February 12 is the day that both Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born, and they were two men who impacted history. As such, they were both men I studied extensively in high school, and men that I've been bumping into a lot during my U.S. History studies over the past two weeks. Today's post is a repost of a paper I wrote my senior year about some misconceptions regarding the presidency of Lincoln. For further reading, I recommend The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, The War Between the States, Dred Scott's Revenge, and Jefferson Davis's Memoirs.
Walking through the doors of our local community college to take a CLEP test this week, I was faced with a large banner declaring the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. I stood there, staring up at his picture, thinking back to the bloody conflict of the Civil War, and thinking of a popular saying around our house: "He who wins the wars rewrites history."
In the spirit of Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, modern American history books have deified Lincoln as the conservator of the Union, the Great Emancipator, one of the best Presidents in our nation's history. The Confederate flag has become a symbol of racial hatred and rebellion, and I doubt that, when I walk into my testing center in June, I'll see a banner heralding the birthday of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States (not that I'd want to; I'm more partial to Stonewall Jackson, personally =).
However, I find it very interesting that Jefferson Davis is the black sheep in the Civil War conflict for daring to secede from the Union, especially after I read Davis' stirring treatise for succession in The Jefferson Davis Memoirs. If we are being honest with ourselves, we realize that our nation was built on a foundation of secession: The American colonies, did, after all, secede from England.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separate. ~Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence
Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. That is the most valuable and most sacred right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. ~Abraham Lincoln, 1848 (source: War Between the States, pg. 20-31)
Well, yes, we may say, but Abraham Lincoln wasn't out to take away the constitutional liberties of the southern states; he was out to correct the grievous injustice of chattel slavery, a sin that has marred our nation and shackled precious children of God, wrought in His image (some of those children were my ancestors).
Would that Lincoln had escaped the misguided racism that plagued so many in the 1800s. However, digging past sensationalized accounts of Lincoln's benevolence, we find quotes like these:
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." ~Fourth Lincoln/Douglas Debate, Charleston, Illinois 1845
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. (emphasis mine)
At first blush, it appears that Lincoln has freed all slaves, but, when we look closer, we see that Lincoln only freed slaves "within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United states." This is a problem because 1) Lincoln had no power in the states that had broken from the Union, and 2) he neglected to free slaves in the states that were in agreement with the Union, like Kentucky. Many politicians of Lincoln's time believed that Lincoln was "freeing" slaves in states where he had no power to do so in order to start a revolt, not to champion equality.
The scheme for an immediate emancipation and general arming of slaves throughout the South is a proposal for the butchery of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, arson and murder, unparalleled in the history of the world. ~ Horatio Seymour, future governor of New York (War Between the States, page 276)
And, indeed, riots and uproars did rock the nation as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. It didn't free a single slave; the 13th Amendment did.
Finally, while Lincoln may have been an accomplished politician and orator, he did not conduct a just war. He suspended the right of habeas corpus, imprisoning those who disagreed with him orally or in print. He allowed his generals to destroy southern cities and steal supplies from home. He undermined the rules of just war on several occasions. Thomas DiLorenzo, in The Real Lincoln describes Lincoln's faults in this area:
This included the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians, massive looting and plundering, and even the execution of civilians. A great humanitarian would not express his personal thanks and "the thanks of a nation" to those who committed such atrocities and war crimes, as Lincoln did to General Philip Sheridan." ~Thomas DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, page 29.
Abraham Lincoln's heroism is great exaggerated in modern circles. His own words prove that he was not a proponent of emancipation, he did not believe in racial equality, and his Emancipation Proclamation did not emancipate a single slave; he was injurious in his claims that the Confederate States undermined the Union, and he did not conduct a just war against the South. Though his statue stands in Washington as one of America's most sacred monuments, though his face is etched into the rock of Mt. Rushmore, though his determined countenance is imprinted on our currency, I do not view him as a hero, a protector of the freedoms of all Americans (black or white), nor do I view his conquest as something that is to be celebrated. All historical figures or fallible humankind, from Lincoln to Davis to every general in between, and when it comes to historical accuracy, we should let their own words and their records speak for themselves.
41 thoughts shared:
Good morning, Jasmine!
Last night we had our weekly worldview class and our topic was the Civil War. We were to write an essay on an aspect of the Civil War. One of the young ladies chose to write about Lincoln. She found that Lincoln merely strove to preserve the Union, whatever the cost, and he did some unpleasant things in the process. Then, what do I wake up to this morning? Your post about Lincoln!
Well, continue to write your lovlely 'ramblings'!
God bless on this fine and very snowy day (at least over here it is. 3 feet of the stuff!)
Jasmine, How very, very true...It is our families dream to make a film on Lincoln exposing who he was and what is REALLY did during the war...but we don't have the resources don't expect to see it announced anytime soon.:)Anyway...thanks for you post about Mr. Lincoln. When one lives in the north and dislikes Lincoln you get into some interesting conversations....it's nice to know we're not alone in our opinion!
Koleesa
I Really enjoyed your post. I just recently read The Real Lincoln, and really was amazed by all the things the US government did, and Lincoln himself. So many are decieved (and by the government schools are big in doing so!)and don't know the real facts about the real Lincoln.
I appreciate your writing about this, and proclaiming truth!
~E
Yes! Thank you for real history! I was spoon fed politically correct and historically inaccurate history in public school. A friend of my father is one of the leading re-enactors of General George Pickett. He gets some flak for it living here in the North, but he's great at educating people.
As 18th century re-enactors my husband and I portrayed loyalists in the Revolutionary War and Scots Colonists fighting with the Brits in the French and Indian war and we'd get flak for that, too. Then again, during French and Indian War events, we'd always get someone asking where the "Americans are." We'd say, "You're looking at them." They'd get all confused because they'd be looking at redcoats! "No, the Patriots," they'd say. "We're loyal to the government. That makes us Patriots," we'd answer. "No," they'd get all frustrated. We'd finally have to tell them that they're thinking of the wrong war.
Thank you for this interesting post, Jasmine! This is a subject that I have wanted to delve into more deeply for a while, but just haven't had the time. I know people on both sides of the argument, and I also know what feelings of dissention the topic can stir! We need to remember that we simply can't change the facts of history, or what political leaders said in the course of history, no matter how much we might like to.
I agree that we should not ought to deify Lincoln, but we should not ought to deify any man. We will always be disappointed when we do. Lincoln was a low-down dirty sinner, just like the rest of us. But the sins of the Union do not make the Confederacy a good idea.
As you so eloquently say: "All historical figures are fallible humankind, from Lincoln to Davis to every general in between, and when it comes to historical accuracy, we should let their own words and their records speak for themselves":
You COULD say that the South did not go to war to preserve slavery- but the South DID go to war to preserve their right to own slaves when they moved to non-slaveholding states, as is clear from reading this document:
12/24/1860- South Carolina Causes of Secession:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm
And it is true, if slaves were property, as was endorsed by the Constitution, then such property could not be alienated from it's owners without due process of law, as per the Fifth Amendment and as upheld by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott.
But for many, many reasons (very few of them noble, and most of them terribly self-interested) people in non-slaveholding states and territories felt like slaves were different from other types of property.
Certainly, the North did not declare war in order to end slavery, as you can see from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
First Inaugural Address:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
However, the meaning of a war can change over time, as we can see from his second inaugural address:
Second Inaguaral Address: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
The meanings of wars often change over their course. We didn't go to World War II to end the Holocaust, for example, but that's what we ended up doing. We have seen the meaning of a war change in our own lifetimes. Remember how we went to war in Iraq to get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? And then there weren't any, so now we're in Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqi people?
Was Lincoln a saint? No, of course not. He was a racist jerk-face. I do not excuse him by saying that he was a man of his times. There were non-racist people at the time, which proves it was possible to not be a racist jerk-face.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a saint among leaders of nations, particularly war-leaders of nations. And there are no wars without atrocities. The whole idea of war is that you kill people, destroy property, and break things until the other side gives up.
While the Civil War did not free the slaves, it did allow for the Thirteenth Amendment, which did. Could we have amended the Constitution without a war? I don't know. When you consider that potentially disallowing slave owners to bring slaves to non-slaveholding states caused South Carolina to secede, it does seem unlikely.
1. First of all, let me say that I am a great admirer of Stonewall Jackson too, and I do think the Civil War has often been unfairly portrayed solely as a conflict between Northern "liberators" and Southern slaveholders.
2. However, to be perfectly honest, I don't think you are presenting the whole picture. Yes, Abraham Lincoln wasn't perfect. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was, in a sense, a racist. However, the debate at that time was the expansion of slavery into the territories, and on that issue, Lincoln unequivocally took the position that (a) slavery was evil, and (b) one way to stop the spread of slavery was to prevent it from spreading to the territories. Now, if you want to address the constitutional implications of the federal government prohibiting slavery in the territories, you're perfectly welcome to do so.
3. From the first Lincoln-Douglas debate: "I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
4. Anyways, thanks for sharing. It's great to get a little perspective into this debate.
5. BTW, FWIW, it was the Thirteenth Amendment that freed the slaves, not the Fourteenth.
I remember reading this when you posted it before--a well-written, well-researched, thought-provoking article.
And "tarynkay"--what a well-written, well-researched, throught-provoking comment.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am not yet positive that the South was in the right and the North was in the wrong. I do, however, adamantly believe that the War Between the States was about much more than just slavery (just as the War for Independence was about much more than just taxation without representation)! Ah, how history's lens of 150 years tends to simplify rather than clarify! Apparently, hindsight is not 20/20 for most people. ;-)
I have not fully researched the War Between the States to my satisfaction yet, but it is something I fully intend to do. In the meantime, thanks for tackling this difficult, controversial issue with your characteristic graciousness, Jasmine.
Tarynkay & Eliot,
First off, thank you both for correcting my "14th" Amendment typo. =P
Secondly, though, I want to point out that neither of you have actually said anything (aside from my typo) that contradicts the facts that I wrote about in this post. As I know that emotions often cloud our judgment regarding explosive topics like slavery (and I agree, it's an emotional topic), I tried to write bare bones facts in this post. It's about Abraham Lincoln's record itself more than every intricacy of the Civil War 1) because I don't have time to discuss every intricacy of the Civil War, 2) because other people have done it far better than I ever could in the books I referenced, and 3) because this is a blog post and not a treatise. ;-)
But I will say that while the Civil War did end slavery, Reconstruction proved that the Civil War did not end the deep-seated white supremacy that Lincoln confessed in the very quote you referenced, Elliot (his aim was not to end slavery so much as his true desire was to deport American blacks from the country they helped to build) nor did it end the racism that plagued the North and South. It is my firm belief that the way the Civil War was conducted played a part in the vein of animosity that sprung up in the Jim Crow laws that governed the south until a mere forty years ago; it is also my firm belief that as slavery was as much an economic reality as it was a social one, Lincoln's methods were more crippling than many like to realize in the long run. Slavery was ended across the world in less violent ways than we witnessed here in America, and Civil Rights upheavals have proved equally less violent in other countries I can think of.
At any rate, thank you for sharing your thoughts, and offering further insight into the Civil War as a whole. I don't have the time to answer every single point, but, suffice it to say, I was aware of them at the onset of this post. ;-) The books I referenced are excellent resources, though!
Mikaela,
It's so much harder than researching a topic to come up with the "right" and "wrong" of things, isn't it? My opinion on state's rights is ever shaping. My opinion on Lincoln's deification is pretty firm, though. ;-)
Jasmine, I was very impressed with this. You definitely have writing talent! I myself was once very interested in Civil War-era history, and therefore was familiar with the subject of your post here, and I can only say again how impressed I was with your writing!
I am an older (not THAT old, only 42!) woman who subscribes to your blog and those of several other young ladies, all of whom I find refreshing in that they all bless me with their wisdom.
Keep up the good work! I am always blessed by your blog!
Mrs. Ann
I just finished reading The Real Lincoln, so when I saw the name of your article I thought, "Just another pro-Lincoln post."
As I started reading (Yes, I didn't just skip to the next item in my feed reader), I was pleasantly surprised to find that you do, in fact, understand the truth about Abraham Lincoln.
It is very encouraging to find that the attempts at rewriting history are not entirely successful.
Thank you for another great article!
Dear Jasmine,
I am a Mom and grandmom, and I enjoy your blog and recommend it to my own daughter, 15, and many others. Your brother recommended it to us. Your "realness" is great to see and encourages young ladies in their walk. Your topics, from honoring your Mom, witnessing, romance, and Abe Lincoln are refreshing since so many aren't as open as you are and reaches girls in such a way that many can't. We just watched "Homeschool Dropouts, and having homeschooled our own seven over the past 26 years we see many of the dangers that they are talking about and believe the Lord is using you to help equip girls for the battle. Good job! You had a great example in your Dad, who also doesn't skirt the issues!!!
Blessings,
Jeannie
Great points, tarynkay. I agree, both sides have their *major* flaws and we should not idolize any of the leaders (including Stonewall Jackson and Robert Lee). When there is a war, there is a lot of damage; on both sides. I was raised in the north (am now living in the south) so heard only the northern perspective while growing up, and am now only hearing the southern. I have seen that both sides have politically correct ways of teaching the civil war, it's not just the north. Face it, we're all going to be biased one way or another! I say this not for my agreement with Lincoln on many of his principles, (as I am an advocate of small government and states' rights) but because we can get so caught up in our own *correct* view of the issue, and forget that God is sovereign, He allowed the war, He willed that the North would win, & He has a plan and purpose for it all.
Elliot:
Some quotes to support the claim I made ("his aim was not to end slavery so much as his true desire was to deport American blacks from the country they helped to build"):
"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races... A seperation of race is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas."
Secondly:
"Racial separation must be effected by colonization of the country's blacks to a foreign land. The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right and, at the same time, favorable to, or at least, not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
Both quotes from Abraham Lincoln cited in Dred Scott's Revenge.
Patriot, to your comment:
"we can get so caught up in our own *correct* view of the issue, and forget that God is sovereign, He allowed the war, He willed that the North would win, & He has a plan and purpose for it all."
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. However, I do think it's important to examine historical issues accurately. The same could be said about the Holocaust -God is sovereign, He allowed it to happen, He willed that Germany would flourish for a time, & He has a plan and purpose for it all. But that does not justify Hitler's regime, nor should it keep us from studying it and examining it rightly.
I don't think that this contradicts what you said or meant to imply, but it was an opportunity for a point that I think is so important to make when God's sovereignty is often -unfortunately -used as an excuse not to examine an issue. It is because He is sovereign that we *do* examine, to learn more about His plans and purposes, and to be honest about the faults of our forefathers in a quest not to make their mistakes.
Also, I agree that no one involved in the Civil War was perfect (thus my words: "All historical figures or fallible humankind, from Lincoln to Davis to every general in between, and when it comes to historical accuracy, we should let their own words and their records speak for themselves.") However, again, for instance, the character of Robert E. Lee was certainly more honorable than his Union counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant. Again, it's important to honestly evaluate history and its figures and to learn from their mistakes and victories.
Jasmine,
Thanks for your response! I completely agree that we shouldn't deify Lincoln. I love talking about history, and I tend to get carried away with it. If I was out of line, I definitely apologize. And if you don't want to publish this follow-up, I will completely understand- I just think that a bare-bones overview of Lincoln's conduct in the Civil War would include the South's stated reasons for secession and Lincoln's stated reasons for fighting the war.
Reconstruction did cause a lot of problems, though if you'll remember, Lincoln had been assasinated by then and the Radical Republicans in congress had taken over.
I do not know what countries to which you refer, when you mention slavery ending less violently in other countries, there are, of course, many. There is the example of England, where race slavery did end in that country without violence (I believe the legal justification was something along the lines of the air of England being too pure to support slavery). That is wonderful, and it would have been great if it could have happened here. However, England had extensive colonies and continued slavery abroad for many, many years to come. India, for example, was not emanicipated until 1946, and when it was, it was with a great deal of violence and bloodshed.
Could slavery have ended non-violently here? Maybe. But again, the South seceded because slaveowners were not allowed to bring slavery into non-slaveholding states. So they weren't willing to compromise on that, to let the institution of slavery die out over time.
Ultimately, God is sovereign, and the only freedom we have is in Him. And I know that we agree about that :)
Tarynkay,
Thank you for your follow-up comment! I have one more thing to add, and then I'll let you have the last word:
You said, "I just think that a bare-bones overview of Lincoln's conduct in the Civil War would include the South's stated reasons for secession and Lincoln's stated reasons for fighting the war."
The straw that broke the camel's back for the South was (as stated in the Jefferson Davis memoirs) states' rights. This *included* but was not limited to the right to own slaves. In fact, the issue that Davis most talked about was the issue of the taxation of the South on Northern products.
As stated earlier in the comment section, Lincoln's stated reasons for fighting the war were to preserve the Union -he once said "If I can preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I shall. If, in order to preserve the Union, I must free every slave, I shall."
You also said, "the South seceded because slaveowners were not allowed to bring slavery into non-slaveholding states. So they weren't willing to compromise on that, to let the institution of slavery die out over time."
The issue was so much more intricate than that! I wish I had time to get into it but, again, I do not. Men like Lincoln did not want slaves in new territories, not to let slavery die out over time because of a belief in Civil Rights, but so as not to pollute new territories with blacks (as I quoted to Elliot earlier).
Suffice it to say, I believe that Lincoln's *motives* for his actions are just as important as the actions themselves, because his motives portrayed his worldview -and the ills of racism did not end with the ills of slavery. For so many displaced blacks after the Civil War, it was a hollow victory.
I also believe that chalking the South's secession up to slavery alone is a generalization that Lincoln's contemporaries would not have borne. Also, having researched Lincoln's plan for reconstruction, I believe it read much like his successors' did, and would have opened up the same can of worms. Reconstruction was a doomed effort from the onset.
There was no easy answer for slavery in the US. I think we can agree on that. While I do not think that the issue can be as easily divided as "South -right; North -wrong," and have never said that, I disagree that the Civil War is justifiable based on the freeing of slaves alone.
We can definitely agree on this point though: Ultimately, God is sovereign, and the only freedom we have is in Him.
Jasmine, thank you for this post! Just last night, as I was reading my nephew's 6th grade History textbook (I am homeschooling him), I read the sentence "Although Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist...". I was so surprised to read that!! I plan to go over your post and some of the comments with my nephew during this week's History lesson. As you can see, his aunt needs the lesson as much as he does! :)
Thanks again, Jasmine!
~Vikki
www.a-firm-foundation.blogspot.com
I have grown up in Christian schools, rather than public schools (though I do not recommend them any higher than the latter), and your posts have been the first I've heard of Lincoln's being racist and all this.
I do hate sugarcoating.
I was just talking to my brother about your post and he was shell-shocked too.
The books you've recommended are most definitely going on my reading list. Can't wait to search this out for myself.
Thanks for the eye-opening post, Jasmine!
Dear Jasmine,
I'm a homeschool mom who found out about this post from the blog, "Life in a Shoe", and I just wanted to thank you for posting it. I've grown up and continue to live in the Great Lakes area of our country, and only just recently did I hear veiled allusions (?) to the fact that Lincoln was not who we were all taught he was. Noone I was associated with ever recommended resources before, until now. It's helpful to have some real books to check out and not just rumors. I will definitely be bookmarking this to check those out.
Thanks again,
Mrs S.M.
I'll never forget how shocked I was to learn the truth about Lincoln. I have linked here from my blog, so others can read the truth, as well. Thanks for sharing.
My, my, so much has been said in a few hours!
Both sides had major flaws, and I always say I would have moved to England:)
That said, there were so many things leading up to the War: crumbling political parties, slavery, state's rights, western expansion, taxation, commerce, and the Industrial Revolution. It just seems as if the two sides had opposite interests in each issue.
If anyone is interested, you can check out my blog, where I will post the paper that came out of my research. (Disclaimer: I do not pretend to know half the history most of you are familiar with! I have always loved history, but am only now getting the opportunity to pursue that inclination. I simply did not desire to re-write my essay here.)
http://becomingafairlady.blogspot.com/
Soli Deo Gloria,
Jenn
This reminds me on some small level of King David in the Old Testament. He did a lot of very heroic deeds and fought as a trained warrior, most notable God refers to him as a man after His heart. But, he also committed murder and adultery resulting in the suffering and death of many. I think there is a lot of good and bad to consider with a man like Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin for example. As a family we choose to try to make an example of both what to do and what not to do when studying "great men" of history. I hope and pray my life is only exposed to this level by our gracious Lord as some of theirs have been. I'm sure I would have some dark thoughts, deeds and words recorded too.
Thanks for sharing. It is a good reminder to us that all that Christ is the only One to walk this earth and come out blameless.
What an interesting debate going on! It's funny because I was reading a bio on Lincoln this morning just for fun, and then I get on here and: Ta-da! Jasmine has once again read my mind! :)
Very interesting thoughts. No president is perfect, and while Lincoln did mess up, I also think there's a lot to learn from his quiet, humble nature. :)
-Rachel C
You definitely have your father's boldness (probably your mother's too, but I've never heard her speak.)I, too, several years ago found out that Lincoln was not exactly the way he was represented by the public. While my husband was a student at a Christian University, I was able to take an enlightening class on the "War Between the States".
I admire you for sticking to the "truth". The Lord can use an event to accomplish his will whether or not that was man's intent and purpose. While we are glad for the outcome to abolish slavery, it doesn't appear that it was Lincolns true purpose in fighting his war.
I am a middle age Christian homeschool mother with a young child. I check your post regularly; and I have read 2 of your dad's books, watched 2 DVD's, listened to several sermons, and even attended a homeschool convention with him as a guest speaker. I hope you do write your book someday, and that you'll be on a future speaking schedule for young ladies.
God bless.
I'm glad you can say these things! I tried mentioning some of these points to my father-in-law once. But he's from Boston, so all he heard was "Bring back slavery!"
Which, of course, was not at all what I said, meant, or want! I'm from North Carolina, so I'll always be an ignorant southerner. That's enough for my opinion to be of no use whatsoever. We lost that war, so we don't get to have an opinion about Lincoln, or anything else. ;-) Not that I mind. My opinions are usually only half-baked anyway.
I love these comments about Lincoln and his unneccessary war. =) I remember you publishing this last time and am still impressed! I wholeheartedly agree with you! It's sad to me how so many people are misguided when it comes to American history. Thanks for boldly declaring the truth.
Amen!! I completely agree with everything you wrote in this post and I know it is well researched and pondered. I love history and I think it's so interesting when "heroes" are proved to be quite the opposite of heroic. Have a great day!! :)
Well said, Jaz!
I wish I could read this to those who are misinformed.
Um... I'm a Northern girl so I won't comment politically.
But has anyone ever noticed the way Lincoln kept a beard but shaved his moustache? Amish do that because apparently a moustache is associated with war. I just thought that was ironic. Sort of.
You Southerners must boil with bitterness at the sight of a penny. :)
I have debated this issue with some friends of mine for quite awhile. I am not a fan of Lincoln, either. Just a few controversies stand out to me about slavery:
1) "The Civil War ended slavery". Actually, no it didn't. Different forms of slavery continued to exist after the War (mainly in the northern States) where many, many, immigrants worked in horrible conditions in large factories.
2) And lastly, as tarynkay asked "Could we have amended the Constitution without a war?". I think the answer could be yes. With the invention of the cotton gin in 1798, the number of slaves needed began to trickle down. Also, the importation of more slaves into America was banned by Congress in 1808.
I really enjoyed reading your post, and sometimes you took the words right out of my mouth. Another book I suggest is 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Jasmine,
I recall you mentioning that you get a bit nervous before CLEP exams. I am wondering how you deal with this nervousness?
Thanks, Alyssa
I know I am getting into this conversation late but I wanted to put my two cents in. I just wanted to add that I came to the truths of your article 15 years ago when I was in middle school and I tried to share my finding from the Lincoln- Douglas Debate with my family members and they did not respond well nor did any of my teachers at the time. This is just another reason I am glad I homeschool my children because we can explore orginal sources instead of text book snippets. This was we can make up our own mind about History based on 1st hand research.
Yes, I minor in American Studies at university and I too have read several accounts and looked at some of Lincoln's letters to only find that freeing the slaves was not on his top list - it was a mere convenience to preserve the Union.
When I told several of my American friends this the only response I recieved was "You are just British, and you lost the war..."
Selah,
But the number of slaves and demand for slaves actually increased following the invention of the cotton gin. From the Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop: http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/eli-whitney/cotton-gin
"While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave."
Nice post, I love history, and the Civil War era is especially interesting to me.
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (a must read!)
http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglass/douglass.html
Jasmine, very good post! I'm not exactly sure that this will add anything to the conversation, but I'm going to copy the response I gave to my sister when she shared this post with me:
"1)Jefferson Davis' stated reasons for going to war from his memoirs - written in the 1870s or 1880s - are very different from his stated reasons in 1860. In 1860 he, along with the rest of the Southerners, were citing slavery as a primary motivation. I've heard the quotes from the '60s and from his memoirs. So he engages in a bit of revisionist history, too. :-)
2)Lincoln was a racist (like almost everyone else of that day), and he did not go to war to free slaves. That said, he was a Republican, and the Republican party was the party of abolition. Lincoln certainly believed slavery was immoral.
3)Lincoln purposefully didn't free border state slaves in the emancipation proclamation. He didn't want to lose those states to the Confederacy! And also, his legal justification for issuing the proclamation [stated in an open letter that was reprinted in newspapers all over the North] was that slaves were bounty of war and that it was legal for him to do as he saw fit with them when his armies conquered their owners.
4)Furthermore, the largely Republican Congress had already passed a more sweeping emancipation law earlier that year. Lincoln's proclamation actually did less than Congress had already done!
5)In mid 1864, when Lincoln is convinced he's going to lose the election, he calls Frederick Douglas into the Oval Office for a conference. He wants Douglas to help him find a way to spirit slaves out of the South, because he's convinced that after he loses the election that McClellan is going to end the war and so the slaves need to get out now.
6)Lincoln is personally and intimately involved in the crafting of the 13th amendment, which was passed by the end of the war. He was certain that after the war was over Southerners would sue in federal courts for their slaves using the 5th amendment private property rights, and without a constitutional amendment the Dred Scott decision would hold and courts would have to strike down the emancipation proclamation. He twisted the arms of 8 Democrats to break ranks and help ratify the amendment.
Et Cetera. Bottom line: Lincoln was complex."
There are qualities to admire in Lincoln, just like there are qualities to admire in Lee or Jackson or Davis. Just like they all had sins and flaws. And anyone who thinks Northerners were morally superior only needs to look at Sherman to be rid of that notion (He told his army, "ain't gonna be no [bleeped out N word] in Uncle Billy's army." He had droves of slaves following him when he liberated them in GA. He hated it. In once instance, he had is soldiers build a bridge across a river for them to cross. Then he had them tear it down while the blacks were trying to cross, drowning many of them. Nasty, nasty, nasty man.).
I think you could make a good case that Lincoln had a bit of a change of heart towards slavery and blacks around 1863 or so, as evidenced by his attempts to get the 13th amendment passed and his new attitude towards Frederick Douglas. And, personally, I think one of the best things you can say about someone is that they changed their mind when they were wrong.
Now, as to the constitutionality of his actions, well, that's a whole 'nother debate. :-)
Ms. Jasmine, I must commend you for reposting this. You indeed have courage. I remember reading this post when you originally posted it.
I have read the two books by T. J. Dilorenzo that you mentioned. Very, very good books. You, and your readers, may enjoy reading some of Prof. Dilorenzo's articles at the Mises Institute: http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=425
I was born, and will forever remain, a Southern boy, even though we moved North when I was eight. I was raised Confederate since the day my daddy read "The South Was Right" by the brothers Kennedy, lent him by a friend. (Which is one of a very good series of books by them.)
Another excellent book that I would VERY highly recommend: In the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case For Southern Secession, by Charles Adams. It is supreme. (You may also be interested in his treatise on taxes: "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes On Civilization".
I'd also like to point out that a number of folks commenting here said that the purpose of war is to kill people and destroy things. At the time of the war's beginning, the belief of the time was that war was carried out solely between armies; not carried out on private property and civilians. Obviously this was not the first time in history that war had been made on civilians; that is not what I'm saying. The belief of the time, which is as it should be, was that war on civilians and violations of personal property were intolerable. West Point cadets were taught that plundering and making war on civilians was punishable by death.
Furthermore, the only justifiable war, as defined by Augustine, is a war of defense. The South was forced to fire the first shot, because of Lincoln's scheme to force the South to pay revenue to the North in order to conduct commerce. (This was the only reason Lincoln wished to hold on to the fort: he wished to blockade the seceded South in order to maintain his revenue, of which over 90% came from the South before the war. This was all admitted by one of his cabinet members, who helped him cook up the scheme.) This is what sparked the war. (Interestingly, he only cooked up this scheme after the South announced it would be a free trade nation, which, because of tax competition, would be ruinous to the Northern economy.) The reason the South seceded is because of Lincoln's election, and the passage of the Morrill Tariff, the highest ever seen in the U.S. The South feared Lincoln because of his stance on tariffs and large government. They saw, rightly so, that high tariffs would be imposed on them, and their rights as sovereign states curtailed.
As far as slavery goes, Lincoln pledged his support to a constitutional amendment that would make it unconstitutional for the U.S. government to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery during the interim between when he was elected and took office. That is why the argument that the South seceded over slavery simply does not hold water.
So, to recap, the South seceded because of Lincoln's Hamiltonian stance and the passage of the Morrill tariff;
Lincoln sparked the war by sending a fleet to Ft. Sumter, which caused the South to take the fort. (I forgot to state that earlier.)
And then of course, the North waged a bloody, unbiblical, unconstitutional war on the South while oppressing the people of the North through the repeal of Habeaus Corpus.
This resulted, at the end of the war, in Reconstruction, wherein the North attempted to consolidate its power in the South through the disenfranchisement of the Southern whites and the negro vote.
Then the North rewrote history.
It led to a whole mess of evils, which I don't have time to go in to.
In short, your post was excellent, and I would greatly recommend the books you mentioned. Keep up the good work!
~Johann
I'm glad you posted this, Jasmine. Lincoln and the North are almost exclusively held up as the 'right' side in the Civil War. Every history book I ever read on the subject automatically assumed that the North had the just cause and the South did not.
As I have done further reading on the subject as well as listened to others, I have to say I would probably side with the South in this issue. The war was not really about slavery. It was about states' rights. And as we are seeing today, the federal government is HUGE and states' rights are being eroded more every day. The South was fighting for the right to decide for THEMSELVES whether they would have slaves or not. And it was so much bigger than slavery. The south was fighting for the right to decide for themselves about their entire way of life. Abraham Lincoln's victory in the Civil War laid the foundation for the massive centralized goverment we have today and the further erosion of states' rights. Yes, I think slavery was wrong. I think that all men, regardless of skin color, are equal in God's sight. I think slavery is wrong just as I think abortion is wrong. But is it really the perogative of the federal government to dictate how we should live? Did the North really have to the right to dictate how the South should live? I think not. I think the choice should be left up to the individual states, like the founding Fathers intended. I would like to see the abortion debate taken down to the state level. That at least would be progress. I think Roe v. Wade is highly unconstitutional.
Regardless of how well intentioned (or not) Lincoln was, we are reaping the fruit of the outcome of that war today. And I'm not sure I like it.
Congradulations I gave you a Blog Award. Got to my page to find out more about it. www.welltrainedhomeschool.blogspot.com
Well written! Very interesting perspective I enjoyed greatly and will use when teaching my U.S. History classes. I would also encourage you to read extensively on Reconstruction; Lincoln's plans for healing the nation in contrast to what actually happened after his assassination. It might help shed light on race relations we live with even today. Keep studying and sharing! GREAT insight :-)
Post a Comment