Paul Craig Roberts and the Civil War

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
56
It has been since November 19, 2021 since I posted. I have been very busy with life and a new job.

I recently saw this post by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts about the Civil War which is nothing but Lost Cause propaganda.

It is totally ridiculous that this worldview is still prevalent among many Americans.



Paul Craig Roberts– Before I answer the questions it needs to be clearly stated that my answers are not merely my opinion, but hard facts supported in the historical record. Like John Maynard Keynes, I like to keep my views in accordance with the facts. In the case of what is called “the Civil War,” the facts are clear enough.


Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the 2 March 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union. On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.


“On 2 March 1861, in a futile attempt to prevent the secession of the slaveholding states, Congress proposed, and sent to the states for ratification, a constitutional amendment designed to protect slavery in the states where it existed.”


If the Republicans invaded the South to overthrow slavery, why did they pass a constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery forever? If the South went to war in defense of slavery, why did the South not ratify the Corwin Amendment and remain in the Union?


These questions have been evaded by dishonest historians ever since the end of the war.


The war was a bloody business. The Union generals Sherman and Sheridan targeted not only Southern armies but civilians and their shelter and food supplies. As the war came to an end the devastated condition of the South was creating northern sympathy, something the extreme Republicans pushing more punishment and humiliation under their Reconstruction policy did not want. The Republicans saw the need to turn the explanation of the war into a moral project to free the slaves from the iniquity of white Southerners. Reconstruction went beyond the South’s defeat and inflicted brutal humiliation. This required creation of an immoral image of the South fighting to keep people in slavery.


As the victors write the histories, the reconstructed account prevailed. The creation of black studies as university departments and the civil rights disturbances in the 1960s served to renew the positioning of white Southerners as reprehensible and in need of a second Reconstruction via busing and coerced racial integration.


Paul Craig Roberts


Mike Whitney– Help me understand the origins of the Civil War. I was taught that the Union went to war to end slavery and that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Is that true?


Paul Craig Roberts– As all historical documentation shows, slavery had little to do with the so-called Civil War. Let’s get this straight at the beginning. IT WAS NOT A CIVIL WAR. A civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government. The South made no fight to take over the government. The South merely used its Constitutional right to secede from the US.


Secession resulted in war because Lincoln was determined to “preserve the Union.” He proclaimed repeatedly that he invaded the South to “preserve the Union,” not to free the slaves. He said that he had no power to free the slaves because the US Constitution made slavery a states’ rights issue.


In his inaugural address Lincoln said: “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.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, the Republican Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.


Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.”


The South did not invade the North. The North invaded the South. President Lincoln made the reason clear time after time. The War of Northern Aggression was to preserve the Union and to make the Southern states pay the tariff to finance Northern industrialization. The South fought because the South was invaded.


Until modern times serious historians, such as Charles Beard, who were not fighting ideological battles explained the conflict between the Northern and Southern states as being economic. The North wanted a tariff against British imports that would raise the cost of British imports above what the same goods could be produced for in northern factories.


The Southern states objected to being forced to pay in order to subsidize higher priced Northern manufactures. The Southern states were also concerned that the British in retaliation would impose tariffs on the Southern export of cotton and tobacco.


As territories were taken from native Americans and became incorporated as states, the difference between North and South, resulting, for example, in the Missouri Compromise, was not over the expansion of slavery, but over keeping the balance in Congress between North and South equal so that the North could not impose tariffs on the South.


President Lincoln said repeatedly that slavery was a state’s rights issue for which there was no federal authority to abolish, and that he did not intend to exceed his powers by abolishing slavery. In the North only the abolitionists who did not have much of Lincoln’s ear saw the war as a campaign to end slavery.


As Southern states were seceding because of the tariff that had passed, the Northern Republicans on the eve of Lincoln’s inauguration as president passed the Corwin Amendment which made it impossible for the United States to ever abolish slavery. Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. Today historians have to obscure this fact in order to protect their explanation of the war. They say that Lincoln neither opposed nor supported the Corwin Amendment, but here are Lincoln’s direct words accepting the Amendment in his inaugural address: “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”


President Lincoln made the deal clear to the South: Stay in the Union and slavery is guaranteed by the government of the United States of America for ever.


If the war was over slavery, why did the South not avoid the war by accepting Lincoln’ guarantee? Indeed, why was the guarantee even necessary as Lincoln admitted that slavery was a state’s right issue, not a federal one. So here is the South with two guarantees against the abolishment of slavery and the South still wants to fight for slavery?!


If the Union invaded the South to free the slaves, why did the Union pass the Corwin Amendment guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery?


Clearly, slavery was not the issue.



The war was caused by the passage of the tariff and by the South’s refusal to pay the tariff by seceding. When the South could not be bribed by the Corwin Amendment to remain in the Union, Lincoln invaded.


Historians of the slavery explanation of the war find their support in Southern arguments for secession. The South in order to avoid war wanted to leave the Union on Constitutional grounds, thinking naively that the North would respect the Constitution.


In the US Constitution tariffs are a FEDERAL issue, not a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE. The South could not make a Constitutional case for secession on the basis of opposition to the Tariff. But the South could make a case for secession on slavery grounds, because the Constitution required northern states to return runaway slaves, and some northern states, in defiance of the US Constitution, refused to return the runaway property. Thus northern states were violating the US Constitution. This gave constitutional grounds to the Southern states for secession. They argued that Northern states had broken the Constitutional pact by violating it.


In order to show that they were acting in accordance with the Constitution and not committing treason or an act of rebellion by seceding, some of the states’ secession documents made the argument that Northern states that did not return slaves had voided the constitutional pact. This is the basis for the historians’ claim that the war was fought over slavery. I have written at length about this. See, (here) and (here)




Mike Whitney– On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared “that all persons held as slaves” …”henceforward shall be free.” What do Americans need to know about the Emancipation Proclamation that they weren’t taught in school? Was Lincoln really the “great American hero” he’s made-out to be?


Paul Craig Roberts– The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure. Not a freedom of the slaves measure. As President Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, “We have just freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control.”


During the first two years of war Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson with far fewer soldiers had consistently inflicted defeats on Lincoln’s large armies. Lincoln ran through general after general, all defeated by the small Army of Northern Virginia.


Lincoln and his advisors decided that a Union proclamation freeing slaves in Southern territories would produce a slave rebellion and that Lee’s invincible army would run home to protect their wives and children.


But no such slave rebellion occurred. However oppressed the abolitionists imagined the blacks were, the blacks didn’t agree. There was no rebellion.


The misrepresentation of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:


“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).


“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).


(Lincoln) “I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).


How was the real Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?




Mike Whitney– In your book Empire Of Lies you refer to the Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression. I admit, I had never heard that term before, but it really helped me to realize that one’s interpretation of what took place depends largely on where one was born and raised. What are the most glaring errors that Northerners make about the Civil War?


Paul Craig Roberts– It was the North that invaded the South. The South fought only because it was invaded. Lincoln rejected the South’s constitutional argument for secession, declared the South to be in rebellion and invaded to preserve the Union.




The Union Armies under Sherman and Sheridan committed war crimes. They attacked civilians and left them starving with slaughtered livestock and burned down homes. In contrast, when Lee took the Army of Northern Virginia into Union territory in an effort to conclude the conflict, he admonished his soldiers prior to Gettysburg to remember that their purpose is to defeat the enemy’s army, not to take revenge on Union civilians for what Union armies did to the South’s civilians.


The misrepresentation that the Union Army was fighting for black freedom becomes obviously absurd when we realize that at war’s end this same Union army and its generals Sherman and Sheridan were unleashed on the Plains Indians to exterminate the buffalo, the Indians’ food supply, and to massacre their women and children. Books have been written and movies have been made about this. The question always in my mind is: if saving blacks on Southern plantations is a great moral cause, what happened to the moral cause when the same army was unleashed against the Plains Indians? Why save one “people of color” and destroy another?


Mike Whitney– The monuments of Confederate Generals have recently become a source of controversy and deepening polarization. A number of these statues have been either torn-down or desecrated by radical leftists who believe that they are fighting racism. What is wrong with this line-of-reasoning?


Paul Craig Roberts– Everything.
The South fought because it was invaded by Lincoln. The South fought to repel an invader, not for slavery. The Southern army was not composed of plantation owners. It was composed of ordinary people, most of whom were poor. They were fighting because they were invaded.




Mike Whitney– Here’s a quote from your book that I found particularly interesting:


“Before history became politicized, historians understood that the North intended for the South to bear costs of the North’s development of industry and manufacturing. The agricultural South preferred the lower priced goods from England. The South understood that a tariff on British goods would push import prices above the high northern prices and lower the South’s living standards in the interest of raising living standards in the North. The conflict was entirely economic and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which also had existed in the North….”
This is a remarkable statement that suggests that our fundamental understanding of the Civil War is wrong. The official version of events implies that the war was launched for humanitarian reasons (ending slavery) by a benevolent leader (Lincoln) whose actions were guided by his unflinching commitment to principle. Your comment suggests that this version of history is wrong, and that the conflict had more to do with tariffs, industry and living standards than with slavery.


Can you expand on your statement and comment on whether –in your opinion– the US would have been better-off had Lincoln allowed the South to secede from the Union splitting the country into two separate parts forever?


Paul Craig Roberts–
The “official version” is not official. It is a revisionist version entirely devoid of any support in historical documents. The purposes of the “official version” are to cover up Northern war crimes and justify Reconstruction, to set up reparations for blacks, to reduce whites to second class citizens and to legitimize racial preferences for blacks in university admissions, employment, promotion and exemption from criminal punishment for crimes, such as San Francisco’s law that blacks can steal up to $950 each time from stores without it being a criminal offense and the California legislature’s recent passage of a bill requiring less punishment for blacks than for white people for identical criminal acts.


If the South had prevailed, today the US would be a smaller country. In order to protect itself from the North, the South would have competed for expansion into western territories. Mexico might have been able to hold on to parts stolen from itself.


As a smaller entity, the US would be unable to claim hegemony over the world. We would not face the prospect of nuclear destruction from an aggressive foreign policy.




Mike Whitney– In many parts of the United States, discrimination and bigotry are considered the highest moral crimes. Unfortunately, there is one exception to this rule. Americans are still free to disparage Southern whites as ignorant, racist ‘crackers’ who are fully-deserving of their condescension and contempt. How do you explain this flagrant prejudice against southerners that still thrives in many parts of the country today?


Paul Craig Roberts– The prejudice against Southerners is prejudice against all whites.

Subscribe to New Columns

Discrimination and bigotry are artificial issues created for the sole reason of demonizing all white Americans, not just Southerners. All whites, even the white liberals insisting on the demonization, are included. The doctrines of “aversive racism” and “critical race theory” do not exclude the white liberals who promote these doctrines. The white liberals have brought demonization on all white people, themselves included.


If the so-called “Civil War” was fought at great expense in white lives for the sake of black freedom, how can whites be said to be racists responsible for the oppression of blacks? As whites did so much for blacks, why are blacks taught to hate whites? How could “aversive racists” have gone to their deaths in war for the sake of blacks? Why did blacks turn on their liberators?


Critical race theory doesn’t just apply to southerners. It is taught in northern schools, midwestern schools, west coast schools, southwest schools. Clearly the official narrative of the “Civil War” is at odds with the demonization of white people as oppressors of blacks.


I don’t know of one, but possibly there is an example of a white southerner traveling to Africa and capturing and enslaving a black. But what we do know, or once did, is that slave wars conducted by the black kingdom of Dahomey were the source of the enslaved blacks brought to the Americas.


Mike Whitney– Are Lee and Jackson still honored as heroes in the South?


Paul Craig Roberts– For what remains of the South, yes. But Lee’s statues have been removed from the Virginia that he defended. Jackson’s statue has been removed from VMI. The South’s heroes have been deep-sixed. Southerners have been indoctrinated for many years that southerners are evil because they are white and thereby racists.


Robert E. Lee spent his life in service to the US military. He fought for Washington in the conflicts with Mexico. He was offered Union command when the North made the decision to invade the South. Lee refused the offer on the grounds that he could not invade his own state of Virginia.


Americans, being propagandized instead of educated, aren’t aware that in those days of states’ rights people saw themselves as citizens of states, not of the United States.


Lee owned no plantations. He was a US military officer forced by the War of Northern Aggression to defend his state of Virginia.


Stonewall Jackson was a professor at the Virginia Military Institute, which provided as good or better officers to the US Army as West Point. Jackson owned no plantations. He was a professor forced into war by Lincoln’s invasion of the South.


How do southerners today view Lee and Jackson? The real question is: Does the South still exist? The federal government controls its schools. Its universities are staffed by northern professors, because the Southern universities seeking approval abandoned their own and try to raise their standing by hiring northern Ivy league Ph.Ds.


Southern literature has been discredited as racist and cast down the memory hole, as has great movies such as “Gone with the Wind.”


Southern cities have been over-run by northerners escaping from the north, or by blacks, as Atlanta has been. Southerners no longer have a voice. They have been de-platformed. They don’t even have their own universities. There is no Southern media.


Whatever remains of the South stood aside as Southern cities removed the monuments of heroes, now described as racists, who defended the south from invasion.


The destruction of monuments destroys history. The destruction of history destroys memory. Thus the South disappears day by day.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,324
Reaction score
3,523
what do you expect from st. ronnie's assistant sectreas? none of them (that includes all three sectreass roberts and st. ronnie himself) was a keynesian, btw

... and he's definately more than a bit weird (beware of the euphemism)
 

TheUnpopularTruth

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2024
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Where's the part that isn't true? Everything Mr Roberts has claimed stands up to documented data. First inaugural address - check. Corwin Amendment - check. Emancipation Proclamation - check. We can go farther, but the point is made. Perhaps it's this group that's propagandized.

As far as Mr Roberts' credentials, have any of you here achieved anything close to these?
Roberts received a doctorate from the University of Virginia where he studied under G. Warren Nutter. He worked as an analyst and adviser at the United States Congress where he was credited as the primary author of the original draft of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. He was the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan and – after leaving government – held the William E. Simon chair in economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for ten years and served on several corporate boards. A former associate editor at The Wall Street Journal, his articles have also appeared in The New York Times and Harper's, and he is the author of more than a dozen books and a number of peer-reviewed papers.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
@TheUnpopularTruth

This Tariff argument holds no water and let us look at the history of Tariffs... The Morrell Tariffs were passed in the waning days of Buchanan's presidency because the Southern states did not send any representatives to Congress... Lincoln was not directly involved in the matter but it was in the Republican platform... If you read secession documents Tariffs are rarely mentioned if at all but Slavery is mentioned in all of them...

Here is a brief history...

I first going to put to bed the tariff lie from the civil war days because tariff were at their lowest in the years preceding the war...

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h974.html

Tariff of 1857 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857

No debate tariffs were lowered in 1857 to low levels since 1816... this tariff argument just does not hold water...

The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States that amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to between 15% and 24%.[1][2]

Morrill tariff was in 1861... after secession began...

When the Panic of 1857 struck later that year, protectionists, led by economist Henry C. Carey, blamed the downturn on the new tariff.[3] The Tariff of 1857's cuts lasted only a few years, as the highly protectionist Morrill Tariff was signed into law in March 1861.[4]

Note...

In 1857, the average rate was reduced to the neighborhood of 20 percent. The trend toward lower tariffs had begun most recently in the Walker Tariff of 1846 but would be abruptly halted by wartime tariff measures.

Notre...

Downward tariff revision to almost free trade status; North opposed; (Buchanan administration).

Note... it was the North, not the South that was upset...

The Tariff of 1857 was warmly greeted in the South and roundly derided in the North. The tariff was one of a number of major issues that was dangerously increasing the tension between the two regions.

Note... because the southerners left the congress, this happened... but 1861

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage domestic industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2]
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
Where's the part that isn't true?
The lie is below...

As all historical documentation shows, slavery had little to do with the so-called Civil War.
You can say freeing the slaves was not Lincoln's original intention to fight a Civil War for he wanted to save the Union. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War for it was why the Southern states seceded from the Union. You have to read each seceding state's secession documents and front and center is the protection of slavery.

Emancipation Proclamation
You do know the Emancipation Proclamation could be argued as a recruiting tool to recruit slaves in the seceding states and it gave the war a greater moral goal to achieve. Lincoln only freed the slaves in lands occupied by the Confederacy...

Before the first shot, Lincoln would have thrown slaves under the bus to save the Union. Sadly, Southern leaders missed their chance...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
@TheUnpopularTruth , It wasn't polite of me not to say HEY! before I crush Paul Craig Roberts' rewriting of history...
 

TheUnpopularTruth

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2024
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
@TheUnpopularTruth , It wasn't polite of me not to say HEY! before I crush Paul Craig Roberts' rewriting of history...
But you didn't really crush anything. Paul isn't in the habit of rewriting history. He uses facts, logic and data to refute the rewritten history you are espousing. Let's address those pesky secession documents you are attaching your claims to.

 

TheUnpopularTruth

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2024
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
"You do know the Emancipation Proclamation could be argued as a recruiting tool to recruit slaves in the seceding states and it gave the war a greater moral goal to achieve. Lincoln only freed the slaves in lands occupied by the Confederacy...

Before the first shot, Lincoln would have thrown slaves under the bus to save the Union. Sadly, Southern leaders missed their chance...
[/QUOTE]
Yeeeah - no. It certainly didn't work. It was just a cruel joke on blacks that freed none in order to regain flagging support for an unpopular war. Argue all you want, but that dog won't hunt.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
Yeeeah - no. It certainly didn't work. It was just a cruel joke on blacks that freed none in order to regain flagging support for an unpopular war. Argue all you want, but that dog won't hunt.
No... The purpose was to cause discontent and disruption in the lands occupied by the Confederates. It offered the Freed slaves a chance to fight for their and their fellow slave's freedom and it gave the Union army a true obvious war aim a more tangible one. My dog is feasting...

The text for you to read...

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
It was just a cruel joke on blacks that freed none in order to regain flagging support for an unpopular war.
Explain this comment what was the "cruel joke" on blacks... You know Lincoln wanted to win the war and by the statement below was going to take slavery away as a weapon against the Union as it had been for the ten years leading to the war...

Nevertheless he did drop some pregnant hints. He must save the government, he assured Reverdy Johnson, ‘and it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shall not surrender this game leaving any card unplayed.’ More caustically he informed August Belmont that the nation would no longer play a game in which it staked everything and its opponents nothing. ‘These enemies must understand that they cannot experiment ten years trying to destroy the government and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt.”23

Lincoln's actions led up to the Emancipation Proclamation managing its release...


Today's poll numbers... of the Civil War...

According to a 2015 CNN/ORC poll, 67% of Americans sympathized more with the Union during the Civil War, while 23% sympathized more with the Confederacy. Support for the Confederacy was higher in the South (36%) than in the West (11%) or Northeast (13%).
 

TheUnpopularTruth

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2024
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
What does a CNN poll have to do with anything? Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed zero slaves anywhere. Certainly not in the 4, later 5 Union states where slavery still existed. (Hey, what were those states fighting against? Certainly not for or against slavery.) Lincoln "emancipating slaves in what was essentially another country would be like telling Canadians they don't have to pay taxes anymore. If your dog is feasting, it's on whatever you fed it, because it isn't too good at hunting. Love how you guys ignore the Corwin Amendment and let's not forget Lincoln's endorsement of slavery coupled with a not so veiled threat of invasion over (who would have guessed? ) tariffs.

Lincoln’s first inaugural address was the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American president. After three short introductory paragraphs he announced: “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.” He then quotes the Republican party platform of 1860 as saying: “Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions [that is, slavery] . . . is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .” “I now reiterate these sentiments,” Lincoln said. (The U.S. Congress’s 1861 War Aims Resolution, known as the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, said the same thing – that the war itself had nothing to do with slavery but was being waged to “save the union.”).

In the next paragraph Lincoln pledged his everlasting support for the Fugitive Slave Act which compelled Northerners to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. As a lawyer Lincoln represented slave owners in court seeking to round up their runaway slaves but never a runaway slave. He famously appeared in court with shackles, implying that he would make sure that the slave was returned to his owner. (He also sold the slaves that his wife inherited rather than freeing them – unlike Robert E. Lee who in 1862 freed the slaves his wife inherited in accordance with his father-in-law’s will). The Fugitive Slave Act was in fact enforced in Washington, D.C. during the Lincoln administration.

Near the end of his first inaugural address Lincoln told what is probably his biggest political lie. “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, [slavery] including that of persons held to service . . . holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

The lie was Lincoln’s claim that he had not seen the amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, named after Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin.


Thomas Corwin. In her book Team of Rivals Doris Kearns-Goodwin documented with primary sources that it was Lincoln himself who instructed William Seward to get the amendment through the U.S. Senate prior to the inauguration, which he did. Besides, who could believe that in 1861 an amendment had passed the House and Senate to cement slavery in place constitutionally forever, and the president had never seen it or asked to see it?! Moreover, Illinois was one of the states that ratified the Corwin Amendment. On March 3, 1861 Lincoln was still the leader of the Illinois Republican party, the party that mustered the votes to get the amendment ratified. The notion that Lincoln did not see the Corwin Amendment, which was modeled virtually verbatim after the Republican party platform of 1860, is not believable.

The Corwin Amendment said that “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was a clone of the Republican party platform of 1860, in other words, which Lincoln certainly supported. The amendment had passed the House and Senate and was ratified by Illinois (“Land of Lincoln”), Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Kentucky before the war commenced.

And the threat...

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” Abraham Lincoln

There it is. If the Confederacy didn’t pay the “duties and imposts” (taxes/tariffs) to the Federal Government in the North (Yankee bankers and industrialists), Abraham Lincoln would be “forced” to invade the South and use force against them.
Explain this comment what was the "cruel joke" on blacks... You know Lincoln wanted to win the war and by the statement below was going to take slavery away as a weapon against the Union as it had been for the ten years leading to the war...

Nevertheless he did drop some pregnant hints. He must save the government, he assured Reverdy Johnson, ‘and it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shall not surrender this game leaving any card unplayed.’ More caustically he informed August Belmont that the nation would no longer play a game in which it staked everything and its opponents nothing. ‘These enemies must understand that they cannot experiment ten years trying to destroy the government and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt.”23

Lincoln's actions led up to the Emancipation Proclamation managing its release...


Today's poll numbers... of the Civil War...

According to a 2015 CNN/ORC poll, 67% of Americans sympathized more with the Union during the Civil War, while 23% sympathized more with the Confederacy. Support for the Confederacy was higher in the South (36%) than in the West (11%) or Northeast (13%).
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
1,644
The South seceded to protect slavery from a Republican administration they assumed, I feel correctly, would be hostile to it. They would clear about it in 1860, and important political leaders like John C. Calhoun had been making the threat since 1850, that if the North made a move against slavery, the South would respond by seceding. This isn't even an interesting question anymore.

Its not, or it shouldn't be a surprise that the federal government responded militarily. Andrew Jackson had vowed to use force against secessionists, thirty years before.
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
1,644
If you try to build some sort of case about tariffs, there are two problems:
a. Slavery was a much more economically(and otherwise) important factor then the almost nonexistent tariff. If secession was motivated by economic factors, slavery was a much greater economic reason for southern elites to promote secession.

b. The southern slave states enjoyed tariff protections on some items. In fact the greatest tariff in American history was the ban on importing slaves from 1808 on. It protected the highly profitable domestic slave trade, and raised the values of the most important asset in southern society: enslaved human beings.

Frankly, if we accept the reasoning of antebellum slave owners, secession over slavery isn't embarassing, the way secession over tariffs would have been.
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
1,644
By the way, Mr. Roberts was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, a sub-cabinet post, not Secretary of the Treasury.

He also, unfortunately has been denying that Auschwitz was a death camp and supporting David Irving. So maybe not so skilled in history.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
Lincoln "emancipating slaves in what was essentially another country would be like telling Canadians they don't have to pay taxes anymore.
The Confederacy was not a nation but these insurgents leading a rebellion and occupying Southern sections of the Union. The land-occupied were within the United States national borders, so Lincoln had the authority to impose emancipation for the slaves in the occupied Southern lands...
 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
The lie was Lincoln’s claim that he had not seen the amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, named after Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin.
He supported the amendment so what is your argument over the Corwin amendment and Lincoln... a story for you... link...

.

In December 1860, President James Buchanan requested Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment" with regard to slavery. In the house, Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin was selected as the chairman of the committee; and in the senate, William H. Seward took the lead in sponsoring the amendment. In his correspondence during the month of December, president-elect Lincoln was adamant that there be no compromises with regard to the extension of slavery. In a meeting with Thurlow Weed, Seward's Republican ally in New York, Lincoln offered three compromise proposals, and Weed passed this information to Seward. Upon his return to the Senate, Seward introduced three resolutions to the Senate committee. One resolution�not included in Lincoln's proposals�offered that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, the amendment would forever guarantee the right of the Southern people to own slaves. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
Here is a link for you... @TheUnpopularTruth

 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
11,134
Reaction score
4,664
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” Abraham Lincoln

There it is. If the Confederacy didn’t pay the “duties and imposts” (taxes/tariffs) to the Federal Government in the North (Yankee bankers and industrialists), Abraham Lincoln would be “forced” to invade the South and use force against them.
A Union government has the right to protect and defend its property and goods... The Confederate occupiers were nothing but thieves taking property and goods owned by the People of the United States...
 
Top