so some of his statements reflect that recognitgion. Others reflect the difficulty of doing away with the institution of slavery under the circumstances of the 1850s.
Lincoln recognized the practical difficulties, but it this never constituted a defense of slavery. Frederick Douglass understood this perfectly in his magnificent 1876 “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln.” Douglass stated that Lincoln’s:

great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

The Libertarians also say “The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said Lincoln had no regard for the Constitution.” What they do not mention is that the Chief Justice was Roger Taney, a slave owner, and the author of the Dred Scott decision. It said slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.
Taney wrote the majority opinion which said the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the 1857 ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Lincoln had the correct interpretation of the Constitution, not the Chief Justice.
The Dred Scott case was so outrageous that Frederick Douglass said of it, “We welcome it.” He meant the case was such a rewrite of the Constitution and American history that it showed how far the slavocracy would go to push their position on the country. The slave states were not primarily interested in states rights. It was their ultimate goal to be able to take slaves anywhere they wanted in the U.S., including New York or Illinois.
Lincoln alludes to this in both his House Divided speech and in the Lemon case, which would have done precisely what the slave states wanted if it had been decided in their favor. Chief Justice Taney was hung in effigy in town meeting after town meeting in the free states.
Thomas Jefferson should have abided by his Declaration of Independence which said “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address said “our fathers brought forth a new nation…dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Lincoln represented America’s most fundamental, profound, and idealistic value: equal justice for all.

The Libertarian Attack on Abraham Lincoln

PHOTO: According to the Claremont Institute, “The book is a compendium of misquotations, out-of-context quotations, and wrongly attributed quotations — one howler after another, yet none of it funny.”

BOOK REVIEWS: Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, Crown, 224 pages, 2006 and The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Prima, 272 pages, 2002. Both books by Thomas J. Lorenzo, a senior faculty member at the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Just when you think the Libertarian Party could not stoop any lower, they take another major swing at a great American icon. Libertarians always blame America first for any evil in the world, and now their target is the man historians rank as our finest president, Abraham Lincoln. They claim Lincoln “destroyed the Founders’ vision of our Republic.” Libertarian Bruce Koerber of Cedar Rapids, Iowa calls Lincoln “an ego-driven interventionist.”
The Libertarians are promoting both of the above books. The title of an article on the “Daily Ron Paul Liberty Forum” refers to the late President as “our first dictator,” and notes:

Lincoln was a ruthless dictator of the most contemptible sort. A conniving and manipulative man, and a scoundrel at heart, he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe. This beast ruled the country by presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and proceeded to wage war without a declaration from Congress. . . Lincoln was a consummate con man, manipulator, and a State-serving miscreant.

Attacks on Lincoln are a standard part of the stump speech of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the former Libertarian Party candidate for president. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the author of both books, describes the 16th President as a “corrupt and brutal tyrant who micromanaged the murder of thousands of innocent civilians.”
He accuses the 16th President of “orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 fellow American citizens.” Because of Lincoln, DiLorenzo says “America was on the road to becoming just another corrupt, mercantilist empire like the British and Spanish empires. . . It was not to end slavery that Lincoln initiated an invasion of the South.”
In his 2002 attack on Lincoln, DiLorenzo writes:

“A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession. . . The idea of equality was a sheer absurdity” to Lincoln. “The real purpose of the war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession.”

The libertarian attack on Lincoln needs to be answered because it is being repeated by many so-called “constitutional conservatives” and members of the tea party movement. They are now claiming the Civil War was not fought over slavery.
They instead maintain the war was about tariffs and imposing a powerful central government. DiLorenzo says the South was “invaded,” even though the South began the war with its attack on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.
DiLorenzo and his libertarian allies believe slavery has gotten a bad rap. They claim slaves were treated fairly and segregation should have been left alone. The libertarians are especially critical of Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia University and the author of Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution. Foner responded to their comments by noting:

I consider them cranks. Their views on the Civil War era, reconstruction and slavery are not in tune with modern scholarship. They live in their own little world with their own little ideas.

Many of DiLorenzo’s appearance have been coordinated by the Libertarian’s main action arm, the Campaign for Liberty, as well as other libertarian groups. He was a featured speaker at the Libertarian forum during the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference.
The forum was entitled “Lincoln on Liberty: Friend or Foe?” The libertarian answer was to label Lincoln a firm foe of liberty, and DiLorenzo was enthusiastically cheered by the mostly college age audience.
As previously indicated, Ron Paul, the once and future Libertarian Party presidential candidate, often denounces Lincoln. In an appearance on “Meet the Press” in 2007, Paul said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about taking over property rights and it had nothing to do with race relations. He said Ronald Reagan was a “failure” because he didn’t bring down the federal government to “constitutional levels.” The Texas lawmaker then went on say:

Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

DiLorenzo and Paul both try to make Abraham Lincoln appear to be a racist. Fortunately, Lincoln has left us hundreds of pages of his writings and speeches. He saw slavery as a form of tyranny and condemned it over and over again. He believed it was an unequivocal moral evil. The libertarans simply ignore the evidence.
The turning point in Lincoln’s life was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed slavery to spread into the territories. Upon its passage Lincoln said, “This covert zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it for the monstrous injustice of slavery itself.”
Lincoln repeatedly made references to the Declaration of Independence and its principle, that “All men are created equal”. This equality clause was a central focus of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were reprinted as a best seller in 1859.
That same year Lincoln said “The Republican principle — the unalterable principle, never to be lost sight of — is that slavery is wrong.” Near the end of his life, Lincoln was in favor of giving blacks full voting rights.
Lincoln was a product of the 19th century and he made statements which did not reflect perfect treatment in all social situations. However, to claim those statements negate his work for racial justice is a terrible misrepresentation of Lincoln’s struggle. It must also be noted that Lincoln’s views changed, and his commitment to racial equality grew stronger with the passing years.
DiLorenzo tries to prove that Lincoln did not care about the slaves because of this famous statement:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it. . . . What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union.” Lincoln was especially careful in the choice of his words. He did not say his “sole objective” was to save the Union, he instead referred to a “paramount objective.”
Were The Confederates Advocates of Small Government?
Another outrageous claim by the libertarians is to portray the Confederate States of America (CSA) as opponents of big government. The CSA definitely wanted a huge government which would permanently enslave the three million blacks living in the south. They wanted a government which would control every aspect of a slaves life.
According to Joshua Felipe, the CSA wanted to:

Control every single moment of a slaves life, every minute of their day; it would tell them where to go, what to wear, where to sleep, when to work, when to eat, what to eat, when to speak, when to be silent. This is probably the biggest form of government that human beings have ever invented in the whole of history.
I vigorously support Abraham Lincoln’s federal takeover of the southern states, and his highly commendable commitment to human rights. Lincoln viewed secession as an attempt to expand slavery. The Confederacy was based on the glorification of inequality and tyranny. The southern leaders clearly spelled out their views. Their motivation was not to be left alone, it was to enshrine slavery. CSA President Jefferson Davis said all black people are “not fit to govern themselves,” and they should be treated in a manner similar to ‘lunatics, criminals and children.'”

Presidential Leadership: The Military Command Decisions of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush – Part One, Abraham Lincoln

The Bush Adminiatration came to a close at noon today.

The Bush Administration came to a close at noon today.

Presidential Leadership: The Military Command Decisions of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush by Gregory Hilton, (Part One, Abraham Lincoln).  Armed Forces Radio Network. (This commentary was originally recorded in two 90 second segments. The complete transcript is below).
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AFRN) – President Barack Obama’s inspiring Inaugural ceremonies included many references to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. The Inaugural theme “A new birth of freedom” came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Obama began his campaign in Lincoln’s hometown, Springfield, Illinois.On Monday he visited the Lincoln Memorial, he took the oath on Lincoln’s Bible, his train ride and even the menu was similar to what was used for our 16th President.
This emphasis on
Lincoln’s legacy is commendable, and Obama is close to matching Lincoln’s eloquence. Hopefully in the years to come he will also have the lonely resolve to match Lincoln’s leadership abilities. This will most involve critical decisions which will not be popular. In his address today the new President was off to an excellent start by warning of “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”  He even promised not to put off “unpleasant decisions.”
We do not know the future of the Obama Administration, but the new Commander-in-Chief is another war president who spoke today of defeating our enemies.
U.S. forces in Afghanistan are in the process of being doubled, and the chant “Death to America” is still repeated on a daily basis by numerous terrorist organizations. Obama will have to meet military challenges and I hope he recognizes the strong parallels between the difficult command decisions of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush.
Both Lincoln and Bush had little military experience, they were confronted with significant domestic opposition to a war, and it took them years to find a commander who could implement a successful strategy. Both Presidents had to reluctantly learn military strategy. They read the current books and closely questioned the experts. They courageously had to overrule practically all of their advisers to implement plans which involved a major change in tactics. They made decisions which were not popular at the time, but were in hindsight were clearly in our nation’s best interest.
The Union Army was solidly opposed to
Lincoln’s decision to remove the popular General George McClellan, who would become Lincoln’s opponent in 1864. Lincoln’s cabinet was against the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves. Lincoln’s advisors emphasized the dangerous political consequences of an Emancipation Proclamation.
They felt the Civil War should focus on restoring the
Union rather than abolishing slavery. Advocates of emancipation were set back in the 1862 election when Republicans lost 28 House seats. The cabinet vote was 7 to 1 against the Proclamation. The sole vote in favor came at the end of the discussion from Lincoln himself who opposed everyone and said “The ayes have it!” The Cabinet was also unanimously in favor of harsh post-War reconciliation policies for the South, and President Lincoln noted “You are all against me.”
Lincoln became a brilliant military strategist, but it took the President a long time to acquire that skill. Lincoln was in the forefront of advocating what became the modern military command structure. The Civil War’s final end game strategy was primarily the President’s plan, while battlefield tactics were left to General Grant.
Lincoln’s problem was that his initial commanders were reluctant to engage the enemy without having overwhelming force behind them. In the early years of the war the South made significant gains despite having far fewer troops and equipment. On the Antietam battlefield Lincoln told his commander, “General McClellan, if you don’t want to use the Army, I should like to borrow it for a while.”
Lincoln had to fire five Union commanders (Generals Irvin McDowell, George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Hooker and George Meade) before he found the winning formula in U.S. Grant. McDowell lost the first major engagement of the war at Bull Run. McClellan won at Antietam but did not strike a fatal blow against Robert E. Lee who he failed to pursue. Burnside was defeated at Fredericksburg, and Hooker was defeated by Lee’s army at Chancellorsville despite having a huge advantage in troops. Meade let Lee and the Confederate army escape after Gettysburg.
Over 620,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War. President Lincoln would have lost his 1864 bid for re-election without the public jubilation which resulted from General William Sherman’s victory in
Atlanta two months prior to the balloting. Many of these stories are best told in “Lincoln and his Generals” by T. Harry Williams (1952).