Lincoln in the Civil War

[TwitchKitty]

We recently discussed Lincoln in the Civil War briefly in another thread here:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=154898&page=6

There have been other threads in the past here on related topics and some of those threads have gotten really ugly and as I recall were on the slippery slope leading to some members being banned. So with a warning to try to stay along factual lines and not get too emotional about the whole thing I present a clip that I took from the web several years ago with the intent of researching the claims. I have not done so and was hoping that some of you would have some background from which to comment on this:

The victors write history.
As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, History .... "is a myth men agree to believe", i.e., "lies agreed upon."
The government schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods about Lincoln and his war of conquest.
What's the truth?

• Lincoln violated the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.
• Subverted the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitution right to "republican form of government."
• Declared martial law.
• Raised troops without the approval of Congress and expending funds without appropriation.
• Suspended the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning 30,000 "northern" citizens and 31 legislators without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were occurring.
• Corrupted the currency by manipulations and paper swindles unheard of in previous US history.
• Oversaw fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and connivance.
• He signed the National Currency Act that nationalized our banking system.
• He initiated the first Income Tax and started the Internal Revenue bureaucracy.
• Continued the war by raising ever-larger bodies of troops by conscription and hiring of foreign mercenaries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.
• Confiscated millions of dollars of property by his agents in the South, especially cotton, without legal proceedings.
• Waging war against women and children and civilian property as the matter of policy (rather than as unavoidably incident to combat). (General Sherman and others)
• Deliberately starved and murdered Confederate prisoners of War.

Lincoln’s stated purpose in the war was to destroy the principle of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. He succeeded.

[TwitchKitty]

From the other thread:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The winners write the history.

For example, in the War Between the States (what you yankees call the "Civil War), the southern side said the fight was over state sovereignty. They believed that the federal government had no constitutional right to invade a state and compel it to act in the federal gov's behalf. They lost. By losing, their side of the argument is soon dismissed and their name for the dispute is not used (War Between the States is a southernism).

We learn today that the war was about slavery. IMO, that is a convenient myth. If slavery were the issue, why did it take nearly 3 years for the President to proclaim the slaves free? And that Proclamation was not legal as it was not written by Congress and signed by the president. And to make a presidential opinion have the force of law is not democracy, it is despotism.

Yes, slavery was an injustice, doubly unjust because it was perpetrated by the nation that wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Before free markets, slavery was a normal state of humanity for every nation of the world, probably through all time. It is worth remembering that it wasn't high moral values that destroyed slavery, it was freemarket capitalism that made slaves uneconomical.


B

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

From what I've read (though I've never studied it formally), the South was, as you say, fighting in part for its right to preserve its way of life. Said way of life included -- heck, was based on! -- slavery. In that sense, yes, the war was "about" slavery. But certainly the North didn't get up on its high horses and go to war *just* to stamp out the peculiar institution. I expect they didn't want to lose the South as a market for their industrial goods, or to lose their supply of Southern cotton and other agricultural products.

Most important man in Civil War history? Eli Whitney. We were taught in school that he invented a practical cotton gin, which made the agricultural (read: cotton) base of the South possible. What our teachers never told us back then was that he also pioneered the notion of standardized, easily replaceable parts for guns and other machines -- which made the industrialization of the *North* possible.

If he'd died before he came up with those two concepts, the history of the U.S. in the 19th Century would have been far different.
.

Originally Posted by Dee8go

Bot,
I thought we were calling that the War of Northern Aggression. It's funny how the perspectives change from one place to the other. Slavery WAS a significant issue, though.

I find it ironic how the current crop of Republicans transgress our party's own philosophy of smaller and less intrusive federal government. They are becoming almost like the pre CW Republicans.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

those interested in the civil war should read "freedom" by william safire.

there are a couple of other great books about it that i have read in the last year or so, but the titles exscape me at the moment.

lincoln ran on the ticket of trying to limit slavery to the existing states only, i believe, but the southerners didnt believe him. they believed that he wanted to abolish it. in his heart probably he did from the beginning, but the political climate in the states didnt support abolishment.

when the southern states seceded they took a lot of dissenting public opinion with them, making lincoln free to take a more aggressive stand, which he did eventually. his re election was by no means assured though.... he needed victories on the battle field to keep the european powers out of it. when he got his victories, he issued the emancipation proclamation, freeing slaves only in the seceded states. which technically was probably legal but not spelled out.

not freeing slaves in the border states such as kentucky was crucial to keeping them in the union.

lincoln was a very intelligent politician, and by his demeanor allowed his opponents to believe he wasn't very smart... allowing them to do things which werent really very smart.

he also brought into his cabinet about four or five people he beat out for the presidency, embracing the philosophy of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer". these fellows caused him a lot of grief but he prevailed in the end.

when he was a lawyer in illinois, he won a big case for one of the big railroads, saving them i believe about 100k. he sent a bill for 5,000 in legal fees. they tried to pay him 3,000 and he sued for about 10k and won it in court. (i may be off on the figures). and he was such a good attorney that in a couple years the railroad was again using him for their work.

us grant actually saved his bacon in the end. (another very interesting character). grant wrote a very excellent biography after he was pres. it is now available in a reprint.

the civil war was a very interesting period in our history. if the north hadnt won we would probably be a small group of third rate nations.

tom w

[TwitchKitty]

More from the other thread:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

Alvin Toffler wrote an excellent book called The Third Wave that addressed the cause of The Civil War. It is not an easy read, some net searches would get the ideas for you.

There were wars all around the world about at the same time and they were all fought for about the same reasons. The nature of wealth and wealth building were changing and there were struggles to grab a share.

If slavery in the US was ended by The Civil War, what ended slavery in much of the rest of the world about the same time?

McCormick got the write-up in the history books but many men were working on the same ideas around the world at about the same time as advances in technology made the industrialization of agriculture possible. The trend would not have stopped, for lack of one man. The names in the history books would have been different and the timing somewhat different.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

actually there is still slavery today. but your point has some merit.

that does not make lincoln's courage and risks any less, though. anyone can see the price he paid.

greed will always be around.

tom w

Originally Posted by Botnst

Slavery was an issue, not because slavery was illegal or unconstitutional, but because ownership of slaves was one 'right' implicitly reserved to the states. That particular argument seems to us modern folks well-educated by the history of the victors, to be a bit of sophistry.

But if slavery were the central issue, what cause of slavery was it that resulted in South Carolina's army firing on federal troops? Secondly, why did it take Lincoln until 1863 to issue the Imancipation Proclamation and why was it not enacted as a law through Congress?

Look, I'm not going to fight the Civil war again. The South argued as I am (and lost the argument). By losing that argument the southern states lost the perogative of writing the history. So now we believe just as you say, the Northern argument as to the reason for the war is The Reason.

Look at it this way, had the Axis Powers won WWII, would the Allied history have been written? Who would have been tried for war crimes? Which atrocities of war would we remember? Probably even more interestingly, many of us would now feel good that the science of eugenics in the hands of the State was ridding humanity of the subhuman types.

Bot

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

I would say nearly the same thing about lincoln as churchill. He was a great man and was the right man for the job. Did the ends justify the means? We'll never know.

And yes, there has always been slavery and probably always will be. The slave mentality is frighteningly pervasive. There is a theory that modern history is going in 80? year cycles and we are on a downtrend now.

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

I am not trying to exlosively derail this thread so this will be my last post on the 1860s for now.

It is my understanding that the Constitution of the Confederate States banned the importation of slaves long before the US considered the issue.

The importation of slaves was a corporate endeavor and the corporations responsible were never penalized or punished.

Originally Posted by A264172

I thought the civil war ended February 3rd and April 8th 1913.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

there are a lot of folks who like to argue now and back then that it was not about slavery.

there were a lot more men that fought for the southern side that never sniffed at ownership of a slave that (baffling to me) were convinced to fight. they felt they were defending their homes (and they were). but the whole war benefitted them not at all. (sounds a lot like the present war in iraq).

the men who fought on the side of the south were by and large good decent men who fought courageously and effectively against a better equipped and larger northern army.

the bad part was that the north had to invade the south to win. if both armies just stayed in their own territory the south would have won by default.

so any of you think slavery should still be allowed here?

there were many who argued that slavery was actually more expensive than having freed men do the work and pay them. but you can bet that the slave owners didn't believe that for a minute.

course, the argument about it being more economical to use freed men must be true. cause that is how it is now! and the wages of blue collar folks continue to decline.

tom w

Originally Posted by Botnst

They, like Robert E. Lee, fought for their country. In his case, Virginia. Lee was offered command of Federal forces but declined and chose Virginia, to whom he felt the greater loyalty. And the same with all of the southern states, and many in the north. For example, it wasn't too many years previous that the New England states threatened secession.

Also, can you name any army component on the Federal side that did not owe allegiance to his state first?

The primary benefit accrued by citizens from the Civil War was the concept of truly universal equality of Mankind. The great loss was political. We were transformed from a government with political power balanced between the several states and the central government to one dominated completely by the federal government.

One outcome of that is the current ease with which the central government involves the states in international adventures. Before 1865, it was damn-near impossible to get all of the states to support a military adventure and provide soldiers and so forth. Now look at us.

Bot

[TwitchKitty]

The rest from the other thread:

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

Cyrus McCormick and his mechanical reaper, right?

I agree, the premature death of Eli Whitney wouldn't have ended the trend toward industrialization. It would just have been slowed in the United States -- and without the cotton gin, the South would have had to find another crop to exploit, since it was not economically feasible (even with slaves) to pick the seeds out of the cotton by hand.
.

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

I confused issues between Eli Whitney and Cyrus McCormick so here is some clarification:

• Eli Whitney (December 8, 1765 - January 8, 1825). He was an American inventor and manufacturer who is credited with creating the first cotton gin in 1793. The cotton gin was a mechanical device, which removed the seeds from cotton, a process that was until that time extremely labor-intensive. For more information, go to http://www.eliwhitney.org/cotton.htm or http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent/.
  
• Cyrus McCormick of Virginia was responsible for liberating farm workers from hours of backbreaking labor by introducing his newly invented mechanical reaper in July 1831. By 1847, Cyrus McCormick began the mass manufacture of his reaper in a Chicago factory. The invention of two successful reaping machines - independently by Obed Hussey in Ohio, who obtained the first patent in 1834, and by Cyrus Hall McCormick in Virginia - brought about an end to tedious handiwork and encouraged the invention and manufacture of other labor-saving farm implements and machinery. The first reapers cut the standing grain and, with a revolving reel, swept it onto a platform from which a man walking alongside raked it off into piles. It could harvest more grain than five men using the earlier cradles. The reaper was eventually replaced by the self-propelled combine, operated by one man, which cuts, gathers, threshes, and sacks the grain mechanically. The reaper was the first step in a transition from hand labor to the mechanized farming of today. It brought about an industrial revolution, as well as a vast change in agriculture. Instead of 90 percent of the population farming to meet the nation's needs, as was the case in 1831, today fewer than 2 percent of the US population are directly involved in farming. For more information, go to http://www.vaes.vt.edu/steeles/mccormick/bio.html.

From:http://ushistory.pwnet.org/resources/I.8.c.php

[t walgamuth]

while there probably is some factual truth in many of your points i can only conclude that you are a southerner who has never accepted the results of the civil war. or the war of oppression as some southerners would say.

my father used to say "most lies are based on fact".

laws are meant to be clear and simple and enforcable. as a matter of fact, though they seldom are. interpretation is everything. lincoln saw the union as something that was to be preserved. many northerners wanted to come to some kind of settlement with the south. some books i have read suggest that mcclellan the general was ambitious for the presedency and that was a major reason for his reluctance to engage his army, perferring a stalling strategy til the 64 election when he would run as what, a democrat? i am not sure of the party names back then. i know there were whigs too and they died out about then.

imho if the south had won the war, the us would now be three or four second or third rate powers. does that appeal to you? not me.

there was definately a lot of unfair things that happened to the south after the war. if lincoln had lived perhaps that would have been different. he was merciful. grant, when he accepted lees surrender refused to take his sword. and sent the men home with their guns and horses, such as they had left.

but along the way later things happened that shouldnt have.

and during the war too. and there were no doubt atrocities committed. on both sides. but the war mostly took place on southern soil by definition so the people of the south would have no good memories of that period, i would think.

tom w

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

while there probably is some factual truth in many of your points i can only conclude that you are a southerner who has never accepted the results of the civil war. or the war of oppression as some southerners would say.

my father used to say "most lies are based on fact".

laws are meant to be clear and simple and enforcable. as a matter of fact, though they seldom are. interpretation is everything. lincoln saw the union as something that was to be preserved. many northerners wanted to come to some kind of settlement with the south. some books i have read suggest that mcclellan the general was ambitious for the presedency and that was a major reason for his reluctance to engage his army, perferring a stalling strategy til the 64 election when he would run as what, a democrat? i am not sure of the party names back then. i know there were whigs too and they died out about then.

imho if the south had won the war, the us would now be three or four second or third rate powers. does that appeal to you? not me.

there was definately a lot of unfair things that happened to the south after the war. if lincoln had lived perhaps that would have been different. he was merciful. grant, when he accepted lees surrender refused to take his sword. and sent the men home with their guns and horses, such as they had left.

but along the way later things happened that shouldnt have.

and during the war too. and there were no doubt atrocities committed. on both sides. but the war mostly took place on southern soil by definition so the people of the south would have no good memories of that period, i would think.

tom w

The first paragraph is unfair and trivializes history. That a man argues a perspective does not mean he embraces all aspects of that perspective. this is what we call an ad hominem attack. Rather than argue the points he presented you shift the argument to be about him. The points raised are points of historical fact and then interpreted by him. If his interpretation is based on fact then why not argue both the facts and the interpretation? That should be more productive than making the argument about him.

The United States was formed by the agreement of 13 independent governments agreeing to voluntarily cede some of their power and authority to a central government. Many of the states signed the document and attached certain reservations of power to themselves. Many of the states for example, retained the sovereign right to withdraw from the union. They wrote that they feared the centralization of power into the hands of the few. These arguments are precisely why the "Federalist Papers" were written. The Federalist Papers seek to explain the benefits of a powerful central government as counter-arguments to the people who feared it.

In the first part of the 19th century many New England states banded together as a regional group and argued whether they should withdraw from the union. They almost did but in deciding to remain, they wrote that the union is only free if the states who comprise it do so willingly and that compulsion is despotism.

During the 1850's Lincoln's party imposed duties and tariffs that differentially impacted the southern states to the benefit of northern states, especially industrializing states. The laws were repealed after the Civil War because they were found unconstitutional. No, I'm not talking about a slave issue, it had to do with importation of finished goods. The states were supposed to collect the fees and taxes for the federal government. The southern states essentially ignored the laws so Lincoln sent troops, without Congressional approval, into the major southern ports to enforce the law.

There was no precedent for the President, without Congressional authorization, to send federal troops to compel a state to obey. The nearest precedent was Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions which Washington quelled. But Washington sought and received Congressional authorization. Lincoln did not. The southern states argued that Lincoln's ordering troops into southern ports was an act of war as it was illegal and unprecedented.

Today we learn in school that the cause of the war was slavery and it was instigated by the state of South Carolina firing on Federal troops in Ft Sumpter.

The winners write the history.

Bot

PS Bonus Question: When and why were the "Posse Comitatus" statutes enacted?

B

[TwitchKitty]

As I said above, I clipped the Lincoln list above from the web, it is not my list.

I am not taking a position on this from the North vs South perspective. My position is more like these were years of some of the most horrible things that could have possibly happened and everyone is to blame, if you want to blame someone. This wasn't a war about the interests of the people in the north and the people in the south, it is a war of centralized power over people everywhere.

I did grow up in the south part of my life but I also grew up in north too. I feel equally at home on the gulf coast and north of Boston. My lifestyle today involves migration north and south in a snowbird fashion but not based on the seasons. We also migrate east and west.

I find it amusing that people are so cynical about more recent wars and approach some of these older wars with such wide-eyed innocent belief and warm fuzzy feelings.

I don't for one second believe that the civil war was fought for humanitarian reasons. Freeing the slaves was a believable and heart felt rally cry so women and children could be proud of their men going off to fight the war.

I believe the end of slavery was inevitable due to industrialization, especially of agriculture. Automation and downsizing have been popular ever since. Ending slavery by force also allowed a total change of control of agriculture and ownership of farm land.

Engineering was coming of age and men were applying scientific principle to the solutions of problems in addition to time honored experience or common sense. New products were being developed at a phenominal rate. Check the news of the world's fairs of the time.

Self sufficiency and sustainable lifestyles were going out to make way for a new age of consumerism based on the new manufactured goods and factory farms. The wealth was needed in concentration to build factories and infrastructure. The population was needed concentrated in cities to man the factories to produce the goods.

[t walgamuth]

i am sorry if you think i trivialized history. i love history.

i thought i did make some points of my own, but i see we dont agree on them. and i dont think i did make the argument about him.

i think his points were very inflamatory and i didnt want to respond to them individually because i didnt think it was possible to do so with out getting into a knock down drag out thing.

it was a bad time for both sides. worse for the south. as noted in my first post.

now with the universality of ac people can locate industry anywhere and the south has a great abundance of employment opportunities that never existed before. a good thing for the south and for the country.

there are some pesky beliefs and attitudes that still cause difficulties though.

just my personal observations. others have different experiences and different conclusions.

tom w

[t walgamuth]

i think i just realized why nobody else is biting on this thread.

tom w

[Carleton Hughes]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i think i just realized why nobody else is biting on this thread.

tom w

Idol smashing seems to be rather au courant nowadays,old sport.

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

As I said above, I clipped the Lincoln list above from the web, it is not my list.

I am not taking a position on this from the North vs South perspective. My position is more like these were years of some of the most horrible things that could have possibly happened and everyone is to blame, if you want to blame someone. This wasn't a war about the interests of the people in the north and the people in the south, it is a war of centralized power over people everywhere.

I did grow up in the south part of my life but I also grew up in north too. I feel equally at home on the gulf coast and north of Boston. My lifestyle today involves migration north and south in a snowbird fashion but not based on the seasons. We also migrate east and west.

I find it amusing that people are so cynical about more recent wars and approach some of these older wars with such wide-eyed innocent belief and warm fuzzy feelings.

I don't for one second believe that the civil war was fought for humanitarian reasons. Freeing the slaves was a believable and heart felt rally cry so women and children could be proud of their men going off to fight the war.

I believe the end of slavery was inevitable due to industrialization, especially of agriculture. Automation and downsizing have been popular ever since. Ending slavery by force also allowed a total change of control of agriculture and ownership of farm land.

Engineering was coming of age and men were applying scientific principle to the solutions of problems in addition to time honored experience or common sense. New products were being developed at a phenominal rate. Check the news of the world's fairs of the time.

Self sufficiency and sustainable lifestyles were going out to make way for a new age of consumerism based on the new manufactured goods and factory farms. The wealth was needed in concentration to build factories and infrastructure. The population was needed concentrated in cities to man the factories to produce the goods.

A brilliant and perfectly on-target post! Thanks for re-introducing this subject!

Your firm grasp of the reality of this part of history, and your awareness of the painfully obvious revisionist history that has been used to alter subsequent generations' perception of the events, is refreshing.



Mike

[A264172]

Lincoln’s stated purpose in the war was to destroy the principle of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. He succeeded.

To what degree this principle is violated is up for debate. The government must, by nature of it's existance, gather the avaliable consent and respond to it's mandate.

# Lincoln violated the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.
# Subverted the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitution right to "republican form of government."

The Constitution of the United States
Article I.
...
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..."

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by A264172

To what degree this principle is violated is up for debate. The government must, by nature of it's existance, gather the avaliable consent and respond to it's mandate.


The Constitution of the United States
Article I.
...
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..."

Good arguments!

Let's take that as it is written.

If a state withdraws from the republic then it is no longer under the authority of the republic. Thus, it has not formed an alliance or confederation. Once withdrawn, it is a free state and no longer subject to the articles creating the union.

B

[A264172]

I see where you are going but there is this:

Article VI.

...

Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

It does not rule out secession but does establish a hierarchical authority in such matters.

And then there is the ratification section which called for the approval of 9 of the 13 states to validate the authority of the document over the nation. Though all 13 did authorise it at the time.

[Botnst]

The authorization itself is an issue, too. Several states' legislatures empowered the framers to sign the document with the stipulation that those states could withdraw if they so chose. None of those stipulations were debated in Convention, apparently.

If a contract is signed and the person signing it includes attachments modifying the original document, are they binding to all parties? If the signer believes that is the case (binding) but others do not (not binding), would that difference itself invalidate the contract?

Bot